3 ms·

I 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 th

I 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.

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.