Has the NRA moved to the 'right of Reagan'?

It has not taken mass shootings at several schools, churches or companies to form my opinion regarding the AK47 assault rifle. I knew decades ago that it was not meant as a friendly little gun that mama could keep in her robe pocket in case an intruder came calling at 3 a.m..
The "AK" was denounced by none other than Ronald Reagan back in the early '80s as not a sporting weapon nor one fit for home defense.
It is merely something that good ol' boys like to play with and they don't want their toys taken away. Machine guns are fun to fire. I know.
Most of my family owns guns of various types and some are life members of the NRA. I have a couple of guns, a snub-nosed .38 special and a .357 Magnum, both Rugers. I also own a 12-gauge Mossberg shotgun. They are intended for home security and, if necessary, protection against certain nasty four legged critters on my "off the grid" property.
Some argue the outlawing or even slightest restrictions on ownership and use of the AK is anti-American and merely the first step down a slippery slope where the federal, indeed all governments, are just looking for excuses to take your weapons away.
We allow kids to buy cigarettes and poison themselves at 18 years old and we prohibit kids from buying a beer until they are 21, yet we ship them off to Iraq and Afghanistan (and in my day, Vietnam) fully armed and ready to kill or be killed for their country.
We make people take a test upon reaching a certain age in order to drive a car, but it's okay for folks to buy a gun with absolutely no training or license whatsoever.
If I were a cop I'd be afraid of having so many weapons on the streets and in the homes and on the persons of literally anyone who wants them.
Let's stop kidding ourselves about rifles, shotguns and pistols because they are not the real question here. They are legal and should remain so.
The real question is the assault weapon that no sane hunter ever uses for hunting deer and no sane home owner keeps near their bed to ward off unwanted intruders and no normal gun owner would attempt to carry on themselves when at the market, in the bar, at the bank or in their car while bringing the kids to soccer practice.
Remember, Reagan, that conservative icon revered by all "good" Republicans, was against the AK47 as much as he was favor of the other weapons being allowed for sport, hunting or self protection.
How is it that the NRA and some of its over-zealous adherents now think stopping one weapon from ownership and use equates to a Communist (read Liberal) push to disarm all America? Why did it ever come to this? Does the NRA lobby control so many of our elected representatives causing them to be mere lapdogs? The answer is yes, it does. Democrats and Republicans are both guilty of showing a lack of common sense to go with the overwhelming cash being waved in their faces by this gun manufacturer special interest group. Unfortunately the NRA influence even extends to the state level. I understand farmers and hunters want and need protection against wolves, coyotes, bears and other animals, but that has nothing to do with the AK. The AK is a toy for fun -- it is also the deadliest and most often used weapon of mass murder. Yet we do nothing.
When I was in the Marines I enjoyed firing a howitzer (artillery) and I enjoyed firing a mortar (like a machine-fired grenade) and I immensely loved firing the M16A1 (assault rifle) as well as the Colt .45 and the Beretta 9mm, but the enjoyment factor was greatly increased because I wasn't in combat and I wasn't receiving return fire. I was usually, but not always, on a rifle or pistol range or in the field where live fire maneuvers were taking place.
Now Trump and many others want to arm teachers. Why don't you go ask the teachers in Cashmere, Leavenworth, Chelan, Pateros, Brewster, et al if they want to get a few extra dollars so they can be armed and trained to shoot at intruders?
The overwhelming answer will be "no thanks."
Instead of constantly asking taxpayers (homeowners) for more money for a new gym or soccer field or more teachers, why not a levy to pay for an armed police officer with a metal detector and a controlled entrance at every school from K-12?
The schools are always finding a need for millions to build, maintain and hire --- multi-millions. If each school hired one cop with benefits with occasional need for overtime, etc., then let's say it cost $100,000 per school. Therefore one million dollars could pay for 10 years of peace of mind for every parent. Ten schools equals $10 million.
Of course the real fiscal experts will find fault with my math, but I am a columnist and do not pretend otherwise. I have ideas and I express them.
Try this idea on for size: I am against higher taxes, but that specific-use levy for the safety of our kids would get my vote.
Gary Bégin's opinions are not necessarily those of NCW Media. To respond, email Gary@NCWMedia.net. Your comments  are considered "on the record" and may be published as a Letter to the Editor.