17 ms·
San Francisco Declares the N.R.A. a ‘Domestic Terrorist Organization’
- arikr 7y agoThis seems rather silly. But I haven't looked into it. Am I missing something? What's the perspective where this makes sense?
- mcpherrinm 7y agoContext of this is: There was a visible mass shooting in Gilroy very recently, and a lot of people are upset. The gunman used a semiautomatic rifle which is illegal in California, but was legally purchased in Nevada. The NRA has continually fought to ensure people have access to the tools to commit these atrocities. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gilroy_Garlic_Festival_shooting https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gilroy_Garlic_Festival_shootin...
- mieseratte 7y agoHow awful of the NRA to fight for a constitutional right to bear arms.
- ivalm 7y agoThe current interpretation is different from historical. Historically it really did apply to "well regulated militia".
- cm2187 7y agoIt applies to “the people”. I believe the current legal interpretation in vigueur is in the area of “because a well regulated militia is necessary, ...”
- danaris 7y agoBut functionally, the "well-regulated militia" of today is the US Armed Forces. I challenge you to show any way in which hundreds of millions of random citizens with handguns and zero training to fight together qualifies as well-regulated, or meaningfully as a militia to defend our country against an invasion.
- cm2187 7y agoI am no constitutional expert, but my understanding is that the amendment protects the ability to form a militia. And I believe it is not meant to defend against invasion so much than to defend against tyranny (whether internal or external). And it is still true today that no army, even the US army, can control a hostile population that has a wide access to weapons. It is why the colonial wars were futile, and why no major power has ever successfully won a guerrilla war.
- herostratus101 7y agoThe issue with this argument is that "militia" had a different meaning when the Bill of Rights was ratified. Thomas Jefferson wrote in 1811: “[T]he militia of the State, that is to say, of every man in it able to bear arms.”
- rhino369 7y agoIt was never interpreted by the supreme court to only apply to a well-regulated militia. At most, you could say the right was interpreted to only apply to guns used by a well-regulated militia in the 1930s. But before that there were no federal gun control laws, so the issue never came up.
- Cthulhu_ 7y agoJust because it's a right doesn't mean it needs an organization to advocate it. I mean you have the right to smoke, but any organization promoting it has been squashed by legislation, banning advertisements and glorifying it. Why? Because smoking causes cancer and will kill you and your kids. Why should that not apply to guns, which are built to kill? It's a weird double standard. Sure you have the right to have a gun, but it doesn't mean it has to be advocated by an organization. It does make me wonder though, how come the NRA is successful where the multi-billion dollar tobacco industry failed?
- ch_123 7y ago> mean you have the right to smoke, but any organization promoting it has been squashed by legislation, banning advertisements and glorifying it. Why? Because smoking causes cancer and will kill you and your kids. FWIW, I know of at least one pro smoking body with some prominent supporters in the UK (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FOREST https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FOREST)
- trampypizza 7y agoI wonder if it is because the tobacco industry was fighting a war against the very direct link between smoking and cancer. Ultimately the science proved that smoking is damaging to your body, and that damage is expensive to fix, and the cost is somewhat paid for by society. Guns are a 'tool' I suppose, and therefore will always require a user. Not every gun owner is going to use it to kill people. It's harder then to make the argument that guns are inherently bad, it's the people using them incorrectly that is the problem. I certainly think that there are other factors in American society which contribute and to these horrible events, such as mental health and education. I think this because there are other countries, such as Canada, where many people have weapons but these tragedies occur a lot less often. As a Brit, I think some of the gun stuff in the States is bananas, but I do recognise that there is a significant cultural difference that means I probably wont get why people are so keen to protect gun ownership to the extent that they do. I don't mean to suggest that either way is right or wrong, but I do feel that the use-case for an AR-15 is limited. Surely that's a bit over the top for hunting? And defending your home may be easier with a handgun. I am no expert though, and would be interested to hear some other views. [0] https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-41488081 https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-41488081 Edit: I should also say that I recognise that mass shootings make up a tiny percentage of gun-deaths and that they receive a disproportionate amount of media attention.
- mikejb 7y agoMaybe the silliness of your argument can be highlighted with a small modification: > How awful of the Confederacy to fight for a right to slaves. Societies change and evolve. The desperate clinging to ancient, outdated concepts won't hinder that progress.
- nailer 7y agoHow does that make NRA terrorists though? Replying to comment below: please see the HN guidelines: https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html > Please don't comment on whether someone read an article. I read the article too. The article doesn't answer the question. - What evidence is there that the NRA exists to arm terrorists? - Which terrorist groups are the NRA arming? - If the NRA does exist to arm terrorist groups how does that make the NRA themselves terrorists?
- mcpherrinm 7y ago“The N.R.A. exists to spread pro-gun propaganda and put weapons in the hands of those who would harm and terrorize us,” Ms. Stefani said in a statement. “Nobody has done more to fan the flames of gun violence than the N.R.A.”
- mieseratte 7y agoHow terrible of them to spread the insidious ideology of gun safety by training RSOs and gun safety instructors!
- millstone 7y agoThe NRA is not attracting criticism for its gun safety and training.
- nailer 7y agoThe issue isn't whether the NRA are bad, the issue is whether they are a terrorist organisation. There has been no evidence in the article that the NRA exists to arm terrorists. I think people are hurt and appalled at gun violence and looking for solutions. Unfortunately expanding the definition of terrorism to include the NRA means they will unwittingly catch other groups they may support. Eg, the EFF promotes privacy, terrorists use privacy, therefore the same misguided logic could be used there. This won't help gun violence and will hurt other freedoms.
- casefields 7y agoAnd ACLU defend's the right to do this at a military funeral: https://mpinkeyes.files.wordpress.com/2007/10/godhatesfags.jpg?w=600 https://mpinkeyes.files.wordpress.com/2007/10/godhatesfags.j... Doesn't mean they're terrorists for advocating for your constitutional rights.
- herostratus101 7y agoHow would this argument not apply equally to anyone who supports the first amendment (because it can lead to hate speech that inspires atrocities)?
- millstone 7y agoBecause a gun is a tool for actually committing atrocities, and a blog post is not.
- herostratus101 7y agoThis argument would be persuasive if the NRA were literally a gun that kills people rather than an organization that lobbies for the robust protection of second amendment rights.
- cm2187 7y agoIt’s a fair point but the 1st amendment is also under pressure from the same people.
- herostratus101 7y agoWell then they should move to Venezuela, North Korea, Cuba, or one of the dozens of other countries where free speech is not a priority instead of trying to destroy one of the last places in the world that is.
- imustbeevil 7y agoOr they could participate in the democratic process of their home country until laws reflect the will of the people.
- igetspam 7y agoBecause the NRA isn't a 2nd amendment organization, they're a gun lobbying group. They oppose reasonable changes to background check laws, that their membership mostly supports, and application of existing laws. They serve more to fan the flames of fear than support a well regulated militia or the Constitution. I'll agree with people who say it's a publicity stunt but it's a good one, nonetheless. Full disclosure: I'm a life member. I'm no longer happy with that decision but it's true .
- _iyig 7y agoSemiautomatic rifles are, generally speaking, legal to own in California. They're also responsible for only a tiny fraction of all gun crime committed in the state. Only semiautomatic rifles with particular combinations of ergonomic features (pistol grip, folding stock, etc.) are illegal. The shooter's WASR fell under this category. The shooter's high-capacity magazines were also illegal in California.
- sonnyp 7y agoIf you did not read the article then yes you are missing something...
- noobermin 7y agoEven if it is silly, the resolution has no actual effect as far as I can tell.
- rhino369 7y agoYou aren't missing anything. Calling the NRA a terrorist organization is beyond absurd.
- oflannabhra 7y agoI think you are looking for sense where there isn’t any. However, I think the article has the best representation of the argument: > Ms. Stefani referred to the federal Justice Department’s definition of terrorist activity, which involves the use of a firearm, weapon or dangerous device to endanger the safety of individuals. The definition also includes members of organizations that provide funds, weapons or training to individuals who commit terrorist acts. I don’t think one can find the NRA ever advocating for the use of guns to harm innocent individuals. However, it would seem as if we’ve crossed a threshold where the mere existence of guns is seen as a threat, therefore anyone that advocates for gun ownership (or possesses one) is a threat.
- rhino369 7y ago>However, it would seem as if we’ve crossed a threshold where the mere existence of guns is seen as a threat, therefore anyone that advocates for gun ownership (or possesses one) is a threat. No offense but this is cowardly, and frankly, bad reasoning. First, guns kill fewer people than speeding, alcohol or junk food. So no we have't crossed some threshold. Second, you are just rationalizing the criminalization of anyone who disagrees with you on public policy. A facist would say "I don't think I've ever seen the democrats advocating for islamic terrorism. However, it would seem as if we've crossed a threshold were the mere existence of muslim immigrants is seen as a thread, therefore anyone that advocates for muslim immigration is a a threat. Therefore, I'm banning the democratic party from the next elections on the basis of being a terrorst group."
- oflannabhra 7y ago> you are just rationalizing the criminalization of anyone who disagrees with you on public policy. I’m merely trying to describe the position held by those that passed the resolution.
- AnimalMuppet 7y agoThe perspective where this makes sense is the one where people try to score cheap political points by doing things that have exactly zero relevance to anything.
- WheresTheLogic 7y agoSan Francisco is getting more ridiculous by the second
- brilliantmind 7y agoThis appreciation can be extended to the political movement they belong to.
- cannot-remember 7y agoCurious non-American here. Is this really so ridiculous?
- newfriend 7y agoYes.
- garmaine 7y agoLabeling 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.
- 29athrowaway 7y agoDid you mean: "San Francisco"?
- alexmlamb 7y agoIt seems weird to me to conflate "advocating the legal right to own technology that can be used to do X" with "doing X", even though obviously you can disagree with both.
- danaris 7y agoI think it's quite reasonable to make a distinction between Xs that are "kill people" and Xs that are not.
- AnimalMuppet 7y agoThat same argument leads to a ban on cars, or even electricity.
- danaris 7y agoThat's true, the phrasing isn't quite what I intended. More accurate would be "whose purpose is" rather than "that can be used for".
- nailer 7y agoDoes the NRA directly attack civilians? Do they aim for political change? My understanding is that they do not carry out attacks on civilians and they seek to maintain the status quo. Regardless of your position on gun control (personally I'm in favour of gun control), words have meaning. Edit: missed a 'not' above, pardon the confusion
- Cthulhu_ 7y agoDo their members? Yes. The NRA is a lobbying organization that spends hundreds of millions [0] on advocating political change (or blocking it), so your second question is also a yes. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Rifle_Association#Lobbying_and_political_activity https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Rifle_Association#Lob...
- rhino369 7y agoYour understanding is wrong. The NRA has never carried out an attack on anyone.
- nailer 7y agoIndeed. I missed a 'not', pardon the error. I've fixed the comment.
- BiasRegularizer 7y agoNon-american here. Can someone explain what's so shady about NRA aside from their lobbying for gun rights? Also what is NRA's rational/rebuttal for their shady behaviors?
- cm2187 7y agoGiven the time zones, I think it is unlikely anyone US based will get back to you.
- rhino369 7y agoAnti-NRA people would say that they are lobbyists for the gun industry, they are extreme, they don't compromise, etc. But really they just disagree with their viewpoint.
- oflannabhra 7y agoThe NRA has tied gun ownership to “American culture” (although one could argue they have only promoted a pre-existing connection). I’d say most shadiness of the NRA has to do with their lobbying efforts, and especially how closely they are tied to the gun manufacturing industry. In fact, among hardcore 2nd amendment advocates, there has been a movement to stop supporting the NRA due to corruption, poor management, bloat, and a perception they don’t do enough to support 2nd amendment right, and only further their own existence. [0] [0] - https://www.reddit.com/r/progun/comments/c3e4rs/hickok45_formally_cuts_ties_with_the_nra_on_his/ https://www.reddit.com/r/progun/comments/c3e4rs/hickok45_for...
- danaris 7y agoAs I understand it (and I do not remotely claim to be an expert), they used to be an organization that provided gun safety training, supported gun clubs and shooting ranges, and did some lobbying for gun rights as well—but within reason, supporting provisions like background checks. Then, some time in the '70s or '80s or so, they decided they really wanted to make lots more money, and the way to do that was to radicalize their support base. These days, they not only oppose any and all restrictions on the purchase of firearms (including preventing random people from getting their hands on military hardware, preventing convicted violent felons, domestic abusers, and the mentally ill from buying firearms, etc), but they are actively involved in spreading propaganda to keep their base scared of an Other that they'll need guns to protect them from. This ranges from Democrats coming to take their guns, to immigrants coming to take their jerbs, to brown people coming to take their women. They foment racism and hatred, specifically in order to ensure that people will keep paying them to protect the only amendment to the Constitution that's truly sacred: the right of every single real (white, straight, cis, Christian, male) American to own whatever guns he wants.
- leemailll 7y agoWould this lead to legal actions?
- wpdev_63 7y agoYou would think with all the protests in hong kong against an authoritarian government that they would value their 2nd amendment rights. All you have to do is browse hn once in awhile to see several articles about the US gov't brazenly breaking our constitutional rights.
- robotron 7y agoYou have a good point but it's hard to rally around gun ownership when you're dodging bullets taking your kids out to shop at Walmart.
- wpdev_63 7y agoMaybe the only reason the american gov't isn't as bad as the chinese gov't is that we can, in fact, defend ourselves.
- krapp 7y agoYes, that is literally the only reason. It's not because of the differences in culture, or the nature and history of governance, or any other possible externality. The only reason the US is not a totalitarian state where dissenters are run over by tanks and sent to death camps is because the American government is simply terrified of and quelled by the mere presence of an armed populace. I have a magical rock in my garden that repels tigers. I never see any tigers in my garden, so it must work.
- wpdev_63 7y agoI mean correlation does not mean causation but the gov't keeps upping the black budget every year and we all know what they do in those gov't basements... It's just a matter of time that industrial factory overflows and spills blood on the streets. If the gov't was going to put you in a camp because you were jewish or japanese or even muslim, wouldn't you want to have a gun? I know it would make them think twice that's for sure.
- briantakita 7y agoToo bad people who don't follow the law won't respect the gun bans like law abiding citizens... Also in the news, Social Credit Red Flag Laws based on speech... Surely these laws will be applied evenly to all people & not used to suppress anybody like what has happened repeatedly throughout history. It's different this time, right? Enjoy the dystopia folks!
- mikejb 7y agoI don't live in the US, and the consequences of this aren't 100% clear to me, but am I correct in assuming - Members of the NRA are now 'domestic terrorists', i.e. when entering the US they have to tick the "I'm a terrorist" box? - Donating to the NRA can be considered financing terrorism? I'm not a big fan of private gun ownership, but if these interpretations are accurate, this move seems pretty excessive.
- luckylion 7y agoI don't believe a city (or even county) view of who's a terrorist has any relevance to federal procedures.
- keiru 7y agoImagine if the NSA suddenly had to spy on 5 million people. Oh wait.
- rendall 7y agoHi mikejb I'm a US citizen who lives in Europe, and I'm here to help. San Francisco is a city only, and has no Federal power, so the answer is "no" to both of your questions above. As for what it actually _means_, the action by San Francisco is merely rhetorical, and has no legal meaning. It would be unconstitutional for San Francisco to actually use the force of government to punish NRA or its members, since this would violate the 1st Amendment.
- deleted 7y ago[deleted]
- millstone 7y agoHere is the text of the resolution: https://sfgov.legistar.com/View.ashx?M=F&ID=7568748&GUID=DF64490F-D8BC-4BF7-A43D-287F02BECCCA https://sfgov.legistar.com/View.ashx?M=F&ID=7568748&GUID=DF6...
- PeterStuer 7y agoIf you want to play semantics labeling a gunlobby 'terrorist' still makes more sense than declaring a 'war' on drugs. From a European perspective the level of gun violence in the US is completely absurd and out of control and has been for decades.
- advanceduser 7y agoI understand that I am severely limiting my options in tech employment by not moving to SF or NY, but the all-out assault on freedoms prevalent in both regions is a total dealbreaker.
- davvolun 7y agoExcuse me for asking you to show your work, but how does this limit anyone's freedoms? Further, are you not aware of the difference between San Francisco and say, Cupertino, Mountain View, Palo Alto... do I need to go on? (Nevermind the astronomical housing prices and the relatively easy and affordable public transit into the city, making it more than feasible to work in the city and live elsewhere...)
- yongjik 7y agoAs someone (not a US citizen) who thinks the second amendment can go fuck itself, this isn't helping anyone and looks incredibly childish. Instead of changing people's minds, this will just make gun right activists angry, and make them feel their viewpoint is validated. This is just preaching to the choir, for scoring some cheap political points. Don't they have better things to do?
- impulser_ 7y agoSF is on some other shit currently. First banning ecigs but not cigs. Now declaring the NRA a terrorist group. Gun owners are worried about the government coming for their guns, now you are giving them ways to argument just that. The NRA isn't even close to being the cause of the gun problem in the US.
- sahin-boydas 7y agonow what? if there is a company (ex some car rental companies
- brianhorakh 7y agoSweet , anybody that gives money to the nra in san fransisco should be eligible for property seizure by sherrif/police now. Ironically California has strict "proof required" Property seizure laws. Thinking peter theil would be a good candidate. https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.mercurynews.com/2019/04/21/police-agencies-forfeit-millions-after-new-law-chokes-off-funds-from-asset-seizures/amp/ https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.mercurynews.com/2019/04/21/... ️Patriot act! Donations to nra are tax deductible, so the state already has a record.