What are the actual ambitions of the NRA?

[Philly]

If you're looking for data I would be fine with open secrets or other transparency groups. That is if you want to know where there money comes from, which largely is the gun industry in case you don't feel like checking.

If you want to answer the question that kicked off this thread: what are the true goals of the NRA, well that's a loaded question and one that you can't get a completely objective answer on so people are going to inevitably reveal their opinions and biases in providing an answer either way.

[Indy]

Of course you can get an objective answer--you just have to be willing to accept it.

And plenty of people have obviously done a lot of digging which leads to a pretty obvious conclusion. I haven't heard anybody offer any credible rebuttal to what they found, only that they're "haters" or "anti-gun." It's also surprising to me that people who live in this country (or even not) can't even fathom that in the end something is all about money.

Non at one point argued that the NRA has become extreme to keep membership allegedly from going to more extreme gun groups, although I'm not sure who that would be. Which means in yet another case that this points to monetary concerns, and not anything about "liberty" or "the Constitution," although those traditionally have been its ideology and may still be, but secondarily.

I also find the whole stalking horse for the gun industry theory entirely plausible, but apparently unless there's some smoking gun document spelling it all out signed by Wayne LaPierre people won't even consider it, LOL.

[Philly]

In other words objective truth is whatever you agree with and everyone else should just accept it. Got it.

[Indy]

[Philly]

What an enlightening picture of a scarecrow. Care to address the subject now?

[Indy]

You mean your strawman?

Question: why even post those?

All you have to say is: I disagree with you.

But after all the years here, people still whip those out because... why?

I said it before, I'll say it again and save us all the time: I find the explanation I've put together the most plausible one and it has nothing to do with hating guns or freedoms. My "beef" with the NRA isn't that they won't accept any gun law that comes along, it's that they won't even allow two no-brainers (which they supported in the 90s) and they use fear and coercion to make sure they don't happen.

I'm not changing my mind, and you guys aren't changing yours so let's just agree to disagree and move on.

[Philly]

You can put out whatever claims you want but this is a debate forum so when you say they use fear and coercion but only describe lobbying people are going to call you out.

I also am not sure how you know I won't change my mind since you don't even know my opinion of the NRA. But when you refuse to back up your claims you certainly won't be changing anyone's opinion.

[Indy]

Are you focking kidding me?

I spent plenty of time the last two days digging up sources and links and explaining my "claims." You may disagree with my sources, arguments and logic but to say that I haven't backed anything up is just bullshit.

Funny thing is, my original claims which I was told I probably pulled out of my ass, were the same claims from those that I posted--even from people I hadn't read before. I even modified my argument towards the end there from saying the NRA is probably is not this way solely because it's an industry group, which is likely too simplistic.

But I get it: you need to "win." OK, you "win."

But saying I didn't back anything up is crap and it's right here on the thread for everybody to see.

[Philly]

You've posted a lot of things. But nothing to show coercion and intimidation tactics used by the NRA.

[Indy]