NRA Leadership: Guest Blog

The Hobo Brasser has been a stalwart advocate of the National Rifle Association for as long as I have known him (and certainly for many years before that), and I value his opinion on more subjects than the best makes of Irish Whiskey and Race Guns.

When I took the NRA to task earlier this week, he added his own comment to the article. Today, he sent me a thoughtful extended comment which he as graciously permitted me to include as a separate point/counter-point perspective.

I have lived all over the country. During the early 70’s in Colorado the state legislature came within a few votes of outlawing the ownership of handguns. Who was the strongest voice against this, yep the NRA. Here in Oregon when some idiot legislature tried to get a law passed that you could not possess a gun within 1000 feet of a school (which would have made criminals out of many of us myself included since the high school is in my back yard) it was the NRA who mobilized us to write and help defeat this bill. Today I get notices weekly about what is going on in our state legislature and in the nation’s capitol that keeps me informed as to what stupidity and down right sneakiness our elected "representatives" are up to.

There are more examples, but everyone, besides you, I think gets why we should all belong to the NRA. As I have said before there are other pro-gun lobbyists, but none as effective as the NRA. The NRA lobbyist here is Oregon is known by all the members of our state legislature. He has been an effective voice for our gun rights. In fact, the liberals who are anti-gun consider him and the NRA to be their worst enemy.

To address your "strikes": I concede that so called "zero tolerance" policies are idiotic or lead to such idiocy as the kid being lead from school in cuffs. However, it is the enforcement of the policy by gun fearing liberals who take all things to an extreme -- like political correctness. How many conservative school teachers do you know? Had a sane policy been in effect what would have happened at Virginia Tech?

You negated strike two yourself.

From time to time people - who know better - in front of a camera, say things they shouldn’t. Look at Jim Zumbo. Yes, Heston said no one should own an AK-47. He regreted it as well.

I know this will not change your mind, but I hope you will put it up as a guest blog to counter your rant against the NRA.

He signed his note: (Life Member)

__________________

THB noted that I had 'negated strike two' myself, and I'm glad he recognized the change in pace. In fact, when I first read the original NRA release I found several statements to which I was initially opposed, until I re-read them more carefully and discovered that the statements were similar to Gun Control positions except for the insertion of a single word.

For example, my "Strike 2" was aimed at this statement:

We support and encourage the distribution, development and use of safety locks, trigger locks, gun safes, or any voluntary means necessary and appropriate to keep firearms away from, or inoperable by, those who shouldn't have them.

The key word here was voluntary. The Gun Control position is to propose mandatory methods (mandatory trigger locks, mandatory gun safes, mandatory dismantling of firearms, etc.), which smacks again of 'zero tolerance' and other mindless draconian measures which fail to take into account the circumstances.

Another quote which initially struck my eye was:

So we believe in zero tolerance for anyone illegally buying guns for juveniles.

I am so attuned to hearing the Gun Control wing-nuts argue against the concept that children can be taught to treat firearms with respect, that juveniles can learn safe gun-handling skills, that on first read I completely missed the key word illegally. When I read the statement again, I realized that I agreed with it completely even though the phrase included the killer key words 'zero tolerance'.

There are other examples in the NRA speech which tripped my personal hot-buttons, and every one of them turned out to be much better considered phraseology than my guarded mind-set was able to recognize at first glance.

That's why I ended my article with a grudging admission that maybe the NRA wasn't a complete sell-out.

Because I recognized that I have issues to deal with in regards to the NRA, and that they are largely of my making (not the fault of the NRA), it occurred to me that perhaps I'm not the only one who instinctively and unfairly am guilty of under-estimating the integrity of the NRA.

I had left the article in its original form, to show that even a curmudgeon can learn to see the value of this organization.

If you were disappointed that I seemed to yield on my basic premise ... that the NRA is largely without value for firearms owners in America ... then perhaps you may find yourself willing to give them another chance.

Some mules just naturally require a bigger stick.