arma virumque cano (et alia)
Politicians and lobbyists being hypocrites? Say it ain't so!Yeah, that's a dark stain on the record of Reagan and the NRA.However, aren't you the one who is always pontificating about how the NRA has changed it's positions in the past 30 years? How it's become more friendly to self defense, even against government abuse, rather than being the good ole boys club for hunters that it used to be?Also, while you're trying to point out a previous generation's dark stain, be careful of that plank in your own eye--you still support similar controls and would have supported the Mulford act--Why do YOU hate black people?
What does that have to do with us who support the 2A first and foremost?orlin sellers
So the NRA has come a long way over the decades. Growth in moral understanding is generally seen as a good thing.
Yeah, either that or opportunistic flip-flopping.
Mikeb, please distinguish between a flip-flop and moral growth. I doubt that you can give any explanation that doesn't involve whichever side of the issue a person is on.
I agree they can be indistinguishable.
Which means that you are a person without a moral compass, but we knew that already.
Is it better to stay racist, or flip-flop to the side of civil rights?Also, where is the evidence of their support (outside a poster that says so)? I am not denying, but would be nice to see their actual stance.
Given that it's a good thing the NRA has changed its views, perhaps you could tell us the point of this post.
The point is the NRA is both mercenary and mendacious.
Ah, of course. The change in the NRA's views on race must, of necessity, be a sham. The alternative would be too inconvenient for gun control advocates.
Well, sham is more likely. It's consistent with their schtick, which is not representative of their membership or the country at large and only benefits the gun manufacturers and gun-rights fanatics.
Of course, mike.