Is the N.R.A a Domestic Terrorist Organization?

[myohmy2]

The New York Times, 9-4-2019

" San Francisco Declares the N.R.A. a ‘Domestic Terrorist Organization "
………………..

" In a news release on Wednesday, Ms. Stefani referred to the federal Justice Department’s definition of terrorist activity, which involves the use of a firearm, weapon or dangerous device to endanger the safety of individuals. The definition also includes members of organizations that provide funds, weapons or training to individuals who commit terrorist acts. "
……………….

" “The N.R.A. exists to spread pro-gun propaganda and put weapons in the hands of those who would harm and terrorize us,” Ms. Stefani said in a statement. “Nobody has done more to fan the flames of gun violence than the N.R.A.” "

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/09/04/us/san-francisco-nra-terrorist.html
…………………………………


What do you say, is the N.R.A a Domestic Terrorist Organization?

...

[GReedDiamond]

1. I would say YES...

...I agree with San Francisco.

[Newest Reality]

2. Yes!

There was a time when the N.R.A. was more about sportsman and responsible use of guns and did not promote or condone promiscuous gun-totingg like today.

When you read up on the history of the NRA, (and there are many sources) you can see when and where the changes happened and the contrast is very obvious. Their current rhetoric and propaganda is irresponsible and their response to the current crisis is unacceptable.

They are also putting the voices of a few above beyond the needs and best interests of many and I see no sign of that changing. They should look at their own organizational history and, perhaps, shame themselves for morphing into a powerful, subversive, fundamentalist, extremist, terrorist promoting organization. If promoting terrorism in any way is the same as being a terrorist, then yes, they are. And that's a concern with the kind of political clout they still maintain.

As a contrast to show how it has changed:

For the most part, the NRA supported the passage of the National Firearms Act of 1934. During the congressional hearings held when the bill was being considered, NRA President, Karl Frederick, said, “I have never believed in the general practice of carrying weapons. I seldom carry one. … I do not believe in the general promiscuous toting of guns. I think it should be sharply restricted and only under licenses.”

http://professorbuzzkill.com/nra-extremist/

[Newest Reality]

5. Racial Bias

It seems that their was no problem with passing gun legislation to restrict loaded carry IF it was racially motivated, BTW:

The Black Panthers started patrolling Oakland’s streets and observing policemen during traffic stops, arrests of crime suspects, and any other policing done in largely African-American neighborhoods. Much as modern day people monitor and film some police action with their cell phones in order to record potential abuse of police power, the Black Panthers saw themselves as fulfilling an essential public duty.

This being 1966, obviously, the Black Panthers didn’t have cell phones. They did, however, have shotguns, and they carried them during their patrols. Again, this being 1966, it was perfectly legal for the Panthers, or any other citizens, to carry weapons openly in California. As you might imagine, this frightened the Oakland police tremendously, and there were several tense stand-offs (although there were no shoot-outs or anything like that during the Panthers’ patrols). Still, for the rest of 1966 and most of 1967, California politicians “freaked out” (sorry for the use of that technical historians’ phrase) about armed Black Panthers in California cities.

The California State Assembly and the California Governor, Ronald Reagan, put forward firearms control legislation almost immediately. And on May 2, 1967, the Panthers attended one of the Assembly’s committee meetings that was considering one of these pieces of legislation. And they did so armed. Panic ensued in the chamber, some legislators dove under their desks, and voices, to say the least, were raised.

It was nothing more than that, however. The Panthers did not discharge their weapons, nor point them at anyone, or threaten any of the Assembly members. The incident escalated into a very heated argument, but no one was hurt. Police arrested six of the Panthers, but charged them with the only thing they could charge them with — “disrupting a legislative session.” Again, carrying the shotguns was not illegal.

http://professorbuzzkill.com/nra-extremist/

[jpak]

3. Yup

Fuck 'em

(NRA Sharpshooter badge / Safe Hunter badge recipient)

[RainCaster]

4. Absolutely!

[gibraltar72]

6. Ever since they supported cop killer bullets.

[BlueMTexpat]

7. Yes. eom

[struggle4progress]

8. It may not be domestic: it might be a Russian-sponsored terrorist organization on US soil

[aikoaiko]

9. Because they don't usually advocate for violence that breaks the law -- no.

[Hoyt]

10. Of course. The hateful crud they had on their website when Obama was Prez,

was not even directly related to gunz.

When you have NRA board members, like Ted Nugent, with a rifle and a confederate flag vest, it’s hard to deny.

They spend a lot of money opposing democracy and promoting hate.

[Downtown Hound]

11. They have caused more Americans to die than we've lost in wars for the last 80 years

And that includes 9-11. And when anybody threatens to even impose the most basic of restrictions on their product, they threaten even more violence and death.

So not just yes, but HELL YES!

[greytdemocrat]

12. No

Threads like this make some
feel good but will not help
in the long run.