The contrarian has repeatedly suggested that there is doubt that Marina's testimony confirms Oswald's ownership of the rifle or that he kept the rifle in the blanket because in a single instance in response to a question about the rifle Marina characterized what she saw as "a wooden part of it" ("it" meaning the rifle in the context of the question being asked). From this John has implied that she was not talking about a rifle but some other object made of wood and therefore Oswald may not have lied when he denied ownership of a rifle.
Hang on, Clousseau. Is it your argument that if Oswald
ever owned a rifle that he necessarily owned one on November 22, 1963? Really? And is it also your argument that if Marina saw a rifle in New Orleans or at Neeley, then it was necessarily the same thing she saw the end of in a tied, wrapped up blanket? And is it also your argument that if Marina saw a rifle in New Orleans or at Neeley, then therefore it was the C2766 Mannlicher Carcano?
You quoted the relevant part yourself and failed to understand the significance.
Mr. RANKIN. Did you ever check to see whether the rifle was in the blanket?
Mrs. OSWALD. I never checked to see that. There was only once that I was interested in finding out what was in that blanket, and I saw that it was a rifle.
Mr. RANKIN. When was that?
Mrs. OSWALD. About a week after I came from New Orleans.
Mr. RANKIN. And then you found that the rifle was in the blanket, did you?
Mrs. OSWALD. Yes, I saw the wooden part of it, the wooden stock.
She didn't
see that it was a rifle, she saw the end of it and
assumed that it was a rifle. Rankin took advantage of her non-proficiency in English to manipulate her with leading questions. But whether it was a rifle or not, that was 6 weeks earlier, and may or may not have been the C2766 Mannlicher Carcano.
Nobody is actually arguing that Oswald never had a rifle. That's just a strawman you invented to make yourself feel smart and superior.