Hardly the same thing. They were waiting for what they thought was the right moment.
Or simply looking to keep expanding RKBA legislatively, especially at the state-level where things like CCW are decided.
And Micro, and I'll join in and state that your definition of "betrayal" is absolutely off the wall.
So by analogy, if a bunch of generals are in conference, and one is reluctant to commit to a certain battle, because losing would incur unacceptable losses, preferring to pursue other fronts, he's betrayed his nation and should be taken out and shot?
Or, when the other generals out-vote him, and he then does his best to commit to the battle seeing it's going to happen anyway, he's a Johny-come-lately trying to horn in on the limelight?
That's essentially the standard the NRA naysayers are holding them to. I'm not saying anyone HAS to like what the NRA did, but everyone who is alluding that the NRA was reluctant on Heller out of ANY other motive than honest strategic concerns, is just reading facts into evidence that are not there.
There's no one here who isn't happy the Heller case went the way it did, we're all ecstatic. However to go back and criticize the NRA's actions in hindsight of the win, and malign their motives simply is not intellectually honest.