[strlen]

I took the compromise route: I donated to NRA-ILA as needed, but refuse to join NRA proper. In short term, NRA-ILA solves the most acute problem: lobby against stupid gun laws.

However, they don't solve the problem that (you too have pointed out) of population gradually turning against gun ownership. If anything, railing against pop-culture makes them look like hypocrites and actively hurts the longer term (10+ years out) outlook.

[hga]

That's a good posture, and all my donations are indeed going to the NRA-ILA.

I did rejoin the NRA just to add to their numbers; no doubt they'll support some stupid "compromise" soon enough again and I'll not renew, but for now I think it's the best thing, maladroit as they are.

I am not, BTW, under the impression that the population is "gradually turning against gun ownership". If that were true, how could we have had a nationwide sweep of shall issue concealed carry regimes from Florida in 1987 to Wisconson in 2011, totaling 42 states (with Vermont, Washington and maybe Indiana already having been there before it started)?

8 million outstanding licenses and counting, plus who knows in the 4 states with "Constitutional Carry" (no license required if you're not forbidden), Arizona having a substantial population (6.5 million, 15th in the nation).

And I don't believe the gun grabber propaganda that the same people are just buying more guns; for one extreme claim, someone did the math and came out with an average $100K investment per gun owning citizen.

But, yes, the NRA's pop-culture stuff, especially gaming, was an own goal and doesn't help in the long term. But there are plenty of RKBA types like myself who are happy to poison young people's minds about the NRA ^_^, so we'll see what happens after we get past the current mess.

[strlen]

> especially gaming

Experiment: go to the range, find 10 men or women under the age of ~35 with AR-15s. Ask if they play first person shooters. Pretty sure over 75% will say "yes."

I am not an FPS person myself -- I like nethack and freeciv -- but aside from the fact that even violent video games are unambiguously protected by the first amendment, the demographics just can't be ignored.

[hga]

I would modify the above to:

"but aside from the fact that even violent video games are unambiguously protected by current first amendment jurisprudence"

You wouldn't have to go too far back for your original statement to be iffy or downright false; that said, I don't see this changing in the foreseeable future, but then again the Supremes are never entirely predictable.

[strlen]

7-2 decision seems fairly solid to me. Breyer is being... Breyer (whose judicial philosophy seems to be more of "that's just like your opinion, man..."), and I would say Thomas' dissent is more focused on "in loco parentis" role of the state (in line with his other decisions involving minors) -- which I haven't really noticed amongst other prominent jurists (given Thomas is generally very solid on 1A).

The law overturned in Brown [originally -- in irony of all ironies -- Schwarzenegger] vs. Entertainment Merchants Association was created by a fellow who is currently better known for gems like these:

http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/11-12/bill/sen/sb_0201-0250/sb...

http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?...