Prindll;
If the idea you're talking about is
general support for the NRA, then I'd say yes, pretty much. Now, this doesn't mean slavish devotion to everything they do or say, nor does it mean that when you think they (NRA leadership) are doing something wrong that you should stay silent.
They are just people, after all, and people DO make mistakes, and honest differences of opinion ARE going to happen.
On the other hand, I think that taking a school yard brat's attitude is the wrong thing to do. Too many people seem predisposed to jump to the extreme, as their very first step.
There are a lot of people on our side who are in the "not one step further" camp. They aren't
entirely wrong.
Upholding our principles does not, however, mean that we must adopt tactically inflexible positions, nor does it mean attacking or abandoning our strongest ally if they do. I think there is a considerable difference between not holding every single inch of ground to the death (as some would prefer) and sleeping with the enemy (as some claim not holding every inch of ground is...)
At this point in time, I think the NRA's tactic on the bump-fire issue was a good choice. It may, in the long run be seen differently, but right now, it seems to have worked. NO legislation was passed during the initial "panic" response to the shooting, and it seems likely that as more time passes, no serious bun ban laws will.
I do need to comment on this...
No honest man needs more than ten rounds in any gun.
Gun owners can hurt the cause more than an anti gunner.
Yes, yes they can. Especially when quoted out of context, over and over.
Lots of people have heard of Bill Ruger's statement about not needing more than 10 rounds. They blame him for us getting a 10 round magazine limit. It's sad, because if you know the context of the situation, you would be THANKING Ruger for getting us a 10 round limit, instead of a 6 (or possibly 8) round limit, instead.
Sure, Ruger was out to protect his business, which of us wouldn't be, if we were in that position?? (be honest!)
But something WAS going to pass. A mag capacity limit WAS going to be put in the law. There was no stopping that. The numbers being seriously considered was 6 (so we could still keep revolvers), or some favored 8 rounds. Ruger's opinion on 10 rounds as an acceptable limit shifted the debate enough so that the smaller numbers being considered were dropped, in favor of 10 rounds as the limit.
He gets NO credit for that. He just gets blame for 10rnds.
Few people outside the system recognize that in American politics, there are certain points where something will be done. Congress WILL pass something, and that becomes inevitable. Exactly what Congress passes, can be shaped and modified, up until the final vote is cast, but something WILL be passed.
When this happens, those who's work shapes the details of what finally becomes the law be they individuals like Ruger or groups like the NRA, usually get blame from our side, for not "doing enough", rather than credit for what they did manage to accomplish that benefits our side.
People who abandon the NRA because they failed to stop passage of a certain law (or who do so because they feel the NRA betrayed them) only make the next fight more difficult for our side, and easier for our opponents to win.
