Today the NRA called me and used the basest, most inane, illogical, and inflammatory argument I’ve ever encountered in an effort to use my agreement as ammunition (pun intended) in its forthcoming open letter to congress. This is what I just submitted to the feedback form on the NRA’s web site:
Mr. LaPierre and other NRA decision-makers:
I FULLY support our 2nd Amendment Right to Bear Arms. I FULLY support the NRA, if indeed the organization is truly committed to "the protection of the Second Amendment of the United States Bill of Rights and the promotion of firearm ownership rights, marksmanship, firearm safety, and the protection of hunting and self-defense in the United States." (cited from NRA entry on wikipedia.com)
I implore the NRA leadership to immediately cease and re-evaluate its methodologies in soliciting gun-owner support for an open letter to congress opposing the United Nations proposal (as submitted by Mexico?) to ban/limit gun ownership by anyone other than the state, including personal firearms owned by citizens. This includes the unsolicited phone survey that I participated in earlier this evening.
While the proposed legislation appears to (I haven't personally reviewed it) infringe on our 2nd Amendment rights, I am incensed that our premier advocate for 2nd Amendment rights, would lower itself to actually personify the worst negative stereotypes ever put forth as liberal propaganda against it ... what?!? Yes, today the NRA called me and used the basest, most inane, illogical, and inflammatory argument I've ever encountered in an effort to use my agreement as ammunition (pun intended) in its forthcoming open letter to congress. Since that call, I've done a little quick info-gathering, and CNN seems to have a good synopsis of the situation located here: http://www.gunpolicy.org/Topics/Gun_Law.html
I wish I could quote it (the pollster's question to me) directly, but I couldn't find anything to write with or type on fast enough, once I realized what was happening ... anyhow, here's my best approximation (and understanding) of the "single question phone survey" I received about one hour ago:
"Mr. Barron, do you believe that the American people should allow third world dictators, along with Hilary Clinton, to take away our 2nd Amendment rights? Right now, in closed-door United Nations meetings, these issues are being considered. Do you think this is right?"
WHAT!!!! Are they kidding? I know a number of gun-haters who, despite their absolute repulsion for any firearm or even mention of conflict, etc., would STILL AGREE with the bottom line question being asked. "Who should determine our right to bear arms?" Do we really have any citizens who WOULDN'T say ... "WE should determine this!" As a matter of fact, YES ... Hilary Clinton should determine this ... but not by herself of course, nor by her title and position, but as a course of her duly cast vote in any effort to change the 2nd Amendment.
Unquestionably our rights as citizens should not be curtailed by any foreign government. Unquestionably there are dictators our there, many of whom are in the third world, and unquestionably our rights should not and will not be determined by any of these parties.
What really ignites my frustration about all of this is that the NRA and many others label the media as being "gun-haters" and "polarized" and worse. A poll like this simply confirms all of the negative propaganda against gun-owners and NRA members.
I can only imagine the executives and consultants meeting in the board room:
"Hey Mr. LaPierre, let's ask your average American a stupid question about the sovereign power of the United States and the 2nd Amendment to its Constitution. That should give us some good statistics to put in our letter to Congress this month." "Okay, team, sure ... let's get the input of the people." "But you know, instead of really educating the people about a potential threat, let's just treat them all like they really are the worst of the Foxworthy's stereotypes ... I mean, that's really who they are, right?" "I don't know guys, I want the letter to be effective, but what are you talking about?" "Here you go ... you record an intro that blazes through the issue at 30,000 feet, we'll make it difficult to decipher technologically, and then we'll have our friendly phone personnel ask a no-brainer question to get some data that we'll label as being statistically sound." "Well, I do like solid data, okay ... go do it." [La Pierre leaves.] "Alrighty team, we've gotten the exec blessing, now to keep this consulting gig, we're gonna hit a real home run. Here's how ... no one likes dictators, so we'll generalize the UN folks as being dictators. Americans are world renown for having some sort of superiority complex, and we don't know if that's true or not, but just in case, we'll call the UN folks "third world" okay? Right. Then we'll ask only one question and they'll all say yes and we'll have an overwhelmingly convincing piece of data that will keep us rolling in these lucrative consulting gigs (so long as no one really considers what we're doing). Okay, so we're set. Wait a minute ... Bob's got a really good idea ... the icing on the cake, so to speak. We'll include Hilary along with the dictators, and even if they're not sure, when we call them around dinner on a Sunday night, their hunger for food and hatred of any Clinton will certainly encourage them to agree and hang up, right? They don't all hate Hilary? No? Well, hell, a lot of them do, so we'll just go with it, okay? Great."
Especially in economic times like these, I think it a misuse of member fees and collected donations for the NRA to use tactics that even the dregs of rejects from Bottom Feeding University's marketing program would be reluctant to consider.
I don't disagree with the desired short term outcome ... I disagree with the long term effectiveness of the tactics, the side effects of negatively characterizing (in one breath) our Secretary of State as being an equal and co-conspirator with dictators, and the NRA's complete disregard for its own long-standing record of standing up for our rights by using inflamatory and at least questionable tactics to accomplish its aims.
NRA, please don't represent me this way. I think you do a great dis-service to your own (our) cause, my right to bear arms, my reputation among and relationships with those who disagree with me philosophically and politically ... which might be something to consider when NRA recruitment numbers aren't exactly sky-rocketing.
Thank you for considering this plea ... now I'm going to go back to dinner with my family.
Respectfully, Joshua Barron.
View and/or comment on the original post: http://barronfam.com/?p=349