Chris Cox appeared on NRA News yesterday to clarify NRA’s earlier statement. He suggested it was unwise to characterize the behavior as “weird,” “foolish,” and “scary.” Personally, I don’t think they ought to feel the need to apologize for being right. Nonetheless, the media was having a field day with the statement, and started characterizing the statement to include all forms of carrying a firearm, and not just restricted to long gun OC under these specific circumstances.
That’s why I was a bit surprised they’d make a statement in the first place. It’s almost a damned if you do, damned if you don’t situation, and you can fully expect the media and our opponents to distort it. Nonetheless, I think making the statement was the right thing to do, and I think they should have just stuck with the original statement.
Apparently I’m not the only one who thinks that. Over at National Review’s “The Corner,” Charles C.W. Cooke essentially says the same thing.
UPDATE: Bob Owens: “As a general rule of thumb, when you see a groupâ€”public, private, or governmentâ€”issue a statement and then walk it back days later instead of immediately, it strongly suggests that the original comment is precisely what the group does think internally, but that they have found that position to be politically inconvenient. Iâ€™m not saying with any degree of certainty that this is what happened here, but I have my suspicions.”