So that the politicians in Washington who seek an favorable rating at election time from the NRA know that the NRA has a real process that's grounded in a legitimate and coherent manner rather than just doing the bidding of a seething flighty mob of loudmouth pitchfork wavers.
I think it's necessary to keep firearms owners together in the best possible manner so that we can consolidate political power: For years we've been talking about how the liberals will 'divide and conquer' the RKBA by going after our different elements: First the NFA owners, then handguns, then the semi-automatics, then all centerfire rifles, then when only the Fudds are left, the last duck guns.
What you propose to do is the anti-gunners work for them by secularizing each segment of firearms ownership by kicking out someone that doesn't follow your doctrine. Your idea weakens the movement. I propose that we address the problem by convincing others that we're all in it together. We must hang together or surely hang separately.
That's why the NRA has elections rather than just appointing bishops and cardinals.
If you don't believe this, go start a new organization called 'Red-Blooded Americans For Assault Weapons and High Capacity Drum Magazines, Incorporated' and see how successful you are at it. Can you name two congress-critters who would seek your endorsement?
Put down the pitchforks and torches and work within the established system. Otherwise, you might as well stay true to your uninfringed Constitutional beliefs and just illegally convert your semi-autos to unregistered machine guns, build homemade suppressors, and bury them all in a cosmoline-filled drum out on Federal land marked with GPS coordinates.
If you had as many members, with as high a fraction of voters, as the NRA does, lots of CongressCritters would be beating down your door to get your endorsement. Whores that they are.
I’ve read some pretty good and coherent posts by you but this is nonsense and in fact, you argue against yourself.
Every organization has a process to weed out bad seeds, even Congress. There is a serious disconnect between the right to keep and bear arms and the privilege to have certain government approved firearms and capacity.
You argue that removing this guy is doing the work of the anti gunners, but you would have what appears to be an anti gunner on the board of the group that is supposed to defend our rights. Your path would have the enemy within our inner circle. Sorry, but that is unacceptable.
Finally, you seem to argue that insistence on our gun rights is extreme and even irrational and over the edge.
Would you accept restrictions on your other rights? Would you support a person or group that only defended a limited version of your rights? This man is giving cover to the grabbers by making their arguments for limits acceptable and that is totally unacceptable.
If so, you don’t argue for your rights, but only for that which the government will allow.
Political reality doesn't faze the NRA bashers on FR, that somehow think we'd be any different than the British today without the NRA.
FMCDH posturing aside, we'd all be shooting rubber band guns today if the NRA didn't exist.