georgel
Behind Every Blade of Grass
Charter Member
Benefactor
Supporting Member
Multi-Factor Enabled
Rebuttal from The Washington Post!
No, San Francisco. The NRA is not a ‘domestic terrorist organization.’
Liberals often wonder where conservatives get the notion that they are hated and despised. Wonder no more: Just look at the San Francisco Board of Supervisors’ resolution labeling the National Rifle Association a “domestic terrorist organization.”
Words matter, and there are few words that stigmatize a person faster than calling him or her a terrorist. A terrorist by definition is someone who engages in terrorism, and terrorism is defined as “the systematic use of violence to create a general climate of fear in a population and thereby to bring about a particular political objective.” To be a terrorist organization, therefore, the NRA would have to intentionally encourage and support the use of violent attacks on U.S. citizens with the intent of creating general fear so as to force submission to its political agenda.
The NRA clearly does not do that. It does not advocate, fund or support violence, nor does it try to create “a climate of fear” to advance its policies. It does support an expansive view of gun rights, but that is not a terrorist act — unless political disagreement is now a criminal offense.
The San Francisco resolution essentially declares that people who back the NRA cannot be a loyal opposition. It then seeks to reduce NRA support by saying that the city should try to “limit those entities who do business” with the city “from doing business with this domestic terrorist organization.” That arguably sets the power of a government against a set of citizens solely on the basis of their politics. This is called “viewpoint discrimination” in First Amendment law and is unconstitutional.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opin...omestic-terrorist-organization/?noredirect=on
No, San Francisco. The NRA is not a ‘domestic terrorist organization.’
Liberals often wonder where conservatives get the notion that they are hated and despised. Wonder no more: Just look at the San Francisco Board of Supervisors’ resolution labeling the National Rifle Association a “domestic terrorist organization.”
Words matter, and there are few words that stigmatize a person faster than calling him or her a terrorist. A terrorist by definition is someone who engages in terrorism, and terrorism is defined as “the systematic use of violence to create a general climate of fear in a population and thereby to bring about a particular political objective.” To be a terrorist organization, therefore, the NRA would have to intentionally encourage and support the use of violent attacks on U.S. citizens with the intent of creating general fear so as to force submission to its political agenda.
The NRA clearly does not do that. It does not advocate, fund or support violence, nor does it try to create “a climate of fear” to advance its policies. It does support an expansive view of gun rights, but that is not a terrorist act — unless political disagreement is now a criminal offense.
The San Francisco resolution essentially declares that people who back the NRA cannot be a loyal opposition. It then seeks to reduce NRA support by saying that the city should try to “limit those entities who do business” with the city “from doing business with this domestic terrorist organization.” That arguably sets the power of a government against a set of citizens solely on the basis of their politics. This is called “viewpoint discrimination” in First Amendment law and is unconstitutional.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opin...omestic-terrorist-organization/?noredirect=on
Last edited:
