This is definitely not the time to be bashing the NRA. This infighting crap is the reason we still have obama in the white house because, the republicans couldn't agree on anything. Take your "I'm just not gonna support the NRA anymore" crap somewhere else. I'm pretty tired of it.
So, are we just supposed to blindly support this organization, without critique, just because it is the biggest dog in the show? I disagree with that sentiment.
I think the NRA made some good points, like suggesting a program for armed security at the schools. But, I also think they missed the mark on that item by not going into enough detail. Thousands of us have been suggesting an armed security program for the schools in the wake of this shooting, but the NRA didn't seem to detail how we would lead the way to implement such a program, or explain how it would be funded. We have over 1,700 schools here in Colorado, each that is probably in session for 250 days each year, for (lets say) 8 hours per day. That's 3,400,000 man-hours needed to keep an armed good-guy in every school for every hour of every day. Figure $15/hr minimum for someone with that training level (and that's a volunteer level wage for a skilled police officer), and now we're looking at $51 Million a year, just for my state. So, a more reasonable approach from a tight-budget perspective would probably be to have some undercover security (think: Sky Marshall) rotating through the schools to provide an armed deterrent, along with a corps of volunteers who could augment this program to provide for security in places that needed more of it. Otherwise, we'll have to convince struggling tax payers to chip in a few more dollars each year as a means of funding such a program (I'd be willing to pay some extra taxes for it, but I doubt most people would... money talks).
Obviously I don't have all of the answers, but I figured the NRA's speech writers could have come up with something a bit more bold, with a few more details. I also feel that blaming video games missed the mark. The logic is flawed: for years we've said that "guns don't kill people, people kill people". Now we're going to argue that video games killed people? Come on, the other side isn't buying that argument. It may have contributed to some bad morality for these kids, but the fact still remains that a psychopath killed these children because he was a severely screwed up individual who lacked any moral compass, and was allowed to get himself in the presence of unarmed/defenseless children. Guns aren't to blame, but by extension, neither are video games.
Believe me, I want the NRA in this fight. But, the NRA isn't really shining in this debate at the moment. Also, the NRA needs to get some new blood in this fight. They need to throw someone on stage who is able to effectively debate the issue with the other side, and they need to answer the questions that the other side is raising. We've already proven that we can logically defend our position on nearly every issue that the anti-gun movement argues against us, yet the NRA is not fielding those questions and debunking those myths. Like it or not, politics is a sales pitch, and I think the NRA is currently falling short in the PR battle. Put a young, good-looking, skilled female NRA member on the stage, and let her debate the pants off of the other side. We have good points, and our arguments are solid. But, we need to share that information with those who don't understand guns, or the realities of violence. And, it would be best if the person who answered those questions is someone that a mother of school children could easily relate to.
