Don't Let The Facts Get In the Way Of An Anti-NRA Concern Troll Editorial

“Never take advice from a donkey.”
― Bryce Courtenay, The Power of One

Brian Dickerson of the Free Press puts on his concerned face worrying Does today's NRA still speak for gun owners?

To answer you question Brian: Yes, yes it does. Perhaps not as strongly, nor as eloquently, nor as artfully as we might prefer, but it does.

But you see, Brian is concerned and considers a grass-roots group with 4.5 million-plus members to just be a front for the firearms industry.

Isn't it time we stopped acting surprised every time the organization reprises the more-guns-equals-less-crime theme its paid mouthpieces have been promoting for decades and started inquiring more closely into who's pulling the NRA's strings, and for what purpose? Because the more you know about today's NRA, the less credible its claim to be the voice of American gun owners seems.

Nice, when you can't contest the facts, attack the speaker and try to attack their credibility.

The NRA likes to paint itself as a grassroots organization whose political influence can be traced directly to the depth and breadth of its membership -- a roster of ordinary Americans that stands, according the organization's own figures, at a robust 4.5 million. The organization's promotional materials have long disavowed any forma affiliation with companies that manufacture or sell firearms or ammunition.

I'd think 4.5 million plus members entitle it to be called grassroots, don't you?

Also, Note the spelling error in that paragraph. Layers of editorial oversight and as he's deputy editorial page editor, so he should know.

Oh, and 4.5 million members as opposed to say the Brady campaign with all of at most 28,000 members?.

But although the NRA says its populist strength continues to grow, demographic data show a long-term contraction in the number of gun-owning households in the United States.

Really Brian, you're going to use that worn out lie that gun ownership is on the decline. Really now?

And especially since 2005, when it launched an aggressive campaign to recruit corporate sponsors for its pro-first-amendment message, the NRA often has appeared more responsive to the priorities of manufacturers and retailers than to those of firearm owners.

Any bets its yet another example of editorial excellence and he meant Second Amendment here?

An April 2011 study published by the non-profit Violence Policy Center found that corporate donors had contributed between $19.8 million and $52.6 million in the first five years of the NRA's Ring of Freedom fundraising campaign, and that 74% of that total -- $14.7 million to $38.9 million -- came from companies involved in the manufacture and sale of firearms or shooting-related products."

Seriously now, Brian is going to be using the anti-NRA Violence Policy Center as a source for this? The same VPC that lies, damned lies, and false statistics? Talk about your reliable and unbiased sources that would have no interest in making up lies about the NRA there Brian.

Next, he uses the sterling and unbiased statistics of Mayors Against Illegal Guns - the group with convictions for criminal conduct above both the gun-owning and the average population of the country.

At the same time, the NRA's aggressive solicitation of corporate sponsors suggests we all should be more skeptical of its self-described mission -- and its claim that constitutional principles are at that mission's core.

Nice attempt to demonize the NRA by association and innuendo there Brian. I'd give it a solid D-.