>First, the comment came from a leader of the organization and I've heard no indication that he was reprimanded for it. Second, my characterization was based on not just this incident, but the behavior of the NRA over and over and over. In my view, as long a Wayne LaPierre runs the NRA, it will remain a reprehensible organization not worthy of the respect of any rational person.

Sorry, this is over the top.

First, informal polls of NRA members have shown the majority of NRA members support background checks, short waiting periods, etc.

I'll grant you that LaPierre and the NRA execs have taken some nasty positions (including their push to pit the commonwealth of PA against individual municipalities, which could further bankrupt an already reeling state). But your statement is just way too broad. The NRA runs a large amount of training programs throughout the year on gun safety and I am pretty sure I've read they make plenty of charitable donations. Still, personally, I've grown frustrated with them, but I wouldn't call them a "reprehensible organization not worth of respect of any rational person".

Second, let's turn the tables. Debbie Wasserman Schultz (head of the DNC) has repeatedly tried to convince people through social media that Roe v Wade means the government cannot restrict abortions, period. Of course that's inaccurate, but she has categorically refused to answer questions about criminalization of late term/partial birth abortions and won't even recognize in public discourse that the majority of Americans favor late term limits.

But to this day, I haven't heard a single member of the DNC call out her statements as false (and to some people, tasteless). Does that mean it's fair to say the DNC is a "reprehensible organization not worthy of the respect of any rational person, so long as DWS is head of the DNC"?. I think I'm further right of center on most topics than you are left of center, and even I wouldn't make a statement like that.