- About Blogging Blue
- Current Contributors
- Past Contributors
- Comment Policy & Disclaimer
- Support Blogging Blue
- Contact Blogging Blue
This Sunday afternoon I received a phone call from a woman asking if I would answer a one-question survey about the Second Amendment. I said, “yes”. The caller asked me to listen to a recorded comment by Wayne LaPierre from the NRA.
(I may not have this exactly right and if any of you have had any of these calls, please correct me in the comments.)
Mr. LaPierre begins to talk about the United Nations having a plan to ban guns in America and that they are meeting at this very time. The UN was planning a media campaign to make this happen. Unless the NRA and people like me are roused to action this may occur. The UN planned to make treaties banning guns in America. ( Words to that effect)
I was perplexed by this and admit that I did not listen to retain information. I was listening to place it into context but could not think of anything I had read recently that fit.
When the recorded message was done, a man came on the line and asked me if I thought it right that the United Nations and Hillary Clinton should have the right to ban guns in the US. I told him that I objected to his question and said ‘no’. Then I asked him what Hillary Clinton had to do with any of this. He replied that her ambassador to Mexico was returning to report on how American guns are a problem for Mexico and that this would effect the rights of Americans to have guns.
I said that this was a distortion of the truth. I said that the issue in Mexico is the amount of American guns that are falling into the hands of the drug cartels and that this is not about the right of Americans to keep and bear arms. This is about the international drug trade being supported by an international gun trade.
At this time the caller thanked me for my time and hung up.
I have been a member of the NRA and this is not normal for them to: 1. confuse the rights of Americans with the international drug and gun trade, 2. to malign a government official through innuendo and 3. to take an absurd stand that treaties on the promulgation of guns to drug cartels will somehow effect the Second Amendment. I am hoping that this man was way off message.
Even if I don’t have the words exact, I can assure you that my description reflects the impression I recieved . The NRA telephone call was designed to invoke the conservative fears of the UN, the fears of Hillary Clinton, and fears of international treaties to take guns away from Americans to promote support for the NRA.
There is something wrong with the NRA if this is the message they are sending to ordinary Americans like myself. Let me know if you have had a similar call.
By the way, HERE is the NY Times article in February about drug cartels and American gun dealers.
And HERE is a Washinton Post article from April describing the Obama Administration efforts to attack the drug cartel’s assets and the “Iron River of Guns” flowing into Mexico. Please note the correction at the top of the article; it is important. The orginal article said that 90% of the narcotrafficante guns can be traced to the US. The correction says that 90% of the guns submitted by Mexico to the US for tracing do in fact originate in the US.
If the NRA’s official position is to oppose controlling the international gun trade then the NRA has either bedded down with gun manufacturers or it has implicitly endorsed the selling of guns to criminal enterprises.
- Wisconsin Reps ALL Oppose Trump Actions in Syria!! on
- The Pledge of Allegiance on
- Mike Pence To The Middle East? on
- Where Is Hunter Biden? on
- Mitch McConnell’s Reaction to Pulling Out of Syria. on
- Don’t Miss Out On Your Trump As Super Hero Poster on
- Wanna Catch Up On The Ron Johnson Merry-go-round? on
- up to $50,000 a month on
- Did Mitch McConnell Just Fire A Warning Shot At The White House on
- up to $50,000 a month on