Would we be having this debate today if the NRA was proven moot at the National level years ago? Would our disarmament have already occurred? IMO, very likely.
But our disarmament
has already started occurring, at least, and the NRA was part of it. Don't believe me? Check the link in my first or second post in the thread documenting the NRA's involvement in the NFA of '34. Then try to walk into your LGS and buy a Thompson Center sub-machine gun, precisely the type of weapon that was supposed to be protected for use by civilians against
any force or government that might try to tyrannize us, foreign or domestic.
Do you think that Randy Weaver might disagree that we have yet to be disarmed, as he lost his child, wife and unborn baby over what? A sawed-off shotgun that a government agent had to convince him to modify for him. You can't even remove metal from an inanimate object that you own, and you really think we're not already disarmed?
And yes, I do know that it's possible to own such weapons, but try enjoying your 4th Amendment rights to their fullest extent if you own one. It can't be done if you do it "legally."
You see, I'm not much of a gambler. Instead, much like an atheist in his death bed often accepts Christ in the 11th hour; I am not willing to accept the risk of a negative consequence relative to my possible poor decision making.
IMO, the NRA while not perfect, has done more for the defense of 2A rights than any other organization that I am aware of. Until another organization or someone personally comes out with something better, the NRA is the only game in town with the talent to suit up.
I appreciate that you acquiesce that those of us who don't share your enthusiasm for the NRA have the right to make that choice, and that you didn't/don't find it necessary to foist recriminations upon us for it.
That said, your opinions above are lacking in any substance. You claim they've "done more" than anyone for our gun rights, but you don't say what they've done. So, what have they done? Did they get Heller to SCOTUS? McDonald? Or did they run interference on both those cases? If you don't know the answers, that's fine, but since the question has now been asked of you, and if you're going to make such declarative statements about how much they've done, wouldn't you think it wise to check into it and see if they've really done as much as you say?
I'd like some specifics. Move back from Heller and McDonald, and just tell us what they've done. Hopefully you can document it without having to depend on their own website, because at one time at least, I know without a doubt that they were completely dishonest about their role in certain court cases.
For the record, Alan Gura of the Second Amendment Foundation was the lead attorney in both Heller and McDonald. He's very respectful of the NRA in his public statements, which is laudable, but which, in my opinion, is more than they deserve. But I know where he's coming from. He wants unity in the 2nd Amendment struggle, and pretty much adopts Reagan's philosophy of, "You can get a lot done when you don't care who gets the credit." But then again, Reagan also signed gun control legislation that the NRA supported, so I'm not so sure of the wisdom in following his philosophy on that particular subject. That is Gura's decision to make for himself though, and considering that I believe that
he has done more for the 2nd Amendment struggle than any other individual
or organization, I won't criticize him for it.
Some here have suggested that the NRA's, shall we say, "mistakes," were decades ago, and therefore are not still deserving of being held against them. That is ignoring the truth though. Perhaps it's just being ignorant of the truth. If it's the latter, that's why I provided links that go all the way up to McDonald (2010) to document why I feel differently about them than just about everyone else here. I didn't state it in a divisive way either.
In this post I asked another participant why we couldn't work together as patriotic Americans to defend our rights. Why must we only do it under the banner of the NRA, I asked. I got no answer from that poster, or anyone else for that matter. Instead, the couple or three of us who answered the OP's questions honestly got "HORSESH!T" thrown in our faces. No one has answered with any specificity whatsoever what the NRA has done for us, while we have answered the OP's questions with links that prove the validity of our positions. I mean seriously, they have been completely ignored. Well, no, I take that back. A few people have actually acknowledged that the documentation was making them rethink their position(s) on the NRA. Of those who said that, I don't think any of them have come back to say what they finally decided, and that's fine. The OP asked some questions, we answered honestly, it made some people think, and what the heck else could anyone ask for?
It's nice that you want to be nice about it. Still, is it too much to ask that you answer documented answers to the OP's questions with documented answers that tend to support what you're saying about how much the NRA has done for us? That's all I ask. It doesn't have to be argumentative.
Blues