Hail to the Redskins, and gun owners

It's interesting to read about gun control and the Redskins - and see the same theme to the same argument.
Supporters should give up before the tide of opinion overwhelms them.
Peter King sees the NFL forcing Daniel Snyder to change the team's name.
I’ve thought this for some time. At some point, at some league function or some private moment, but probably not for some time because it’s not a tidal wave of native sentiment yet, Roger Goodell and perhaps another owner Snyder trusts will go to Snyder and ask him, “Why are you doing this? Is this worth it? If you’re offending even 15 percent of native Americans in this country—and that’s probably a low number—is it worth it?”
To me, it just doesn’t make much sense for Snyder to keep fighting a fight that’s on the wrong side of history.
A CNN column by a lawyer who's a gun owner doesn't want to defend gun rights too much longer.
Former New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg recently pledged $50 million to address gun issues. In the face of such a concerted effort, the failure of gun rights advocates to allow any reasonable flexibility to our right to bear arms could mean that it will eventually buckle under the weight of thoughtful opposition propelled to action by the next series of tragic and, unfortunately, inevitable mass shootings.
You don't get understand why people stand their ground on these issues - just the appearance to a wave you can't stop.
But if you stand firm, you might find it's a mirage.