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.
No, I argue that removing this guy outside the NRA established process of voting would be doing the work of the anti-gunners.
There is a significant difference.