NRA and Ferguson

[BigStick]

Why Isn't the NRA Defending Ferguson’s Blacks?

That is the headline of this story:

Why Isn

"
The National Rifle Association has been warning us about the threat of a heavily-armed and dangerous government crushing dissent for decades...

...somehow, the NRA seems to have missed the whole thing with the SWAT teams and the tank-like vehicles and the snipers and the LRAD sound cannon and the tear gas and the rubber bullets being trained on unarmed Americans. Not a peep from LaPierre on this extended assault on citizens of Ferguson, at least that I can find.
"

What do you guys think about this? I have my opinions, and the initial question they ask in the title is leaning and slanted, but I am curious why you guys think the NRA hasn't had much to say.

 

[devanjones]

I think it's because there would be controversy amongst NRA supporters about what the right actions would have been. Some people would think that ramping up the policing with equipment/tactics would be the right course of action. Some people would think the way the situation is currently being handled is the right way. The tactics themselves have a place, but whether or not they are being properly utilized here is the controversy.

 

[Ninjaofdoom]

I think the main talking point is race right now, and the overzealous police gear/tactics are a bit more background. I wonder if NRA will speak up more AFTER the fact. I also agree with the above, they don't want to wade into the convo when they surely have staunch supporters on both sides.

 

[GixxerPete]

It's pretty obvious, isn't it?

Kinda the same way the ACLU is forever silent when 2nd amendment rights are threatened.

 

[thejrod]

Why would/should the NRA comment on every bit of social controversy in the country? Ferguson isn't exactly a gun-rights debate, so it's not really a NRA hot topic...

That, and seemingly every statement they do make is twisted against them in some fashion. If they release a statement supporting the protestors, they're labeled as anti-police. If they support the police, they're automatically anti-black. Risk vs. reward, and it's lose-lose.

 

[sunofnun]

If they release a statement supporting the protestors, they're labeled as anti-police. If they support the police, they're automatically anti-black. Risk vs. reward, and it's lose-lose.

ya.. I am guessing the NRA wants to keep the LEO community very very close.. they are usually the voice of reason (guys on the job) Speaking out against idiot legislation..

 

[BigStick]

I tend to agree with thejrod most. My first thought when I read the initial story was "Why would the NRA comment on this? It isn't a gun rights issue?" My next thought was appreciation that the NRA tends to wait (in my opinion) at least an appropriate amount of time for facts and details to come out in cases, as well as emotions to cool before wading into the media fray. I am glad they have nothing to say yet, because noone intelligent is making proclamations yet. Let's wait and see what all the details show before passing judgement, and as far as the police actions go, if you act like a criminal rioting mob, expect to be treated as such.

 

[wewaits]

The really simple answer is because the protestors aren't using firearms to protest, if they did they would be shut down really quick by the police. These are mostly people of color, if they take up weapons the NRA will be nowhere to be found. Let's face it, the NRA is not pro gun they are pro industry.

 

[Mark W]

Is it because what is going on is criminal behavior? if the people in Ferguson were peacefully marching down the street packing signs and singing chants then the police response would be very different. Instead they are looting, stealing, fighting and generally being bad people.