Yeah, no. Your instigating post was presented as if the only reason the NRA does things is to sell more guns and get rich. That's not the case. They're a lobbying group dedicated to preserving gun rights.
And yet, I didn't say that those were their only goals... and no, not just preserving gun rights. Expanding them if and when they can, by the look of it. That line goes right along with wanting to become more powerful, though.
They don't sell guns, which significantly weakens your initial case:
Wanting guns to sell and taking actions to try to help them sell does generally qualify as wanting to sell guns, in normal usage. It's true that they aren't selling them directly, which is why I agreed with your quibble, but they very much want to sell guns, albeit indirectly. So... no, your quibble cannot meaningfully impact the case I made.
You presented your argument as if it lent weight to the suggestion that the NRA was inciting violence. You insinuate this by suggesting they want to increase fear so they can make more money.
Not only to make more money, to be fair. Spreading fear and paranoia does tend to make it easier to drum up other forms of support on command as part of attempting to become more powerful.
When it became clear that they don't sell guns, you fall back on "well, they get a lot of money from gun manufacturers".
Nope. Either way, you're still in
territory with this rather incorrect characterization of what I said.
That is irrelevant - all lobbyist organizations receive substantial funding from corporate interests, that's pretty much the point of lobbyist organization.
It's relevant to your specific quibble, which did not have any real way to meaningfully impact what you were arguing against.
The NRA receives a substantial portion of funding from individual donations, a higher portion than most lobbying organizations.
Indeed, they rely less on industry backers than most other lobbyist groups.
Which is pretty much irrelevant to the points made, quite frankly. Even less so if they show that they'd rather side with the industry backers over the individual donors rather consistently.
All of that serves to weaken your argument.
Not really.
