This seems rather silly. But I haven't looked into it. Am I missing something? What's the perspective where this makes sense?
There was a visible mass shooting in Gilroy very recently, and a lot of people are upset.
The gunman used a semiautomatic rifle which is illegal in California, but was legally purchased in Nevada.
The NRA has continually fought to ensure people have access to the tools to commit these atrocities.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gilroy_Garlic_Festival_shootin...
I challenge you to show any way in which hundreds of millions of random citizens with handguns and zero training to fight together qualifies as well-regulated, or meaningfully as a militia to defend our country against an invasion.
And I believe it is not meant to defend against invasion so much than to defend against tyranny (whether internal or external).
And it is still true today that no army, even the US army, can control a hostile population that has a wide access to weapons. It is why the colonial wars were futile, and why no major power has ever successfully won a guerrilla war.
I mean you have the right to smoke, but any organization promoting it has been squashed by legislation, banning advertisements and glorifying it. Why? Because smoking causes cancer and will kill you and your kids.
Why should that not apply to guns, which are built to kill? It's a weird double standard. Sure you have the right to have a gun, but it doesn't mean it has to be advocated by an organization.
It does make me wonder though, how come the NRA is successful where the multi-billion dollar tobacco industry failed?
No, but it sure makes branding a lawful organisation as terrorist a somewhat heinous. (Also, counterproductive. The NRA just got a sweet fundraising spot.)
If San Francisco can Brando the NRA as terrorist, Montgomery can do the same to the EFF. Preventing that is the point of Constitutional rights and due process.
I kid, I kid
5.5 million members of the NRA would seem to disagree with you, as is their right.
FWIW, I know of at least one pro smoking body with some prominent supporters in the UK (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FOREST)
Guns are a 'tool' I suppose, and therefore will always require a user. Not every gun owner is going to use it to kill people. It's harder then to make the argument that guns are inherently bad, it's the people using them incorrectly that is the problem. I certainly think that there are other factors in American society which contribute and to these horrible events, such as mental health and education. I think this because there are other countries, such as Canada, where many people have weapons but these tragedies occur a lot less often.
As a Brit, I think some of the gun stuff in the States is bananas, but I do recognise that there is a significant cultural difference that means I probably wont get why people are so keen to protect gun ownership to the extent that they do. I don't mean to suggest that either way is right or wrong, but I do feel that the use-case for an AR-15 is limited. Surely that's a bit over the top for hunting? And defending your home may be easier with a handgun. I am no expert though, and would be interested to hear some other views.
[0] https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-41488081
Edit: I should also say that I recognise that mass shootings make up a tiny percentage of gun-deaths and that they receive a disproportionate amount of media attention.
It would be great to have scientific evidence on mass gun ownership's effects on health and society, and linkages between gun violence, mental health, and a variety of other factors.
Unfortunately, Congress forbids the federal health research bodies (NIH, CDC, etc.) from funding or studying research into those effects. Congress made that decision because of lobbying pressure by...let me check my notes here...huh, interesting, the NRA.
That's not actually true. The limitations set in the Dickey amendment were only regarding the use of funding to the CDC's National Center for Injury Prevention and Control for the purpose of advocating gun control.
The CDC's entire purpose is to come up with mitigation plans for public health issues. If a study finds that increased rates of gun ownership alone causes an increase in gun violence, what conclusions would the CDC be allowed to come to, and what possible mitigation could they recommend that couldn't be viewed as advocating for gun control?
Their position is to avoid all such research entirely. The letter of the law seems to speak only to funding, but its effect is to shut down all research into the issue. Which, of course, was the intended effect from the beginning.
[0] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5993413/#__sec2...
If a study finds that increased rates of gun ownership when isolated from the list of variables that they have controlled for, is linked by correlation to an increase in gun violence then why do you believe publishing that correlation is supportive of gun control?
I strongly doubt such a conclusion would pass by unchallenged. If I had to guess, it would probably lead to letting go at least the head investigators of that study, and at most, replacing the head of the CDC.
A study with a conclusion like that was what lead to the Dickey amendment in the first place.
It's not a problematic conclusion because a correlation isn't causation. There is a lot more to study and frankly just going direct from that kind of correlation to gun control is intellectually lazy.
Any time there's a group of people who fear that one of their rights will be taken away or diminished, don't they "need" an organization, or something, to voice their concerns?
Is it that you just don't care about what they have to say, so you don't mind if they're not allowed to say it? Seems like a scary position to hold, given the subjective nature of what people care about or not.
> How awful of the Confederacy to fight for a right to slaves.
Societies change and evolve. The desperate clinging to ancient, outdated concepts won't hinder that progress.
Replying to comment below: please see the HN guidelines: https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
> Please don't comment on whether someone read an article.
I read the article too. The article doesn't answer the question.
- What evidence is there that the NRA exists to arm terrorists?
- Which terrorist groups are the NRA arming?
- If the NRA does exist to arm terrorist groups how does that make the NRA themselves terrorists?
"Since its creation in 2016, it has adopted an increasingly apocalyptic, hard-right tone, warning of race wars, describing Barack Obama as a “fresh-faced flower-child president,” calling for a march on the Federal Bureau of Investigation and comparing journalists to rodents."
"Chuck Holton, an NRATV correspondent, attributed terrorist activity in Europe to “the broader problem of multiculturalism and socialism” and to “gender-bending.” He also claimed that left-wing groups, the billionaire George Soros and the Venezuelan government were trying “to influence the 2018 midterms by sending Honduran migrants north in the thousands.”
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.nytimes.com/2019/03/11/us/n...
This is the comment I replied to. Clearly they espouse different ideologies to simply gun safety.
You're the one putting words into my mouth.
Of course if anyone tries to bring up the topic of radicalisation I'm sure you'd deflect in a similar way.
Arming people that could potentially hurt others is not the same thing as targeting attacks on civilians for political change.
If you have any ideas you're welcome to contribute them.
There has been no evidence in the article that the NRA exists to arm terrorists.
I think people are hurt and appalled at gun violence and looking for solutions.
Unfortunately expanding the definition of terrorism to include the NRA means they will unwittingly catch other groups they may support. Eg, the EFF promotes privacy, terrorists use privacy, therefore the same misguided logic could be used there.
This won't help gun violence and will hurt other freedoms.
Limiting relationships with the NRA is a good move. The private company Delta ended special discounts for NRA members and the state (!) of Georgia responded by hitting Delta with a tax. If SF can help disentangle the NRA from the states, that can only be a good thing.
That role has long since been dwarfed by their political advocacy for unfettered access to guns without regard for safety. Look at their budget. Safety programs are in the noise. Many gun owners have left the NRA over this exact issue. Presenting the NRA as a gun-safety organization is deeply disingenuous.
The more common sentiment in the comments of the gun community is that the NRA is not doing enough to protect gun rights. Can you honestly say that the other organizations that gun owners are flocking to like the Gun Owners of America and Firearms Policy Coalition are less supportive of gun rights?
Deeply disingenuous indeed.
Full disclosure: I'm a life member. I'm no longer happy with that decision but it's true .
Only semiautomatic rifles with particular combinations of ergonomic features (pistol grip, folding stock, etc.) are illegal. The shooter's WASR fell under this category. The shooter's high-capacity magazines were also illegal in California.
No offense but this is cowardly, and frankly, bad reasoning. First, guns kill fewer people than speeding, alcohol or junk food. So no we have't crossed some threshold.
Second, you are just rationalizing the criminalization of anyone who disagrees with you on public policy.
A facist would say "I don't think I've ever seen the democrats advocating for islamic terrorism. However, it would seem as if we've crossed a threshold were the mere existence of muslim immigrants is seen as a thread, therefore anyone that advocates for muslim immigration is a a threat. Therefore, I'm banning the democratic party from the next elections on the basis of being a terrorst group."
I’m merely trying to describe the position held by those that passed the resolution.