Ted, humans are complicated, all of us. Here's my personal take, using example of my life in public affairs. I'm from a long line of activists, grandfather early assistant to founder Salvation Army and later director of Gipsy Smith, leading evangelist of his times, grandmother a vote-demanding suffragette, my father a communist in early 20s during Depression when anyone not thinking of a better way wasn't thinking at all.
I was National Councillor of the American Newspaper Guild, in early days of setting up separate and independent branch in Canada, and later the national CWSG, led the English section of the producers' strike which successfully wrested control of Radio Canada, French sector of Canada's public broadcaster, from the autocratic premier Duplessis. All concerned with social welfare of workers. Currently president of a provincial woodlot owners organization.
My interest is social justice in the workplace, healthier and happier communities through cooperation, peerless consultation at the heart of it. The results are satisfactory. Now, the complication, a seeming contradiction. I've participated with gun owners to get rid of the gun registry and protect gun rights. I regard ARs as affectations---"a studied display of artificiality of manner"---and an egregious part of our flagrant consumerism.
That's just me. If gun owners want to keep them, they'll struggle as I did for what I considered the public interest. I will be no part of theirs. Brotherhood has never demanded lock-step; it accommodates wisdom and ignorance in different ways. Consider also that my principal interests are advancing needs of minority groups and AR owners may be one of them. I'm picking my battles while agreeing with you on your mentioned contradictions.
Like a loyal and conscientious Republican or Democrat saying no, enough is enough, eh?
