Why Isn't NRA Arguing Trayvon Martin Tragedy Could Have Been Averted if Only He Had a Gun?

Sometimes, silence is much more revealing than those words actually spoken. Such is the case with respect to how the NRA has responded to the George Zimmerman verdict: with virtual silence.

One might expect the NRA to respond to Trayvon Martin's death by calling upon young, black men across this country to arm themselves, since the only way to truly protect oneself from the threat of violence in this country is to own a firearm. To exercise one's Second Amendment right.

After all, that's how it's responded to any number of shootings in which white people have been killed in mass shootings.

Of course, by expect, I mean the opposite, an ironic point made by a Tweet yesterday from Anonymous:

@YourAnonNews: Why isnt the NRA saying the tragedy wouldn’t have happened if Trayvon Martin was armed,& calling on young black men to get themselves guns?

— Anonymous (@YourAnonNews) July 15, 2013

We know the reason why. For when the NRA lobbied hard for the Stand Your Ground law in Florida which allowed Zimmerman to murder a young, black youth, it did so with a vision of white 'victimhood' – and gun sales to white Americans – in mind.

The NRA is so dangerous, in part, because of the racist views held by so many of its members, lobbyists and organizational leaders.

It's this racism that prevented the NRA from responding to Martin's death by encouraging similar victims of violent crime to go out and get a gun.

Because the NRA isn't fighting its warped, Second Amendment fight for 'those' people.

 Follow @David_EHG