Wow! This exemplifies lack of unity...
This. As a pro gun person, I realize that there is room for, and a need for different groups and approaches in our continual struggle to support the Second Amendment. Some groups are better in the legal field. It is much less costly than the a full federal/state legislative approach. It is also easier to pick and choose your cases and usually they are taking the initiative (going on offense) against ill advised laws and regulations. GOA and SAF are examples of such groups - and I support them. Then there are the legislative/political fields. In this area we are more on the defensive. Why? Because we generally lack popular political support. We can't get 60 Senators to support concealed carry reciprocity or the legal use of suppressors. By its nature the legislative process is a compromise process. Sometimes you face a situation where you have to "give" in order to stall off a potentially worse legislative outcome, or to avoid a situation where you place your political allies in a vulnerable situation (i.e. bump stocks). And it is very expensive, especially if you seriously engage in the necessary political election process to support a legislative agenda at the federal and state level. NRA is one example of such a group and I support them as well. I also support them for the many other programs they run (education, competitions, funding support for ranges, insurance, etc.).
As Shrapnel says - unity in the key. It is also common in the political/legislative areas to have "shadow" groups pop up to specifically create disunity in causes..
