NY Daily News: Gov't must declare NRA a terrorist organization [Archive]

Korgs130

10-05-15, 09:32

Here's an editorial straight out calling the NRA a terrorist organization. Worse that AQ and ISIS in the opinion of the author. It goes so far as to call on POTUS to declare the NRA a "terrorist organization." You can't make this stuff up...

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/terrorists-nra-article-1.2384289

Firefly

10-05-15, 10:14

Okay!

Right after Gov declares NAACP,ACLU, GLAAD, NORML, and your religion or lack thereof a terrorist organization.

This petty name calling in the face of actual terrorist organizations actively stoning, beheading, bombing, and gunning people down sounds not only grossly misinformed but horribly childish.

ETA Stasi....how appropriate

TF82

10-05-15, 11:42

Well, that should help the Daily News in its unending battle with the NY Post for dumbest newspaper in NY.

FromMyColdDeadHand

10-05-15, 12:22

The authors last name is 'STASI'.

I'm not kidding, you can't make that up.

I wonder why she blames the people for the death by terrorists, but for the NRA she blames the guns...

The very fact that she is alive still shows she is wrong. Draw a Mohammed cartoon in her rag and see what kind of life you have till your beheading.

Crow Hunter

10-05-15, 12:50

Wow.

That was kind of like reading a stream of thought essay of a 6th grader with ADHD. Luckily my internet explorer crashed before I could fall down the rabbit hole...

SteyrAUG

10-05-15, 12:59

titsonritz

10-05-15, 13:14

Some many people and things have been labeled as "terrorists" or "terrorism" the meaning has been reduced to practically nothing.

Firefly

10-05-15, 13:24

Some many people and things have been labeled as "terrorists" or "terrorism" the meaning has been reduced to practically nothing.

Much like "Nazi" or "racist". At this point the words have no real meaning in intelligent discourse.

rjacobs

10-05-15, 13:30

Just to point out the amazing degree of stupidity.

IF the NRA actually WAS a terrorist organization, say with the ferocity of your "non provisional" IRA group, Stasi and everyone like her would already be dead. There would be no Ferguson riots, no attacks on law enforcement, no BPs or other street gangs and there wouldn't be a lot of other shit.

If even half of the 4 million NRA members functioned anything like a terrorist organization there would be little NRA "fiefdoms" all across the country.

I keep trying to explain this to gun grabbers(or really "wanna be" gun grabbers because none will ever actually be the ones to go door to door). I have told so many people that its not a war you want to start because "we will win" and they look at me with a deer in the headlights look and say "why do you think that" and I say "because WE have all the guns because they(the guns) are obviously to scary for you gun grabbers to own, touch, look at, USE, etc...". They dont get it.

Like the guy I work with who explained to me in detail his end of the world prep stash of food and other things and I asked about his guns and he said "nah, dont own any, to dangerous, etc..." and I asked him "what is your address" and he was very confused why I was asking for his address.

BoringGuy45

10-05-15, 13:38

I keep trying to explain this to gun grabbers(or really "wanna be" gun grabbers because none will ever actually be the ones to go door to door). I have told so many people that its not a war you want to start because "we will win" and they look at me with a deer in the headlights look and say "why do you think that" and I say "because WE have all the guns because they(the guns) are obviously to scary for you gun grabbers to own, touch, look at, USE, etc...". They dont get it.

I've had this happen before and usually they just stiffen their upper lip and declare that "Well, if we repeal the 2nd Amendment, we would have Delta Force, the Navy SEALs, tanks, helicopters, and bombers on our side. You'd just have your assault weapons. There would be no point in resisting."

Translation=I want to take your guns away, but because I'm too cowardly to do it myself, I'll send other people to do it for me.

ABNAK

10-05-15, 13:40

I keep trying to explain this to gun grabbers(or really "wanna be" gun grabbers because none will ever actually be the ones to go door to door). I have told so many people that its not a war you want to start because "we will win" and they look at me with a deer in the headlights look and say "why do you think that" and I say "because WE have all the guns because they(the guns) are obviously to scary for you gun grabbers to own, touch, look at, USE, etc...". They dont get it.

To expound on that train of thought, whenever I hear the Left bring up "banning" some or all guns I shake my head. You will have the largest non-compliance in this nation's history, right up their with Prohibition (yeah, how'd that work out?). The flip side is that you would have just then made criminals out of millions of previously law-abiding, productive citizens with the wave of a pen. The amount of resentment and outright defiance would be epic. I started to see a side of the gun crowd after Sandy Hook......it was a digging-in of the heels, a "Not only no but F**K NO!" when bans and/or registration were bandied about. It warmed my heart. They have no idea what they'd be setting in motion.

ABNAK

10-05-15, 13:42

I've had this happen before and usually they just stiffen their upper lip and declare that "Well, if we repeal the 2nd Amendment, we would have Delta Force, the Navy SEALs, tanks, helicopters, and bombers on our side. You'd just have your assault weapons. There would be no point in resisting."

Translation=I want to take your guns away, but because I'm too cowardly to do it myself, I'll send other people to do it for me.

And make the assumption that all those guys would truly be on their side. This country hasn't experienced a rift like that in 150 years. Hope it never happens again but I know which side I'd be on.

Moose-Knuckle

10-05-15, 13:55

Anyone really surprised by this? The media has been the propaganda arm of the Democrat Socialist Party for some time.

Harvey Weinstein and Hollywood, aka entertainment arm of this propaganda machine have already announced a movie in the works that will "destroy" the NRA. Would love to see the look on his bukkake stained face if someone drafted legislation to censor violence in films to prevent you guessed it violent crimes. Pole smoking hypocrite.

gunrunner505

10-05-15, 13:55

Are the BLM movement or the DNC going to be declared terrorist organizations?

Leaveammoforme

10-05-15, 14:18

Just another play, that I am growing tired of.

Bozo pleading to NRA members that the "NRA doesn't hold your values". News story (forget site) claiming that more people have died from "White Racist" than by muslim terrorism. Then this ridiculous assertion that the NRA is a DT group.

If a dictator idealism group is scared of the the population being armed, it's for a reason. It's not for your safety of which they could care less.

It's time for them (Dictator Idealism Group) to put their 'Big Bossman Pants' on and sign whatever they think they need to sign into law. Let's get it on.

When the dust settles we can rebuild.

chuckman

10-05-15, 14:28

It's time for them (Dictator Idealism Group) to put their 'Big Bossman Pants' on and sign whatever they think they need to sign into law. Let's get it on.

Kinda where I'm at. Time to nut up or shut up.

As an aside I work with several Canadians. One is pretty conservative, one is fairly libertarian, the rest nutty liberal loons. When we discuss guns/gun control, I ask them what would work? The non-conservative/libertarian crowd pipe up with first a voluntary surrender of guns (my words), followed by a mandatory surrender, followed by a literal house-to-house confiscation based on federal paperwork of ownership. They had no idea how many guns are in the country, how many lawful gunowners are in the country, how individuals can sell and trade without federal paperwork...basically told them, these ideas cannot work. Cannot. They just can't conceive of how it would NOT work.

Co-gnARR

10-05-15, 14:33

skydivr

10-05-15, 14:37

I've had this happen before and usually they just stiffen their upper lip and declare that "Well, if we repeal the 2nd Amendment, we would have Delta Force, the Navy SEALs, tanks, helicopters, and bombers on our side. You'd just have your assault weapons. There would be no point in resisting."

Translation=I want to take your guns away, but because I'm too cowardly to do it myself, I'll send other people to do it for me.

That's when you say "oh, but they'd be on OUR side".....

titsonritz

10-05-15, 15:24

I've had this happen before and usually they just stiffen their upper lip and declare that "Well, if we repeal the 2nd Amendment, we would have Delta Force, the Navy SEALs, tanks, helicopters, and bombers on our side. You'd just have your assault weapons. There would be no point in resisting."

Translation=I want to take your guns away, but because I'm too cowardly to do it myself, I'll send other people to do it for me.

So the real hard asses that use guns for a living are going to be on the side taking the guns away? :sarcastic: That's so comical

Leaveammoforme

10-05-15, 18:08

So the real hard asses that use guns for a living are going to be on the side taking the guns away? :sarcastic: That's so comical

You can count on at least 30% to stay loyal to a regime. It worked in Australia, North Korea, UK and Old school Germany to name a couple.

sevenhelmet

10-05-15, 18:37

You can count on at least 30% to stay loyal to a regime. It worked in Australia, North Korea, UK and Old school Germany to name a couple.

I can promise you 30% of the U.S. military would not support that today. Whether it could happen someday in the future, I wouldn't know, but that's a military I would no longer work for.

As for the logistics of direct confiscation efforts, that's been pretty thoroughly debunked as insanely expensive and largely impossible to do to any degree of success due to manpower, among other things. The more likely event is a "voluntary" confiscation act which would tie a national background check system to your income taxes, using an existing agency (the IRS) to apply leverage to resistant gun owners. Combine that with targeted direct confiscation from a few big collectors and high profile citizens who are known to have guns, combined with media coverage, and you have a pretty effective strategy that minimizes cost to the government. No military required- BATFE/FBI could carry out the targeted efforts, and the rest is up to the accountants and lawyers.

But the backlash would be insane. I still don't see it as a possibility within the next 5 years. Within the next 20... maybe. Make hay while the sun shines, gentlemen...

The irony of this is- as usual- they are seeking to punish many of the most productive citizens.

Leaveammoforme

10-05-15, 18:49

Who confiscated guns in New Orleans? Micky Mouse? No, it was LEO's and the National Guard. Not all followed orders but enough did.

3 AE

10-05-15, 19:09

Now more than ever we need to recruit as many as possible to join the NRA. It's the number one target of every Anti-2nd Amendment politician, news media, blogger, Berkeley mom,etc. It's a shame there are only about 4 million members when the number should be at least twice that. With 10 million members, no one and I mean no one would consider anti gun legislature, lest they desire a very short career in politics. Yes the mass media would stir the flames of calling for more restrictions, but the powers that be would know better.

If you're not a member already, take a good look in the mirror and think, "If not now, when?" You can come up with all the excuses you want for not joining, but in the end you're just one of "THEM" and NOT one of "US". Pressure your family, parents, grandparents, friends, and have them pressure their friends and family to join, even if they don't actively shoot or own a weapon. Convince them that by joining the NRA, they are doing their part in protecting their "Bill of Rights". It's that time now. Next year could be too late, especially if a Democrat gets the nod for POTUS.

sevenhelmet

10-05-15, 20:42

Off topic slightly, but what do you fellers think of organizations like GOA (Gun Owners of America)?

Firefly

10-05-15, 20:47

Actually after NOLA a lot of cops and military guys were outraged at confiscation.

The people on the scene were "just following orders" but since then, dudes maintain that was total crap

BoringGuy45

10-05-15, 23:14

That's when you say "oh, but they'd be on OUR side".....

We know that.

But in a liberal's mind, the special ops guys are nothing more than a brute squad that they, the intellectually superior, can easily manipulate and order around.

Off topic slightly, but what do you fellers think of organizations like GOA (Gun Owners of America)?

I frankly don't like them, generally speaking. They are the types of counterproductive activists that I mentioned in the past. I believe they stall our progress because they demand everything we want in one lump sum, and they declare any group, including the NRA, sellouts and traitors for being willing to fight the "long war". If your stance on gun rights is anything other than "Shall not be infringed and if you say another word about it, I'll knock your ****ing teeth out," to them, you are Obama's lapdog, and they NEVER forgive.

I do like, however, that they are more aggressive in what battles they pick; the NRA, until recently at least, seemed to only go for easy battles that were already won.

SomeOtherGuy

10-06-15, 10:12

Off topic slightly, but what do you fellers think of organizations like GOA (Gun Owners of America)?

Mixed feelings. I don't feel that the NRA holds a hard enough line - I feel that they have willingly sold us out a few times (the worst in 1986) and that their fundraising model depends on keeping their members constantly in fear to get those additional donations that they are CONSTANTLY begging for. I'm really tired of that.

However, I did just switch to being an NRA life member, figuring that I was likely to keep supporting them indefinitely even if they aren't my favorite, and also because of the various competitions I shoot (or want to shoot) where being a member is a plus.

GOA seems to have a far harder line, which is good to a point, but it also makes me wonder if they are largely dismissed by the politicians who they would try to influence. I don't know enough about how DC works internally, but I suspect the NRA is more knowledgeable of how to work DC, but not always working it to our maximum benefit.

OH58D

10-06-15, 11:18

Even though the NY Daily News is somewhat of a fringe rag, none of these leftist, anti-gun "solutions" are created in a vacuum. This is just one of many proposed attacks that could gain traction once our government is devoid of traditional, Conservative thought. Maybe one day my NRA Life Membership will put a huge target on my back?

Vandal

10-06-15, 11:43

Off topic slightly, but what do you fellers think of organizations like GOA (Gun Owners of America)?

I am an NRA member and support both the GOA and Second Amendment Foundation. I like the harder line in the sand the GOA draws compared to the NRA. From perspective the NRA is still too willing to play nice and has in the past helped sell out gun owners. They are the largest target which pulls some of the heat off of the GOA and SAF leaving them to work.

The SAF is a dang good legal arm for the gun rights fight run from deep in the heart of the Liberal Seattle area. They have proven themselves on the West Coast and in the Supreme Court. They make the legal arm of the NRA look passive. I'm okay with sending money to those 3 and help with a multi-pronged approach to the fight.

sevenhelmet

10-06-15, 11:56

I agree with the group assessment of GOA and NRA. My biggest issue with both is the constant fear-mongering to get donations. I would much rather a simple presentation of the facts, i.e. here are the issues we are working on, here is how we are doing it. I understand there are people in power who want me to sacrifice my freedom and be beholden to them. I don't need to be constantly reminded by a bunch of emotional language designed to stir up resentment- my blood pressure thanks you.

As I see it, the emotion-driven rhetoric is part of a much bigger cultural issue in that if two people don't agree, emotions simply must come into play. This leads to close-mindedness on both sides of any given issue. All that said, I vote with my wallet and send my hard-earned donation dollars where I think they will do the most good.