6 ms·

How terrible of them to spread the insidious ideology of gun safety by training RSOs and gun safety instructors!

by mieseratte 7y ago

millstone 7y ago
The NRA is not attracting criticism for its gun safety and training.
- nailer 7y ago
  The 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.
  - millstone 7y ago
    The NRA is obviously not a terrorist organization. Nobody should call it one. I remember when Bill O'Reilly on Fox News called the ACLU a terrorist organization too, I strongly disagreed. But San Francisco is going to San Francisco. Limiting relationships with the NRA is a good move. The private company Delta ended special discounts for NRA members and the state (!) of Georgia responded by hitting Delta with a tax. If SF can help disentangle the NRA from the states, that can only be a good thing.
Jonnax 7y ago
What about their TV channel? [0] "Since its creation in 2016, it has adopted an increasingly apocalyptic, hard-right tone, warning of race wars, describing Barack Obama as a “fresh-faced flower-child president,” calling for a march on the Federal Bureau of Investigation and comparing journalists to rodents." "Chuck Holton, an NRATV correspondent, attributed terrorist activity in Europe to “the broader problem of multiculturalism and socialism” and to “gender-bending.” He also claimed that left-wing groups, the billionaire George Soros and the Venezuelan government were trying “to influence the 2018 midterms by sending Honduran migrants north in the thousands.” https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.nytimes.com/2019/03/11/us/nra-video-streaming-nratv.amp.html https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.nytimes.com/2019/03/11/us/n...
- briantakita 7y ago
  Wow. That's awful. Speech like that is terrorism because it's violent. Dave Chappelle is a terrorist too because he makes violent jokes that hurts my feelings.
  - Jonnax 7y ago
    "How terrible of them to spread the insidious ideology of gun safety by training RSOs and gun safety instructors" This is the comment I replied to. Clearly they espouse different ideologies to simply gun safety. You're the one putting words into my mouth. Of course if anyone tries to bring up the topic of radicalisation I'm sure you'd deflect in a similar way.
    - nailer 7y ago
      I don't think the parent is deflecting. They're simply trying to imagine by what means the NRA could be considered a terrorist organisation. Arming people that could potentially hurt others is not the same thing as targeting attacks on civilians for political change. If you have any ideas you're welcome to contribute them.
notacoward 7y ago
> How terrible of them to spread the insidious ideology of gun safety That role has long since been dwarfed by their political advocacy for unfettered access to guns without regard for safety. Look at their budget. Safety programs are in the noise. Many gun owners have left the NRA over this exact issue. Presenting the NRA as a gun-safety organization is deeply disingenuous.
- CompanionCuuube 7y ago
  > Many gun owners have left the NRA over this exact issue. The more common sentiment in the comments of the gun community is that the NRA is not doing enough to protect gun rights. Can you honestly say that the other organizations that gun owners are flocking to like the Gun Owners of America and Firearms Policy Coalition are less supportive of gun rights? Deeply disingenuous indeed.
  - deleted 7y ago
    [deleted]
  - notacoward 7y ago
    Are you forgetting the gun owners who left the NRA not to join another organization but to join no organization? Or is the omission deliberate?

How terrible of them to spread the insidious ideology of gun safety by training RSOs and gun safety instructors!

millstone 7y ago

The NRA is not attracting criticism for its gun safety and training.

nailer 7y ago
The 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.
- millstone 7y ago
  The NRA is obviously not a terrorist organization. Nobody should call it one. I remember when Bill O'Reilly on Fox News called the ACLU a terrorist organization too, I strongly disagreed. But San Francisco is going to San Francisco. Limiting relationships with the NRA is a good move. The private company Delta ended special discounts for NRA members and the state (!) of Georgia responded by hitting Delta with a tax. If SF can help disentangle the NRA from the states, that can only be a good thing.

Jonnax 7y ago

What about their TV channel? [0] "Since its creation in 2016, it has adopted an increasingly apocalyptic, hard-right tone, warning of race wars, describing Barack Obama as a “fresh-faced flower-child president,” calling for a march on the Federal Bureau of Investigation and comparing journalists to rodents." "Chuck Holton, an NRATV correspondent, attributed terrorist activity in Europe to “the broader problem of multiculturalism and socialism” and to “gender-bending.” He also claimed that left-wing groups, the billionaire George Soros and the Venezuelan government were trying “to influence the 2018 midterms by sending Honduran migrants north in the thousands.” https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.nytimes.com/2019/03/11/us/nra-video-streaming-nratv.amp.html https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.nytimes.com/2019/03/11/us/n...

briantakita 7y ago
Wow. That's awful. Speech like that is terrorism because it's violent. Dave Chappelle is a terrorist too because he makes violent jokes that hurts my feelings.
- Jonnax 7y ago
  "How terrible of them to spread the insidious ideology of gun safety by training RSOs and gun safety instructors" This is the comment I replied to. Clearly they espouse different ideologies to simply gun safety. You're the one putting words into my mouth. Of course if anyone tries to bring up the topic of radicalisation I'm sure you'd deflect in a similar way.
  - nailer 7y ago
    I don't think the parent is deflecting. They're simply trying to imagine by what means the NRA could be considered a terrorist organisation. Arming people that could potentially hurt others is not the same thing as targeting attacks on civilians for political change. If you have any ideas you're welcome to contribute them.

notacoward 7y ago

> How terrible of them to spread the insidious ideology of gun safety That role has long since been dwarfed by their political advocacy for unfettered access to guns without regard for safety. Look at their budget. Safety programs are in the noise. Many gun owners have left the NRA over this exact issue. Presenting the NRA as a gun-safety organization is deeply disingenuous.

CompanionCuuube 7y ago
> Many gun owners have left the NRA over this exact issue. The more common sentiment in the comments of the gun community is that the NRA is not doing enough to protect gun rights. Can you honestly say that the other organizations that gun owners are flocking to like the Gun Owners of America and Firearms Policy Coalition are less supportive of gun rights? Deeply disingenuous indeed.
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
- notacoward 7y ago
  Are you forgetting the gun owners who left the NRA not to join another organization but to join no organization? Or is the omission deliberate?