"... the real defenders of the second amendment oppose the NRA"?

A recent opinion piece in The Guardian postulates that the NRA is not a "real defender" of the 2nd Amendment.

(The Guardian?   I thought they were a British website ... why are they worried about American firearms laws?)

Only the Brits would postulate that an argument against a Constitutional Right is actually an argument FOR it.

Why the real defenders of the second amendment oppose the NRA | Corey Brettschneider | Opinion | The Guardian: Perhaps no subsection of a political movement is so passionately animated by a clause of the US constitution. As many a gun enthusiast is eager to say, gun regulation is a non-starter; the second amendment is the law of the land, so the government can’t tell me what to do with my guns. But those seeking sensible gun regulation – like the 83% of Americans who support a mandatory waiting period for buying a gun and the 67% of Americans who agree with a ban on assault weapons – should not just accept the distortion of the second amendment as fact. Instead, they should loudly respond that gun regulation’s proponents, not the NRA, are the true defenders of the second amendment. In fact, both supreme court case law and the text of the second amendment itself support reasonable regulations on guns. As written, the constitution and the second amendment permit precisely the kind of regulation Congress should enact.

Actually, this is not a common interpretation; America' defenders of the second amendment are NOT those who would undermine our constitutional right to "KEEP AND BEAR ARMS".   What part of "... shall not be infringed ..." seems complicated?

What IS complicated, and is  the most controversial part of the 2nd Amendment, is the word "regulated".   Original (18th Century) definition may offer the interpretation as "according to current usage" or "well practiced"; but recent definitions seem to emphasize "limited by law" or other similar restrictions.

The Tyranny of the Majority:

Regarding recent American politics (specifically initiatives), some writers argue that:

One of the original concerns about direct democracy is the potential it has to allow a majority of voters to trample the rights of minorities. Many still worry that the process can be used to harm gays and lesbians as well as ethnic, linguistic, and religious minorities. ... Recent scholarly research shows that the initiative process is sometimes prone to produce laws that disadvantage relatively powerless minorities ... State and local ballot initiatives have been used to undo policies – such as school desegregation, protections against job and housing discrimination, and affirmative action – that minorities have secured from legislatures

The curious case of a British writer condemning the American Constitution probably isn't merely a social disagreement, but a refusal to accept that America rebelled against British rule because the mores and practices of that homogeneous culture were not appropriate to the priority of Americans to completely reject any movement which undermined our own right to self-determination.

And after 200 years, The Brits are still going "Tsk-Tsk" when they see Americans making decisions which seem inappropriate to our former masters ... who didn't have what it takes to hold on to their former "colony".   (And who eventually lost all their "Colonies" along with their power due to the effeminization of their culture.)

REMINDERS:
. Brits are forbidden to use as much as a kitchen knife to protect themselves against a home invader, and are subject to prosecution if they injure an intruder;   Americans consider an ounce-and-a-half of buckshot to be the perfect defense of property, home and family;
. Brits require extensive documentation and "special permission" to possess firearms; Americans who have never been convicted of a felony (or, now, misdemeanor "social crimes" such as family fights), are free to buy almost anything but cannons, rocket-launchers and full-automatic weapons.
. Brits are 'subjects"; Americans are Citizens.

Given all the above, it seems obvious that British citizens do not now, nor will they ever, understand why Americans are all about their rights.    The Brits, you see, are all about suppression of minority rights ... the rights of the individual.

Because, you see, we have rights.  Brits only have "exceptions".

And that, Children, is why Britain was well on its way to becoming a Nazi subject-state before America entered World War II;   Brits are historically appeasers. 

There is a famous quote to the effect that "America and England are two countries which are divided by a common language" ... or words to that effect.
Americans still don't much give a damn what you think about us.
A good fight is always reason enough.