D'OH!
Oopsie. Yeah, placing the "Refuse to be a victim" pop-up banner within clear sight of the "No Weapons Allowed" sign wasn't the greatest idea in product placement history. I feel bad for the poor gentleman in charge of directing people to the seminar after walking past the "Victim Disarmament" banners and such. I would imagine they had hundreds of smartasses like me pointing out the obvious dichotomy.
Or, maybe I was the only one, because as I've said before, it takes an uncommon mind...
That is all.
4 comments:
Unfortunately, the anti-gun crowd picked up on the irony:
http://www.gunguys.com/?p=3979
Although I think they are intellectually dishonest in labeling the NRA hypocritical. The issue of concealed carry came up even before the convention. The NRA has always taken the position that gun owners should obey their state laws, even if those laws suck and are unconstitutional.
I guess one could argue that by holding the convention in a "gun free" zone, the NRA was creating potential victims of its members who would be defenseless if a criminal did attack. But the rules for the forum were the state's, not the NRA's. The same attendees faced the same risk anytime they are tourists in that state, not just for the NRA convention. I don't know that the NRA has ever advanced boycotting tourism of states that do not offer reciprocal recognition of out of state carry permits, which is really the only circumstance where hypocrisy would exist.
I do see something strange about the decision to hold the convention where they did, but not hypocrisy. Arguably, they NRA might offer good reasons why holding it where they did actually could help to advance concealed carry. I certainly feel naked whenever I have to travel without my cc, and am very sympathetic to the folks in states that don't have my privileges and rights. Maybe all the convention go-ers will be reminded that some Americans are still deprived, and will be more supportive of the NRA's legal efforts to make concealed carry a nation-wide right.
Well, in any case, you weren't the only one that noticed.
I think it's hypocrisy. Remember, it's not just in the convention hall. Even if they came from a State that had reciprocity, they couldn't carry to and from the convention site, either, because no facilities to check their weapons were in place. Disarm them at the door, provide secure storage and good security, allow them to rearm and be responsible citizens when they are off-site.
I did not attend, and while I intend to remain a member, I am disgusted. Refuse to be a victim, except when we make you one at the NRA National Meeting? It stinks.
Something tells me there was no shortage of individuals willing to point out the problem with the situation, JayG....
And, actually, ASM826 hit upon the best way the situation could have been handled by the NRA. So the conference center disallows carry. Ok, set up a check-your-gun facility outside of the conference center wherein those who are interested in carrying to and from the festivities may leave their firearms while inside, and then recover them afterwards.
Of course, I shudder to think what the liability costs would have been for such a venture, but it still would have saved the NRA a world of hurt.
Well, I don't agree it was hypocrisy, but it certainly has proven to be a HUGE mistake. Besides the link I gave before, the anti-gunners are all over it (see the comments):
http://thinkprogress.org/2010/05/16/nra-gun-restrictions-convention/
I think at a minimum, the NRA needs to come out with another post-convention statement that it was the rules of the convention center, not a choice by the NRA. Further, that they will never make this mistake again, and all future conventions will only take place at venues that allow concealed carry.
Still, something rubs me the wrong way about abandoning the folks who are holding on in gun unfriendly states. Wouldn't it make a statement to have the NRA convention in Chicago? Something to think about I guess...
Post a Comment