The argument ad hominem is a fallacy that generally indicates the absence of substantive logical input to a discussion. But, try as I might, it’s hard to avoid calling the NRA’s statement boneheadedly stupid. Maybe that’s not an argument ad hominem; maybe that’s just a plain statement of fact.
I am generally sympathetic to the National Rifle Association in their fights to preserve the second amendment. But a police officer in every school? It’s hard to believe that such a proposal is even intended to be taken seriously.
The NRA talks about guns in the hands of police, secret service, soldiers, and duly trained (and licensed) security firms, but not individuals. Those guns are irrelevant. The government will of course always be armed: government is, after all, in the business of armed force. But from the text, we can only conclude that the NRA has completely abdicated its defense of the right of individuals to defend themselves. Their “good guys with guns” are all employed or contracted by government.
The NRA appears to believe, not only that all problems have government solutions, but that instant solutions are better than thoughtful measures. Hysteria in an environment of exaggerated risk is a fine opportunity t0 ram through laws and regulations that we will live to regret — consider the TSA in our airports, for example.
We expect — and we see — this reaction from the administration (happens to be Democrat, but it wouldn’t make any difference if it were Republican), whose interest is in a larger and ever more paternal government, respecting ever fewer inconvenient individual rights. But it is truly disappointing to see the NRA advocating the same.
Perhaps the moral of the story is that one can never form long-term alliances with unprincipled organizations (Democrats, Republicans, the NRA, …). At best, we may agree with an organization’s position on a few issues, always being wary of seismic shifts.
NRA, if you ever discover principles, come back and talk to me again.