They don't like her! Sandra Froman Tows the NRA Line at Harvard The NRA?s latest President, Sandra Froman, showed up at Harvard the other day (no word on if she was packing while on the Crimson campus? we?re sure most students wouldn?t have been real thrilled with that), and her comments shed a little light on what?s going on inside the minds of the extremist gun lobby. First and foremost, as we already know from the NRA materials that have leaked to the press, they?re still trying to milk the Katrina disaster for all it was worth. Speaking at Harvard Law School, Froman?who received her Harvard JD in 1974?criticized New Orleans Mayor Ray Nagin?s decision to confiscate guns from residents immediately following the natural disaster, and she said the New Orleans government demonstrated that it was ?profoundly incompetent? through its response. ?The violations of due process are so egregious that it should make your blood boil,? Froman said to the audience of just over 30 people. Froman, who is the second female president of the NRA, noted that the NRA filed suit against Nagin and was able to secure an injunction stopping the confiscations. ?[These people] hadn?t done anything wrong, and they were being told to give up their guns at a time when the government couldn?t protect them,? Froman said. Leave it to the NRA to think that in the middle of one of the worst natural disasters in this country, firearm violence is something anyone wants to worry about. A symposium of disaster planners, just weeks after Katrina, actually determined that guns caused the problems there? if there had been fewer firearms on the streets, authorities would have been more easily able to get a handle on the situation. But as Froman says, nothing stirs the gun guys up better than a little anti-law enforcement mentality. She added that the city took guns from the residents without issuing receipts and that ?shining on the misdeeds? that happened in places like New Orleans was an effective way of mobilizing gun supporters to fight for Second Amendment rights. She also touches on the handgun ban in the District of Columbia, saying that ?If anything in the world can possibly violate the Second Amendment, then surely the D.C. Gun Ban can.? Wrong again, Sandra? since the Second Amendment grants a collective right to states, and DC is not a state, then it looks like nothing in the world can violate the Second Amendment. And finally, she lays out a painful analogy, and then makes no sense when answering a question from a law student. ?If the government isn?t protecting you, then it?s an insurance policy,? she said, drawing a connection between guns and fire extinguishers. ?You need to have a fire extinguisher, you need to have it pressurized, and you need to know how to use it,? she added. When Law School student James B. Tarter asked Fromar if she was concerned that the courts would ask her to define what the Second Amendment?s reference to ?arms? meant, Fromar responded, ?Those are the questions that are less fundamental than whether you or I can possess weapons.? Fire extinguishers, Sandra, save lives. And guns end them. We know the NRA wants the public to believe that guns can actually save lives, but frankly, that?s a fiction. Even if, every once in a while, a firearm was used to save a life, it would never be worth near the amount of death that their proliferation has made possible. If fire extinguishers caused 30,000 American deaths a year, we?d be the ?Firefighter Guys.? But it?s guns that are the problem. And as for her last question, that right there is the NRA?s worst fear? that the Supreme Court will hear the Second Amendment DC gun ban case, and decide, once and for all, that ?arms? means exactly what the NRA wants it to mean: deadly, unnecessary weapons (this is the reason why they?re trying to get the ban overturned before the case can be heard). And as we said yesterday, if the Second Amendment really does allow anyone to own deadly, unnecessary weapons, then it?s time to give the Second Amendment a second look.