NRA hiding behind a conservative smokescreen

NRA-ILA :: In The News

I've been keeping an eye on the National Rifle Association's website in an attempt to find some argument from them in the wake of the Virginia Tech killings a week ago. So far nothing. I've mentioned this before and you can trackback to see the history of this post.
This evening I found this (link above) and a couple of others like it on the NRA "news" website. Basically an aggregation of the pro-gun defences and a series of attacks on everyone except the gun-owners.

It doesn't cut it. The NRA has not itself put out any kind of meaningful statement. And the one they did post, essentially saying "no comment" until all the "facts" are known about VT has been taken down.

Instead they're letting the right-wing columnists and bloggers do their dirty work. If I had a gun, I'd...
Well, in the words of the Barenaked Ladies, "there'd be no tomorrow".

I wonder if those bright sparks over at "shoot-em up central" have any idea how ironic and stupid this kind of promotion actually looks now.

Here's one of the NRA's "happy snap" images of what a well-armed college kid might want to carry to their next biology class.

NRA lost voice?

NRA news website
The National Rifle Association has still not broken its silence on the Blacksburg killings. But perhaps we can distill something about what it might be saying from these media releases and commentary from "gun-owners"
Here's the Gun-Owners of America Executive Director, the well-monikered Larry Pratt:

"The latest school shooting demands an immediate end to the gun-free zone law which leaves the nation's schools at the mercy of madmen. It is irresponsibly dangerous to tell citizens that they may not have guns at schools. The Virginia Tech shooting shows that killers have no concern about a gun ban when murder is in their hearts."

Pratt's comments were picked up by Ed Isler who blogs at The Conservative Voice.
I can only assume that the NRA is happy to let these politically aligned individuals speak on their behalf.

Let's explore this "guns at school" argument. Pratt cites and Isler repeats a story about either the Application School of Law (Pratt) or the Appalachian School of Law (Isler) where a "madman" was stopped by students who fetched their own guns from cars and subdued the suspect.
We can put this scenario to the test and we end up with...32 dead.
Person A goes into a dorm and shoots two people. Person B, hearing the gunshots, pulls out their concealed weapon and runs in the direction of the gunfire. B sees A running down the stairs and cracks off a couple of shots, but misses. Persons C & D, hearing these retorts, grab their own pistols and run in search of the action.
A runs outside, pursued by B. They crouch in defensive positions and open fire on each other. C comes around the corner and can see B firing at A. C opens up at B, thinking that B is the shooter. D comes round the other side and can see A firing at B. D opens up at A. We now have four guns in operation with confusing cross-fire.
E, F, G (you can add as many more as you like because in this upside down world if you don't carry a gun you're in real danger from those who do). Pretty soon you've got a wild west "OK corral" type situation going on. A friend of mine likened it to a bar brawl where, once the first punch is thrown everyone kicks in and no one can figure out who started it or where "fault" might lie.
In the emotional and adrenalin fueled atmosphere of a campus gun battle who knows where it might end. No one apart from A and B know what went down in the first instance and they're too busy firing back (or more likely already dead). Any newcomers into the scene are likely to shoot first and ask questions later, if they survive.
This way real madness lies, but not according to the distorted logic of the gun lobby. These are the last people in the world who should be allowed to have guns.

Don't these right-wingers get enough air time?

Shock-jock Melanie Morgan: Media Matters like Virginia Tech gunman

I'm sick and tired of right-wing shock-jocks like KSFO's (San Fancisco) Melanie Morgan complaining about attempts by ordinary people, activists and concerned journalists to add a little left-wing ballast to the rightward drifting daily media flagship the SS "Tub-o-lies".
These highly-paid, emotionally-crippled, talking chimps get paid buckets of cash to rant and rave about their favourite topics, day after day. They are not the organ-grinders, but they have a nasty bite when irritated. Yet when one small organisation, in this case MediaMatters for America, takes them on and argues against their neo-con whining, they spit the dummy and call us names.
Get over it, you're winning (for now).
The reason why people like me (and fellow bloggers) give up our precious spare time is because, unlike the mouthpiece machines, we don't get paid to have our own soapbox. We do it for love (and political commitment).
Here's a grab of what Ms Morgan thinks of democratic advocates of media change:

Like that mentally unbalanced and angry gunman at Virginia Tech, they'll methodically march through the domiciles of the conservative movement, targeting the movement's leaders for career elimination -- until and unless we stand up and fight back against their campaign of mayhem against conservative leaders and causes.

If you can't play nicely with the other kids Melanie: "GET OUT OF THE SANDBOX!" When you actually analyse (in a sober way) what caused Cho Seung-Hui to kill 32 fellow Americans, it was not the nice, soft left-liberal side of America, but the gun-totin', Bush votin' rednecks who dogwhistlers like Morgan appeal too with her well-supported conservative opinions. The stuff that's now emerging is of a disturbed young man who was bullied and hounded. I'm not excusing what he did, but hey Melanie, take a cold shower in the reality stalls.
Oh, if only the tide would turn and the SS "Tub-o-lies" would founder on the reefs of sanity and sensibility.
And finally, speaking of "career elimination", who exactly was Joseph McCarthy?