Jon Wayne Taylor was at TTAG’s super-secret above-ground bunker last night, teaching Dan and me how to apply a tourniquet, splint a broken bone and stop bleeding. During a Padron 1964 cigar break, we discussed the anti-gunners’ recent move: labelling the NRA a terrorist organization. Jon, who fought actual terrorists in Afghanistan was incensed. “They’re devaluing the word terrorist,” Jon opined. “Have the American people already forgotten what real terrorism is?” Good point. Calling the NRA terrorists is an affront to all the brave men and women who took up arms against the killers who slammed jets into civilians on 9/11. And the Muslim fanatics who would do so, gladly, again today. More than that . . .

The terrorist epithet paves the way for a conflict none of us – gun owners and non-gun owners alike – want to see go down in The Land of the Free and the Home of the Brave. So what do we call anti-gun groups like the CSGV who call for SWATting open carriers? People who consider legal gun owners insurrectionists? While I wouldn’t want to see the pro-gun side stoop to the level of the anti-gun crusaders, what do you call people who want to degrade and destroy Americans’ natural, civil and Constitutionally protected right to keep and bear arms?

114 Responses to Question of the Day: If NRA Members are Terrorists, What Are Gun Control Advocates?

    • The word “traitor” is used 15 times a week on your average soap opera, it wouldn’t mean anything to anti-gun individuals.

    • I’d call them the Hitler Youth all grown up.

      Advocating for disarmament is exactly what the Reich did in the 20s and 30s.

    • “The left destroys everything it touches….especially language”

      The latest example is the raping of the term “sexual assault” to now include “regrets by the woman on the following morning”.

      Dennis Prager.

    • One man’s terrorist is another man’s freedom fighter. I’m sure there are more hadjis than we who felt it necessary to invade that had no opinion about the US before we started pin-point targeting apparent real bad guys with 500lb bombs that killed the innocent neighbors too. Can’t make omlettes I guess.

      • How innocent were the neighbors? They allowed the terrorists or jihadists to set up in their neighborhood, allowed the bad guys to use them as human shields. Don’t tell me they couldn’t have stopped it, if they truly wanted to. The only innocents in those neighborhoods were the young children.

        • The Americam people voted in the politicians that kept troops in the ME long after 1991, for what was clearly to protect our oil interests. The West has long voted for politicians who chose to maintain an occupying presence long after WWI, including forcibly relocating people to assuage their own guilt about massacring the Jews.

          The West, especially America, is not governed by tyrants who cause their people to cower in fear – they are a government of the people, by the people, and the people are therefore as valid a target as any other government entity.

          Harming the innocent by claiming that they “allowed” evil to be perpetrated is a fool’s errand. The blame will never stop.

  1. They advocate for terrorist acts to happen upon law-abiding people who merely assert the freedom to exercise the right to keep and bear arms, but in their fetishist dystopia, it is agents of the state who perpetrate the harm.

    No, I think traitors is a much more fitting word.

  2. Call the NRA what you want; it’ll still exist and be a powerful political force with 5+ million PAYING members (not just Facebook “likes”).

    Calling the NRA a “terrorist” organization just makes the word meaningless IMO.

    I’ve been an NRA and SAF member for some time; just added a GOA membership due to this last go around of anti-gun nonsense.

    • That’s a great aspect about the NRA vs. all the mainstreem anti-gun groups; it’s paid for by millions of members collectively, not one singular 1%er.

    • Sorry, you can’t call them Nazis. They’ll just stand up and point at you and yell, “Godwin’s law! Godwin’s law! Gotcha! Gotcha! Gotcha!”

      Go to the core of the National Socialist structure, not the historical baggage – fascism. The anti Second Amendment gun grabbers are in every facet of their being fascists.

      Fascism: “WE have decided what is best for you. If you know what is GOOD for you then you will NOT argue with us.”

      Simple.

  3. what do you call people who want to degrade and destroy Americans’ natural, civil and Constitutionally protected right to keep and bear arms?

    DEMOCRATS

  4. Hard to sum up a description in a few words. So much anger and delusion, deception, illogically clinging to their misguided belief structure. Bloomies works for me for now, but it’s non-descriptive.

    Does anyone else find it odd that the disarmers are with rare exception exactly the things they constantly accuse us of being? Is not fighting tooth and nail and billionaire money to destroy the constitution a form of insurrection against us all?

  5. I’m still a big fan of simply pointing at them and laughing out loud.

    Walking away is pretty good too.

    And you can do both for best effect.

    “NRA members are a bunch of terrorists!”

    *pointing* Haa haa Haa *turning and walking away*

  6. Treasonous. Dishonest. Willfully ignorant. Evil. Statists.

    And those are those are the nice things I can say about them.

  7. what do you call people who want to degrade and destroy Americans’ natural, civil and Constitutionally protected right to keep and bear arms?

    Cardinals and Bishops.

  8. Enslavers. Or Disarmist enslavers. Historically and currently, a major difference between citizens and slaves is that slaves are not allowed to keep, and only allowed to bear arms with their masters’ permission.

  9. I’d like to think that most people are simply gullible. As Sister Sara once said “everybody’s got a right to be a sucker once in their lives.”

    But there is indeed a small cadre of very disturbed, very dangerous, fanatical zealots that are advancing a narrative designed to appeal to said gullible, low-information voters in the hopes of manipulating them to vote in favor of their agenda. Subversive, indeed.

    To

  10. Remember that we have young school children being charged with making “terroristic threats” by liberal educators and police, so this misuse of the word is not a surprise. Just part of our current culture.

    • Exactly. This latest tactic of calling the NRA “terrorists” doesn’t really devalue the T-word any more, because it’s already pretty much been destroyed through ridiculous overuse. It used to have a specific meaning, describing a specific kind of action, and now it’s used to mean pretty much “anyone I disagree with”.

  11. They are slaves and if someone calls you that, ask them if that was true, what keeps us from slaughtering them now? Other than as vermin, the anti’s have all kinds of weird cooties.

    • RIGHT. If the NRA’s 5 million members, let alone the nation’s 80 million-plus gun owners, were even half as violent as these nutballs say, there wouldn’t be any CSGV anymore. Everyone in it would be dead. No terrorism would be needed (that’s a tactic used only by the weak against superior strength).

      Their continued existence of leftists, progs, and outright communists in the USA is proof of how peaceful and non-terroristic the nation’s so-called right wing really is.

  12. I call them willfully stupid. It’s ok if a person is just plain stupid, they obviously can’t help it. But, for a group to be purposefully stupid, there is no excuse.

  13. I’d call them history repeating itself.

    There is a reason great civilizations collapse into chaos, tyranny and mass death. Progressives and the way they think are not new. They are the reason dark ages happen.

    Our Founding Fathers understood this.. They warned of the same forces of history that tore apart the Greek Republics and the Roman Republic could and would happen to us, unless we learned from history.

    We haven’t.

    • “It’s not ‘Progressive’ as in ‘Progress’ but ‘Progressive’ as in ‘Cancer’.”
      ~SteveInCO

  14. You have to remember these are the same people who have no problem with John Doe warrants being served by cops during midnight raids, in Wisconsin. And the warrants, midnight raids and armed cops were over political disagreements in Wisconsin.

    The cops went along with the charade and acted as armed thugs of the State of Wisconsin. Over politics. No organized crime, drugs, armed robbery or act of violence by anyone. Just politics.

    These people can no longer be laughed at, they have to be taken seriously. People need to pay attention because these statists have no problem using whatever methods they think they can get away with to achieve their goals.

    • “One of the ordinary modes, by which tyrants accomplish their purposes without resistance, is, by disarming the people, and making it an offense to keep arms.”
      –Joseph Story (1779-1845)

      “Inside every Liberal is a Tyrant screaming to get out.”
      –Author unknown

  15. “While I wouldn’t want to see the pro-gun side stoop to the level of the anti-gun crusaders, what do you call people who want to degrade and destroy Americans’ natural, civil and Constitutionally protected right to keep and bear arms?”

    Future Europeans.

  16. Everybody is somebodys terrorist. Just as every hero is somebodys coward. Terms mean nothing without context and since all context these days is a fabrication the terms will never mean anything again.

    • Very existentialist. Very non-judgemental, very egalitarian. Until someone walks up to you while your minding your own business, and threatens your life for the paper in your wallet.

      At that moment, all theory goes out the window and you are faced with a choice, be someone’s property, treated as a slave, with your life as the bargaining chip, or be willing to risk your life to be free.

      So go right ahead and be all existentialist and make no judgement between predator/tyrant and those they try to make thier prey/slave.

      Me, I’ll choose to pay the price to be free. You want existential? I’ll give you existential. I just won’t hate those that are the predators on other human beings. They serve a purpose after all,. Just as four legged predators serve a purpose by weeding out the weak, the sick and the unaware from thier prey. Human predators weed out those humans that are naturally the peasant, the peon and the slave mentality. Leaving by natural selection those humans that are by breeding and genetics, that are willing to accept nothing but being free.

      So I look upon human predators as a gift. The one that tried to make me his slave woke me up to the gift that is the second amendment. Those predators now in government that are now trying to make us all slaves are a gift. Just look ,at the gift that has been Obama. The greatest gun/freedom salesman of all time!

      So embrace the gift that are the tyrants, and choose what evolutionary branch of human beings you will be. Free person or slave.

    • The word terrorist is being tossed around too often these days. A terrorist is someone who is willing to do anything, even murder innocent civilians, to prove their point. No one in the NRA or any gun owner in America is willing to kill an innocent person over their gun rights. Fight an enemy combatant who wants to take away our rights, yes, but murder the innocent, no. Imagine if the NRA truly was comprised of terrorists…5 million terrorists, there would literally be blood flowing in the streets.

  17. I agree, they strike me as children throwing a fit because they didn’t get candy before dinner?
    Even though a sensible adult knows better…these children still throw a tantrum.
    Time and time again they refuse to see wisdom before ideals.
    I’m still amazed at how unyielding ignorance can be in an adult mind despite world examples of the benefits of self defence.
    This is me…shaking my head in disbelief.

  18. Hitlerites. Stalinists. Fascists. Liars. Take your pick, they all fit.
    I do have to add that “Momser bolsheviks” is my choice for the duration.

    • This resonated well when I read it. Especially since they actively promote violence against gun owners and hatred for people that disagree with their position.

  19. Most of these people are just straight up jerks. The average joes are just ign’ant. So name-calling not really necessary in my mind.

    So basically just fill in any word you’d throw at someone of ill moral character who threatens you. Sums it up nicely for me. :p

  20. “Calling the NRA terrorists is an affront to all the brave men and women who took up arms against the killers who slammed jets into civilians on 9/11.”

    Wrong. Most of those people died in the attack and the plane that landed in…Virginia? Maryland? had the hijackers arrested. Not one goddamn person in our military “took up arms against” them. They took up arms against people in nations that had nothing to do with the attack but had the “wrong” skin color and wouldn’t kneel before the President (How DARE a foreign nation think they have the right to their own laws and form of government?! Don’t they know that the US rules everywhere?!).

    Calling the NRA terrorists is just as idiotic as calling people in Afghanistan or Iraq “terrorists” for defending themselves against an unjust invasion and the murder of their people. Just as defending your Constitutional rights isn’t terrorism, neither is defending your home from attackers.

  21. Controlists.

    I believe I saw that term used on TTAG years ago, and I’ve been using it in debates/arguments with anti’s ever since.

  22. I’ll reply with the same as yesterday:

    • NRA: Organization actively and strongly supporting one of your civil rights.

    • Brady Campaign/CSGV/MOMs: Organizations actively trying to suppress and deny an American civil right.

    Which one is the terrorist organization?

  23. I suspect that the Anti-Gun crowd is actually pretty diverse. Much like we are in that way. A few at the top like Bloomie and Shannon have an agenda and an irrational fear of guns. Some jump on that bandwagon due to many different reasons and their emotions tend to rule over reason. Could be that they know someone who was killed by someone with a gun. They were frustrated and thought they could do something positive by jumping on the Anti-Gun bandwagon. Some are Fanatics for one reason or another and have convinced themselves that guns are the root of all evil. Some are politicians that think they found a convenient way to convert rhetoric to votes. Others are politicians that want to distract the voters from the failed policies of the past by focusing on the “evil guns” instead of fixing the real problems in our society. Such as too many plea bargains, being too soft on violent criminals and working to fix our mental health issues. There are probably some other factions I have not thought of yet.

  24. Judas?

    Willing to sell out their country for a bribe? If they actually get their way and force restrictions somewhere in the likes of England, I think we would get an accurate analogy.

  25. “While I wouldn’t want to see the pro-gun side stoop to the level of the anti-gun crusaders, what do you call people who want to degrade and destroy Americans’ natural, civil and Constitutionally protected right to keep and bear arms?”

    Several answers come to mind, most of them sarcastic and one not.

    1. Democrats (it’s been done already, but it’s worth repeating because it’s true).

    2. Liberals, and I mean the REALLY crazy liberals who start foaming and frothing at the mouth at any mention of things that don’t fit their Democrat-approved, European-style world view and start getting violent without any manner of provocation. I could argue that they actually belong in the mental wards with all the psychos that keep going off the REAL deep end and kill and maim large groups of people at once, the way they can be set off sometimes. Reasonable, logical people do not scream obscenities and death threats at others for peacefully admitting to having an opposing viewpoint on a subject, nor do they openly plot via “social media” to “SWAT” those they see openly carrying in compliance with the law or even those they merely SUSPECT of carrying concealed.

    3. Domestic enemies. You know, the type of enemy that our armed service personnel identify as a threat to our country and Constitution. And the longer the Democrats talk, the more I come to see them as just that–domestic enemies. When a political party openly suggests that a civil rights organization be labeled as “terrorists” for their views on what has been established as an individual right by the highest court in the land, they are not threatening just the Second Amendment, but the First, Fourth, Fifth, and Eighth Amendments, and possibly opening the Ninth and Tenth to further abuse or restriction in their zeal to accomplish their goals.

    Somehow, all three of these seem to blend together if you look at it just right, and only seems to further prove the concept that was adopted in the ’60s, that our republican system largely operates at the whim of the loudest, most vocal (and smallest) portion of the population rather than the true majority. If that doesn’t scare you about the future of the last, freest nation on the Earth, I’m not sure I want you as my neighbor. :p

  26. The objective of gun control is control of the streets by gangs allied with the Democratic Party. THE BLM movement is nothing more than a Democratic Party Popular Front designed to help the gangs. Push that meme. It has the benefit of being true.

  27. I am a proud member of the Patriot Guard Riders. I did 4 years in the USAF, from 1977-1981. Never saw combat. It could have happened, it just didn’t. The PGR was founded because of a religious lunatic named Fred Phelps (now deceased) But his hateful organization, the Westboro Baptist “church” goes on. I attended the funerals of many soldiers KIA in the middle east. These brave men and women gave their lives for their fellow Americans. I will not get into the politics of those wars. These people were in the military, and most were likely armed at the time of their death. Back in 2011, I and several hundred other PGR members unofficially attended the funeral of Christina Taylor-Green, a 9 year old girl killed in a shooting by a crazed gunman, where U.S. Representative Gabrielle Giffords was also seriously injured. 18 people were shot, at least 6 died. Fred Phelps and his hate group had threatened to attend. They never showed up.

    I totally do not understand how preventing law abiding citizens from owning guns is going to stop violence of any kind, including gun violence. There are millions of guns in this country already. And if they weren’t, illegal guns and ammo can easily be bought from the black market. Look how effective the governments totally failed “war on drugs” has been. (no, I am not a drug user) Do they think that a “war on guns” would be any more effective? If they do, they are totally delusional. There would almost certainly be MORE gun violence, as a law abiding citizens ability to fight back against it would be seriously diminished. Would a legally armed person at the Tucson shooting have made any difference? It’s hard to say. It would have depended on so many variables. It was a crowded scene, and from firsthand reports it was all over in a matter of seconds. I would have probably been difficult to identify the shooter quickly under those conditions. But at many other mass shootings (just why are these shootings happening anyway? It seems most of them are the result of a mentally unstable person getting their hands on a gun) Anyway, it looks like someone else with a gun might have been able to save lives at many of these incidents. Gun control is most definitely not the answer. But it looks like nutcase control might be, One has to wonder what the true agenda of gun control advocates is.

  28. I call them extremists. Calling the NRA and it’s 5 million law abiding American citizens paying members “terrorists” is extreme.

  29. I wonder — if the NRA had ten million members instead of five million, would the gungrabbers still be talking sh!t about it?

    I’d love to find out.

  30. Um . . morons? Fools? Socialists? Idiots? Haters? Criminals? Traitors?

    Should I continue or is my perspective coming through?

  31. “Agitators” or “Outside Agitators.”

    I take the question to be one of political positioning – what are these people in the political process, vs. a question of describing their policies or world view. Politically they are agitators: stirring things up to try to get an emotional response – getting people “all wee-wee’s up” one might say – leading to disorder and reaction which they can then appropriate.

    In this regard they are “agitators” or “outside agitators.” If the conversation goes on a bit longer, call them the self-appointed “Vanguard”, or “agents provocateur.” When they thrown bombs just so they can shout that the conflagration is your fault, call it out.

    Some of them are doubtless sincere in their concerns, or responding directly vs. manipulatively, or not thinking about the words they use, just what it feels like. No difference. Make them make the case that they are not these deliberate manipulators by separating the manipulation from the meaning. “That’s a hell of a thing to say.” is a good start.

    Calling the other guys “terrorists” is purely an emotional manipulation, if they’re not actual, you know, terrorists. So, make them make the case. Then when they back off – “Oh, not you and I was just being rhetorical!” – let yourself be hurt or at least a bit offended:

    “Well, now that we’ve straightened out that you don’t meat to actually call me an actual terrorist, when you, you know, call me a terrorist with that exact word, to my face … I’m in less fear of immediate arrest. You’re not going to report me to Homeland Security are you? As a “terrorist?”, as you said?”

    “Your using that word has real consequences for me. So, no, I can’t let it pass as just a rhetorical flourish, and I really don’t think it’s good for me to even talk to you if you’re going to be like that. More to the point, I’m not the one threatening or imposing consequences in this conversation – what you did is really a kind of extortion. I don’t like to discuss things that way, so no, thank you.”

    “Since you don’t want to have a discussion on the facts as if we are peers and co-citizens – I’m a “terrorist”, remember, how could you have that kind of discussion with a “terrorist?” – this isn’t good for me.”

    “Agitators” is neutral enough, descriptive enough, and accurate enough to do the job. It works mainly because it is bang-on. (<- Excuse me. That was a Canadian-ism, not intended as a threat, like, you know, un-personing someone as a "terrorist.")

  32. Fascists under the guise of Democracy. Statists who are willing to kill freedom and individualism for their vision of a utopian society.

  33. Terror comes in many forms. A terrorist does not need a gun or even an overt weapon, all they need to do is create a state of terror, which is AKA fear. A terrorist is one who would terrorize, in general with intent to create fear and thus gain control and or see success in their agenda.

    In a Country where the Right to bear arms is a Right, and an action is brought against this Right to create fear, is this not terrorizing people? It is in my book.

  34. Does it really matter what they call the NRA or its members? As long that the Feds don’t change the definition, I don’t care what we’re called.

    Two quick points:

    1) People are prone to hyperbole and will revert to to. In the aftermath of September 2001, I remember hearing coaches and players say that describing football as a battle and players as warriors undermined what war really is. Look at interviews over the last several years. The language is back.

    2) The people we are complaining about are usually the first to demand that words not be used to describe other people. I don’t want to get into comparing terrorist with retard, but I’m not going to stop someone from using whatever words they consider appropriate. That’s for them to do. I might ask them to refrain, but no more.

  35. Nah… SWATing is simply a harmless prank.

    Actual terrorism is being a Christian and refusing to bake a politically correct cake. Or being a conservative and daring to hurt someone’s feelings. Those are the people that need to be lined up and shot.

    At least in the Progressive mind.

  36. Call these people what they are – which is they are socialists and communists. Of course they won’t like that because its a label. If the shoe fits wear as they say. They don’t want anyone to put 2 & 2 together to realize that the very things that they believe are the doctrines of Marxism. They want control of YOU – from what you believe to what you eat and that includes the ability to protect yourself.

Leave a Reply

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