Actually the quotes are from wahsben, but I'm not picking on him. He just sets the stage (sorry wahsben):
Actually we might not have lost because it would have been much more obvious what the gun control advocates were doing and those that really believe in the RKBA would have put up a much stronger fight and done it sooner.
Don't make me laugh. The NRA membership already had this discussion several decades or more ago. A bunch of the more "absolutist" second amendment supporters starting calling our elected representives unspeakable names to their faces which didn't help their efforts.
You can't convince these anti elected people that you are right about an issue with ad hominem attacks on their mothers. Actually being in the statehouses and fighting the good fight is important. Getting kicked out for threating the representives or questioning their parentage is just not going to work. If the NRA had keep this up after 1980, we would have already lost BIG TIME.
These people are not going to accept the idea that absolutely no restrictions on weapons are necessary. Yes, when needed the NRA does try to change the discussion to something that isn't completely outlandish. If that is a compromise in your eyes so be it. You'll get no apologies from me. Until the courts come around and start knocking these laws down as unconstitutional, these elected fools will continue to try and pass them. The problem is NOT THE NRA. The problem is that people elect idiots to the statehouses and gun owners (for whatever reason) don't join the fight.
The NRA has given many the illusion that they are protecting our 2nd amendment rights when in reality they are slowly compromising them away.
Depends on your perspective. The NRA is attemping (within the political climate as it exists) to save as many gun rights as possible and avoid some really nasty bill from getting through without a sunset built in or some other amendment that is favorable. If it was possible to do more, given the resources, NRA would do it. I would just mention that most call the NRA 'radical' in the press and generally that is how it is thought of in the general public because of the MSM. All the while you claim that they aren't radical enough. There is some irony there.
I forgot exactly how the quote goes and who to attribute it to but it has been posted on here before and it goes something like this: Those who allow compromise of a right have already lost that right.
Good quote. However, it means nothing about the second amendment to the US constitution until the US Supreme Court actually defines for us what the amendment actually does protect and extends that protection to the states like most of the other amendments. How YOU interpret that amendment is obviously NOT what the Court thinks. Your ideology on the subject notwithstanding.
That said, I encourage you to support some RKBA organization. Just try to understand that the NRA is using the resources they have, to handle the political realities as they are, not how you would like them to be. Hell if it was like that, we wouldn't even be having this discussion and we would all go out back and shoot the Howitzer.
>