"Did you ever get Josh that shotgun you were talking about?" I overheard someone ask my brother-in-law recently. "You know you'd better get it before Obama takes 'em all away."
This was said the last week of July 2016, six months before the end of Obama's presidency, eight years in which he has yet to remove a single shotgun from a child or woman or man or mass-murderer, or aggrieved-spouse/coworker or terrorist's hands.
My response was to laugh. "You're really buying that argument?"
Yes he was. Yes they are.
Obama belongs in the NRA Hall of Fame. You know the NRA, a marketing organization with the goal of selling guns which makes its members fortunes with taglines like "guns don't kill people; people kill people" and "better buy a gun before Obama takes them away." With President Obama as a straw man (he has a tendency to advocate for restrictions on guns after mass murders and tragedies), gun sellers have made huge profits off of tragedies like Sandy Hook, Orlando, and San Bernardino.
The New York Times features a headline today, "One Ally Remains Firmly Behind Trump: The NRA." The tone of the article is incredulous.
It's no surprise to me.
It shouldn't be a surprise to anyone who understands the double game that the NRA is playing. Will the gun sellers and arms traffickers profit more under a Trump Administration or a Clinton Administration? Will it be easier to adapt a sales pitch like "better buy a gun before Hillary takes 'em away" or come up with a wholly new pitch for the suckers who are already drowning in arms and ammunition?
A Trump loss would profit the organization greatly. The kinds of terrorist attacks and assassination attempts that Trump has so recklessly proposed in the past week would only drive more Americans to their local gun dealers to buy the "protection" that these tools supposedly provide.
If the goal is to sell guns at a rate similar to the bonanza of the Obama Era, Hillary Clinton needs to be the next president. In order to assure that end, the NRA should continue supporting Trump's insane rhetoric.
This was said the last week of July 2016, six months before the end of Obama's presidency, eight years in which he has yet to remove a single shotgun from a child or woman or man or mass-murderer, or aggrieved-spouse/coworker or terrorist's hands.
My response was to laugh. "You're really buying that argument?"
Yes he was. Yes they are.
Obama belongs in the NRA Hall of Fame. You know the NRA, a marketing organization with the goal of selling guns which makes its members fortunes with taglines like "guns don't kill people; people kill people" and "better buy a gun before Obama takes them away." With President Obama as a straw man (he has a tendency to advocate for restrictions on guns after mass murders and tragedies), gun sellers have made huge profits off of tragedies like Sandy Hook, Orlando, and San Bernardino.
The New York Times features a headline today, "One Ally Remains Firmly Behind Trump: The NRA." The tone of the article is incredulous.
It's no surprise to me.
It shouldn't be a surprise to anyone who understands the double game that the NRA is playing. Will the gun sellers and arms traffickers profit more under a Trump Administration or a Clinton Administration? Will it be easier to adapt a sales pitch like "better buy a gun before Hillary takes 'em away" or come up with a wholly new pitch for the suckers who are already drowning in arms and ammunition?
A Trump loss would profit the organization greatly. The kinds of terrorist attacks and assassination attempts that Trump has so recklessly proposed in the past week would only drive more Americans to their local gun dealers to buy the "protection" that these tools supposedly provide.
If the goal is to sell guns at a rate similar to the bonanza of the Obama Era, Hillary Clinton needs to be the next president. In order to assure that end, the NRA should continue supporting Trump's insane rhetoric.
Comments
Post a Comment