Farai; I see the listing for the conceal-carry hoodie on the NRA website. I haven't seen any indication as to when that item was posted by the NRA webstore operators. I see it is listed as a "New" item, like many retailers, but I see no date. Is there evidence that it was somehow timed to coincide with any news about Trayvon Martin? I see no evidence of that.

Beyond that, Farai, what do you suppose is the "true" meaning behind the NRA's product? What motiviation are you supposing, and projecting onto the NRA?

You probably have the same question of me, and the Obama campaign's abortive move to run a "sale" on Obama hoodies. So I'll answer first, and then you.

The hoodie has become an overnight, viral symbol. Being worn by many thousands of people as an active sign of demonstration. Solidarity with the slain Tayvon, protest against whatever forces are imagined to be behind the killing, etc. There is a clear market for hoodies, and someone in the Obama campaign "store" had the idea, on Monday, to capitalize on the phenomenon, and they quickly squelched the sale as soon as a Cleveland radio station, and later the Drudge Report blew the story up.

So that's my story, and my theory on the Obama campaign's timed capitalization.

And the reasons that I doubt that the NRA had any similar/opposing motive are as follows.
First, I doubt (but do not know) that the NRA in any way "timed" this product. The product is not an off-the-shelf cotton sweatshirt. It is an engineered design. The weight of a handgun and two magazines is such that the product needs to be designed over the course of a long time. Such a garment is more "hardware" than it is "apparel."
Second, what "message" is it that you suppose is being sent by the NRA? If the NRA's political opponents are all wearing hoodies, why would the NRA choose to market a hoodie as a political symbol?
Third, if the market for hoodies is somehow concentrated in poor/black/progressive/neighborhoods of color/whatever places and demographics (this is a notion, by the way, that I would not support and which I use here for purposes of discussion only), why would the NRA choose to make a product tailored to that market? Is this another way of saying that the NRA is tyring to cater to the valued gun-owning customer base in black neighborhoods? Is that something that offends you? (Wow, this hypothetical has gotten weird.)

So back to you Farai. I feel like I got the real basis of the story on the Obama campaign hoodie sale, and that there was nothing subtle about how it went down. I also feel like the supposed NRA story doesn't make any sense as a political one, and that it is just merchandise, pure and simple.

Looking forward to a reply in any event. And, I must beg your forgiveness for my careless misspelling of your last name in a previous post. I apologize.

Thanks for commenting Charles. I think the NRA hoodie is in a class by itself. It is designed to carry a concealed handgun! And it's a new item in the store. Coincidence? Hmmm. The NRA lobbied for the Stand Your Ground law, btw. Read on:

http://thinkprogress.org/politics/2012/03/27/453313/nra-begins-selling-hoodies-with-pocket-to-conceal-handguns/?mobile=nc

Farai Chideyah is awfully selective in her complaints about reactions to the Trayvon Martin story.

She mentioned that the NRA was selling a hoodie that can carry a gun. At the same time, the Obama '12 campaign started a $10-off sale on its own logo-hoodies. When the Drudge Report put that dubious proposal on its front page, the Obama Camapign ended the sale.

http://articles.businessinsider.com/2012-03-27/politics/31243353_1_hoodie-obama-campaign-obama2012

[The above story notes, unsurprisingly, that the Romney Campaign also has a hoodie for sale. It was not any campaign's pre-existing hoodie product that was at issue; it was the Obama campaign's (alone) in running a sale on Tuesday that was at issue. That sale was indeed quickly stopped after Drudge and Twitchy publicized it.]

And while Ferai mentioned the incorrect photo of Trayvon posted at Michelle Malkin's blog (Malkin removed the photo and apologized; Ferai didn't mention that), Matt Drudge was falsely accused of posting an incorrect photo of Trayvon that was something other than the angelic-appearing (old) photos of Tayvon as a child.

No mantion, it also seems, of Trayvon's Twitter account, in which Trayvon's self-titled Twitter handle was reportedly "No_Limit_Ni--a" and contained explicit and explosive gangsta-like references.

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/is-this-trayvon-martins-twitter-account/

No mention, either, of Spike Lee's attempt to publicize George Zimmermn's home address which he got wrong, posting instead the address of an innocent Florida retired couple who now live in fear.

http://www.thesmokinggun.com/documents/spike-lee-zimmerman-tweet-567891

Any killing of a child is a travesty and when race is involved its even more troubling. Jaun Williams in a WSJ oped is right to question "Where are the protesters for other equally troubling problems facing minorities in America?". Ninety three percent of black killings are perpetrated by other blacks. Less than sixty percent of minority students graduate high school. These and more go on every day, where are the protesters for these travisties.

What a lame response from the Mayor of Sanford. Is there no one in Sanford that can speak with authority on this case?