"What you [STRIKE]subsidize[/STRIKE]pay for, you get more of, and at a greater price."
As Cekim put it, I vote "No soup for you". The NRA has a long history of treating gun rights as "hunting rights", and that's exactly the kind of thinking that got England where it is today.
Bottom line - Are you saying we'd be better off without that long history of the NRA? And that the NRA of today is no better?
During this long history of treating gun rights as hunting rights, was the NRA membership full of 2A supporters, and the leadership was ignoring them? Or during this long history, was the NRA membership mostly Fudds and the leadership was doing what it's membership wanted?
Let's just cut to the chase here. Please give me the list of 2A groups whom you support. I'm asking because I really want to know. Maybe I don't have all the info, or maybe I'm just not that bright, but I'm reading threads in what I thought was a site for shooters, and I'm getting a lot of "don't support the NRA" here, and some "don't support GOA" in another thread. It's sounding a little like people from the other side. Surely you can understand my confusion.
Maybe there are other groups that I'm not aware of who do all the heavy lifting. I'd like to know. Maybe there are other 2A groups whom legislators respect (or fear), but besides the NRA I can't think of any.
I don't know the whole history, but I think the NRA will to a large degree do what it's members say to do. If it's full of Fudds, then it'll be a Fudd organization. If it fills with people who are stronger supporters of the 2A, it will change. I could be wrong, but that's my take.