Actually they do ok on the national level, but suck on a locaL LEVEL. .Look around you're state... in mine we have a group called GRNC (Grass roots North Carolina) of which im a member, and we do most of the work on the state level. We literally wrote the "Castle doctrine and the Concealed Carry laws for our state.

Ive been a member for quite a while, and you're right we are our way or the highway because that is how the constitution is written. "SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED" is pretty clear IMHO.

I have avoided being a member simply because they seemed too far off the rails, and too committed to "my way or the highway" as the left is. However, given their abuse and attacks by the left, I almost feel I need to join just to add to the numbers.

This is such progressive horseshit... but if you fight back on the same ground we become them... I am really starting to HATE these people.

I was of course being facetious. It is amazing that the story laid down in Atlas Shrugged can still be relevant all these years later. Totalitarianism just never changes.

I don't know if that is the Trump gangs fault, Obama stacked all the Fed bureaucracy with his people.They are the ones who will not lift a finger to enforce a standard on all, only against a conservative group or company. It takes time to kill the rats, look at how long it took to take down Lerner and her IRS scam, and then we find No Name McCain in the middle of it. The evil runs deep, the corruption foul.

+1
"Where the hell is the federal government"
Pursuing their goals of increasing the power of government and enslaving the people. Firearms in the hands of the people is the largest impediment to that government goal.
Don't expect any government to be benign or to do anything that embraces individual liberty and your level of understanding will increase.

We are seeing this from financial services companies not allowing firearms companies to process credit cards etc. Where the hell is the federal government, to be consistent thy should be using the interstate commerce clause to make these businesses do business with the minority which is the NRA and the firearms business. They sure as heck use it to ram all sorts of things down our throats.

Exactly, sir.

I would have to agree in spades with that argument. The legal system today has nothing to do with justice, it has become a system of domination.

Using Roger Stone as an example, Mueller's acquisitions cost over half a million in legal fees to defend. Most people do not have that kind of money as are punished because they can't afford the defense.

I have spent more than two decades in the study of law so my cost are but my time. I don't object to using the time as it exhilarates me. Not to mention scares the heck out of the frauds in black robes. They don't know how to handle someone that is adapt at using their system but is not bound as an officer of the court.

And again, thank you for clarifying the point.

Alfred, my point was the use of a legal system to sue them for "illegal brand insurance" is an abuse of the legal system, and power, and is just a miserable coverup of an attempt to destroy the NRA when other means have failed. Seems a perfect example of the way the Thompson admin ran things...therefore an example of something that could have come straight from Ayn Rands book.

Somehow I doubt that they will be so financially strapped as to threaten their existence...let that threat escape into the lamestream and conscious folks will fix it fast!!!

Your argument is somewhat ambiguous. Is the argument trying to imply that Ayn Rand would write the article or be in opposition to it?

With more than a half century under the influence of Ms Rand I would say her intent would be in opposition. However not knowing the intent of the argument, it would be presumptuous of me to project my view on your arguments intent.

As to the article, it would be my opinion that they are trying to project wishful thinking. While the NRA is a poor excuse for the protection of guns rights, they seem to be all their is. Why they need the expense of media liability insurance is beyond justification as the premium would necessarily have to be in excess of risk. It would seem the money would be better spent on a legal staff that could avert and where that is not possible, to defend.