12.21.2012

The National Rifle Association is a Terrorist Organization


**UPDATED**

The National Rifle Association is a Terrorist Organization. They are making the conscious decision to weight the profits of the weapons manufacturers whose interests they serve as more important than the countless deaths these manufacturers' products are responsible for. They're also unbelievable hypocrites who have proven they will say anything to protect bottom lines over human lives.

It amuses me that the very people who are working doggedly to arm our citizenry as completely as possible as protection for when "THEY" come for us, are now calling for a massive increase in armed government agents.

The NRA today called for an armed guard/policeman in every school. And setting aside the right wing hypocrisy of a massive increase in bureaucracy and the $5.5 Billion dollars it would cost to arm, train, and employ these agents, it's a separate, hilariously transparent, bit of hypocrisy that these "libertarian watchdogs of freedom" would want to increase the numbers of armed government agents. When it is the fear of such agents that they exploit to drum up more sales of their deadly products.  At the very least, this suggestion by the NRA proves that they do not ACTUALLY fear the government overreach necessitating arming civilians, they simply say so to increase sales.

It amuses me that anyone thought that the firearm manufacturing industry's chief lobbyist would possibly say ANYTHING other than "Guns aren't to blame for Sandy Hook, but guns are the solution." These people are lobbyists whose raison d'ĂȘtre is the increase in sales of firearms. At least, that's what they claim to be.

More accurately, the NRA is a domestic terror organization. They are directly responsible for shaping decades of public policy that led directly to the proliferation of assault weapons, extended magazines, and gun ownership by individuals who used loopholes to avoid background checks.

If the shooters the NRA has again and again enabled had had muslim names, or brown skin, the outrage would be such that Republicans in Congress would be rending garments in their furor to pass whatever legislation was necessary to stem the bloody tide.  But as long as white people are lining up to line the pockets of firearm manufacturer executives, the right of gun ownership remains inalienable.

Inalienable despite all reason and good sense. The idea that gun ownership's constitutionality makes it infallible is patently absurd. That document was wrong on black people and it was wrong on women and it was created with the explicit purpose of being a living document that could be altered as society changed into something entirely unrecognizable to the actually oppressed frontiersman who inspired its writing.

That the leadership of the NRA, who it should be again pointed out are all also firearm industry executives past, present, or future, should push for irresponsible gun ownership despite the fact that the majority of NRA members support common sense gun laws (including mandatory background checks) should be proof enough that this irrelevant lobbying firm is out of touch with mainstream America and even its own base.  To say that these greedy monsters have the blood of the children of Sandy Hook Elementary on their hands is insufficient, and a disservice to the hundreds and thousands of victims of gun violence in the years prior, and the 114 (and counting) victims of gun violence that have fallen in the seven days since.

Today the NRA called on America to rethink its relationship with violent video games and mental health care and anything else they could think of that wasn't guns, and I call on Americans to call for the NRA to be listed as a terror organization. They are more responsible for more American deaths than just about any other organization that I can think of.

****
UPDATE: Closing The Loop

My initial feedback to this post has centered around the question of whether or not the NRA's tactics are actually tantamount to terror, and I feel very strongly that they are:


The NRA supports a gun show culture built around selling as many weapons as possible to people under the pretext of preparing them to either defend themselves from "government overreach" or to just proactively overthrow the government wholesale. (Look no further than to the extensive marketing done in support of firearms that clearly have no use other than mass murder, and certainly no use in hunting).

This fearmongering results in a proliferation of firearms, a percentage of which are inevitably used in crimes, and then they restart the cycle by preying on those afraid of gun violence, or worse, afraid that the latest spat of gun violence in the media will result in the black helicopters finally coming for everyone's guns.

In essence the NRA preys on the fears of the citizen without a firearm (he needs one to protect himself) and on the fears of the citizen with a firearm (he needs more to protect the ones he has from the government) and I fail to see how this is anything other than a terror tactic.


****
Sources:

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/crime/2012/12/gun_death_tally_every_american_gun_death_since_newtown_sandy_hook_shooting.html

http://www.buzzfeed.com/rebeccaberg/national-rifle-association-argues-for-more-guns-in

http://thinkprogress.org/election/2012/07/24/577091/nra-members-agree-regulating-guns-makes-sense/

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/dec/18/what-max-blumenthal-learned-from-gun-show-tour

http://www.slate.com/blogs/moneybox/2012/12/21/cop_in_every_school_how_much_would_wayne_lapierre_s_proposal_cost.html

http://meetthenra.org/

8 comments:

  1. you are invited to follow my blog

    ReplyDelete
  2. I have to disagree with you on a number of points here.

    1) "They are directly responsible for shaping decades of public policy that led directly to the proliferation of assault weapons, extended magazines, and gun ownership by individuals who used loopholes to avoid background checks"

    Assault Weapon is a made-up term, created by the gun control lobby to make modern weapons sound scary. All of the features (with the exception of magazine size) that make a rifle an "assault weapon" are cosmetic or ergonomic features like adjustable stocks, different grip angles, and bayonet mounts. The silliness is such that you can take a stock rifle that isn't an "assault weapon" per the 1994 AWB, take the wooden furniture off of it, install plastic furniture, and it's suddenly an assault weapon. Less than 2% of crimes are committed with "assault weapons": http://www.sas.upenn.edu/jerrylee/research/aw_final2004.pdf

    Magazine size is also not as much of an issue as you would think. Reloading a magazine-fed weapon is a very quick process. It takes maybe 5 seconds for your average joe to swap magazines, and there are some truly fast magazine change videos up on youtube. In the setting of a school shooting, an unopposed shooter can exchange magazines at will and is only limited by how many extra magazines he can carry. Cho, the Virginia Tech shooter, used two pistols - one with a 10 round magazine, the other with a 15 round. He simply carried a ton of extra mags in a backpack. Frankly, with a 20 minute police response time to Sandy Hook, this shooter could have used Elmer Fudd's 12-gauge to do the massacre.

    2)"If the shooters the NRA has again and again enabled had had muslim names, or brown skin..."

    Remember Major Nidal Hasan? His spree shooting is being treated as a case of "workplace violence" and swept under the rug. Please note that Hasan's spree killing took place at a gun-free zone too.

    3)"[The Constitution] was created with the explicit purpose of being a living document that could be altered as society changed..."

    Yup. That's why there's an amending process for the Constitution. Don't like the 2nd Amendment? Go rustle up some state legislatures and get after it.

    4)"majority of NRA members support common sense gun laws (including mandatory background checks)"

    Like the NICS system that is in place and screens all retail firearms sales?

    5)"firearms that clearly have no use other than mass murder, and certainly no use in hunting"

    The same firearms that could be used for mass murder can defend the law-abiding. A gun is an inanimate object and has no moral capacity. As for hunting, the 2nd Amendment isn't about duck hunts. It's about maintaining a population that has military rifles, the skill to use them, and the organization to assemble when needed to repel invasion or overthrow tyranny.

    6)"In essence the NRA preys on the fears of the citizen without a firearm (he needs one to protect himself) and on the fears of the citizen with a firearm (he needs more to protect the ones he has from the government) and I fail to see how this is anything other than a terror tactic."

    Equating scare-mongering with terrorism is laughably hyperbolic. Can you really put "sending out mailers about how the government's gonna take our guns" and "flying airplanes into skyscrapers" on the same level? Please. If scare-mongering is terrorism, I expect to see Sen. Dianne Feinstein and Rep. Carolyn McCarthy clapped into irons post-haste.

    ReplyDelete
  3. 1. I'm aware there's no standardized definition of assault weapon. If it were up to me any such definition would be a good deal more expansive than "impressive looking rifles with plastic parts" and include most semi-automatic mag-loading handguns over a certain caliber and would certainly also include classifications for things like hollow point ammunition. So, first of all, be glad I won't be the one making those rules.
    And arguing that magazine loading weapons are easy to reload isn't really doing you any favors. Adam Lanza committed suicide upon the arrival of police with three working guns and a lot of ammo left (obviously capable of continuing the massacre were he not interrupted). The time it takes to reload a revolver is substantially longer than that of a magazine loading weapon, so maybe we just do away with mag loaders altogether?

    2.YOU'RE SERIOUSLY BRINGING UP HASAN? Hahaha.
    Aside from him being, name aside, a pretty white looking brown person, it's worth noting that his particular crime pokes another huge hole in guns-for-everyone fearmongering. He committed mass murder ON A MILITARY BASE and somehow that high concentration of armed, trained guards proved ineffective in saving lives.
    Somewhere between 0 and 1 mass shootings have been stopped by armed civilians in the last 30 years.
    There was an armed guard at Columbine High School, and Virginia Tech has its own police force.
    3. Fine.
    4. 40% of firearms purchased in the United States are purchased without a background check.
    5. You aren't a member of the Wolverines and the black helicopters aren't coming for you. But the idea that you are arguing that assault rifles are meant to protect you from "invaders and tyranny" proves my point rather than disproves it. You've obviously bought into the very NRA rhetoric I'm decrying. So, thank you for volunteering to be exhibit A.
    6. Terror/fear-mongering? I'm not going to debate the dictionary with you. But in the years since 2001, gun deaths outnumber airplanes into building deaths by a rate of about 100 to 1. (334K as of this July).
    Which terror is more responsible for the blood on our streets?

    ReplyDelete
  4. 1) I'll repeat myself: The Sandy Hook police response time was 20 minutes. Lanza could have had Elmer Fudd's double barrel shotgun and still slaughtered the children. You're quite right to note that he killed himself when faced with armed opposition - it's a common theme among these spree shooters. Makes a pretty good case for having a policeman at every school to me.

    2) Are you aware that soldiers on domestic military bases do not carry weapons? All of Hasan's kills were on unarmed soldiers who did their damndest to stop him anyway. Funny how all these mass-murder incidents tend to take place in "gun free zones", isn't it?

    4) Go to a gunstore and ask to buy a gun without a background check. I'll wait.

    5) Have you read any of the Federalist papers? Joseph Story's "Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States"? Any period-appropriate literature on the second amendment? If you had, you would clearly see that the intent of the second amendment is to guard against both foreign invasion and domestic tyranny. I'm not even talking about black helicopter territory here. Your ignorance of history does not alter the original purpose of the amendment.

    6) Well golly gosh if it's the body count we're concerned with, perhaps we should ban swimming pools! Swimming pools have killed far, far more children than guns have. You don't even need a swimming pool for hunting! Are we banning guns because of the body count or because they're scaaaaaary?

    ReplyDelete
  5. 1. I don't believe you actually want a $5.5 Billion increase in bureaucracy in the form of more "jack-booted thugs." Unless you, yourself are on the board of a gun manufacturer. I just don't believe you.
    Also, the response time at Fort Hood was 10 minutes, yet there were 43 casualties. Do we need armed guards at every military base?
    How about every movie theater? Every grocery store? Every shopping mall?
    The NRA's eyes just glazed over with dollar signs. So many more guns to sell, so many more "thugs" to point to when scaring their members into buying more guns.
    2. Gun free zones like armed-guarded Columbine High School? Like have-their-own-police-force Virginia Tech?
    4. My mother-in-law bought a Smith & Wesson .357 Magnum Pro Series without a background check less than two months ago at a gun show. Your willful ignorance of the gun show loophole is comical.
    5. I'm not ignorant of history, and there's a difference between a nation considering not having a standing army and this one.
    6. I said it was terror because of the tactics used by the NRA to increase the proliferation of guns. You found that unconvincing so pointed out that gun deaths equal about ten 9/11s a year. You find that unconvincing? Fine. It's terror because of the tactics used by the NRA to increase the proliferation of guns. I'm not listening to false equivalency arguments, and you don't actually get to dictate WHAT my thesis is.

    ReplyDelete
  6. 1) If only there was some way that the average citizen could provide for his or her own armed defense everywhere he/she went. That would be so much simpler than posting armed guards at every mall and theater. Any ideas?

    2) Deputy Gardner, present at the Columbine shooting, engaged and exchanged fire with Harris twice. In the battle in the parking lot, Harris' gun jammed while fighting Gardner, after which he retreated. There were 13 unexploded bombs in the shooters' cars, and Gardner's engagement prevented them from re-arming them. Gardner and his backup organized the evacuation of students and co-ordinated first responders. His presence and actions saved many lives. http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2000/columbine.cd/Pages/DEPUTIES_TEXT.htm

    Virginia Tech's police force did not engage Cho, as they had been drawn to the scene of his first killing. Cho brought locks and chains and barricaded the entrance to the building he did the mass murder in, and killed himself before the police could get to him. The question of security at a large university is more complex than at a grade school, which typically has only one building.

    And yes, these schools are gun-free zones.

    4) Oh did she? From a firearms dealer? Then he committed a federal felony - there is no such thing as the "gun show loophole". Background checks are not required when one private individual (who cannot be engaged in the business of firearms) sells a gun to another. This is called a private sale. I'm actually in support of requiring a background check for private sales. This would require allowing everybody access to the NICS call system, which currently only FFLs have. This won't stop many crimes though - most criminal guns are sold by one criminal to another, and I don't think Jamal is going to call NICS before he sells a "chopper" to Ice Dawg.

    ReplyDelete
  7. 5) If you claim that the second amendment was not created for the express purpose of protecting the ability of the people to overthrow their government and resist foreign invasion, you are indeed ignorant of history. "The importance of this article will scarcely be doubted by any persons, who have duly reflected upon the subject. The militia is the natural defense of a free country against sudden foreign invasions, domestic insurrections, and domestic usurpations of power by rulers." - Supreme Court Justice Joseph Story, "Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States", 1833. I'm not going to do any more legwork than that to spoon-feed you the history of your own country, but it's out there if you're interested. I eagerly await your presenting material that says "the second amendment is for duck hunting and target shooting". Period-appropriate sources only, please. You are entitled to your own opinions but NOT your own facts.

    6)You said the NRA is a terrorist organization because it scares its members into buying guns. Your definition of terrorism is laughable. Terrorism is committing acts of violence against civilian populations such as the 9/11 attacks, Oklahoma city bombing, or the Munich massacre. Terrorism is NOT sending letters to the NRA membership saying "obama's comin' fer yer guns boys". If you put that on the same level of crime against humanity as the 9/11 attacks, you live in some bizarre alternate world and should seek professional psychological help immediately.

    If you knew anything at all about the gun culture, you'd know that those of us in it are resentful and mistrusting in the NRA because they do a far better job sending out scary mailers and collecting our dues than actually protecting our gun rights. I'm a NRA member not because I'm a true believer in what they have to say, but because they are the most powerful political resource us gun owners have to bring to bear against the forces that would disarm us. The NRA is losing ground against other pro-gun organizations like the Second Amendment Foundation (the guys who have been systematically knocking down anti-gun ordinances nationwide and won the Heller case of 2008) who are actually winning critical legal battles.

    ReplyDelete
  8. The thing that needs to be considered is that mass murders account for less deaths in this country than lightning strikes, and ultimately nothing should be done about them, because, as heartbreaking as they are, they simply do not warrant a response in a country of 300+ million people.

    It would be just as appropriate to call for lightning rods in every open space of 100 ft^2 or more.

    Due to fallen nature, people will find ways to kill others, big brother can't eliminate that possibility.

    If people were more educated on types and the use of firearms (see Switzerland), I believe our overall homicide rate would drop, and ordinary citizens may also be able to stop a mass shooting or two along the way.

    ReplyDelete