General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsThe NRA itself should be deemed a domestic terrorist group.
I'm a rifle owner living on a large acreage of Sierra Mountain foothills in California, I enjoy target and skeet shooting - this is what I think about the NRA::
The NRA, as an accomplice, supports and lobbies for making it easier for Anti-American extremist groups and potential domestic terrorists to obtain powerful weapons. The NRA itself should be deemed a domestic terrorist group.
Al Qaeda would need at least nine twin towers like attacks each year to equal what Americans do to themselves every year with guns.
USA PATRIOT Act
The USA PATRIOT Act defines domestic terrorism activities as "activities that (A) involve acts dangerous to human life that are a violation of the criminal laws of the U.S. or of any state, that (B) appear to be intended (i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population, (ii) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion, or (iii) to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping, and (C) occur primarily within the territorial jurisdiction of the U.S."
Again:: (ii) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion,
arcane1
(38,613 posts)vkkv
(3,384 posts)villager
(26,001 posts)etherealtruth
(22,165 posts)While the NRA is ostensibly an organization focused on gun rights, members of its leadership have attacked LGBT people for years, including blaming a mass shooting on gay marriage, calling societal acceptance of transgender people perverted, claiming gay people created the HIV/AIDS epidemic, and labeling gay people despicable, perverts, and degenerates.
Zippyzagnut
(77 posts)I'd love to see true NRA members who believe in gun safety and responsible gun ownership take back THEIR organization from the Hate mongers.
hack89
(39,171 posts)you missed an important step. What laws are they violating? Please be specific.
vkkv
(3,384 posts)refers to intimidation and coercion.
Are campaign donations not coercion? Is propagating paranoia and the need for home protection not a form of intimidation?
(B) appear to be intended (i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population, (ii) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion,
Got it??
The USA PATRIOT Act defines domestic terrorism activities as "activities that (A) involve acts dangerous to human life that are a violation of the criminal laws of the U.S. or of any state, that (B) appear to be intended (i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population, (ii) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion, or (iii) to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping, and (C) occur primarily within the territorial jurisdiction of the U.S."
"State" is also addressed in the 2nd Amendment yet pro-2A'ers assume it means 'just about anybody'.
The Second Amendment of the United States Constitution reads: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
You think pro-gunners in California are worried about keeping California a "free State"???
hack89
(39,171 posts)The logic goes: (A) acts that appear to ... (B) .... and occur in (C)
You have to have all three elements.
vkkv
(3,384 posts)would mean that mass destruction AND assassination MUST be included in the crime along with the others.. that does not make sense.. there are several 'or's..
domestic terrorism activities as "activities that (A) involve acts dangerous to human life that are a violation of the criminal laws of the U.S. or of any state, that (B) appear to be intended (i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population, (ii) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion, or (iii) to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping, and (C) occur primarily within the territorial jurisdiction of the U.S."
hack89
(39,171 posts)if that was the case, there would be an "and" between each one instead of a comma. It can be one, two or all three - but there has to be at least one for there to be a violation of the law.
vkkv
(3,384 posts)jmg257
(11,996 posts)Easy enough: "The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government"
How do the States remain free? "The United States shall protect each of them against Invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened), against domestic Violence."
And how does the United States intend to accomplish this? "calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions"
Which militias will be used? "the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States"
Who makes up the State militias? Then: "each and every free able-bodied white male citizen of the respective States, resident therein..."
Who makes up the militias? Now: "The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age..." & "female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard"
Barring the ageism & sexism involved, it seems like "just about anybody" to me.
Got it.
vkkv
(3,384 posts)were the only people with the law supporter gun ownership..
You wrote"" Who makes up the militias? Now: "The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age..." & "female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard" """
Again, who can go out and buy a gun right now? Yep. "just about anybody".
And who are they protecting> Their "State" ? Hell no! They're "protecting" the rest of their gun collection.
jmg257
(11,996 posts)"who can go out and buy a gun right now? Yep. "just about anybody". Now you get that there is a connection.
"who are they protecting> Their "State" ? Hell no!"
Agreed, as the likely-hood of the unorganized militia being called forth is pretty slim (that possibility does however exist in US Code, and certainly existed as to original intent).
haele
(12,647 posts)Totally in line with the 2nd Amendment, both as it was ratified, and as it had evolved through the various forms prior to ratification.
Of course, grandfather clause existing ownership because the resulting tantrums wouldn't be worth it, but after a certain period of time, if you aren't now or were never a member of a registered state militia, ROTC or cadet branch, National Guard, or military branch, can't purchase a firearm.
If you think you need personal protection that much, join a militia and get trained on proper use and handling, marksmanship, and personal responsibility for your firearm. And they'll also be required to run a background check.
Also takes care of a good number of gun show loopholes and straw purchases.
Just something to throw out there.
Haele
TeddyR
(2,493 posts)It requires all of A, B and C. The NRA hasn't committed any lobbying acts that would fall into part A, so no domestic terrorism.
The NRA has 5 million members and there are 320 million or so Americans. I don't support the NRA and really can't stand LaPierre or Ted Nugent, but they aren't a terrorist group and blaming them for every gun control setback is silly. The NRA successfully advances its agenda not because of the number of members, which are miniscule compared to the overall US population, but because NRA members are politically active, much more so than gun control advocates.
RobertEarl
(13,685 posts)And threaten those they don't.
They have guns and money and lawyers. They are very formidable in congress. Certainly more than environmentalists.
TeddyR
(2,493 posts)But end of the day they are simply a lobbying body.
sarisataka
(18,600 posts)The Patriot Act.
When did Bush ll become a leader we wish to follow?
vkkv
(3,384 posts)Since you want it repealed, you must have written your Congressman many, many times by now...
sarisataka
(18,600 posts)Just because something is legal I will not utilize it if I consider it wrong. At one point slavery was legal but I would not have owned slaves.
I view the Patriot Act as an unconstitutional travesty and do not support its use in any fashion whatsoever.
If you speak to any of my Representatives you would know they are well aware of my views on the Patriot Act. Their predecessors were also made aware.
99th_Monkey
(19,326 posts)sarisataka
(18,600 posts)I am in disagreement with some Democratic leaders
RobertEarl
(13,685 posts)It would go down quick if they were. But I think they love the PA.
sarisataka
(18,600 posts)But I have consistently opposed it since it was proposed by Bush ll
RobertEarl
(13,685 posts)They don't really care about rights, they just make love to the guns.
LanternWaste
(37,748 posts)"When did Bush ll become a leader we wish to follow?"
I imagine that bias can often lead a person to one and only one conclusion despite the availability of many more. Allowing bias to reach our conclusions for us is something to rise above rather than celebrate.
libtodeath
(2,888 posts)The patriot act should be rescinded and gun regulations,restrictions and even removals should be acted on by congress but disgusting legislation should not be used just because we might like the immediate cause.
vkkv
(3,384 posts)Patriot Act can be used to make a case against right wingers, perhaps they would be more likely to repeal it.
I see nothing wrong with this tactic.
libtodeath
(2,888 posts)Straw Man
(6,623 posts)I've made the same argument, but there's never a response.
I'm probably on the other side from you on most gun issues, but I salute your insight and integrity.
vkkv
(3,384 posts)libtodeath
(2,888 posts)vkkv
(3,384 posts)The NRA, as an accomplice, supports and lobbies for making it easier for Anti-American extremist groups and potential domestic terrorists to obtain powerful weapons. The NRA itself should be deemed a domestic terrorist group.
Al Qaeda would need at least nine twin towers like attacks each year to equal what Americans do to themselves every year with guns.
USA PATRIOT Act
The USA PATRIOT Act defines domestic terrorism activities as "activities that (A) involve acts dangerous to human life that are a violation of the criminal laws of the U.S. or of any state, that (B) appear to be intended (i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population, (ii) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion, or (iii) to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping, and (C) occur primarily within the territorial jurisdiction of the U.S."
Again:: (ii) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion,
libtodeath
(2,888 posts)of the Patriot act to conform to their standards just as easy.
They consider a fetus a human life,they think PP influences policy by intimidation and coercion and obviously C applies.
cali
(114,904 posts)vkkv
(3,384 posts)ileus
(15,396 posts)That'd get their goat at the next gun show.
mwrguy
(3,245 posts)It'd be easy
DonP
(6,185 posts)They might lease the list for single use.
But a lot of organizations won't even do that anymore. Part of their privacy policy is not making the names available for mailings.
If you want to do a mailing to any organization's membership, first you have to submit the mailing piece for their approval. Then, if it's approved, send the printed material to a bonded mailing house who can use the electronic list for one mailing only.
You just spec the details you want of who to mail to; e.g. name count, states, zip codes, cities, HHI (Household Income) levels, etc.
You never see the list and there's no copy of it available, it goes from the organization (in this case the NRA) to the mailing house for a single use.
NutmegYankee
(16,199 posts)The NRA doesn't partake in "activities that (A) involve acts dangerous to human life that are a violation of the criminal laws of the U.S. or of any state". It lobbies just like 100 other groups such as the AARP, ACLU, ALEC, ACLJ, AIPAC, HRC, etc.
NuclearDem
(16,184 posts)No, the NRA isn't going to be listed as a domestic terrorist group anymore than Congressional Republicans are going to be arrested for sedition and treason.
aikoaiko
(34,169 posts)And I don't think campaign donations and endorsements suffice as intimidation and coercion.