. In fact I gave you a alternative if you are not happy with the NRA and want an organization that probably meets the average NRA-baiter's definition of a no-compromise organization.
Wouldn't the Firearms Coalition founded by Neal Knox have been a better example?
I know of no persons who consider the NRA to be a "compromiser" who consider the AHSA to be a "no compromise" organization, and your assertion that those dis-sasatisfied with the NRA would actually think this is either absurd or a mediocre attempt at satire.
The NRA has been making progress and in many aspects moving in the right direction.
- As recently as a couple of decades ago "concealed carry" and "loaded gun in a holster" were subject non-grata, and were not formally endorsed by the NRA outside of police only competitions and police only training.
- Now, we have the NRA at the forefront of the "shall issue" movement
- The NRA added a "personal protection outside the home". More important than the services of another course, this class makes it clear that the NRA no longer considers the non-LEO carry of a defensive sidearm in public to be something to be treated like the proverbial red headed step child (with all due respect to red headed adoptees)
- The NRA has decent working relationships with action shooting sports that use realistic targets in matches not restricted to LEO, and has granted formal recognition to such matches. (Note that the old line PPC matches were, by NRA policy, restricted to LEO only)
There are still items on which some disagree, such as when is strategic compromise going to limit our losses vs. when will it give up something we could have otherwise not lost. Another area for disagreement is the NRA policy of never supporting a third party candidate, choosing only to support candidates with a chance of winning. (Short term benefit, but it tells the side we support you don't have to go "all the way for us", just "be better than the other alternative").