Reply #72: As I stated.... [View All]

[HardWorkingDem]

But evidently you are calling me a liar...


Back in the late 80's during the time of a strong firearm control movement, during that time the largest portion of funding of the NRA came from firearms manufactures. It did not come from memberships or other things. Now, evidently you have never heard of documentary research from libraries and such and only know of "links" from the internet, so I can't help you there.

Is it that way now? As I stated in my reply to your rude reply, it might not be since during that period the NRA has evolved.

What I find interesting about the rest of your reply is how your points rely upon the latent functions of the NRA (pushing the feel good aspects of the group while ignoring the more radical arms of it).


As for any agenda I might have, I asked a pretty simple question - if people believe in a strict interpretation of the wording of the 2nd amendment, does that not mean felons should be included in being able to own firearms, mainly for self protection. And if they don't, does that not conflict with their perspective of the strict interpretation. My only agenda is I think it does show a conflict, which then asks me to ask why, especially if this group believes in the intent of the amendment.

Frankly, I do not like the NRA or Wayne LaPierre because over my lifetime I have seen him, and many others, on television countless times demonizing ANY person or politician pushing for what I considered reasonable gun control laws. Back during the 80's and Clinton's terms it was quite common to see gun rights advocates of all sorts attacking people like Sarah and Jim Brady and others.

Now, please, put me on ignore or go away.