- Oct 5, 2009
- 5,034
- 2,613
- 136
Currently the black lives matter group is calling the NRA a terrorist organization. The governor of connecticut also said the same just 3 days ago .
I remember a little while back having a conversation with a friend about this. It depends on very much on what you call terrorism was somewhat the conclusion we reached. Whilst terrorism refers to the use of violence for various gains (mostly inciting fear, silencing opponents, and other nefarious political and economic purposes), continually supporting those that commit such acts generally seems to be considered terrorism a well. Refer to say various countries that support terrorists though are not directly doing the terrorism themselves. The US still may designate such groups as terrorists simply for more or less continuing to support other more active groups.
It seems to me that time and time again, the NRA seems to fight for the ability for homegrown terrorists to continue to terrorize. Not to mention their rather violent themes, statements, and propaganda they utilize to whip up their base and persistent support for right wing groups. In fact, in many ways the NRA seems to benefit from these shootings as membership spikes and gun sales as well in the aftermath of them.
What if a sitting president was to simply label the NRA and its leadership as homegrown terrorists? Would that be too far? Is that something even feasible? Or is the NRA simply a well oiled propaganda and legal machine to sell guns but not really much more than that.
I remember a little while back having a conversation with a friend about this. It depends on very much on what you call terrorism was somewhat the conclusion we reached. Whilst terrorism refers to the use of violence for various gains (mostly inciting fear, silencing opponents, and other nefarious political and economic purposes), continually supporting those that commit such acts generally seems to be considered terrorism a well. Refer to say various countries that support terrorists though are not directly doing the terrorism themselves. The US still may designate such groups as terrorists simply for more or less continuing to support other more active groups.
It seems to me that time and time again, the NRA seems to fight for the ability for homegrown terrorists to continue to terrorize. Not to mention their rather violent themes, statements, and propaganda they utilize to whip up their base and persistent support for right wing groups. In fact, in many ways the NRA seems to benefit from these shootings as membership spikes and gun sales as well in the aftermath of them.
What if a sitting president was to simply label the NRA and its leadership as homegrown terrorists? Would that be too far? Is that something even feasible? Or is the NRA simply a well oiled propaganda and legal machine to sell guns but not really much more than that.