General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region Forums"The NRA is Going to Make Him an Offer He Can’t Refuse"
"The NRA reassures their sponsors, the gun manufacturers, that they are going to make him (any given politician) an offer he cant refuse..."
Read the rest on the NRA gun mafia here: http://stupidpartymathvmyth.com/1/post/2015/10/nra-going-make-him-offer-he-cant-refuse.html
Scuba
(53,475 posts)NutmegYankee
(16,199 posts)If there is any group in the US that can be described as a terrorist group, it's the anti-abortion movement. That's a movement KNOWN for acts of terrorism (bombings, assassinations, etc).
Scuba
(53,475 posts)NutmegYankee
(16,199 posts)They may be disgusting fucks, but they are still just a political advocacy group using the democratic process. Terrorist groups on the other hand use violence to get what they want.
Operation Rescue and Army of God are terrorist groups.
NutmegYankee
(16,199 posts)The Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) defines terrorism as the unlawful use of force or violence against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives.
madokie
(51,076 posts)by buying off our elected officials. I can't see it any other way, sorry
NutmegYankee
(16,199 posts)For the Record - I hate the NRA. I just don't agree with mislabeling politics as terrorism.
madokie
(51,076 posts)tell me what they're doing isn't abusing the democratic process, in other words terrorizing we the people who don't buy into their spiel.
Whats gwot anyway and whats the deal with the eyes?
NutmegYankee
(16,199 posts)I provided you the definition of terrorism and it was completely contrary to your viewpoint. https://www.fbi.gov/about-us/investigate/terrorism/terrorism-definition
You just ignored it and doubled down. Hence the eyes.
branford
(4,462 posts)political lobbying you strongly disagree with and conclusively winning is not 'abuse of the democratic process" by any reasonable definition of the term.
Under your definition, untold numbers of liberal advocacy groups would also be considered terrorists as they exercise their First Amendment rights to speak on controversial matters and spend many millions of dollars lobbying elected representatives to advance their viewpoints.
Unless you're willing to tolerate the leadership of Planned Parenthood being treated as terrorists (and just ask some Republicans about the "fetal genocide" , gratuitous hyperbole about the NRA is disingenuous, factually inaccurate, immature, and very counterproductive. It may be emotionally cathartic, but it's generally unpersuasive in the firearm debate and makes compromise with your opposition on matters of firearm safety all the more difficult.
madokie
(51,076 posts)is the difference
branford
(4,462 posts)accidents or suicide. The NRA opposes them all, and is actually the largest firearms safety organization in the country and the gold standard for training for civilians and law enforcement across the country, including in very liberal, anti-gun jurisdictions.
Simply because you believe that firearms should be severely restricted does not impute any responsibility to the millions of NRA members or their leadership who engage in no illegality or firearms malfeasance.