SF declares NRA a terrorist organization

[Galloism]

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.

I’m ok with designating all governments terroristic organizations.

[Telconi]

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.

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.

I’m ok with designating all governments terroristic organizations.

Anarcho-Policeofficerism is a confusing and frankly nonsensical political belief system founded by Galloism in 2019...

[Conservative New 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?

Except the ILA is pretty obviously referring to (as the name implies) legislation; it's in the same damn stupid fear mongering way as March For Our Lives ("give us an inch and we'll take a mile"), but legislative fear mongering it is.

The actual main branch NRA also never suggested anything of the sort and exists primarily as an equivalent to an enthusiast convention, which you'd know if you heard of SHOT show or watched an actual NRA event.

What you're talking about is the shit that led to Republican senators being fired on at a baseball game, but apparently that's not part of this discussion, nor is the fact that the "them" you are referring to is in fact the intended audience of the NRA's campaigning (minorities are the largest growing gun owning demographic, and are the primary reason more ARs are being sold now than ever before; it's because an entirely new market is buying).

[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

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

Calm down, kids, I'm just making a point about terrorism.

---

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.

It's everything to do with the definition of terrorism you posted. The invasion of Iraq was violence used in pursuit of political goals, I think we can all agree. So according to you, it was a terrorist campaign. The US government is a terrorist organisation. George Bush is as much a terrorist as Osama Bin Laden. According to you. Right?

That just seems silly to me. Personally, I think that terrorism needs to contain elements of achieving the goals by terrorising people.

[Ifreann]

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.

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.

The thread is about the NRA being declared a terrorist organisation and I'm talking about what constitutes terrorism.

Wild irrelevance, clearly I need to be banned.

[LiberNovusAmericae]

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

The government being terrorists or not has little to do with the NRA.

[Cedoria]

I'm speaking anecdotally, more so regarding stuff I've heard. Although if I recall, there was an attempt to designate ANTIFA as a terroristic organization.

Either way - I'd never personally call the NRA a terrorist group, largely because most of their members are law abiding, decent people, but I despise the organizational leadership as a whole. So, at the very least, this whole thing is humoring me mildly.

You are comparing a few trolls on the internet with the government of a major city.
This is extreme false equivalency.

Moreover you admit it is wrong, and surely you agree this is not good for civil discourse.
This is literally “political groups that support the other party are literal terrorists” and not again by just a few internet trolls.

Internet trolls running a city is not a good idea.

An internet troll is running the nation in case you hadn't noticed. You get what you vote for, and the rot spreads down.

[LiberNovusAmericae]

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.

The thread is about the NRA being declared a terrorist organisation and I'm talking about what constitutes terrorism.

Wild irrelevance, clearly I need to be banned.

The Philosophy Tube style rhetoric can fuck off, that's for sure. The NRA isn't doing bombing campaignes or anything, so I doubt it meets any reasonable person's definition of the word.

[Novus America]

You are comparing a few trolls on the internet with the government of a major city.
This is extreme false equivalency.

Moreover you admit it is wrong, and surely you agree this is not good for civil discourse.
This is literally “political groups that support the other party are literal terrorists” and not again by just a few internet trolls.

Internet trolls running a city is not a good idea.

An internet troll is running the nation in case you hadn't noticed. You get what you vote for, and the rot spreads down.

On the contrary, the rot spreads up. Yes this is a symptom of deeper problems in our society.

[Telconi]

You are comparing a few trolls on the internet with the government of a major city.
This is extreme false equivalency.

Moreover you admit it is wrong, and surely you agree this is not good for civil discourse.
This is literally “political groups that support the other party are literal terrorists” and not again by just a few internet trolls.

Internet trolls running a city is not a good idea.

An internet troll is running the nation in case you hadn't noticed. You get what you vote for, and the rot spreads down.

Well the problem is people ought not vote for what they've gotten.

[Greed and Death]

I mean, conservatives in the US go around labeling every small, broad left-wing group as terroristic, so if SF wants to label an organization that facilitates and is complicit in large-scale gun violence as a dangerous group, so be it.

It's more intellectually honest then saying some asinine, truly moronic shit like "SPLC are terrorists" or my personal favorite "ANTIFA = Fascists!"

Which government has done this ?

Yes talk radio hosts and protesters all the time. But the government.

Also Antifa is fair territory they do in fact engage in violence. And even progressive elected officials wanted to declare Antifa a gang. https://www.newsweek.com/berkeley-mayor ... day-656286

The NRA is a political organization one that advocates for a Constitutional right.

[Happsborough]

It may not be a "far left" to *foreigners* but by *US* standards their definitely is. EVERY country has a "far left" it doesn't mean that they all agree on the same things, or are a united ideology, they are just those leftists who are on the far end of the spectrum BY THAT COUNTRIES STANDARDS. That's what I mean when I speak of "the far left in the US." I don't know why this is so confusing.

Yes but in America 'far left' basically means "guys maybe people shouldn't go bankrupt from not having health insurance."

No, "far left" are communists. People seem to forget that left and right are economic measures (right is capitalism left is socialism/communism). There are plenty of communists in America.

[Mexican Liberation]

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.

There is an epidemic of conspiracy theories in this country. Everyone knows there is a mental health crisis, and some people have been radicalized by politics, left and right. They are not well, and can cause serious harm to others if left untreated. Some already have. Not once has the NRA told its people to maybe get themselves checked if they actually start thinking about doing this kind of stuff. If anything, it feeds into their delusions, "they" are everywhere, and can take away our freedoms at any given moment, so you better be ready. Not once has the NRA reassured its people that the enemy they are frightened of isn't as dangerous as they think. It hypes "them" as a legitimate threat to mankind that must be destroyed at some point in the future.

You're right that it would not be fair to prosecute the NRA as is, it could be argued it's just a bystander in this convoluted mess, but in its current form and its practices, its hands aren't totally clean either.

[Rojava Free State]

Isn't that kinda extreme?

[Happsborough]

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?

No it wouldn't You didn't help the attack. Just because you agree with someone doesn't make you complicit in any crimes anyone committed by people with beliefs even remotely similar to yours.

[LiberNovusAmericae]

Isn't that kinda extreme?

Yes, it is.

[Grenartia]

How is the NRA NOT a terrorist organization? They have repeatedly and consistently exploited violence for political gain.

[Novus America]

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.

There is an epidemic of conspiracy theories in this country. Everyone knows there is a mental health crisis, and some people have been radicalized by politics, left and right. They are not well, and can cause serious harm to others if left untreated. Some already have. Not once has the NRA told its people to maybe get themselves checked if they actually start thinking about doing this kind of stuff. If anything, it feeds into their delusions, "they" are everywhere, and can take away our freedoms at any given moment, so you better be ready. Not once has the NRA reassured its people that the enemy they are frightened of isn't as dangerous as they think. It hypes "them" as a legitimate threat to mankind that must be destroyed at some point in the future.

You're right that it would not be fair to prosecute the NRA as is, it could be argued it's just a bystander in this convoluted mess, but in its current form and its practices, its hands aren't totally clean either.

Actually the NRA has advocated improving our mental health system.
https://www.nraila.org/articles/2013012 ... d-firearms
So no.

Sure the NRA talks about guns being greatly restricted and many types being banned as a threat to gun owners. But that is not unreasonable as many people are calling for gun bans.

[Washington Resistance Army]

How is the NRA NOT a terrorist organization? They have repeatedly and consistently exploited violence for political gain.

Lying ain't cool yo

[Medwind]

How is the NRA NOT a terrorist organization? They have repeatedly and consistently exploited violence for political gain.

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/terrorism

Lol.

Or this one:

ter·ror·ism
/ˈterəˌrizəm/
noun

1.
the unlawful use of violence and intimidation, especially against civilians, in the pursuit of political aims:
"the fight against terrorism"


Do either of these definitions apply? The answer is no.

[Galloism]

How is the NRA NOT a terrorist organization? They have repeatedly and consistently exploited violence for political gain.

Exploiting violence you didn’t commit for political gain is terrorism now?

You heard it here first everyone. Gun grabbers are terrorists.

[Novus America]

How is the NRA NOT a terrorist organization? They have repeatedly and consistently exploited violence for political gain.

How so? They are a political advocacy organization, and not engaging in political violence.

[Otira]

Isn't that kinda extreme?

It would appear so.

[Aureumterra]

How is the NRA NOT a terrorist organization? They have repeatedly and consistently exploited violence for political gain.

I don’t think you understand what terrorism means

[LiberNovusAmericae]

How is the NRA NOT a terrorist organization? They have repeatedly and consistently exploited violence for political gain.

Well, have they themselves bombed buildings, carried out political assasinations, or something of the sort?