> Just because it's a right doesn't mean it needs an organization to advocate it

No, but it sure makes branding a lawful organisation as terrorist a somewhat heinous. (Also, counterproductive. The NRA just got a sweet fundraising spot.)

If San Francisco can Brando the NRA as terrorist, Montgomery can do the same to the EFF. Preventing that is the point of Constitutional rights and due process.

>Just because it's a right doesn't mean it needs an organization to advocate it

5.5 million members of the NRA would seem to disagree with you, as is their right.

You don't really have the right to smoke. It's just not fully illegal (yet).

> mean you have the right to smoke, but any organization promoting it has been squashed by legislation, banning advertisements and glorifying it. Why? Because smoking causes cancer and will kill you and your kids.

FWIW, I know of at least one pro smoking body with some prominent supporters in the UK (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FOREST)

I wonder if it is because the tobacco industry was fighting a war against the very direct link between smoking and cancer. Ultimately the science proved that smoking is damaging to your body, and that damage is expensive to fix, and the cost is somewhat paid for by society.

Guns are a 'tool' I suppose, and therefore will always require a user. Not every gun owner is going to use it to kill people. It's harder then to make the argument that guns are inherently bad, it's the people using them incorrectly that is the problem. I certainly think that there are other factors in American society which contribute and to these horrible events, such as mental health and education. I think this because there are other countries, such as Canada, where many people have weapons but these tragedies occur a lot less often.

As a Brit, I think some of the gun stuff in the States is bananas, but I do recognise that there is a significant cultural difference that means I probably wont get why people are so keen to protect gun ownership to the extent that they do. I don't mean to suggest that either way is right or wrong, but I do feel that the use-case for an AR-15 is limited. Surely that's a bit over the top for hunting? And defending your home may be easier with a handgun. I am no expert though, and would be interested to hear some other views.

[0] https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-41488081

Edit: I should also say that I recognise that mass shootings make up a tiny percentage of gun-deaths and that they receive a disproportionate amount of media attention.

> Just because it's a right doesn't mean it needs an organization to advocate it.

Any time there's a group of people who fear that one of their rights will be taken away or diminished, don't they "need" an organization, or something, to voice their concerns?

Is it that you just don't care about what they have to say, so you don't mind if they're not allowed to say it? Seems like a scary position to hold, given the subjective nature of what people care about or not.

It applies to “the people”. I believe the current legal interpretation in vigueur is in the area of “because a well regulated militia is necessary, ...”

The issue with this argument is that "militia" had a different meaning when the Bill of Rights was ratified. Thomas Jefferson wrote in 1811: “[T]he militia of the State, that is to say, of every man in it able to bear arms.”

It was never interpreted by the supreme court to only apply to a well-regulated militia. At most, you could say the right was interpreted to only apply to guns used by a well-regulated militia in the 1930s. But before that there were no federal gun control laws, so the issue never came up.