straw man previously: thought the NRA was supposed to be in the pocket of the gun industry. Every private sale of a used gun is a new gun sale lost. You'd think an "industry shill" {nra} would be doing everything in its power to inhibit such sales. Wouldn't you?
As you can see, it was you who first suggested nra was losing money/profits by favoring 'no bg checks';
.. might wanna try to uncontort yourself.
Read carefully. I suggested that this would only be a problem for the NRA if they were an "industry shill," something that you contend they are. I'm attacking your contention, in case you hadn't noticed.
I guess you need some schooling in nra tactics 101; for most, if not most all new firearms sold, the nra, with the gun makers permission, puts in a little packet explaining to the new gun owner some things & congratulating him on his new purchase & how it's so important to protect his/her 2nd pretendment rights that a one year membership in the nra would be so desirable for him/her, that he/she would have a progun orgasm on the spot. An nra one year membership goes from $25 - $35, a lifetime membership about 200 or more. So the nra does indeed profit by gun sales, not directly that I'm so aware of, but indirectly by getting new members or donors, as well by intertwining with the gun makers.
And when I buy a pair of boots online from Midway USA, they ask me if I want to "round up" my purchase price by making a donation to the NRA. Am I to understand, then, that the NRA is "in the pocket" of the footwear industry?
= new reply since forum marked as read
