Tuesday, March 12, 2013

Is This A False Flag Operation?

In my email this evening I got an email entitled, "Gun Control and the Cultural Divide." It was from the "Southern Conservative Newsletter" and discussed what they termed Northern and Southern views on guns.

It starts off by saying:
To understand the gun debate, one must know how each side comes to understand guns in the first place. As federal and local lawmakers consider new gun restrictions on law-abiding citizens, how do we shape the debate to actually solve problems such as the safety of our children and the reduction of crime – which are the stated purpose of all gun control efforts?
The email says in the South everyone grew up with guns and if you were part of the gun culture you were left out.  Of course, even in the South, not everyone grows up with guns.

When it comes to discussing the gun culture of the North, this email starts talking about Newtown and how gun control measures are a reactionary response. I can agree with that but I also know that response is not "Northern" but more urban in character. While still "discussing" the gun culture of the North, this email says we as Southerners can't just "cross our arms and just say 'no' to any discussion of keeping guns away from criminals and the mentally disturbed" or we'll be shut out of the discussion.

Now I don't see anyone in the gun culture, Southern or Northern, just crossing our arms and saying "no" to keeping firearms out of the hands of criminals or the mentally ill. In fact, I see most of the impetus on the mental health front coming from us and not the gun prohibitionists.

The email concludes by saying:
Long prison sentences for those using a gun in a crime, mental health and criminal checks for those wishing to purchase a gun, safety courses - all of these are reasonable ways politicians can reduce criminal use of firearms and protect rights of those who use guns lawfully. We must be the ones to tell them, but we must first understand the nature and thought process of those on the other side of the debate.
Since when did anyone need a "safety course" to enjoy their enumerated rights under the Constitution? And are those "mental health and criminal checks" for firearms purchases meant just for those buying from a dealer or do they extend to private sales as well?

The email has buttons to either signup for the newsletter or to forward it. Both buttons seem to designed to capture email addresses. What makes me even more suspicious of this email is that if you Google "Southern Conservative Newsletter", you get five results. They are all links to a blog by a liberal Floridian called The Spencerian who is dismissive of the newsletter.

The email address given is for the domain "southernconservativenewsletter.com". The only problem is that this domain is a parked domain by GoDaddy.Com and they are offering it up for sale.

Call me paranoid or call me suspicious but I don't trust any so-called conservative newsletter pushing background checks and safety courses in order to own a firearm.

If anyone has heard of this bunch, I'd like to know more.


  1. Yep, I think it's a false flag...

  2. Actually, I find the Verbiage style reminiscent of speeches that Obama has used in the past. In other words, this sounds like it came from a White house Speech writer.

    Or the Guy who HANDS the Speeches to the White House....

  3. What "North" are they talking about? Ever been to Michigan? Ohio? Indiana?

  4. I believe we need background checks (mental and criminal) for anyone exercising their 1st amendment rights to free speech and lawful assembly. Words have meaning and you can surely cause harm and mayhem with words.

  5. Anonymous at 12:35 is right. Remember Richard Jewell? A bit of restraint by the media would have prevented trashing his good name all in an effort to get some good Movie of the Week type story about how he was living with his parents after age 21 and wanted to be a hero so he planted and discovered the bomb himself.
    And what about other situations where a "cooling off" period before saying something in the press would have been useful for keeping the peace or preventing false information from taking hold in the public mind.
    If a waiting period is useful for the second amendment, why not for the first? Words have effect, and we see the danger of flash mobs, so a waiting period is not out of line.