Yes.

Labeling a political advocacy group a "terrorist organization" is a ridiculous affront to democratic ideals, yes. It also goes against the US's constitutional bill of rights which enshrines as sacrosanct the right to peaceably assemble and express and advocate for political viewpoints without limitation.

I personally disagree very much with the politics of the NRA. But I staunchly defend their right to exist and advocate for their views. Because human history, and especially that of the 20th century shows that gagging political viewpoints when it is convenient is a road that leads towards autocracy.

"First they came for the NRA, but I didn't speak up because I am pro gun-control. Then they came for the alt-right, but I didn't speak up because I am not a Nazi. Then they came for the global warming deniers, but I didn't speak up because I was not a climate skeptic. Then they came for ___________, and there was no one to speak for me." (Fill in the blank with your own preferred political group.)

Using the gag on political speach of any kind is dangerous because the winds of change are unpredictable and power to silence political opposition is corrupting. Is unrestricted gun ownership that the NRA advocates for a bad idea? Yes. But people MUST be allowed to form political organizations to advocate for bad ideas, because the alternative is that someone is given the authority to decide which ideas are bad and therefore marginalized. And allowing that is a very, very bad idea.

Yes, labeling a group with 5 million members that supports a right expressly protected by our constitution is ridiculous.

Labeling political enemies terrorists is actually a lot more ridiculous than this even if you think the second amendment is outdated.

I hope you never wind up as the victim of a home invasion.