Question of the Day: Could the NRA Ever Be Classified A Terrorist Group?

NRA post (courtesy Facebook)

The Coalition to Stop Gun Violence (CSGV) regularly trawls gun blogs, pro-gun websites and firearms-friendly Facebook pages for ignorant, abusive and threatening comments; fodder to feed their anti-gun agitprop. And they find it. Here’s their latest haul from underneath a post about ex-Congresswoman and current anti-gun crusader Gabrielle Giffords on the NRA’s Facebook page (jpeg above), complete with links to the comment and their authors . . .

“leave our guns alone, or else”
https://www.facebook.com/dave.newton.547
https://www.facebook.com/NationalRifle…/…/10153261913016833…

“Might have to shoot her again!”
https://www.facebook.com/david.thornburg.7
https://www.facebook.com/NationalRifle…/…/10153261913016833…

“She should have died……”
https://www.facebook.com/profile.php…

“Leave the constitutional alone or were coming after you”
https://www.facebook.com/profile.php…
https://www.facebook.com/NationalRifle…/…/10153261913016833…

“She should have died.”
https://www.facebook.com/ronalda.ackerman
https://www.facebook.com/NationalRifle…/…/10153261913016833…

“The guy missed. Down and left would have done the trick.”
https://www.facebook.com/phil.stadel.armyguy
https://www.facebook.com/NationalRifle…/…/10153261913016833…

“Someone needs to take her out!!!”
https://www.facebook.com/debra.williams.35380

“Dipshit used a hard ball which made a neat little round hole”
https://www.facebook.com/richardscott.hamilton

“Proof the 9mm is anemic”
https://www.facebook.com/gmichael.hall1
https://www.facebook.com/NationalRifle…/…/10153261913016833…

“Wish he got a better shot”
https://www.facebook.com/joe.teague.52438
https://www.facebook.com/NationalRifle…/…/10153261913016833…

“Too bad the bullet didn’t end her.”
https://www.facebook.com/Duc1199
https://www.facebook.com/NationalRifle…/…/10153261913016833…

Here’s my worry . . .

Let’s say the antis’ prayers are answered: a spree killer or terrorist commits a heinous crime, someone who’s clearly affiliated with the NRA. A killer or killers who espouse insurrection against the federal government.

It hasn’t happened yet but it could. And let’s say it happens in a Clinton 2.0 administration in the midst of other terrorist acts or a Bundy Ranch style standoff. In this nightmare scenario, a violent, polarizing event or series of events, would the feds declare the NRA a terrorist group? And if so, then what?

I know it sounds preposterous. The NRA is America’s oldest civil right organization. It embodies, promotes and defends the American ideal of individual liberty, as set forth by our Founding Fathers. But the enemies of liberty are ruthless and amoral. They respect the Constitution about as much as ISIS respects cultural heritage.

In the right set of circumstances the government – our government – could consider NRA members an impediment to the brave new world they long to create. They could see them as domestic terrorists, labeling them as such and taking some kind of proactive action.

Am I wrong?

comments

  1. avatar Vhyrus says:

    If the gov can’t even admit that muslims are the ones shouting allah ackbar before mowing people down, how would they ever justify labeling a lobbying organization a terrorist group?

    1. avatar styrgwillidar says:

      Because it’s not an organization they approve of- just as they don’t approve of the second amendment because they don’t understand history.

      I would not put it past the anti-gunners to be running a “False Flag” operation, having their own members posting radical comments on pro-gun sites.

      1. avatar Don says:

        I think they understand history very well, the first step in completing the subjugation of a people is disarmament.

        1. avatar Patrick Wider says:

          Don, here’s the history they do understand:

          “This year will go down in history for the first time a civilized nation has full gun registration, Our streets will be safer, our police more efficient, and the world will follow our lead into the future”-
          Adolf Hitler, 1935

          “On the morrow of each conflict I gave the categorical order to confiscate the largest possible number of weapons of every sort and kind. This confiscation, which continues with the utmost energy, has given satisfactory results.”
          Benito Mussolini

          “All political power comes from the barrel of a gun. The communist party must command all the guns, that way, no guns can ever be used to command the party.”
          Mao Tse Tung

          “A system of licensing and registration is the perfect device to deny gun ownership to the bourgeoisie.”
          Vladimir Ilyich Lenin

          “We don’t let them have ideas. Why would we let them have guns?”
          Joseph Stalin

      2. avatar DaveinLA says:

        They understand history just fine…. They are worried that part about overthrowing an oppressive gov’t will be repeated is all.

        1. avatar Tom W. says:

          “If I had the votes, I’d tell Mr. & Mrs. America to turn them all in.”
          United States Senator Diane Feinstein, to 60 Minutes.

          All I need to know……

        2. avatar Henry Bowman says:

          If they try, they die….No hold bars…

    2. avatar ThomasR says:

      Sorry Vhyrus, You should put a sarcasm tag after such a ridiculous statement or people might think your serious.

      1. avatar spankeythejarhead says:

        +100 if they thought they could get away with it we would ‘ll be martyred tomorrow….

    3. avatar H says:

      The Govt knows the same thing you know. They are trying to not label the terrorists with a particular religion. What difference does it make?

      The problem with labeling is that people go for the simple. They hate the whole group. Japanese internment camps. If The IRA began bombing in the US should Irish American citizens be the targets of vandalism or violence. Should the descendants of Irish immigrants who came here in the 1800s be rounded up?

      Yes, ISIS etc speak as Muslims. Let them!
      The Klan and other similar groups claim to speak as Christians.
      Anders Breviik killed 77 teens and said he did it as a Christian. Should people start hating Christians? NATO Secretary General said, “get the terrorists not the religion.”
      http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p02gv6f2

      1. avatar ThomasR says:

        You are serious.

        The first thing the old media and government does in this country is label on the front page before all the information is in is the mass shooter as a white, Gun owning conservative, hopefully christian fundamentalist maniac. The problem that keeps happening is that those mass shooters end up being leftists, atheists or Muslims.

        All the left can do to counter this basic truth about the violent tendencies of these groups is point to one lone so called christian bombing abortion clinics with the murder of that one abortion doctor, and this Ander Breivik that states he was a christian atheist that didn’t have a personal relationship with the Christ. That’s pretty much it.

        Then if we look around the world; we see that if there is any mass murder going on, it’s committed by godless socialists/communists/marxists as governments or terrorists insurgencies or Muslims as Muslim governments or terrorists insurgencies. Again.

        Hmmm. It seems like the most dangerous homicidal and violent groups are those that don’t believe in a god, except for that one group that calls their higher power Allah.

        1. avatar Chris In Texas says:

          So not believing in God makes you dangerous homicidal and violent?. Are you kidding me?.

        2. avatar ThomasR says:

          Not all leftists, atheists, muslims are terrorists or mass murderers, but the most likely canidate for being an indidual mass murderer or part of an orginazation that promotes mass murder is a person that doen’t believe in a higher power or that calls their higher power Allah.

          Over one hundred million murdered by those that claim no god in the last hundred years.

          You tell me why that is.

        3. avatar doesky2 says:

          So not believing in God makes you dangerous homicidal and violent?. Are you kidding me?.

          Let’s put it this way…the largest genocides of the 20th century were perpetrated by regimes and people who thought that there would be no repercussions after their death.

        4. avatar Grindstone says:

          What’s worse? People killing because they don’t believe they’ll be punished or people killing because they believe a myth told them to? Which has a longer history?

        5. avatar ThomasR says:

          “Worse”? Grindstone, are you absolutely nuts? Hundreds of millions murdered in the experience of people that are still alive today. By people claiming to believe in no god.

          and you want to bring up ancient history. Because that is the best you can
          n do. Ancient history.

          There is this constant drum beat by the liberals/atheists and Statists about the ancient history of Christianity and how people were murdered in the name of Christ, Meanwhile, it is the ones claiming no allegiance to the Christ that are the new mass murderers in the name of their god the state.

          What is worse is that people like you keep hoping that by focusing on the past use of God as an excuse to murder and control people, you want people to not realize that the current tyrants are using no god as an excuse to murder and control people.

        6. avatar ThomasR says:

          As an addendum Grinstone. It comes down to one simple thing. If someone wants total dictatorial control, you can’t have a tyrant of one. The tyrant needs alot of “useful idiots” (per Stalin) to be the spear chucker that will murder the millions needed to enforce their sick need. So they will use what ever belief system that is convenient to do so.

          In the past they used Christianity and a belief in G-d to rally the masses in this control over the many. Now the dictator uses a belief in no G-d to rally the many to do their dirty and murderous work. Meanwhile making those useful idiots feel good that they no longer are controlled by the “opiate of the masses”.

          So the masses replace one type of mind control for the masses with another mind control for the masses.

          Either way Grindstone, by your obsessive focus on the past murderous misuse of G-d to rally the masses to control and murder the many, you are blind to the current use of no G-d to rally the masses for controlling and murdering the many.

        7. avatar Grindstone says:

          What is worse is that people like you keep hoping that by focusing on the past use of God as an excuse to murder and control people, you want people to not realize that the current tyrants are using no god as an excuse to murder and control people.

          Those who forget the past are doomed to repeat it. Your chucking it out the window because it is unfavorable to you clearly demonstrates how dangerous it is.
          And forgive me, but I forgot which tyrants said “you shall be killed in the name of nogod”.
          No, you want to forget that millions of people have been tortured and killed under the name of “god”. Including present day. But you want to whitewash it and sweep it under the rug like it never happened. It doesn’t invalidate that there are still murderous tyrants in recent memory and today, but forgetting it is a far worse sin.

          Now the dictator uses a belief in no G-d to rally the many to do their dirty and murderous work.

          Seriously, this is just a weak strawman. Point out which dictator has murdered people in the name of nogod. Not political differences, mind you. But as a direct result of nogod.

          So the masses replace one type of mind control for the masses with another mind control for the masses.

          Glad at least we agree that religion is mind control for the masses at least.

    4. avatar James says:

      The trend on the left has been that they hate conservatives and gun rights supporters way more than they dislike elements of the Islamic religion (ie treatment of women and gays foe example). It something that has been growing for years and years starting in the truly radical fringes like Bill Ayers back in the 60’s and 70’s. It’s now become main stream on that side. President Zero is just a disciple of this. They take “an enemy of my enemy is my friend” approach to radical Islam since they view conservatives as a bigger threat.

      So yes, any future liberal/democrat led government could do it and would.

    5. avatar Marcus (Aurelius) Payne says:

      Why would they bother with justifying it?

    6. avatar BlueBronco says:

      The bar is lower for domestic terrorists that are made up of mostly white, right, uptight members and those that have Gadsden flags, Ron Paul stickers, etc. That is why I avoid bumper stickers and keep a Culpepper flag.

  2. avatar DickDanger says:

    If the NRA can be considered a terrorist group, then CSGV is an evil empire ruled by a madman on the lines of Nazi Germany. Hitler gained support by spreading ignorance and bigotry while dehumanizing those with opposing viewpoints, just as Ladd Everitt and his ilk have done. While I’ve seen some pro-gun posters say some scary and ignorant stuff, I’ve seen a heck of a lot more bigotry, hate, and ignorance from anti-gun groups.

    1. avatar MarkPA says:

      “I’ve seen some pro-gun posters say some scary and ignorant stuff, I’ve seen a heck of a lot more bigotry, hate, and ignorance from anti-gun groups.”
      It doesn’t matter if the ratio of Pro- vs Anti- rhetoric-in-bad-taste is 2:3 or 1:4. The Pro- bad-taste rhetoric will do its damage. All the public attention will be drawn to the Pro- bad-taste rhetoric by the State-owned media. Those of us PotG are doing the 2A no benefit and plenty of damage.

      I can’t imagine the NRA being declared a terrorist organization. What I am concerned with is that intemperate rhetoric from Pro-s will turn-off uncommitted voters.

      The majority of us PotG need to disassociate ourselves from intemperate rhetoric from the minority from the Pro-gun ranks.

    2. avatar Bob says:

      How many of those comments were made by the antis?

  3. I suppose they could TRY. Then, after a bloody but brief Civil War II, there wouldn’t be any liberals left to shoot. 🙂

    1. avatar chadwick p. says:

      Maybe. I think a lot of “sporting purpose” supporters would sit it out and hate themselves for being a bad guy. Making the nra a terrorist organization isn’t my last straw but then again it’s not too far from it.

  4. avatar Javier says:

    The antis see the NRA specifically and any pro 2a organization in general as terrorists. Some politicians like senator Frankenstein even consider veterans as potential terrorists.

  5. avatar Will P. says:

    Then we shall be renegades I guess. But they couldn’t possibly try to haul in all NRA members in. That I’m sure be the breaking point of the Pro 2A crowd, where we actually stand up and do something about the antis. I’m not talking violence(I hope!), but we would have more than just a handful of people out there protesting for out rights! There are too many pro 2A people that just sit around and armchair politic, and just whine and troll comments sections and forums instead of actually taking action. Maybe that would be the catalyst needed, though I pray it doesn’t come to that.

    1. avatar Pwrserge says:

      It they try, then we are talking about violence. They, however, lack the testicular fortitude. Simply put, we are much better at violence than they are. The fact that not a single anti-gun politician or demagogue has ever been shot for their hate speech is proof positive that we are not the ones looking for a fight. That being said, if they push us, we should reserve the right to defend ourselves and put them in the ground.

      1. avatar Will P. says:

        Well viva la revolution! I’m sure close to half of the gun owners will tuck tail, but I believe the other half will stand strong. I am just glad I live in the mostly pro 2A state of Georgia, where I am almost certain there are a lot more guns than people.

        1. avatar pwrserge says:

          Given that the average hunting season has the combat arms of every armed force on the planet outmanned, I’m not that nervous. Add to that the fact that many of us are veterans… Yeah…

          I’ve actually had long discussions on combatting a large insurgency on US soil with current forces and equipment. It’s not even close to the one sided beatdown that the antis always assume. My AR15 might not do much good against an M1A2, but that’s not what we’ll be fighting.

          Don’t forget that if even 3% of the active NRA members pick up arms, they will have ISIS outnumbered more than 10:1.

        2. avatar LarryinTX says:

          I think “current forces and equipment” will not be on the govt side, and the govt will know it, keep those weapons locked up. We know the oath, and the military still takes it.

        3. avatar DickDanger says:

          As I posted once before, a bunch of illiterate goat farmers with little more than pressure cookers and rusty Cold War left-overs gave the tech-superior U.S. Army plenty of grief in the middle east. I sincerely doubt it would be the quick and one-sided fight that the antis keep going on about.

        4. avatar pod says:

          If you don’t have a machine gun on the first day of the revolution – you will on the second day. I think it’s called ladder theory. Your insurgents start out with hunting/sporting/SD weapons and work their way up the food chain.

          Plus, the US Military and police forces are composed of people like us. I suspect most soldiers would think twice about engaging their own people on their own soil. If the balloon goes up, anyone on the “rebel” side will probably be very well-equipped.

          Hell, look at Star Wars. Look at the backstory, the Rebels were equipped with surplus Empire equipment, and new stuff from corporations that didn’t side with the Empire. Like if in a Civil War II FN USA decided to make rifles for the people rather than the government forces.

      2. avatar AnonInWA says:

        Let’s remember all the communist hellholes. Oh, they are good at violence, alright. Is just that they don’t want to use their hands, the agents of the state are better tools. Bonus points, they can still claim compassion and love. 🙂

        1. avatar Evan in Dallas says:

          I know plenty of pajama boy liberals who think exactly that.

          “It’s not violence because you are a part of the social contract.”

          To which I respond, “show me this contract. I didn’t sign anything.”

  6. avatar LarryinTX says:

    The NRA does not background check or otherwise vet its members, you pays your dues and you’re a member. Unless they can catch the NRA itself posting this kind of mindless vitriol, my assumption is that it is astroturf, probably written by antis in the first place.

    In response to the stated question, if you mean by antis, of course they will accuse the NRA of terrorism, probably also of pedophilia, illegal parking, and bank robbery.

    1. avatar Lee Cruse says:

      Just how many anti-2A and anti-gun statements begin with “I own a gun but we must have common sense…” or “I am a vet and know than ordinary citizens should never have assault weapons like AR-15 or high capacity clips” ? (Yes, they usually do not know the difference between clip and magazine)

    2. avatar Pantera Vazquez says:

      Don’t forget the part about small penises or no testicles….

      1. avatar DickDanger says:

        or the NRA being a cult.

    3. avatar doesky2 says:

      Hardly a week/day goes by that avowed Leftists “with an agenda” will file false police reports of rape, racial incidents, and muggings to further their warped ideology.

      Making false anonymous statements on a website is chicken scratch compared to the aforementioned. They do it during the commercial breaks of MSNBC.

  7. avatar Mack Bolan says:

    The minute they brand the NRA a terrorist org would pretty much signal the start of Revolution 2.0

    However it will never happen, since the NRA brings a lot of money to the party and we all know the politicians need their sugar daddy’s.

    1. avatar I1uluz says:

      DING DING DING, WE HAVE A WINNER!!!! Money (lobbyist) talk, BS walks. Firearm manufactures, aka government contracts and our wallets buying their products pour money into the NRA, which spreads it about DC by the truck load. Just like the green tip issue, doubt if Federal is happy about the loss of income when they have blems that don’t meet DoD quality control standards. Sure they discussed this issue behind closed doors. So Uncle Sammy we can’t resale our blems now due to your ban on the ammo the cost per round has to go up to cover that.

  8. avatar davidx says:

    “… I’ve seen a heck of a lot more bigotry, hate, and ignorance from anti-gun groups.”

    And over decades from radical feminists, black militants, the homosexual lobby (probably representing, if it can be called that, less than 3% of the population, yet some days it seems like 90% in the media), and the hard Left in general. The stuff from the anti-gun groups is almost tame by comparison; you have to lived a while here to appreciate the broad perspective of hate, virulent loathing and threats from these people.

    What’s kind of dismaying is that they have the historical evidence before their eyes, though they refuse to see, at what civilian disarmament has looked like around the world over the past three centuries (yes, there was human history before 1965).

    Either they’re ignorant of it, or fully cognizant, and operate with malice aforethought; take your pick.

    1. avatar Will P. says:

      Having discussions with left thinking people I believe it is mostly ignorance. They have this happy, euphoric view of what the world should be where everybody holds hands and sings, and that world would eliminate evil as we know it. But everyone in that world would have to think the same way. Well we are all humans so we can all be exactly the same right?…Wrong! No matter what society has tried since the dawn of civilization that world doesn’t work and can’t exist. There are such things as necessary evils, but there is also uncontrollable evils. They are real and even in a “perfect world” you will not eliminate human greed, we strive for more, more, more. Greed is a necessary evil, it makes us steal from one another, it also drives us to move forward to bigger better things.

      1. avatar LarryinTX says:

        “They have this happy, euphoric view of what the world should be where everybody holds hands and sings, and “that world would eliminate evil as we know it”

        Agreed, except it should finish up with “and then everybody will do what I want.” Which was Osama’s whole plan when he declared that he would fix the world by sitting down and talking with our sworn enemies. And each unicorn-hugging fruitcake believes exactly the same, “everybody should do what I want”.

        1. avatar Will P. says:

          Well of course you have to have a leader to direct everyone to this eutopian dream place. The problem is(as it has been with all communist nations) when they get close the leader is supposed to let go of the rains and step down so they are equal as well. The problem is once the society has made it to that point they are under complete control and that same greed discussed before will not let them step down. Why should they? They are the most powerful person in thier society, and everything they do is for the “greater good”. The doctrine of the “greater good” with split tounges will always be thier downfall. The powerful don’t want to loose power and become just “average” like everyone else.

    2. avatar Evan in Dallas says:

      It’s not about facts or being ignorant. It’s about pushing the narrative. “Communism is good when you do it right. Rich people want you to die in the street, gun owners want your children to be killed.”

      Facts and history are irrelevant to them, which is why they are a plague on this earth.

      If there is a God (and I tend to believe there is) and there is some universal good and evil, progressivism and big government have to be a part of the evil we are called to fight. Sad thing is most of the pastors I know are the worst kind of statists.

  9. avatar Retired LEO says:

    Considering our current muslim president & staff @ D.O.J. and, Clinton redux is a true socialist anything is possible.
    How many POTUS would trade 5 avowed terrorists for a traitor. Especially since 1 has returned to his activities already.
    Time to water a tree of liberty has arrived.

    1. avatar actionphysicalman says:

      Sounds like (and I could be wrong) trolling for someone else to take the risks (physical, strategic, and ethical) of trying to light a fuse for a cascade of violence. I’ll surely admit that it won’t be me and I don’t think it is very admirable to try to incite others to do something you won’t do yourself.
      I also haven’t seen any convincing evidence that Obama is a Muslim. He appears to be just a very charismatic narcissist to me.

  10. avatar IdahoPete says:

    “… someone who’s clearly affiliated with the NRA.” And I am willing to bet that the people posting the violent threats on the NRA web site are not actual, dues-paying members. They are people who get to post anonymously on a web site, so they feel free to vent. And when you read the anti-gun comments about NRA members on the HuffPo, or the CSVG, or Twitter, or the Politico web sites, you will see similar levels of vitriol and wishes that all NRA members and their children could be killed. Plus posts from actual ISIS terrorists.

    TTAG does the right thing by requiring traceable, legitimate email information from commenters, and by weeding out the wackjob comments.

    1. avatar Lurker_of_Lurkiness says:

      The email I use for this site:
      twerker@twerkines.som

      Not my legit email hahaha

        1. avatar LarryinTX says:

          What are you saying? Those aren’t legitimate?

      1. avatar MarkPA says:

        No doubt some of those posting apparently Pro-gun intemperate remarks are really Antis. That doesn’t matter; and, there is nothing really that can be done to stop it. One web site could censor them but some other web site would allow them. The Antis would find these remarks in the web site(s) that allow them.
        What we need to do is to respond to intemperate remarks on our web sites condemning intemperate allegedly Pro-gun remarks. If every intemperate remark is responded to by several criticisms the intemperate remarks would lose their effect.

        1. avatar Robert Farago says:

          That’s one theory.

    2. avatar Geoff PR says:

      “TTAG does the right thing by requiring traceable, legitimate email information from commenters, and by weeding out the wackjob comments.”

      No, they don’t.

      They can ask, but they don’t always get.

      Remember that WordPress bug that posted people’s e-mail addy a few weeks back? I was a bit surprised my adddy never showed up, as my posted TTAG addy is most certainly no-way-in-hell valid.

      noway@nada.net

      I was kinda hoping for a snide crack about it.

      Curses. 😉

  11. avatar johnb says:

    using the common accepted definition of terrorist…no.

    Using the bizzaro world definition of it…oh yeah…probably a hate group too.

    ISIS…they’re just angry about being unemployed..

  12. avatar John G says:

    I think some may be missing the point of the article. While I don’t think the NRA will ever be labeled a terrorist group there are some pretty vile comments made on social media from pro gun advoates, everything from saying I’ll shoot anyone that takes my guns to out rights threats of violence against the president. It doesn’t help the cause for gun rights to threaten people of the opposite view. I am pretty sure that is also a definition of tyranny; agree with me or you die!

    1. avatar Accur81 says:

      First of all, those comments may be faked by anti-gunners wishing to feed their own self-reinforced stereotypes of gun owners as uneducated, toothless, under-endowed, anti-social, racist, OFWG ammosexuals.

      Secondly, the anti-gun / anti-freedom lobby has 10 times the hate, at least, of the pro-gun / pro-freedom side. Read their comments and you’ll find a proliferation of the stereotypes which I mentioned previously. Often the argument is used in lieu of any sort of factual argument, because anti-gunners consider themselves the moral superiors of those who do not rely upon strangers for their protection.

      Thirdly, the anti-gun sides is virtually completely closed to comments or dissent on their videos and blogs. They want to lie without the “inconvenient truth” of being told the truth. This from MDA as CSGV Facebook pages, as well as most anti-gun political speeches captured on YouTube. Clearly, Obama and his ilk consider a “conversation” to be their bloviation and your naive agreement. Anything else is not tolerated.

      Further, any reasonably savvy gun owner could handily obliterate most anti-gun “arguments” with basic knowledge of human history, American history, police history, and the history of lawful civilian firearm use in the US.

    2. avatar uncommon_sense says:

      “It doesn’t help the cause for gun rights to threaten people of the opposite view. I am pretty sure that is also a definition of tyranny; agree with me or you die!”

      The overwhelming majority of pro-liberty, pro-gun advocates are NOT taking the position “agree with me or you die”. Rather, their position is “leave me alone or you die”. That is righteous self-defense, not tyranny.

  13. avatar Ross says:

    No your not wrong and I fully expect it to come to that in the not to distance future.

  14. avatar Jay W. says:

    If you can think it up. it can happen.
    I think the current administration could say firearm extremist much more easily than they could say Islamic extremist.

  15. avatar Former Water Walker says:

    You’re not wrong RF. Gun owners get blamed for all kinds of evil. I don’t wish the gabby harm but she gets zero sympathy from me. Time to renew my NRA membership…

    1. avatar LarryinTX says:

      She has my sympathy. She did not deserve that, and now she and the hubby are getting rich off of it, which is probably needed for her care.

      1. avatar Former Water Walker says:

        Gee Larry Hitler got gassed and went blind for a bit during WW!-same kinda’ sympathy? Did anyone deserve to get poison gas attacked?

      2. avatar Marcus (Aurelius) Payne says:

        People can forfeit the sympathy they are due.

  16. avatar BluesMike says:

    I’m very surprised any of the commentors in this entry believe for a second that those statements came from a true person of the gun. I know a lot of POTG and I know ZERO of them that would post this in an NRA blog. I’m quite certain that 99% of those posts are from anti-gunners pretending in order to smear us (the exception being that first saying to leave us alone).

  17. avatar Ralph says:

    Am I wrong?

    Yeah, probably. You made an incorrect assumption. Namely, that the alien force currently occupying the White House would need an excuse to attack and destroy the NRA. This administration practices Chicago thug politics, having already weaponized the IRS to go after right wing and pro-Jewish groups, and the Justice Department to go after political critics like Sen. Menendez.

    Just like it did with its proposed ban on common 5.56 ammo, this administration operates on pretext, not actual events. It doesn’t need a Reichstag fire. And it’s not waiting for one.

    1. avatar Marcus (Aurelius) Payne says:

      I think every party represented in government should get to appoint a special prosecutor to investigate members of the other parties. They should have the power to subpoena documents and arrest anyone on the spot for not complying immediately with a subpoena.

  18. avatar AllAmerican says:

    Could they? Ha. They will. Under the reign of Reich Chancellor, Her Furor: Hitlery. She is an Aryan after all.

  19. avatar Frank McGhee says:

    The Federal Government has already advised that military veterans returning from OEF/OIF pose a risk to the public, so why not the NRA?

    https://mcauleysworld.wordpress.com/2009/04/16/home-land-security-head-napolitano/

  20. avatar gsnyder says:

    Fed pretty much doing what they want now. The ONLY reason we are not in an overt dictatorship/tyranny is the administration keeps a wizard of oz veil carefully in place. When or if they would come out and declare the NRA a terror org., they have lifted the veil. Then the people will decide to accept tyranny or not.

  21. avatar Patrick Wider says:

    The lefties already think the NRA is a terrorist organization. I had an uber-liberal neighbor tell me so when she spied my NRA bumper sticker. She also didn’t like my “Stop Obama” sticker any better. Barry, Holder, and their Marxist buddies are cut from the same pinko cloth. We’re lucky Barry hasn’t limited us to sling shots and chucking spears (in the latter case I know what you’re thinking but you had better not say it). Lock and load boys…….

    “I do think there are certain times we should infringe on your freedom.”
    Former NYC Mayor Michael Bloomberg

    “What we need to do is change the way in which people think about guns…in the way in which we’ve changed our attitudes about cigarettes…really brainwash people into thinking about guns in a vastly different way.”
    Eric Holder, Attorney General of the United States

    “If I could have banned them all – ‘Mr. and Mrs. America turn in your guns’ – I would have!”
    Dianne Feinstein

    “All we ask for is registration, just like we do for cars.”
    Charles Schumer

    “We are going to take things away from you on behalf of the common good.”
    Hillary Clinton

    “Given the daunting challenges that we face, it’s important that president elect Obama is prepared to really take power and begin to rule day one.”
    Valerie Jarrett, Senior Advisor in Obama’s regime

    “As a general principle, I believe that the Constitution confers an individual right to bear arms. But just because you have an individual right does not mean that the state or local government can’t constrain the exercise of that right, in the same way that we have a right to private property (as) local governments can establish zoning ordinances that determine how you can use it.”
    Barack H. Obama

    1. avatar AnotherOne says:

      You make a good point that the left holds their views absolute, and nobody should have a different one. I on the other don’t mind opposing views, and like debating with them (till they just devolve into name calling that is).

      Key difference: When I see a Obama or Elizabeth Warren stick on a Prius, I think.. ugh lefty and move on. If I had a Paul or Cruz, or even Romney sticker on my car, they would think ‘I need to scratch that car with my key or get it towed somehow’.

  22. avatar AnotherOne says:

    Robert – you are not wrong. I think there is obvious risk that as the government keeps turning the screws like the upcoming ammo ban, it could lead to someone less disciplined to eventually do something wrong. We will all lose when that happens, no if’s and’s or but’s about it.

  23. avatar thelangloises@bellsouth.net says:

    I thought that maybe the Southern Poverty Law (SLP) has already gotten around to doing that. Maybe they just labeled the NRA as a “hate group” which is not far from a terrorist group.

    Maybe it will be the Revs. Jessie and Al, or George Soros supported groups?

    1. avatar int19h says:

      SLPC does label various organizations as “hate groups”, but their list doesn’t have any official recognition. It’s just their private opinion, nothing more.

      An official designation as a terrorist organization by the US government carries with it a lot of, shall we say, inconveniences. Among other things, under the current laws, it allows the executive to use deadly force against those so designated without any due process whatsoever. Yes, even on US territory and against US citizens.

  24. avatar PavePusher says:

    Meh.

    https://www.facebook.com/Gun.Talk.03

    They document clear threats to gun owners daily.

  25. avatar stykusfykus says:

    Makes you wonder why the NRA doesn’t monitor their comments section better. I know TTAG has a few followers who are on the fringe, but you never see comments that are that blatantly idiotic.

    1. avatar Robert Farago says:

      We delete them. FAST.

  26. avatar Jake Tallman says:

    No, you’re not wrong. But they won’t, at least not in the near future. If they declare the NRA (with its 5 million+ members) to be a terrorist organization, then they will have no choice but to act on that declaration. If they do THAT, they will have a massive insurrection on their hands, and most of the fence-sitters would turn against the government (in spirit if not in violence). America is still a largely pro-gun country, as far as raw numbers and opinions go, and they couldn’t declare the NRA to be terrorists without it backfiring in a big way.

  27. Teenage girls say worse things than that on the internet.
    I made a comment a couple days ago on the Geraldo Rivera story that “Randy Weaver should have been a better shot.” It’s a joke people! Stop getting your panties in a wad.
    In all seriousness though, doesn’t the anti American, anti Constitution, anti freedom, anti gun crowd realize that there is only one ending to this fight?

  28. avatar Megalith says:

    They can try to label the NRA as terrorists, but they would be declaring war on a group of very angry, well armed, and well trained group of citizens who out number the combined might of the U.S. militarty, police, and federal/state agencies by a large margin. The problem is, liberals actually think they can win a 2nd American revolution.

  29. avatar Jim R says:

    I’m frankly surprised they haven’t been. After all, this administration considers veterans, conservatives, Chrisitans and Tea Party members “dangerous individuals”.

  30. avatar Another Robert says:

    To answer the question–I expect the Southern Poverty Law Center has already done so. I know the US DOD is happy to classify Catholics and Baptists as terrorists in waiting.

  31. avatar Phil LA says:

    I’d be more concerned with a false-flag attack: a leftist operative sacrificing himself to pose as a violent right-wing loon.

    But yeah, don’t write stupid things.

  32. avatar DoomGuy says:

    Could the NRA ever be classified as a “terrorist group”?

    It already is.

  33. avatar Gatha58 says:

    Point is well taken as far as I am concerned. That is, free speech is great but pro-gun folks that rant, rave and make stupid and/or threatening comments do more harm that good to the cause. I think everyone should keep that in mind when posting here or anywhere else. Rude and threatening comments do not convince anyone that our cause is just. Just the opposite. Makes us all look irresponsible. Someone that cannot be trusted to have a weapon of any kind. And I hate to say it but many middle of the road people may then think that most of the pro-gun people are of the same persuasion when they read stuff like this. Which is really bad when lobbying for better pro-gun laws or getting rid of many of the overly restrictive gun laws on the books already.

  34. avatar Milsurp Collector says:

    Barring some catalyzing disaster on the proportions of 9/11, I don’t see the NRA being classified as a terrorist organization until the political climate and its extremity within the American public are right. The comments wishing death upon gun owners and their families are, for now, pretty much contained to comments on Facebook pages and the rants of the occasional journalist. Also, many of these comments or journalistic pieces are met with strong pro-gun opposition on all but the most entrenched websites. We will have reached an ominous turning point if anti-gun death threats are said by guests on programs as famous as The Tonight Show or Ellen and the audience erupts into applause.

  35. avatar Garrison Hall says:

    This is all about political symbolism. Anti-gunners have recognized that it’s important for the average public to think of gun owners and gun ownership as bad. In their minds gun culture in America is deviant behavior, so immoral and dangerous that it must be opposed in the name of public safety and decency. To contrast their presumed morally superior position with ours they search out extreme statements from gun people that most support their beliefs. Social psychology refers to this as a “labeling process”. Their problem, however, is that they lack the social power to make the labels stick. One reason for their failure is that gun-control ideology is in sharp conflict with America’s long tradition of gun-ownership. There’s a real culture war going on over this. Interestingly enough, People Of The Gun have been rather effectively challenging the gun-controller’s moral claims by using this exact same labeling process against the gun-control movement. TTAG is a good example of what I’m talking about. On any given day this site, and others like it, has sharp commentary focusing on gun-controller hypocrisy and excess. Effectively, we are also in the labeling business—and they are being described as the evil deviants out to destroy America’s sacred values. Although the fight is by no means over, the gun control movement, despite occasional symbolic successes, is not successful in convincing most Americans that gun ownership is a social evil. We’re winning and they’re losing.

    1. avatar Garrison Hall says:

      So, what would happen if DOJ labeled the NRA a terrorist organization? While it’s entirely possible for something like this to happen, the political consequences would be dire. Keep in mind that labeling only works when the label sticks and, in this case, I don’t think it would. Fortunately for all of us, we still live in a society were votes actually count and were speech is still relatively free. Almost immediately, elected politicians would see their careers going up in smoke if substantial numbers of their constituents, members of the NRA and its natural allies, were suddenly effectively labeled as terrorists. Certainly there would be public outrage, most likely well organized and on a national level. As we saw with the Civil Rights Movement , an aroused body politic is a powerful force for change.

  36. avatar int19h says:

    Fun fact: Taliban is not officially recognized as a terrorist organization (Taliban in Pakistan is, but that’s a separate group):

    http://www.state.gov/j/ct/rls/other/des/123085.htm

    1. avatar Yellow Devil says:

      So we can still “negotiate” with them without having to run into the problem with not negotiating with terrorists. We have had (unofficial) talks with the Taliban several times in Qatar pretty much the entire time the Afghan war has been going one.

  37. avatar uncommon_sense says:

    “Could the NRA Ever Be Classified A Terrorist Group?”

    Not only can they be classified a terrorist group, they must be classified a terrorist group. Why? Then Progressives can justify killing the group.

    All atrocities throughout world history begin with declaring the other people to be unworthy of life based on their beliefs or identity. That clears the way for their eradication.

  38. avatar joe_thousandaire says:

    Proof the 9mm is anemic – that one was funny.

  39. avatar Delmarva Chip says:

    I wouldn’t ever discount the possibility of persons in government doing very bad things. We have seen it again, and again, and again, and again, and again throughout history.

  40. avatar Don from CT says:

    I’ve got problems with the “she should have died” talk.

    Its not good Karma to wish someone else ill.

    It is however perfectly reasonable to say “Leave our guns alone, or else”.
    Thats essentially what the 2a says. Its why it exists. Its pretty clear in the Federalist Papers that our founders wished for the citizenry to be better armed than the standing army. In fact a couple of federalist papers were devoted to the dangers of an army vs a militia.

    So yeah, leave our guns alone. Or else. is a perfectly reasonable and even patriotic thing to say.

    Don

  41. avatar SurfGW says:

    As long as the NRA says things that are anti-government like “from my cold dead fingers” and other things that imply armed resistance, they make it very easy for DOJ to call the NRA terrorists or insurgents.

    1. avatar Don from CT says:

      Uh. Dude, the 2A is all about armed resistance. You don’t read much history do you?

      Do you feel that armed resistance would be wrong if it ever came to prohibition and confiscation?

      1. avatar SurfGW says:

        I do read history and am familiar with the background of the Second Amendment. I am also very familiar with the fact that Public Relations / Public Perception matters far more to the average voter or to drafting laws than facts.

  42. avatar neiowa says:

    Hillary won’t run.

    A LOT more risk of Obuma 3.0 I wonder if Vegas has odds on such yet.

  43. avatar Greg in Allston says:

    Isn’t the NRA (and OFWG&G’s in general) already considered a terrorist group by a significant (willfully ignorant) minority population of the United States of America? So the answer is yes. It’s who they are, it’s what they do. There’s going to be a fight. Let’s win.

  44. avatar S.CROCK says:

    I think the NRA is already considered a terrorist group by the MDA. A group that I am considering labeling as terrorists.

    1. avatar DickDanger says:

      Heck, I bet if a single MDA member snapped and drove her car through an open-carry rally, MDA would immediately bombard the media with “Don’t judge the many by the actions of a few”, and not recognize the irony in it at all.

  45. avatar Marcus (Aurelius) Payne says:

    Can we start a campaign to get the ATF classified as a terrorist group?

  46. avatar JohnF says:

    A few thoughts on this from an NRA member:
    > I am glad the NRA is a lightning rod for these kinds of anti-gun attacks. It may be the most useful role they serve now. I think they are becoming less effective every year as an actual gun rights lobby organization. It is a self-sustaining, high-revenue, non-profit organization. It exists not to win the gun rights war, but to keep the war going, because that is how it increases revenues and executive’s salaries.
    > The NRA brings this kind of fire on itself. They should not allow comments like the above on any online site they control, not to avoid being labelled a terrorist organization, but because comments like that are out of line and show the organization to be mean spirited, which doesn’t help our cause. Also, with the exception of his recent speech (which I doubt he had much of a hand in writing) Wayne shoots himself in the PR foot every time he opens his mouth. It is time for him to move on.
    > I doubt the NRA could actually get labelled a terrorist organization. The main reason being there would never be any evidence they committed or organized any terrorist acts. Posts on Facebook are 99% stupid, but they are not terrorism.
    > As the NRA gets marginalized, other organizations will take its place. The SAF is already becoming the preeminent national gun rights organization IMHO. And some of the state organizations, like the VCDL in VA are doing great stuff. I think the NRA needs another “coup” like they had in 1977, to clean house at the top and get in leadership that understands the messages, positions and actions that will best promote gun rights in this millenium.

    1. avatar JohnF says:

      P.S. It continues to be an embarrassment that the NRA represents such a small percentage of gun owners. And I mean that both literally, in that members are only about 4% of gun owners, and figuratively, in that even as a member, I don’t feel they do a good job of representing me and I know a lot of other members who feel the same way.

      Can you imagine if the NRA had even 25% of US gun owners as highly committed members? It would be a complete game changer in this fight. And with gun ownership on the rise, I don’t see why it’s not possible. Every new gun sold should have a one year free membership for new members and that first year should be designed to be a great experience for that new member. That’s just one idea. There have to be more.

  47. avatar Tony says:

    Oh yes, it is completely possible. If we wind up with a Clinton 2.0 administration (or any other progressive democrat/republican administration for that matter), we just may find ourselves facing that very thing with little to no provocation. I’d go so far as to say that they may manufacture an “incident”, to justify taking that step.

  48. avatar Indiana Tom says:

    The United Soviet Socialist States government already considers NRA members an impediment to the brave new Orwellian world they long to create. They see them as domestic terrorists, labeling them as such and taking proactive action. Fixed it.
    Robert, where have you been?
    Ted Cruz even said that gun owners are under attack in the last rodeo.
    As far as Giffords and Kelly go….they are the Bolshevik equivalent of Howdy Doody and Buffalo Bob.
    You do know that many of us consider Kelly to be America’s first Cosmonaut, a hero of the Soviet State.

  49. avatar DerryM says:

    First, the persons who posted those hateful quoted remarks are entirely wrong and stupid to do so. Not because they can be used to castigate the NRA and its Members, but because those types of remarks are morally and ethically despicable. They re on the same level as the Muslim Jihadists who call for the extermination of all Jews.

    Second, under the Obama-nation, The National Association of Sunday School Teachers, The Parent Teachers Association and Boy Scouts/Girl Scouts could all get declared Terrorist Organizations, fer Chrissakes! Anyone, Group, or Organization that does not blindly, totally and mindlessly agree with the Progressive Gospel is a Terrorist in Potential because The Progressives are the new iteration of Totalitarianism and tolerate no deviance from their Ideology and doctrines. In their hearts and minds they are the mirror-image, possibly unwitting mentors, of ISIS. The only thing holding them back is the fact their opponents are armed and could/would fight back.

    You are not wrong.

  50. avatar BDub says:

    And how is the anti-gun vitriol any different from the pro-gun vitriol?

Write a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

button to share on facebook
button to tweet
button to share via email