Please LIKE and SHARE to get the latest UPDATES





Musings on Politics, The Tea Party, and America's Rampant Electile Dysfunction







 And don't forget to check out

Available as a Trade Paperback or e-Book at




This form does not yet contain any fields.
    Technology, Ideology and One Ridiculous Idea...


    Search the Site
    Can't display this module in this section.
    Follow me on Twitter
    « Why do Romney’s Tax Returns Matter? | Main | DISCLOSE, it Turns Out, Won’t… »

    REVEALED: Wayne LaPierre and the NRA’s plan to reintroduce polygamy to Texas and Oklahoma

    It’s insidious, an attack on everything we all hold dear. The NRA’s plans—led by the group’s ubiquitous Executive Vice President, Wayne LaPierre, are nothing less than an attempt at ripping societal values out by the roots.  The whole thing is finally obvious to me and, frankly, I’m not sure why there hasn’t been a lot more noise around the issue.

    LaPierre clearly has plans that will shake the very foundation of conservatism across the country.  Starting with towns along the Texas-Oklahoma border (including, very possibly, Idabel and Arnett in Oklahoma, and Paris and Vernon in Texas), the plan is to create heavily fortressed enclaves in which men will marry and live with a minimum of five wives.  Over a period of two generations, the NRA will then re-enculturate the idea of polygamy into conservative society, relying on Biblical texts and a carefully chosen group of Fundamentalist leaders to carry the message across the South and, eventually, throughout all of fly-over America.

    This isn’t just supposition or intuition. This is FACT. And I know this for one very good reason:  Wayne LaPierre and the NRA have done absolutely nothing to support this contention, and the complete absence of any evidence at all is irrefutable proof that the conspiracy is well underway!

    No one in any of the towns and cities along the Texas-Oklahoma border has commented on the situation—at least not publicly—another sure sign. Fear is keeping everyone silent.

    Why the story isn’t all over the mainstream media, the blogosphere, and the Twitterverse is beyond me.

    What’s that you say?  That makes no sense? Sure it does. It’s perfectly logical, perfectly sound, reasoning.  To prove it, I turn to no less an authority than the man himself, Wayne LaPierre.

    [I]n public, [President Obama will] remind us that he's put off calls from his party to renew the old Clinton [assault weapons] gun ban, he hasn't pushed for new gun control laws, and he'll even say he looked the other way when Congress passed a couple of minor pro-gun bills by huge majorities. The president will offer the Second Amendment lip service and hit the campaign trail saying he's actually been good for the Second Amendment.

    But it's a big fat stinking lie, just like all the other lies that have come out of this corrupt administration.

    And Obama himself is no fool. So when he got elected, they concocted a scheme to stay away from the gun issue, lull gun owners to sleep, and play us for fools in 2012. Well, gun owners are not fools, and we are not fooled. We see the president's strategy crystal clear: get re-elected, and with no other re-elections to worry about, get busy dismantling and destroying our firearms freedom. Erase the Second Amendment from the Bill of Rights and exorcise it from the U.S. Constitution. That's their agenda.

    See what I mean? LaPierre uses exactly the same logic! President Obama has done absolutely nothing to restrict guns in this country, has made no statements about wanting restrictions, has, in fact, supported an expansion of some gun rights.  So given the complete lack of any actions or statements, it’s clear that the President has an agenda to destroy the 2nd amendment. And LaPierre can’t possibly be wrong, can he? After all, the NRA pays him a cool $mil/year.  You don’t lavish that kind of cash on someone with restricted intelligence. So, if LaPierre’s argument is valid, it seems to me that my argument about the NRA’s plans for polygamy makes just as much sense….

    Okay, okay: so LaPierre is an idiot. Or I am. Or both of us are. I admit it. We’ve all gotten a good laugh or two out of it, maybe, but other than that, Michael, what’s the big deal? And why are you wasting my time? Who cares, anyway?

    Well….You should, actually.

    You see, we just had a dark night. A very dark night.  A night in which an apparently unstable young man named James Holmes allegedly stepped too close to the mental edge and took his fall in a crowded theater, taking with him a dozen innocent people.  And when things like this happen we should force ourselves to have real conversations about real things, real people, real deaths.

    And please don’t try to figure out where I stand on the 2nd amendment, because you won’t; I’m neither in favor of taking every gun off the street nor in favor of letting Little Timmy warehouse WMDs. And this essay isn’t about me, anyway.

    It’s about you.

    Stop talking at each other and start talking to each other. Don’t let LaPierre’s insanity pass for intelligent conversation.  Pay your dues to the NRA if you want: they do many, many good things. Believe, if you want, that guns don’t kill people, that people kill people. But be willing to talk about maybe making it a little harder for the crazy people out there to do it. Believe, if you want, that the only good gun is a gun missing its firing pin. But be willing to talk about people who hunt for food or shoot for sport, and about the fact that you want to take something away from them that hurts no one and infringes on their liberty.

    Believe what you want, but talk, for freakin’ sake!  Talk! Don’t let others talk for you. Least of all Wayne LaPierre and his twisted sense of reality.

    PrintView Printer Friendly Version

    EmailEmail Article to Friend

    Reader Comments (8)

    Michael...You know of course, depend upon perhaps, that many folks will do nothing other than take your headline and spread it like a Rocky Mountain wild fire...But, you can't help that...can you?...Our media sucks...I agree entirely with your plea for real conversations about gun laws and with your stance...but the very framing of it in this article certainly seems to question that your concern is genuine...Cute...

    July 22, 2012 | Unregistered CommenterLynne

    Everybody has his/her own possible scenarios of what could happen if gun laws are passed/not passed. It all depends on your perspective. Reasonable, everyday people who don't have axes to grind, i.e. not the far left or far right would probably agree to no assault rifles. Those who want a gun for protection, to get food or for sport are okay. It's a good idea to keep in place the background checks, though!

    July 22, 2012 | Unregistered CommenterBrenda

    Actually, Michael, there is evidence that Obama continues to pursue 'gun control'. "Under the radar" give you a hint? There are other pieces of evidence of his agenda.

    You, on the other hand, offer nothing whatever to support the NRA Polygamy scheme. I know you are trying to equate lack of evidence for that to lack of evidence of Obama's gun control agenda. Your problem is that we do have evidence. So your effort fails.

    July 22, 2012 | Unregistered CommenterDavid Davies

    David -- If you have such evidence, pray tell what it is.... Otherwise, your assertion is meaningless.

    July 22, 2012 | Unregistered Commenterjudy

    Damn! And here I was hoping that the NRA was broadening its civil rights stance and willing to support polygamy.

    I believe in marriage equality for all, whether it's a man and a woman, two men or two women, six men and fourteen women, or three women, two boys, a squirrel, and a robot.

    Thank ghod the members of such unions can defend themselves from the haters, thanks to the 2nd Amendment!

    July 22, 2012 | Unregistered CommenterAlan

    Marriage should be between two people and the State should keep its nose completely out of it. If a man wishes to have two wives, there should be two marriages between two people. If a wife wishes to have two husbands, the same applies. If you believe in one man, one woman, great! Then that is the marriage you should have.

    The rub is that tax, medical, legal and other benefits are based on that status, and that's a problem. Treating marriage in this way would require major reforms in the way we provide benefits. Oh, and that there are religious zealots who believe that theirs is the "one true way" and are willing to raise hell to make you comply.

    July 22, 2012 | Unregistered CommenterDoug

    Judy, here is your evidence:

    The Obama administration has in fact taken steps whose ultimate goal was to increase gun restrictions in this country.

    What's this? "No they haven't" you may say. I don't blame you for being uninformed on this, the "news" media has been desperately trying to avoid reporting this.

    Operation Fast and know, the ATF operation that Congress is currently investigating. The investigation that Atty Gen. Holder has been held in Contempt of Congress for stonewalling, and refusing document requests.

    "But that doesn't link it to Obama" you may reply.

    This failed gun walking operation has been shown via the Congressional investigation to rise (at a minimum -- more on this later) to at least Atty Gen. Holder. Being the Obama administration's senior law enforcement official certainly implicates the administration and the President personally. Further, it certainly has to rise to the Presidential level.

    "How?" you ask...simple

    The President's claim of "Executive Privilege" in attempting to prevent Congressional review of documents directly related to Operation Fast & Furious.

    "Well...that may or not be true, but this doesn't have anything to do with 'gun control'"...Oh yes it does.;lst;4

    From the article:
    "Documents obtained by CBS News show that the Bureau of Alcohol Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) discussed using their covert operation "Fast and Furious" to argue for controversial new rules about gun sales."

    So if those discussions were occurring within the ATF, do you seriously believe that were not occurring at senior executive levels, up to and including between the President and his senior law enforcement officer (who's knowledge of the operation while initial denied, has since been the Congressional investigation into the MURDER of a U.S. Border Patrol agent...a murder committed by a member of a drug cartel with nothing less than ONE OF THE WEAPONS ALLOWED TO WALK INTO THE HANDS OF KNOWN VIOLENT CRIMINALS).

    I wonder if those documents the President is so desperate to keep from Congressional investigators document senior level (i.e. Presidential) discussions of using the results of the operation (hundreds of deaths in Mexico among other things) as leverage for tighter restrictions on firearms.

    If only the President would be as open and transparent as he promised we would know.

    July 23, 2012 | Unregistered CommenterSean

    Carol writes: "Reasonable, everyday people who don't have axes to grind, i.e. not the far left or far right would probably agree to no assault rifles."

    Right Carol, which makes those of us that don't agree with this premise "unreasonable". Right. Got it.

    July 23, 2012 | Unregistered CommenterJohn

    PostPost a New Comment

    Enter your information below to add a new comment.

    My response is on my own website »
    Author Email (optional):
    Author URL (optional):
    Some HTML allowed: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <code> <em> <i> <strike> <strong>