I think one of the causes the NRA needs to add to its agenda is to dissolve the electoral college or reform it so that each state gets an equal amount of votes like in the Senate. The select areas do NOT represent the majority of Americans.
While I agree with the sentiments on much of what you said in your post, this topic is a pet peeve of mine.
Many people either do not understand the Electoral College, or have not bothered to do any reading on not only how it works, but the historical why's in the way it is written.
In short, the president is not a local or state representative. He runs for office on a nation wide scale, which necessarily encompasses many times the number of people, cultures, economic backgrounds, ethnicities, and so forth that local or state levels have. Among other things, the Electoral College balances the state concerns with the population concerns. Much like we do with the House of Representatives (by population) and the Senate (by state) in Congress.
There are other things that the Electoral College does as well.
While I am open to the idea of some changes, "reform" (which implies an major overhaul or replacement) is not only unnecessary...it is fraught with its own dangers because, as we're seeing now, people tend to think with their emotions and not their heads.
For example:
Periodically you hear people crying out for electing the president by popular vote instead of by the Electoral College. Doing so would mean the large population centers would be the sole factor in deciding who the next president will be. Rural populations and small states will no longer be represented because they would far below the point of diminishing returns with respect to campaign efforts.
By the same token, if the election were based only by states, with each state having equal representation, then states with high populations would be disporportionately out voted on a consistent basis and the concerns of much larger numbers of people would not have to be addressed or catered to by candidates.
And as another side note:
You said that the select areas do not represent the majority of Americans.
This actually may NOT be true. With a total population of just over 310 million people, only about 80 million or so are gun owners. That leaves 230 million Americans who are NOT gun owners. Given that these 230 million people do not own guns, it is fair to say that the majority of them, for whatever reason, do not feel the need for them. And it would also be fair to say that a pretty significant number of those 230 million probably don't see the need that ANYBODY should have (fill in the blank) guns. It would only take about 1/3 of those people being pro-gun control to put them on an equal basis with the 80 million gun owners.
Toss in the fact that out of 80 million gun owners, there is a percentage of them who are ambivalent or believe in stronger gun laws. This means that not all of those 80 million are as pro-gun as, say, the people typically representated here on THR.
Which means that there very likely IS a majority of Americans out there who are represented by these people. Ignoring that possibility means that people will ignore strategies they should be considering in order to counter that.
The question, therefore, is whether or not the rest of us can hold sway as a minority group and retain our rights for EVERYBODY as we see them under the 2nd Amendment.
Sorry if I went too far off topic here.