Incendiary Image of the Day: The NRA is a Terrorist Organization Edition

The Daily News is no friend to gun rights. So it’s no surprise that the fact that Congress itself has slammed the so-called FBI’s terrorist watch list as an inefficient, unaccountable system – one that denies Americans their Fourth Amendment rights – escaped their notice. But their recent campaign against the NRA’s opposition to “closing the terrorist loophole” represents a new low, even for them. More than that, this image represents a major escalation in the left’s vilification of the nation’s oldest civil rights organization and, by extension, those who agree with the NRA’s work to defend and extend Americans’ gun rights. This will not end well – especially if Hillary Clinton becomes president. Keep your powder dry.

[h/t DrVino]

comments

  1. avatar Chip in Florida says:

    The NRA should start a law suit for slander and/or libel. It won’t go anywhere legally, but it would put the Daily News in a position of having to claim they are saying what they are saying is parody. Then it will be on record that they are not a news outlet but instead an entertainment company.

  2. avatar BenFromPA says:

    So, just thought about this. (NRA = Terrorists) + New law barring anyone on the “terrorist watch list” from owning/purchaseing a gun = millions of armed “right-wing extremist” terrorists. I can’t be the only one to think of this.

    1. avatar uncommon_sense says:

      BenFromPA,

      Gun grabbers and their ilk will happily use any method available to disarm and punish people who own firearms. Don’t think for a second that would have any reservations about a law that deems anyone a “terrorist” who participates in a political organization to advance gun rights.

      As I mentioned to Anon in Ct, gun grabbers are happy to violate any and all Amendments and rights, including our First Amendment right to petition Congress and assemble peacefully for a redress of grievances … as well as our Fourth Amendment right to Due Process. Rather, gun grabbers want a law that makes us “criminals” for petitioning Congress and assembling peacefully for a redress of grievances … and they want that law to apply ipso-facto without any due process to establish that anyone really is a terrorist (e.g. without any requirement to produce evidence of a “terrorist’s” plans to attack masses of random people).

    2. avatar ThomasR says:

      It’s called transference. Those accusing the largest civil rights orginization in the world defending the most important civil right as “terrorists” is because they are in fact the real “terrorists” in attacking what should be the first civil right, the right to KABA.

      They are showing who are the real enemies of this country, it’s constitution and our traditional freedoms, and it’s not a bunch of Muslim Jihadi’s.

      They’ll just use the Jihadi’s as the most current boogeyman to justify trying to take more of our freedoms, especially the second amendment.

    3. avatar Vitsaus says:

      Easy solution, we stop joining the NRA, the mass exodus of membership pushes them to spend their money on lawyers to fight things like the NFA and various AW bans instead of banquets and gold engraved Kentucky rifles. Less talk, more fight. Then you don’t have to worry about being an NRA terrorist since you won’t be a member, and you can re-join after they’ve defeated the very same forces that created your worries in the first place.

      1. avatar SteveInCO says:

        Alternatively, if all non-Fudds left, they’d continue to behave as a bunch of Fudds, they’d take less heat for doing so, and continue to be useless.

        If you get a certain result (Fudd NRA) no matter what you do, you might as well do the thing that causes you the least expense. Save your membership fee and use it to buy a single .22LR.

  3. avatar HP says:

    I live in upstate New York, and prior to some recent articles bashing gun rights, I’d never even heard of the Daily News. Maybe it’s popular down in NYC, I have no idea, that’s a whole different world down there. I’ve never met anyone who reads this paper, so my guess is they are a niche publication, that niche being hateful leftists.

    1. avatar Rokurota says:

      Not a niche pub. They’re the #2 paper in NYC. The Times is highbrow, Daily News is more working class.

      1. avatar Juanito ''Johnnie'' Ibañez says:

        Actually; with cover pages like the one above, I’d say the paper has just proven how “low brow” they really are. 😐

      2. avatar dh34 says:

        I wouldn’t insult the working class by saying the Post is for them. I think pretty one everyone there considers the Post to be National Inquirer level of “journalism”.

      3. avatar Paelorian says:

        Yes, you’ll find the Daily News and New York Post next to the New York Times at every newsstand and bodega (convenience store or corner store) in New York City. The Times cost a few dollars, the Daily News and New York Post are both tabloid journalism at best, but they’re only a dollar or less and I grew up reading that garbage. I used to think the Daily News was a smidgen better than the Post. Not anymore.

        1. avatar Joe R. says:

          Even if the world read it, that wouldn’t mean it wasn’t canary toilet paper.

        2. avatar JSJ says:

          The NY Daily News was up for sale recently. Losing $20 million/year, I suspect there weren’t many offers.

        3. avatar HP says:

          Jesus, that’s depressing. I stand corrected.

        4. avatar Lotek says:

          I stand dejected.
          Fixed it

  4. avatar Craig says:

    So what happens when 5 million + Americans are made “terrorists”, if Hillary gets her way?

    Probably would look something like Russia did from the Decemberists to 1921.

    1. avatar uncommon_sense says:

      Something about awakening a sleeping giant comes to mind.

      1. avatar CTstooge says:

        Still…14 million hunters, 30 million ‘recreational shooters’, and 330 million guns in US…

        But only 5 million NRA members. That’s a shame.

    2. avatar uncommon_sense says:

      By the way Craig, that is why people should already own firearms … well before any, shall we say, “creative” laws impede a person’s ability to purchase one.

  5. avatar damarius ilion says:

    Ahhhh anti-gun assholes they never disappoint……… They’ll have a helluva time getting my guns……..

  6. avatar Former Water Walker says:

    If you’re the daily news-it’s whut you do. Yeah sue ’em NRA. I ain’t frightened…

  7. avatar Anon in CT says:

    It’s actually quite frightening. While I don’t expect the media to care about the 2nd Amendment, I would have hoped some of them would care about Due Process or at least Administrative Fairness.

    1. avatar pg2 says:

      “Due process”? How quaint, are you posting from the 1960’s?

    2. avatar uncommon_sense says:

      Anon in CT,

      We have said it here many times … people who are willing to throw the Second Amendment under the bus are more than happy to throw any other Amendment/right under the bus, including our Fourth Amendment right to due process.

      1. avatar Bob says:

        That’s because in their fervor to put their equivalent of the Jews into the rail cars, they don’t ever for a moment think that they won’t be the ones in charge, and it could be them herded into the rail cars next.

        They are not unlike the king’s favorite whore or court jester; dependent on the whims of those in power, doing whatever it takes to get a leg up on someone else, bringing them down to buoy themselves up. Slaves who are blind to their actual position in the hierarchy. History and literature are full of such characters, sycophants all.

      2. avatar Juanito ''Johnnie'' Ibañez says:

        “Foolish Liberals who are trying to read the Second Amendment out of the Constitution by claiming it’s not an individual right or that it’s too much of a public safety hazard don’t see the danger in the big picture. They’re courting disaster by encouraging others to use the same means to eliminate portions of the Constitution they don’t like.”
        ~Alan Morton Dershowitz; “The Conceptual Foundations of Anglo-American Jurisprudence in Religion and Reason”, Tennessee Law Review. Vol. 62, No. 3, 1995, p. 759

  8. avatar Big Jim says:

    What a bunch of liberal progressive nut jobs! I can’t believe that the links in depth that these people go to To make the oldest civil rights organization in the books Look like a bunch of hillbilly terrorist. Really what they’re doing is a complete attack On gun rights and gun right enthusiasts, and just like the NRA it’s such a diverse crowd it’s clear across the boards. Just another way to express themselves in a let’s call it a terroristic way due to the fact that they’re going against the Constitution of America.

  9. avatar PeterC says:

    I remember the Daily News from when I was an undergraduate in NYC. Its audience was the urban equivalent of Bubba.

    1. avatar anaxis says:

      That’s an apt description.
      I always thought the target audience for the Daily News are the lazy and/or gullible; rehashed reports from AP/Reuters (or the NYT/Daily Mirror/etc), sensationalised with leftist agitprop & eye-catching graphics are all that is required to sell copy. These are the same kind of people who’s knowledge of the world outside their neighborhood consists entirely of blurbs fed them by a Yahoo/MSN/FB homepage, which is all their limited attention-span will allow for.

  10. avatar Mike F in AZ says:

    How about a defamation class action lawsuit?

    I’d guess this characterization alone will prompt people to join the NRA.

  11. avatar Paul53 says:

    Big O said yesterday the best revenge for terrorists is to ignore them and live your life. So people with automatic weapons, bombs, and desire to kill are OK, but law abiding American citizens with a CHL are the enemy. Sounds like terrorists get the better deal!

  12. avatar RMan says:

    When a real terrorist lets loose in crowded theatre I’d bet anyone unfortunate to be inside would beg for a gun owning American to help defend them…I’m incredibly insulted by this as a NRA life member

  13. avatar Tex300BLK says:

    Here’s a serious question I have for the firearms community. Why are we allowing our opponents to define the battlefield? Yes I realize with the MSM down on their knees we certainly have an uphill battle, but there has to be someone in media who wants to champion 4th amendment rights re: the NRA fighting Gun Violence Restraining Orders and now this nonsense. It sometimes feels like we are just sitting around waiting for the vultures at WaPo and the like the just parrot the same old line “Oh look here is _______________ that we tried to stop gun violence and the NRA is blocking it again!” Is there any money being spent by the NRA to get into media the very real threat of the government just adding undesireable people to a list and now you suddenly cant get on an airplane, buy a gun or whatever. Certainly educated people would see that message and realize that someday the list of things you cant do will eventually include them? I feel like that crucial message gets lost in the sea of Ted Nugents stomping their feet and griping about background checks. No one ever sees any intelligent news reporting showing that “Universal Background Checks” and the GVROs actually had almost zero to do with checking everyones’ backgrounds or restrict domestic abusers from access to firearms, and a whole lot more to do with massive breaches of privacy and infringement on civil rights with nary a shred of due process.

    1. avatar pg2 says:

      No, there doesn’t have to be anyone in the media that champions the 4th Amendment, or any Amendment, for that matter. In fact, their jobs depend on not championing anything that protects or emphasizes individual rights.

  14. avatar Joe R. says:

    NY puppy-pages / parrot-cage-liner printers ought to know. . .

    1) THEY’VE ALREADY FOREVER ABDICATED THEIR 1ST AMENDMENT RIGHTS AS MEDIA; AND
    2) FOREVER – AFTER WAIVED THEIR RIGHT TO BITCH.

    Pursuant to their past performance / SOP / ROE’s / EOF: THE NEWS ‘media’ IS BANNED FROM CALLING ANYONE A TERRORIST ! ! !

    EVEN IF THEY ARE F-ING CUTTING OFF PEOPLE’S HEADS OR THROWING THEM OFF OF BUILDINGS.

    FUMEDIA AND LET ME DIAGRAM THAT FOR YOU. That’s “You” [understood] – Go Fu<K YOURSELF.

    1. avatar Joe R. says:

      If they want to label the NRA ‘Gun Extremists’ TOUGH SH_T – they’re no longer entitled to lift a pen, hit a typewriter key, speak into a mike, stand in front of a camera, tweet on their damn phones, AS THEY HAVE FAILED TO SERVE THE POPULACE THAT THEIR 1ST AMENDMENT RIGHT IS GRANTED FOR.

      WHEN THE ‘MEDIA’S’ GOVERNMENT COMES TO OPPRESS AND KILL THEM, THEY BETTER HOPE THAT THEY WERE AT LEAST PRESCIENT ENOUGH TO PREVIOUSLY DIG THEIR OWN GRAVES, BECAUSE THE ARMED CITIZENRY THAT THEY CONSTANTLY DOG IS GOING TO LEAVE THEM WHERE THEY LAY FOR THE CROWS.

  15. avatar Indiana Tom says:

    The Progressives will attack the 2A, but they will also attack any and all other natural rights. Progressives dream of a North Korean type of government, which is their ultimate goal.

    1. avatar Juanito ''Johnnie'' Ibañez says:

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

      1. avatar SteveInCO says:

        I’ve been thinking of just consistently calling them “Regressives” from now on.

        1. avatar anaxis says:

          And henceforth, they shall be known as such. Regressive omniphobics abound!

  16. avatar DerryM says:

    Imagine the America where the people who manufacture this propaganda got their way. They have no idea what they are enabling.

  17. avatar Joe R. says:

    If the NRA wants some members it better bit<h-slap this down fast. Where's your NADs NRA? / NRA Members? If I had some patch of (D)-vacuum pump media defaming my character, I'd hire some pipe-hitting attorneys to make that cover very expensive. If that didn't work, [I'm guessing (as long as people are all fine with throwing stupid inflammatory comments around)] you could hire some $40 crack-whores to make it real difficult to deliver papers in the morning.

  18. avatar Fred says:

    There is no way Wayne could be a terrorist. How can we be so sure? He has never taken money or arms from the CIA.

  19. avatar jwtaylor says:

    This is good news.

    As Ghandi said (slightly paraphrased) : First they ignore you. Then they mock you. Then they attack you. Then you win.

    1. avatar Juanito ''Johnnie'' Ibañez says:

      Actually, that is a “misquote” attributed to Ghandi.

      The actual quote is:

      “First they ignore you. Then they ridicule you. And then they attack you and want to burn you. And then they build monuments to you. And that, is what is going to happen to the Amalgamated Clothing Workers of America.”
      –Trade unionist Nicholas Klein, 1918 address to the Amalgamated Clothing Workers of America

    2. avatar Joe R. says:

      If your name is unspeakable to your enemy, due to the fear it instills, you win, and you don’t have to die a raisin in the sheet, and become a poster child for the long-way through hell on earth.

      Jesus said to forgive your neighbor 70x7x.

      That 491st time, you better be throwing dirt over them.

  20. avatar Jim Bullock says:

    Really, if we’re doing it right, that “terrorist watch list” and similar things should be mostly empty, with people on it for a short time, before they are removed … one way or another.

    Or am I confused?

    /Rant
    Well, I for one look forward to seeing a complete itinerary and travel history for the late Ted Kennedy. (Wasn’t he on this ridiculous keystone-overlords list, back in the day? Or some other list. I get confused. So many lists.)

    And I hope they ding Senator Rand Paul on this – hijinks ensue when he’s personally over-reached leading to groping. (Video was available on the interweb. Delightful watching him just not having any.)

    Time for the FOIA requests, I think. Who’s on? Who’s off? How? What good does it do? Who decides? Also, congressional supervision – every time they ask for more money or broader authorization, require a briefing on what they’re doing with what they have. And of course, the lawsuits. Time for a(nother) mutual aid fund – everybody who’s denied this or that by people behaving stupidly using that list, we just fund their lawsuit.

    I need more popcorn.

    BTW, where’s the ACLU in this? So, secret, arbitrary procedures which cannot be disclosed, can put one on a mysterious “watch list” which is used to impose burden on, or prohibit: travel, association, communication, religious practice, use of your own money, and more. The burdens are both occluded when “official”, and arbitrary when presence on the list is provided as “context” to any overlord-minion wanting to look someone up. What they choose to do with that knowledge isn’t Homeland Security’s fault, apparently. But, you know, there’s no reason to believe anyone looking up folks on the gun registry – er, I mean terrorist watch list – will be treated differently by “enforcement” in possession of that factoid. No reason at all. (But having guns in the house makes one liable for whatever is done with those guns after they are stolen. There’s some problem here…)

    How one gets off the list is at least as obscure as how one gets on it. Except that nomination for arbitrary reasons from Folks Who Would Know can be enough – sort of like “may issue.” No abuse there – no chance, no temptation, no history. (Can anyone say “poll tax?) I look forward to an analysis of “disproportionate impact” of this list and associated procedures from the DOJ. I’ll wait.

    Wasn’t this kind of multiple-use and over-reach a bad thing, under the last administration? And it’s a good thing now, why?

    While I’m ranting, here’s another example of regulatory-creep. Just as RICOH, and “civil-asset forfeiture” were presented as narrowly permitted closings of “legal loopholes” for limited purposes, before becoming convenient bludgeons for other purposes, the terrorist watch list (& related, but who can say how “no-fly list”) was presented as an intelligence gathering tool. People on the watch list are worth investing some extra effort to see if they are actually ill-intentioned, or can be otherwise left alone … just like the rest of us. That was all.

    Using a “watch list” to sift in & out was sold as also freeing up resources to look for … I don’t know, guys coming through Greece on forged passports to shoot up Paris. Or maybe army shrinks corresponding with Imams who advocate violent expansion of Islamic rule. That guy’s briefings on the evils of everybody he worked with, where he lived, the governments, habits, and philosophies of these people might have been a hint. He wasn’t on the “watch” or “no-fly” lists, AFAIK. (Of course, how would I know.)

    Now you get on, we don’t know how. It’s apparently forever. And carries consequences in what you can do, but not, apparently, any additional scrutiny to determine whether you are, you know, an actual terrorist. I’m unclear how this helps.

    Maybe we should ask the ACLU about this. Let’s erode another right, some more, for mysterious reasons, without due process – that would be fun!

    Perhaps I could recycle the precise response I wrote them the last time they solicited me for donations. I had contributed via the EFF to a joint project of the two organizations, which addressed arbitrary erosion of a particular, individual liberty. So, the ACLU hit me up for money. After a couple back and forth’s, they finally understood my net: “Here’s a list of civil rights, and infringements recently. Here’s a list of what you’ve been up to for the last year and decade. When they line up better, talk to me again.”

    Apparently, that’s so unusual a position it took them a while to get it.

    So, here’s my similarly left-field take on the watch-and-other-stuff-whenever-that’s-convenient “list” of people we aren’t sure are terrorists. If we are sure they’re terrorists or supporting same, find them and shoot them. If we aren’t sure, what are we doing putting them on house arrest by another name? Go find out. That’s what this list is in principle for.

    Really, if we’re doing it right, that “terrorist watch list” and similar things should be mostly empty, with people on it for a short time, before they are removed … one way or another.

    Or am I confused?

    1. avatar Geoff PR says:

      “Or am I confused?”

      Yes.

      Oops, sorry, Jim.

      That was so long, I thought you were Joe R. for a second.

      Nevermind…

      🙂

  21. avatar Sammy^ says:

    A waste of time article. I have maxed out on reasons to not return to NYC (lived there 20 years) or to buy the nyt, nydn, or the nyp.

  22. avatar TruthTellers says:

    And in the year 2015 Newspeak became the official language of the media.

  23. avatar Mark Lloyd says:

    I’m waiting for the day some nitwit says I belong to a terrorist organization. I won’t take kindly to that assertion.

  24. avatar OneIfByLand1776 says:

    Articles like this make me pull out my checkbook to send another donation to the NRA….$100 coming your way Wayne.

  25. avatar the ruester says:

    This is easy.

    Of all the terrorists and mass shooters, how many were finally stopped by a good guy with a gun?

    Of those, how many got their firearm training from an NRA certified instructor?

    The NRA is responsible for more dead terrorists than all of the gun grabbing, tree hugging, John Lennon sing alonging douchebags in this entire world combined.

    And I mean “taught him how to shoot a gun” responsible, not “refused to surrender his white privelege and give all his money to the poor” responsible.

  26. avatar Paelorian says:

    When I wrote about demonizing and dehumanizing gun owners, efforts to depict us not as friendly and moral neighbors and good people but as terrorist scum who need to be killed, I did not think it would happen so soon. They’re already calling us terrorists. We haven’t done anything immoral, they are calling us terrorists for peaceably demanding our rights legitimately through the political process. (What a terroristic thing to say about us.) I’ve heard comments by those saying they can’t wait to order soldiers to kick in our doors and murder gun owners. Well, if this “gun owners are terrorists” rhetoric keeps up those opinions will become increasingly common. This is a glimpse of a future I hope never comes.

    These are not far-left newspapers/tabloids. These are the mainstream newspapers of New York City. It’s standard Democratic Party ideology. And yet they’re morphing into Der Stürmer. I don’t want to speak aloud what the next step would be from this point. As someone with a little historical perspective, the emergence of this kind of rhetoric in the mainstream press is terrifying.

  27. avatar Out_Fang_Thief says:

    Of course, we wouldn’t need the NRA if there weren’t so many people making lifelong careers out of attacking the Bill of Rights.

  28. avatar DetroitMan says:

    France has “common sense gun laws.” I wonder which “terrorist loophole” the Paris attackers exploited? Maybe the Daily news should investigate that. You know, do some journalism. Nah, never mind. I’m just talking crazy this morning.

  29. avatar Bdk NH says:

    The key in this battle is always “being right” by doing things lawfully until you don’t. As a first step, the NRA should sue on behalf of Wayne for slander. The Daily News is in such poor shape financially that they will fold immediately surely have to issue a second page retraction.

    As a second step, what would happen if the NRA organized a march of its 5 million members to protest outside of the NY Daily News offices in NYC? Peacefully armed with AR-15s. Would 500,000 show up? 100,000? What would happen if 100,000 gun owners marched on NYC armed and determined to assert their 1st and 2nd Amendment rights? Peaceful civil disobedience on a grand scale is very fashionable these days. I think we are getting close to finding out.

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