'Bout time, MAV!For those of you who consider the NRA a den of malevolent lunatics to be feared much more than the Islamic Jihadd, perhaps you overlooked some of the educational and public service programs provided by the NRA. Like the "Eddie Eagle" firearms safety course and associated materials provided at no charge to any school requesting it. I'ts main theme is to teach kids who encounter any firearm to "Stop; don't touch it; leave the area immediately and tell an adult". Of course, thanks to Liberal Teacher's Unions and Government School Administrators, this dosn't happen often - except in certain Religious and Private Schools where education seems to have a higher priority than political agendas and indoctrination. (Oh no? Compare SAT scores whydoncha?) And thanks to the Liberal Press, unless you belong to the NRA, you probably never even heard of it. Sort of like all those Pro-Life rallys in Washington, which in some cases I'm told outnumbered the "Million Mom March" considerably; if you wern't there, they didn't happen.
"Trigger Locks"? Not a bad idea in some instances - like locking up your vehicle or securing toxic medicines and materials away from children. I think we used to call that "common sense" back in NH. When BigBro decides to force all of us serfs to use them whatever the situation, however, it is a problem to some of us - and the NRA isn't falling for this political scam. Apparantly our initial speculations that such laws would only give criminals another advantage over their victims has been confirmed by more than one (at last count) homeowner having been killed or neutralized by an intruder while fumbling in the dark attempting in vain to unlock their weapon. It seems that predators are not nearly as compliant with these laws as are their law-abiding vicims. Imagine that! How come manditory helmet laws for motorcycle riders were such a horrendous abridgement of personal rights and freedom... but manditory "trigger locks" are a wonderful thing?
Have you ever heard of "Operation Exile"? Probably not. It's the legislative initiative of the NRA to encourage the extended incarceration of repeat violent offenders and carreer, predatory vermin who habitually rape, murder, maim and terrorize people. The same crowd which "PC" Judges and Lawyers seem to delight in turning loose on us after minimal stays in country-club (relative to where many of them come from, anyway) "rehabilitation programs". In places where it has been applied, it seems to be working as evidenced by crime rate reductions - but I don't suppose you're going to see that on the 6:00 News either.
How many know that Mr. Heston marched with Dr. Martin Luther King for equal rights back in the 60's? Have you read his speech to last year's graduating class at Harvard? (I have a transcript on file). You seem to think that you know this man.. at least enough to judge and condemn him. Do you really, or are you just parrotting the sentiments fed you by those you accept as your authority figures? I find that a little hard to buy given this bunch of independant and critical thinkers.. but in a couple of cases here, I'm frankly beginning to wonder.
For those with the courage of conviction to take a peek over No-Man's Land towards the other side, feel free to check out http://www.nra.org/ and see if you discover anything there which Komrade Dan Ratherski may not want you to know.
The NRA may not perfect by any means, but they do honor and protect things like the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, and the principals which have made this Country fairly distinguishable from the Soviet Union or Nazi Germany. And for that we are accused of representing what the NRA essentially stands resoloutly against. And Bush "stole" the election.. O sure; whatever.
As to those "Assault" weapons (another Liberal excersize in creative redefinition, akin to "saturday night special" and "pro-choice"); When the Framers wrote the Constitution, arming the working class was NOT about hunting or target shooting. It wasn't even all that much about keeping the bandits away from the door. It was to provide a certain disincentive to an overpowered Government from turning on it's Citizens and enslaving them, as history indicates a powerful predisposition for them to do (they were well read and knew that). There is a reason why slaves are generally kept ignorant and unarmed.
Historical precident also indicates that whenever a government succeeds in disarming the workers, weather by force or deception, tyranny is seldom far behind. The weapons Citizens had the right to bear in young America were flintlock Brown Besses, Charlevilles, longrifles, horse-pistols, swords, and even bayonettes! (One of the distinguishing criterion for an "Assault Weapon" is a bayonette lug, by the way. These rampant drive-by bayonettings have just got to stop!). These were the "cutting edge" of military weapons technology at the time. Other than British aristocracy, not many fellows used swords for hunting, and the big Infantry muskets were generally too awkward and heavy to be well suited to hunting. True, a motley Militia was hardly a match for a trained, disciplined army; but it was known then as it had better be known today that sufficient oppression has a way of turning some folks who have tasted freedom at least once in their lives kinda fiesty. And an enraged, highly motivated, and ARMED rabble can be a real pain in the butt to any Tyrant! Just ask King George. Or the Rooskies after about 3 years of Afganistan.