Where in the world did you get such a ridiculous idea? I certainly didn't say anything like that. My “cause” in this instance is the very same as the NRAs, you seem intent on preaching to the choir.
"Honestly I would rather the second amendment be accepted by all parties as untouchable and politics moved on to something else, so I wouldn’t have to worry about the issue. Would such a state of politics bother you?"
Of course it wouldn't bother me, anymore than then a statement that free speech is guaranteed by the Constitution and be therefore set aside as untouchable...but you see how that is going don't you?
Let's agree that we have a different opinion of how to achieve our mutual aims and be done with this conversation. You seem to be unable to process what the danger is, hopefully you'll never find out, but I fear you'll be greatly disappointed in the near future.
>You seem to be unable to process what the danger is, hopefully you’ll never find out, but I fear you’ll be greatly disappointed in the near future.
This isn’t true. I see plenty of train wrecks in the future owing to the collectivist and statist nonsense the Left is trying to force on us. However I am not willing to blunt an effective tool on a job to which it is not suited. The NRA is exceptional at the task to which it focuses and changing focus would limit its effectiveness. They cannot operate on unproven theories espoused by some, but not all, of their members which will blunt their ability to act now.
I agree that many pro gun Democrats are likely to cause harm to the gun cause in the future owing to their statist inclinations. However the key word above is ‘likely’. I can’t prove it any more than you can, and as such a group which is trying to maximize effectiveness based on facts and cold hard reality can’t base their actions on speculation.