Yup. Including saying "if you're compulsively buying AR lowers because of some 'future ban' instead of giving that money to RKBA orgs, you're dead weight to the RKBA cause, and shouldn't complain when your right to arms is restricted."
Interesting!
This is pretty much a RKBA version of Peter Singer's arguments for the need for everyone to donate to charity, in his 1971 paper, "Famine, Affluence, and Morality."
For example, take this, one of Singer's passages:
"...if it is in our power to prevent something bad from happening, without thereby sacrificing anything of comparable moral importance, we ought, morally, to do it"
To do any less would be morally indefensible.
The only obvious difference is that the donation to charity is retroactive, while donating to a campaign would be preventative. The principle of the matter still applies.
Every time you buy a new gun or ammo YOU ARE SUPPORTING RKBA. Gun and ammo manufacurers have lobbyist who work not only for them but you also. Manufacurers don't just make products till they are outlawed, they fight to keep their bussiness alive and make a profit. Its good to donate time and money to RKBA organizations, but don't think buying guns you expect to be banned wrong. If gun manufacurers see a product selling very well I dout they will stand idly by to see them banned.
In the Singer paper, he considers UNICEF / reputable charitable organizations to be the most efficacious method for donating. Your reply makes me wonder: how could we actually determine which route would have the most "bang for the buck?" the NRA/GOA or similar organizations? Political candidates?
I agree that contributing is necessary and the morally correct thing to do, but I would like others' opinions on how this goal is most efficiently accomplished.