02/05/2014 11:37 am ET Updated Apr 07, 2014

Okay, NRA, What's Next? What Am I Missing Here?

It wasn't that long ago that the National Rifle Association, in their ongoing campaign to educate the American population with regard to the hallowed status of firearms, piously informed us that we don't need less guns, just more guns in the hands of the "good guys." Well, we've seen how that worked out, haven't we?

A retired policeman -- and if that's not a certified "good guy," then who is? -- carries his gun into a movie theater. No doubt he's been packing it to the movies ever since the recent unpleasantness in Aurora, Colorado. (Wouldn't want to offend the gunnies by calling it a massacre, would we?) Obviously, said cop was being a truly responsible citizen by making certain that should a man with a gun show up at this particular theater, the audience would be protected.

Oh, wait -- the cop was a man with a gun.

But not to worry: Since he was a retired cop, he of all people would certainly know how to handle both himself and his gun in the event of a dangerous incident.

Like, say, someone else in the theater using a cellphone to check up on how his child was doing with the baby-sitter.

Before the feature had even started.

And we all know what happened; no need to recount it all here except for the part where the retired cop fired his gun and the guy with the cellphone died.

I, knowing that the NRA has nothing but the highest concern for the safety of all of us, assumed that the moment they heard about the events of January 13th in the theater in Wesley Chapel, Florida, they would have been out in force trying to correct their obviously erroneous suggestion that the key to public safety is more "good guys" carrying guns.

Unless the problem is properly identifying who the "good guys" are, a necessity which is implicit in their suggestion. I mean, why would anyone be stupid enough to advocate making sure more "good guys" have guns unless they have a plan to identify said "good guys?"

So where's the plan?

Why aren't they telling us about it?

Indeed, why hasn't the National Rifle Association already set up and paid for the screening system that will allow us to know who the "good guys" are? After all, they've made it quite clear that they don't want the rest of us asking any questions or setting any standards for "good-guyism." So how long before we demand that they put their money where their mouths are?

How long do we give them to produce a "good guy" identification kit? Maybe something like those tree identification keys we've all seen. You know, the ones where the first thing you have to do is check to see if the tree has needles or leaves? Except on this one, of course, the first thing they'd check for is gender (their use of "guys" obviously rules out "gals" as ever being assessed by the NRA as "good," but that's another issue) then go on through police records, psychological evaluations, character references, etc. Further, I would assume that concomitant with whatever screening program they launch, the NRA will also set up an endowment fund ("life insurance" is such a loaded term) to benefit the survivors of whatever mayhem their certified "good guys" might happen to cause despite their careful screening. Kind of like a guarantee that their product works.

But here it is, three weeks later, and where is the above-outlined screening program? The endowment fund?

So far, not even mentioned. Oddly, given their oft-professed concern for the safety of us all, the NRA has been silent.

Dead silent.

So, what am I missing here?

Is it possible that the NRA didn't really mean it when they made their "good guys" suggestion? Or is it possible that they're acting like six-year-olds who didn't do their homework, slouching low in their chairs at the back of the room in the hope the teacher won't notice them, let alone call upon them?

Oh, wait -- the NRA has never been anything more than a band of six-year-olds, screaming whenever anyone threatens to take away their toys or make them lock the toys up when they're not playing with them.

Apparently, once more, I'm not missing anything at all.