Went to an organizational meeting for a new chapter of MDA today.

[branford]

39. I beg to differ, particularly when the focus is on preventing people from liking guns.

If cigarettes are your marketing comparison, I would note that there is no "safe" way to smoke cigarettes, and "safety" is little more than code for bans or severe restrictions on access and use. The Joe Camel of yesteryear is not the Eddie Eagle of today, at least to most people who actually own, no less safely grew-up, with firearms.

However, it doesn't really matter. As I stated earlier, you are more than entitled to support any group, regardless of whether they truly advocate for "gun safety" without real objection to firearm ownership, if they want to repeal the Second Amendment and forcibly confiscate every gun in the country, and everything and anything in-between.

People are similarly entitled to view the organization however they wish. However, it's not lost on anyone following culture war battles like firearm rights that the same people calling for "gun safety" not too long ago were proud "gun control" advocates, including most of the purported new "gun safety" legislators in Congress.

I encourage you (and everyone else) to peacefully participate in the political process and advocate your chosen position concerning gun rights, culture and behavior. It is your right and arguably your responsibility.

While you and I apparently share different views and perceptions concerning firearms rights, as a rule, I do not seek to silence my opponents. However, if groups like MDA, Brady, Bloomberg, and the like are the vanguard of "gun safety," I doubt gun ownership will become much safer, and similarly believe that current trends supporting gun ownership and rights will continue.