SF declares NRA a terrorist organization

[Aureumterra]

The definition of terrorist is not "having the audacity to oppose gun restrictions."

Half the people saying something is terrorist have a very poor understanding of the word and its definition

[Ifreann]

It's as if they're trolling the right.

By declaring the NRA a terrorist group? And not Proud Boys?

Yes.

---

Pretty funny.

Would you think it funny if say Knoxville deflated Planned Parenthood and the ACLU for disagreeing with them politically?

We can only wonder.

[Otira]

Harmful publicity stunt that gains nothing.

[Novus America]

By declaring the NRA a terrorist group? And not Proud Boys?

Yes.

---

Would you think it funny if say Knoxville deflated Planned Parenthood and the ACLU for disagreeing with them politically?

We can only wonder.

Yes, we can only wonder because they are not doing something like that.
Only San Francisco is this loopy.

[Telconi]

Honestly I'm all for it, people need to wear their shitty beliefs on their sleeves more often.

What do you mean specifically?

Btw off topic but I found this interesting since it talks about how Australia coerced and bullied it's citizens into disarming, although it's a year old:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_EunhUFXXBA

I mean of you're going to have shitty beliefs you might as well officially declare them. It helps separate the camps more effectively.

[Salus Maior]

Pretty cringey.

But that's SF for you.

[Nanatsu no Tsuki]

Interesting move. I don’t agree with it, as I don’t think the NRA fits the bill for a terrorist organization but interesting move, San Francisco. Smells like... Trolling?

[LiberNovusAmericae]

Interesting move. I don’t agree with it, as I don’t think the NRA fits the bill for a terrorist organization but interesting move, San Francisco. Smells like... Trolling?

Hopefully it is nothing more than trolling.

[Novus America]

Well when the political opposition is literally declaring you terrorists via governmental action, maybe it is not so unreasonable a fear...

Of the several right-wing killings orchestrated by people with a not too different ideology this past year or so...protecting my homeland from invaders, premeditated self-defense, no more SJW oppression...how many of these organizations, NRA included, issued a statement regarding they are not aligned with these individuals and their motives? It's not too far-fetched to assume they knew they held at least some influence in these perpetrator's ways of thinking, of course acknowledging it would be suicide, but as cliche as it sounds, silence and inaction is consent.

It’s a good thing that’s not what they do then

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VH9EHEuBibY

The NRA is not opposed to immigration. This is just baseless conspiracy theory as well.
Yes there are violent nuts on the right, but no the NRA has not supported them, and actually strongly denounces illegally shootings. Which hurt its cause anyways.

[Ifreann]

Yes.

---

We can only wonder.

Yes, we can only wonder because they are not doing something like that.
Only San Francisco is this loopy.

So what are we going to argue about now that you've given up on speculating about the opinions of an alternate reality version of me?

[LiberNovusAmericae]

The definition of terrorist is not "having the audacity to oppose gun restrictions."

Half the people saying something is terrorist have a very poor understanding of the word and its definition

Agreed. Terrorism is violence (usually extreme like a bombing) in the pursuit of political goals.

[Ifreann]

Half the people saying something is terrorist have a very poor understanding of the word and its definition

Agreed. Terrorism is violence (usually extreme like a bombing) in the pursuit of political goals.

Like when you organise and arm a load of people and send them to attack the government.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2003_invasion_of_Iraq

[Mexican Liberation]

Of the several right-wing killings orchestrated by people with a not too different ideology this past year or so...protecting my homeland from invaders, premeditated self-defense, no more SJW oppression...how many of these organizations, NRA included, issued a statement regarding they are not aligned with these individuals and their motives? It's not too far-fetched to assume they knew they held at least some influence in these perpetrator's ways of thinking, of course acknowledging it would be suicide, but as cliche as it sounds, silence and inaction is consent.



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VH9EHEuBibY

The NRA is not opposed to immigration. This is just baseless conspiracy theory as well.
Yes there are violent nuts on the right, but no the NRA has not supported them, and actually strongly denounces illegally shootings. Which hurt its cause anyways.

You're in a room with a guy and both of you are raging about how we need to do something about "them". You're just venting, but he shows you pictures of his arsenal at home and says he's going to do it right now. And he does because you continued to egg him on instead of calming him down. And you tell the police you were against it from the start, but still did nothing to convince him you're not really serious, or try to get him the psychiatric help he needed. Wouldn't it be fair for the police to consider you an accessory?

[Novus America]

Agreed. Terrorism is violence (usually extreme like a bombing) in the pursuit of political goals.

Like when you organise and arm a load of people and send them to attack the government.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2003_invasion_of_Iraq

The NRA invade Iraq?
Seriously is this pathetic whataboutism they best you got?

[Grand Proudhonia]

The definition of terrorist is not "having the audacity to oppose gun restrictions."

Half the people saying something is terrorist have a very poor understanding of the word and its definition

Literally any armed political movement in history is terroristic based on the definition tbh...

[Gagium]

Agreed. Terrorism is violence (usually extreme like a bombing) in the pursuit of political goals.

Like when you organise and arm a load of people and send them to attack the government.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2003_invasion_of_Iraq

Nice one! I’m sure everyone on this thread is clapping right now at your brilliant comeback. Great job! You’re a genius!

[LiberNovusAmericae]

Agreed. Terrorism is violence (usually extreme like a bombing) in the pursuit of political goals.

Like when you organise and arm a load of people and send them to attack the government.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2003_invasion_of_Iraq

State terrorism is a thing, and you can argue that stupid wars by our government qualify.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_terrorism

Nothing to do with the NRA though.

[Grand Proudhonia]

Like when you organise and arm a load of people and send them to attack the government.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2003_invasion_of_Iraq

The NRA invade Iraq?
Seriously is this pathetic whataboutism they best you got?

No, he is arguing that The United States invaded Iraq and is a terrorist organization for doing so which does fall in line with the definition

[Ifreann]

Like when you organise and arm a load of people and send them to attack the government.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2003_invasion_of_Iraq

The NRA invade Iraq?

No, it was the US government. Though I understand that it can be hard at times to tell where one ends and the other begins.

Seriously is this pathetic whataboutism they best you got?

It's not "whataboutism", I'm criticising the definition of terrorism LNA posted. The US government used violence in pursuit of political goals, specifically destroying the WMDs in the possession of the Iraqi government under Saddam Hussein and the overthrow of that government.

Was that terrorism? It meets the given definition.

[Novus America]

The NRA is not opposed to immigration. This is just baseless conspiracy theory as well.
Yes there are violent nuts on the right, but no the NRA has not supported them, and actually strongly denounces illegally shootings. Which hurt its cause anyways.

You're in a room with a guy and both of you are raging about how we need to do something about "them". You're just venting, but he shows you pictures of his arsenal at home and says he's going to do it right now. And he does because you continued to egg him on instead of calming him down. And you tell the police you were against it from the start, but still did nothing to convince him you're not really serious, or try to get him the psychiatric help he needed. Wouldn't it be fair for the police to consider you an accessory?

The NRA has not done that. Did its leaders sit down with these guys? No.
And no it would not be okay for the police to arrest you as an accessory.

Agreeing with a criminal is not a crime, (which the NRA did not do anyways) being and accessory requires you to willfully and knowingly provides material support.

[Galloism]

Yes, it died in the senate. Yes that was stupid too.

So long as SF doesn't try to do anything asinine, like, say, ban the NRA from operating within city limits, then I'm going to shelve this as an example of SF just being SF.

Well, the city is saying it will use the fact that a business has any dealings with the NRA “as a negative criteria” as to whether they can get city contracts or not.

[Telconi]

The NRA invade Iraq?

No, it was the US government. Though I understand that it can be hard at times to tell where one ends and the other begins.

Seriously is this pathetic whataboutism they best you got?

It's not "whataboutism", I'm criticising the definition of terrorism LNA posted. The US government used violence in pursuit of political goals, specifically destroying the WMDs in the possession of the Iraqi government under Saddam Hussein and the overthrow of that government.

Was that terrorism? It meets the given definition.

If only this were true.

[LiberNovusAmericae]

The NRA invade Iraq?
Seriously is this pathetic whataboutism they best you got?

No, he is arguing that The United States invaded Iraq and is a terrorist organization for doing so which does fall in line with the definition

If he thought that refutes my definition, he is wrong.

[Novus America]

The NRA invade Iraq?

No, it was the US government. Though I understand that it can be hard at times to tell where one ends and the other begins.

Seriously is this pathetic whataboutism they best you got?

It's not "whataboutism", I'm criticising the definition of terrorism LNA posted. The US government used violence in pursuit of political goals, specifically destroying the WMDs in the possession of the Iraqi government under Saddam Hussein and the overthrow of that government.

Was that terrorism? It meets the given definition.

It has nothing to do with the NRA.

[LiberNovusAmericae]

The NRA invade Iraq?

No, it was the US government. Though I understand that it can be hard at times to tell where one ends and the other begins.

Seriously is this pathetic whataboutism they best you got?

It's not "whataboutism", I'm criticising the definition of terrorism LNA posted. The US government used violence in pursuit of political goals, specifically destroying the WMDs in the possession of the Iraqi government under Saddam Hussein and the overthrow of that government.

Was that terrorism? It meets the given definition.

It can be, especially when civilians are targeted. There is no rule that says that states cannot commit terrorism by definition.

Let's get back on topic. I ain't serving a threadjacking ban for you.