ok... name ONE. name just one pro gun organization that 10 random strangers in NYC or Los Angeles or San mi Francisco have heard of other than the NRA.
Really? You think Larry Pratt is either a name or a face that most people wouldn't recognize? Do you recognize his name? (Hint: He's probably gotten more YouTube views tearing Piers Morgan a new one than any other pro-gun activist on the planet.)
Maybe
this video will give you a hint about how powerful other-than-N-R-A members of the pro-gun lobby are. That's what the local newsman in Oak Harbor, WA said within the first 40 seconds of that report about The Second Amendment Foundation, who, by the way, is also the organization that won both Heller and McDonald with Alan Gura, not Wayne LaPierre or Chris Cox or anyone representing the N R A at the helm.
name one that has the money or the clout or the ears of as many legislators nationally. name one that legislators fear as much.
Like I said before, the 3 to 4 million N R A members are well-intentioned, but deceived into believing the hype about how powerful their numbers make the N R A, or how "feared" they are by legislators and courts etc. How afraid of them are the government hacks in NY, CT, CA, NJ, MD, MA or WA D.C? They're not only not afraid of the N R A, they're freakin'
partners with them, which goes much further in explaining why the N R A has the ears of all those tyrants than that the tyrants are afraid of them!
Lets test your theory about how powerful the N R A is using your same debate tactic: Name
one 2nd Amendment court case that the N R A has brought and won in its 142 year history. Just one.
Name
one state or major city that has so-trembled at the thought of being confronted by this supposedly all-powerful lobby organization, that they repealed highly-restrictive gun control measures that had been in place for decades.
they may not be purists or conform to your every belief, but they're certainly not anti 2A.
You're just plain wrong. I can prove every single example I cite for my reasons for believing that the N R A has betrayed gun-owners rather than supporting us. I've linked to examples here and in other threads, yet for some unexplainable reason, only a handful of people around here acknowledge that multiple betrayals equals them being an anti-2A organization. If you want to lie to yourself, or keep blinders on that the N R A not only put on you, but made you
pay for to boot, there's nothing I can do about it.
And it's not that they don't conform to
my beliefs, it's that they don't conform to the
2nd Amendment. Like I said, just a month or so ago your .org President said that anyone who buys, installs, or uses a perfectly legal accessory
should be made into a felon! What more proof do you need?
They have you so twisted and blinded that you even use the word "purist" as a pejorative, as a way to scoff at the notion that the 2nd Amendment means what it says and
is the law of the land. It's completely baffling to me how people can allow themselves to be so thoroughly deceived when the proof that they are is right before their eyes.
I'm not saying they're perfect. I wish there were hundreds of such organizations out there to cater to every flavor of gun advocate, but there aren't.
Again, you're just plain wrong. There are plenty of organizations who have never betrayed you, but you refuse to hear it. And it's not "catering to every
flavor of gun
advocate" that I'm looking for, it is adhering and catering to the original intent of the
2nd Amendment. Just read it, and if there's any ambiguity you find in its meaning, then I'm perfectly willing to discuss it. I am not willing to pay someone else to further betray that original meaning on "my behalf" though. Why anyone in this country is willing to do that is a complete mystery to me.
You should probably stop editing your post. I saw the one-paragraph version of this post, clicked on it to reply, and saw several paragraphs, including one where you gave the thinly-veiled implication that you think I'm a gun-control advocate trolling this forum just because I don't succumb to the mindless, sycophantic promotions of other forum members on behalf of the N R A. Now that paragraph is gone and the last one that I just replied to is edited different than it was when I started this reply to add the phrase "...and undermining the one we have
just on principle is not wise" to the end of it. If a man have no principle worth falling on his sword for, then what the Hell good is having a sword in the first place? It is those who eschew principle in the 2nd Amendment fight that gun-owners should fear the most, and should accuse of being here to promote anti-gun thought, so thanks for exposing yourself with that BS. It is much better to know who the true enemy is, and as it has been for more than a century now, the enemy is us.
Blues
