No, corporations protect their interests..it just so happens it's also the 2nd Amendment, and they do it without Fed funding.

Would you like to compare with say another large non-profit.....say Planned Parenthood?

This is nonsense. Every major nonprofit and special interest organization has corporate sponsors. So what if companies like Remmington, Ruger and Kahr donate to the NRA? It's a special interest organization that makes steps to protect and fight for our Second Amendment Rights. And it's a damn good thing considering that breadth of lies and misinformation that is thrown around by the anti-gun crowd.

Every organization will have corporate sponsors and it's these sponsorships that are often the only way the organizations continue to exist. The key is to not be a lazy, complacent supporter of the organization and to make sure that the corporate money does not steer the ideals away from your own.

If a cancer research foundation were sponsored by a company that creates a cancer testing solution, should people stop supporting that foundation because it's now tainted by corporate money?


Instead of an accusation that the NRA is essentially a puppet organization for manufacturers, how about a few examples of how those corporate sponsorships of steered the NRA in a direction that is not inline with it's members' ideals? (As a note, I'm not a member)

I don't think the issue is why Ruger or other manufactures would donate to the NRA, it's pretty obvious...although why Microsoft would is a bit of a mystery. The bigger question is how much say the NRA has in shaping gun law. I believe I've read that Congress considers it the most influential lobby in Washington.

There's a line somewhere between protecting the interests of your members and taking more extreme positions because you're trying to defend a "wedge" issue. While the NRA does a lot of good things to promote gun safety etc...how the organization is pushing a grand Obama conspiracy seems quite over the top.

-spence

Let's not forget that Obama has very openly and very explicitly stated that he supports removing the ability for anyone who is not in law enforcement to carry and conceal, a right that has been completely removed in the City of Chicago.

That's because congress won't admit to the influence that other lobbies have on there pockets. There is no way the NRA is more influential then say oil interest, banking interest, insurance companies, drug companies, AARP etc etc..... The NRA may be powerful because they have 4.3 million members that get out and vote,but they also have the 2nd Amendment on their side.

Big difference between people's health and 2a.

But I'm sure you're anti-abortion and would rather see women knowing their role right?

But lets get back to the real point here.

LaPierre is a lying sack of crap.
Truth.

Lets get beyond the "but but but X, but but but X" for once and actually defend the tool if you're going to argue.

How so exactly? How is a group that subsidizes health care all that different from a group that fights for our rights to protect ourselves and be safe from harm?
It is possible to defend an organization while not agreeing with the statements of the person at the top rung. Most every politician and business executive is a lying sack of crap.

Wrong again....

One only cares about guns (its the national RIFLE association, not the people's rights association), the other actually cares about people.

It is also possible to defend an organization/person without crying about other organizations or people. I know, crazy.

Well, since Planned Parenthood's name is with regards to family planning, I guess they should stop cancer screenings, breast exams and STD testing. It's called Planned PARENTHOOD, not Women's Health Clinic.

I'd also argue that the NRA, while having "Rifle" in the name, cares about more than just guns.


I'm not the one crying about other organizations, but if you're going to try and leverage what one organization does to put down another, then it's on the table.