Since many readers of yesterday’s post chose to discuss the relative merits of the NRA rather than Charlton Heston’s 50 year film career, we might as well have a full-blown discussion about the gun industry’s premier lobbying group.

First, however, I should set the record straight. Contrary to what some readers concluded -- that my swipe at the NRA makes me someone who doesn’t believe in gun ownership -- let the record show that I am not against the personal ownership of guns. In fact, I am a gun owner. But while I wholeheartedly believe that Americans should have the right to bear arms, I do not believe that right extends to any and all kinds of weaponry anymore than I believe the right to free speech allows one to say absolutely anything without consequence.

I do not believe people should be allowed to own assault rifles, bazookas, RPGs, machine guns or any other weapon that poses an increased risk to society. My criticism of the NRA is rooted in that organization’s total and complete unwillingness to go along with or support any legislative restraint when it comes to owning guns. My assertion that the NRA often misses the forest for the trees, an opinion shared by millions of Americans, is based on the fact that the organization, like all lobbying groups, has not always done what’s in the best interest of the country.

My attitude towards the NRA doesn’t make me a communist or a Leftie or someone who’s failed to learn a lesson from the events of Nazi Germany, as one commenter put it -- a lesson I know only too well as a Jew. Instead, I think my attitude shows that I am someone who is simply being reasonable when it comes to the issue of gun ownership, something the NRA is not, nor has ever been.

Be that as it may, what do readers think? Should Americans be able to own guns without limit, or should there be some restrictions on the types of weapons they can possess?