SmarterthanYou
rebel
http://www.examiner.com/article/nra...mament-advocates-as-gun-owners-remain-divided
At least he didn’t overtly telegraph concessions on guns. My worst fear was that National Rifle Association Executive Vice President Wayne LaPierre’s Friday press statement was going to find something to offer the mob in the hopes that it would somehow appease the blood lust, metaphoric and otherwise, being directed at NRA members and at gun owners in general.
I ventured a faint fantasy hope for leadership that would inspire gun owner unity in the face of the most intense and pervasive firestorm of directed hatred I’ve ever witnessed. That “national conversation on guns” the antis said they wanted was (surprise!) always intended to be a monologue -- they get to speak and demand and impose, and you get to agree. But, and we’ll see not without valid reasons, gun owners remain divided, with people I respect giving thumbs up and down for LaPierre’s performance.
What he offered was troubling for some, me included, and not just because NRA’s “Safety Shield” program proposing that the feds pay for armed police officers in schools is essentially a massive expansion of what Bill Clinton wanted to do -- which in itself ought to expose how fraudulent those on the left now howling at LaPierre truly are. It’s also telling to see the usual suspects come out against the very principle of armed school resource officers. And to prove their point, they cite Columbine, failing to take into account that the killers withdrew when taking in return fire and went on to softer targets -- while those “professionals” entrusted to protect and serve took cover rather than pursuit, leaving the murderers free to go about their butchery unopposed.
At least he didn’t overtly telegraph concessions on guns. My worst fear was that National Rifle Association Executive Vice President Wayne LaPierre’s Friday press statement was going to find something to offer the mob in the hopes that it would somehow appease the blood lust, metaphoric and otherwise, being directed at NRA members and at gun owners in general.
I ventured a faint fantasy hope for leadership that would inspire gun owner unity in the face of the most intense and pervasive firestorm of directed hatred I’ve ever witnessed. That “national conversation on guns” the antis said they wanted was (surprise!) always intended to be a monologue -- they get to speak and demand and impose, and you get to agree. But, and we’ll see not without valid reasons, gun owners remain divided, with people I respect giving thumbs up and down for LaPierre’s performance.
What he offered was troubling for some, me included, and not just because NRA’s “Safety Shield” program proposing that the feds pay for armed police officers in schools is essentially a massive expansion of what Bill Clinton wanted to do -- which in itself ought to expose how fraudulent those on the left now howling at LaPierre truly are. It’s also telling to see the usual suspects come out against the very principle of armed school resource officers. And to prove their point, they cite Columbine, failing to take into account that the killers withdrew when taking in return fire and went on to softer targets -- while those “professionals” entrusted to protect and serve took cover rather than pursuit, leaving the murderers free to go about their butchery unopposed.