If you are a gun rights supporter . . .

[tenemae]

Ultimately, as I've noted in other threads, negate the NRA and we will be crippled... for a time. What we lose during that time will be that much more difficult (and expensive) to get back.

Like the supreme court? Like I said, now is not the time. If you want to set fire to the NRA, so be it. But how about acting like the team player you purport to be and wait until after Nov 10, 2020 to start pouring gasoline?

[TrappedinCalifornia]

Like the supreme court? Like I said, now is not the time. If you want to set fire to the NRA, so be it. But how about acting like the team player you purport to be and wait until after Nov 10, 2020 to start pouring gasoline?

You accuse me of something I'm specifically not doing.

If allowing people to make up their own minds and come to their own conclusions is 'pouring gasoline' and attempting to 'set fire to the NRA,' then the organization is already lost. As I said earlier in this thread: "I support the NRA, but not 'blindly' and it does get tiresome being lumped in with the anti-gun crowd simply for asking questions" or, in this case, acknowledging that legitimate questions exist and "our way or the highway" doesn't provide answers to those questions.

Being a 'team player' isn't always about remaining silent. Likewise, "now is not the time" is an old refrain and does not encompass the reality that there is rarely, if ever, an "ideal" time for some things which still must be done. As I've noted and as you allude to, what must be done cannot be accurately determined if you are not allowed to identify, recognize, and accept the problem(s); even if the problem is that there is no, substantive problem, yet people are concerned that there might be.

[tenemae]

Likewise, "now is not the time" is an old refrain and does not encompass the reality that there is rarely, if ever, an "ideal" time for some things which still must be done.

If you don't think tearing down the NRA before the election is worse for 2A than not tearing it down before the election, then there's absolutely nothing else for me to say, because it is impossible for us to find common ground.

I'm not saying I'm waiting for an "ideal" time to weaken public perception in the NRA. Inserting words into my mouth won't help you convince me that damaging the NRA won't damage the election outcome. I'm saying we need to wait for an opportune time. Now is not it.

[TrappedinCalifornia]

I'm saying we need to wait for an opportune time. Now is not it.

Which is no different than "ideal" time. After the 2020 election, someone will come up with some reason why 'now' would not be an opportune moment. Such would/could go on in perpetuity.

Bear in mind that such... rationalization... is likely to draw a reminder, from someone, regarding Heller. Allow me to preempt them (bold emphasis mine)...

Attorney Alan Gura, in a 2003 filing, used the term "sham litigation" to describe the NRA's attempts to have Parker (aka Heller) consolidated with its own case challenging the D.C. law. Gura also stated that "the NRA was adamant about not wanting the Supreme Court to hear the case". These concerns were based on NRA lawyers' assessment that the justices at the time the case was filed might reach an unfavorable decision. Cato Institute senior fellow Robert Levy, co-counsel to the Parker plaintiffs, has stated that the Parker plaintiffs "faced repeated attempts by the NRA to derail the litigation." He also stated that "The N.R.A.’s interference in this process set us back and almost killed the case. It was a very acrimonious relationship."

Wayne LaPierre, the NRA's chief executive officer, confirmed the NRA's misgivings. "There was a real dispute on our side among the constitutional scholars about whether there was a majority of justices on the Supreme Court who would support the Constitution as written," Mr. LaPierre said. Both Levy and LaPierre said the NRA and Mr. Levy's team were now on good terms.

Elaine McArdle wrote in the Harvard Law Bulletin: "If Parker is the long-awaited "clean" case, one reason may be that proponents of the individual-rights view of the Second Amendment – including the National Rifle Association, which filed an amicus brief in the case – have learned from earlier defeats, and crafted strategies to maximize the chances of Supreme Court review." The NRA did eventually support the litigation by filing an amicus brief with the Court arguing that the plaintiffs in Parker had standing to sue and that the D.C. ban was unconstitutional under the Second Amendment.

Chris Cox, executive director of the NRA's Institute for Legislative Action, had indicated support of federal legislation which would repeal the D.C. gun ban. Opponents of the legislation argued that this would have rendered the Parker case moot, and would have effectively eliminated the possibility that the case would be heard by the Supreme Court.

If the concern over waiting for a more opportune/ideal time had been heeded, it is likely we would not have Heller or McDonald.

What it boils down to is the old saying: "You pays your money and takes your chances." Or, if you prefer, as Patton declared: "Too Much If'n, Perhaps'n and Maybe'n Will Never Win a Battle." That doesn't mean you charge, heedless, into battle or tilt at windmills. It means you make a decision and boldly implement it when a decision is needed.

Is that time 'now?' No. However, that does not mean it does not need to be made prior to the election or that a more ideal/opportune time would be after the election. Neither does such a decision, of necessity, entail 'tearing down the NRA.' Again, as Kestryll said, it might simply require knocking some heads together and demanding that they 'figure it out.'

One way or the other, we are still going to need to identify if there is an actual problem and what that problem or those problems is/are before we can even determine if action is even necessary.

You've expressed your conclusions. I expressed the fact that I haven't, yet, come to a conclusion. We have, in fact, identified some 'common ground' in terms of defending the protections provided by the 2nd Amendment. What we are now discussing is the efficacy of different strategies regarding how to most effectively conduct that defense.

You (and others) seem to feel that the NRA, as it currently exists, is absolutely necessary, maybe even the sole means for doing so, at least in the short term. I (and others) have expressed the idea that the NRA, in some form, is critical, but all our eggs are not (and shouldn't be) in that one basket; even if that basket is the biggest and most efficient we currently have.

So... We also agree that the NRA has a role.

See? We have some common ground after all.

[tenemae]

And yet you argue for actions that will blunt our tool in our moment of greatest need for it. That's not wise.

[TrappedinCalifornia]

And yet you argue for actions that will blunt our tool in our moment of greatest need for it. That's not wise.

What I have argued (among a number of things) is that, one way or the other, we are still going to need to identify if there is an actual problem and what that problem or those problems is/are before we can even determine if action is even necessary.

If that will blunt the NRA's effectiveness in a moment of need, then it's not much of a tool to begin with. Isn't it wise to periodically check your tools for damage or if you've even got the correct tool?

[ja308]

What I have argued (among a number of things) is that, one way or the other, we are still going to need to identify if there is an actual problem and what that problem or those problems is/are before we can even determine if action is even necessary.

If that will blunt the NRA's effectiveness in a moment of need, then it's not much of a tool to begin with. Isn't it wise to periodically check your tools for damage or if you've even got the correct tool?

Well there must be a problem ! even Mike Bloomberg and New York CITY think so !

I am finished with NRA questions and questioning. They are above reproach !