Previous Post
Next Post

 9/11 (courtesy

Isn’t It All Really Terrorism? Dan Gross asks in a editorial. That, my friends, is what I call a conversation stopper. If the American public accepts the Brady Campaign President‘s idea that all firearms-related injury and death is a form of terrorism then it’s chocks away on a police state. Dissent disappears and liberty takes a dirt nap. After all, what rights won’t the American people surrender to stop terrorism? I mean, other than the ones we’ve already surrendered during the War on Drugs and the Global War on Terror? Gross’ editorial is a serious—and seriously disturbing—look behind the curtain of the gun control mindset. Check this out . . .

I appreciate the literal difference [between terrorism and gun violence]. Terrorism is politically motivated, and most gun violence in our nation is not. But when it comes to the impact of the easy availability of guns, it is hard to argue against the premise that we are being terrorized.

It’s great to see a gun control advocate acknowledging the Fort Hood shooting—something the President of the United States studiously avoided in his post-Newtownian rush to civilian disarmament—even if Gross mentions the attack obliquely and completely out of context.

Which is par for the course for the President of the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence and his ilk; anti-gun agitators whose shameless language manipulation in pursuit of slippery slope gun control gives no meaning to the word “Orwellian.” For example, “common sense gun control,” “gun safety” and “gun reform.” And Gross’ conflation of the words “terrorized” and “terrified.”

Just to be clear, terrorists terrify us, but not everyone who terrifies us is a terrorist. I am terrified at the idea of a car accident taking the life of a loved one. But drunk drivers and other automotive killers are not terrorists. By the same token, children in high crime areas may be terrified by gang bangers but gang bangers aren’t terrorists. As Gross points out—and then completely ignores—there is no political component to these acts.

I am a New Yorker. I knew people who were lost on 9/11. I remember what it was like to walk around our great city in the weeks, months, even years after that attack. Our sense of security was lost. Every time we entered a subway or followed a rental truck into the Lincoln Tunnel we thought about it. Fear became interwoven with the fabric of our daily lives. We were truly terrorized. Sometimes it felt like our entire city was suffering from post-traumatic stress disorder.

But the terror that we felt after 9/11 is no different than what people in many parts of our nation feel every day. Children in some neighborhoods do not feel safe walking to school in the morning, and hear gunshots outside their windows at night. The only difference between the terror they feel and what we felt after 9/11 is that, in terms of an actual threat, their fear is far more justified. In fact, researchers have concluded that young people in many of these communities show clear symptoms of real post-traumatic stress disorder, only there is nothing “post” about it. They continue to live with the threat of violence every single day.

This is disgusting. Comparing the death of 2,979 innocent people in a single instance of politically motivated mass murder with the firearms-related violence in [unnamed] high crime neighborhoods is a slur against the memory of the people who died on 9/11, including dozens of office workers forced to jump to their own deaths. And yet Gross goes there, and invites his affluent white suburban admirers to go there with him.

Then there are those fortunate enough not to live in the cities and neighborhoods most impacted by gun violence — those of us who are robbed of a little more of our innocence with every new shooting at a school or movie theater or workplace. Parents who never used to think twice about the safety of their children when they send them to school but now do. That is what terrorism does – it eats away at our peace of mind. Even if these acts of gun violence are not literal terrorism, the impact on our society is one and the same.

Other than the fact that people in terrorist attacks and firearms-related homicide (and suicide) die (as they do in many other ways), 9/11 and “gun violence” are not even remotely similar. Not in terms of cause or effect. Connecting dots serves Gross’ purpose though: to set the stage for a tyrannical government to unleash their enormous anti-terrorist apparatus on “gun crime.” More specifically, gun owners.

In a nation that has devoted such significant resources to fighting terror, we should pay at least as much attention to addressing the every day terror created through gun violence. There is a far greater chance of any of us being killed by a bullet in our home or neighborhood than there is being killed in a terrorist attack. Should we not be every bit as committed — in the name of patriotism — to preventing that?

That’s the scariest paragraph on gun control I’ve ever read. I think it’s the calm tone. I can easily imagine these words coming out of President Obama’s mouth after an NRA member goes postal. And/or a New York gun owner shoots and kills a SWAT team member trying to confiscate his unregistered gun. After his family is slain. Like that.

Make no mistake: Gross has crossed the line. These are not the words of a man who has the slightest respect for the Second Amendment. He sees firearms-related crime as terrorism—which justifies the obliteration of our Constitutional protections. Here it is again:

Especially in light of the horrific attack in Nairobi, Congress should consider our lack of background checks for gun purchases a huge red flag. We saw at Fort Hood and, on a smaller scale, my family’s tragedy, the kind of damage that can be done by someone with a gun and the intent to commit terrorism. By refusing to address background checks, Congress is making us far more susceptible to that kind of attack. In fact, an al-Qaeda manual entitled “How Can I Train Myself for Jihad” recovered in Kabul advises would be terrorists in the U.S. to “obtain an assault weapon legally, preferably AK-47 or variations.”

Gross’ brother was shot by an apolitical pyscho. At the risk of seeming insensitive, the Brady President’s shown that he’s ready, willing and able to desecrate his brother’s memory by using it to further his political agenda.

Of the 46 senators who voted against expanding Brady Background Checks in April, it’s a safe bet that they would all list homeland security as an important priority. Their reason would probably be about their duty to protect the safety of the American people. Yet, these same members of Congress repeatedly shirk that responsibility on an issue that claims more lives in a few months than all of the acts of terrorism in the history of this nation combined.

Clearly this hypocrisy alone, even magnified by horrific mass shootings, is not enough to get Congress to act; and we cannot expect anything to change until we, the American people are willing to stand up and hold our elected leaders accountable to represent our well-being ahead of the corporate gun lobby’s — and to act in the true interest of our homeland security.

Ironic eh? The Brady Campaign manager is using patriotism to motivate Americans to undermine the values enshrined in our Constitution. It’s nothing new, but this idea must be resisted at all costs, lest we lose what liberty we have left.

Previous Post
Next Post


  1. False equivalence is a logical fallacy which describes a situation where there is a logical and apparent equivalence, but when in fact there is none (Wiki – AKA “The Book of Knowledge”)

    • There isn’t a logical equivalence, only an apparent one. (If there were a *true* logical equivalence, it wouldn’t be false.)

      I wonder if schools teach the basics of rhetoric anymore… The single most valuable class I took in all my years in school was 9th grade English — all about grammar and rhetoric. We spent an entire semester compiling a portfolio of ads that used various rhetorical fallacies. Our class would’ve torn Dan Gross to shreds.

      False equivalence would’ve been his death knell.

      • Sadly, no. Proof: Most “professional journalists” of today are incapable of writing a complete, grammatically correct sentence twice in a row. Just listen to how most kids talk. Especially in the larger cities.

  2. Is it just me, or is the gun grabber lobby getting ever more alarmist, shrill, and ridiculous with comparisons like this? Terrorism? Does anyone, i mean anyone really believe background checks are going to stop determined fundamentalists like McVeigh or Al Qaeda? Can we just all roll our eyes in unison at the idea that background checks stop terrorists? Smells a lot like desperation.

    • They ARE getting desperate. Newtown was their “perfect storm” to ram through some disarmament legislation, and it failed for the most part. All they did was get a few victories in states which were already heavily anti-gun (Colorado excepted, but if the guys who replaced Morse and Giron really want to ingratiate themselves with us, they might introduce repeal legislation) and they also galvanized the pro-gun community like never before. Like they never thought would ever happen.

      They’re running out of political steam, and even people who are neutral in the gun rights battle are tiring of hearing this anti-Constitutional rhetoric every time some nutcase shoots up a place. The Navy Yard shooting was barely a blip on the radar. That’s why they’re trying out some new tactics, like the “guns cause domestic violence against women” angle, and now the “gun violence = terrorism” angle.

  3. If terrorists are those who cause terror, then Gross and his god in Washington are terrorists supreme.

    I don’t know what makes me fear for my country more: Gross playing Judas goat or metrosexuals in skinny jeans.

    • Actually, all gun owners are afraid that his actions may affect their rights, and his actions are politically motivated, so technically he is a terrorist.

  4. Terrorism is politically motivated, and most gun violence in our nation is not. But when it comes to the impact of the easy availability of guns, it is hard to argue against the premise that we are being terrorized.

    Bollocks it is. Irrational pants-sh*tting on your part does not constitute an act of terrorism on the part of people who have done you no harm and do not intend to do you harm.

  5. More crap from a sick mind.
    If he wants to label me as a terrorist so be it.
    Im officially a terrorist, along with 1.3 million other Florida gun owners.
    Ok here I said it. You sickooes happier now??

    • On the day (heaven forbid) these gun grabbers get their wet dream fulfilled and repeal our natural, civil and Constitutionally protected RKBA they will wake up to find approximately 100 million terrorists in America patiently waiting for SWAT to show up and try to take their guns.

  6. So Gross, the political thought terrorist, is essentially calling our founding Constitution a terrorist document?


  7. What we have here is a great example of a major fault in human nature. The lust for power/control of a human being over a fellow human being has existed since there were human beings. This author is just embracing his totalitarian nature in pushing for his fellow human beings that hold a different opinion to be force into his ideal. He is also furthering the sustained campaign of gun owner demonization that will only work if gun owners fulfill the caricature or let is go unanswered. The tactic falls on deaf ears when people know gun owners as everyday people, friends, or neighbors.

  8. “…hold our elected leaders accountable to represent our well-being ahead of the corporate gun lobby’s… ”

    Here is a constantly repeated theme that we all seem to gloss over, and I think it should be paid attention to. By this statement they are proposing that gun ownership and the “gun lobbies” (and therefore, the NRA, et al), have no interest in protecting the Second Amendment and our natural, civil and Constitutionally protected right to keep and bear arms (to protect ourselves, our family, our community), other than just some big capitalist (gasp) plot to make money by greedy bastards who don’t care that people get shot and die with the product they are promoting and selling.

    The very subtlty of this implication is what makes it so easy to miss and so powerful in its application.

    • I’d like to take a second to introduce to you all the “corporate gun lobbies:”
      – Lockheed Martin
      – General Dynamics
      – SAIC
      – Booz-Allen
      – General Electric
      – Link Belt
      – Halliburton
      – Etc.

  9. Extremism rears its ugly head…. It’s about time the gun grabbers are labeled with the same vile words they use to describe other fellow Americans….

  10. I plan on fighting the “terrorism” to which he refers with a Glock 27 or 23. I’ll fight my way to a long gun, and switch to an AR or Mossberg 930 if given the opportunity. On duty, I’ll fight the “terrorism” referenced herein with a Smith .40 cal whilst en route to a de-milled M16A1. My choice of personal firearms is also effective against knives, clubs and physical force which are used in a great deal of violent confrontations.

    Mr. Brady has a right to fight the terrorism of gun violence with his own cowardice and a 911 call. As history has shown, cellular telephones are not effective methods of combating gun violence. In fact, those who would engage in gun violence have a clear preference for “Gun Free Zones.”

    Should Mr. Brady develop an inkling of intelligence, he is welcome to choose an effective weapon such as a concealed handgun. I support that right, so long as it is exercised in a responsible manner. I also support Mr. Brady’s right to free speech, despite the fact that his screed is morally objectionable. There. I support freedom and Mr. Brady does not. Funny, that doesn’t make me feel like a terrorist.

  11. This is obviously an attempt by whites to supress minority communities. We all know this terrorism is conducted by people of color forming terrorist bands. I omit the /sarc tag even though I am being a little tongue n cheek. The statistics tell us that “gun violence” is concentrated in the minority aread of the inner city. Once again Progressives show their racist selves.

  12. 98,000 people in the US were killed last year due to medical malpractice. As many as 180,000 are maimed Where’s the outrage?

    Based on volume, would this be medical terrorism?

    Depending on what numbers you believe, you are 3 to 9 times as likely to die by using your healthcare.

    The vast majority of these could have been prevented. You can bet your ass none of those people who suffered medical malpractice thought they would die or be permanently injured while voluntarily seeking healthcare that they were paying for.

    And this will get worse when Obamacare takes hold.

  13. I saw an elderly man slip on ice and crack his skull. I was terrified when his feet went out from under him. Is he now a terrorist? Now when I see elderly people walking on ice, especially if their hands are full or in their pockets, I feel terrified. Are they now terrorists? Even if they haven’t fallen yet? I know the comparison stretches the question to the point of ridiculousness, but so do Gross’ missives.

  14. “That is what terrorism does – it eats away at our peace of mind.”

    Conclusion: Those that work for mainstream media are terrorists!

  15. Right……..if this is the case you can now label the Ft. Hood shootings terrorism and not just work place violence. Like it should have been to start with.

  16. What the hell does the Nairobi attack have to do with Universal Background Checks? The more logical comparison would be the attack’s success in a NYC, LA or Chi. where Concealed Carry was the rule rather than the exception. Give me a chance to defend myself and I would have no terror. As a native NY’er who moved to NJ and commuted to NYC at the time of 911 I can honestly say I didn’t walk around in fear to rental trucks or riding the Electric Sewer (AKA Subway). Rather, I was so pissed, I found myself far more alert to my surroundings and the activities around me.This sniveling idiot can walk around in fear, I’d rather walk around armed.

  17. ” Should we not be every bit as committed — in the name of patriotism — to preventing that?”
    In the name of patriotism? Oh, hell no. These people are the least patriotic assholes I have ever heard of.

    • If this Gross guy is any kind of patriot (which I doubt), then he’s living proof that patriotism and freedom are NOT the same thing.

  18. Oh good. More projection from the anti-gun lobby. This is literally the equivalent of name-calling. Associate gun violence with something we all vilify — but for a different reason altogether.

    Are they really trying to equate US domestic violence and political / religious violence? I suppose violence is violence, but really what all violence has in common is it stems from individuals or groups of people with a distinct lack of morals, values, and a willful disregard for life.

    Fix that, and you solve violence. But it’s not that easy. Some people just want to see the world (or those in their immediate influence) burn.

    We put those people in prison for the most part, but many slip through the cracks or walk out the door due to legal shenanigans.

    But you know what, all this name-calling and lies from the anti-gun crowd weakens their position more than strenthens it. The more they insist in behaving like children with hate-speech, the less they will be taken seriously.

  19. “Clearly this hypocrisy alone, even magnified by horrific mass shootings, is not enough to get Congress to act; and we cannot expect anything to change until we, the American people are willing to stand up and hold our elected leaders accountable to represent our well-being ahead of [their political interests and next election] — and to act in the true interest of our homeland security…” [and allow every law abiding, legal adult the right to carry a firearm to defend themselves and their family from a completely unnecessary, and premature death at the hands of ignorant, liberal democrat voters.]

    Ironic, the people who now defend and justify Obamacare as the “law of the land,” are also the same people behind attacking the 2nd amendment, which IS the 2nd oldest “law of the land.” It looks to me like some “laws of the land” are more equal than others?
    Hey, welcome to Obama’s Animal Farm.

  20. I am a New Yorker.

    There is a cure for that particular mental illness. But it isn’t in my area. perhaps move to the South side of Chicago.

  21. This is the reason people need to care about abuses such as the killing of al-Awlaki. If slapping the label “terrorist” on someone is enough to strip them of all rights with no need for due process, then Constitutional rights generally have ceased to exist.

    Gross may be a nut, but if someone in power decided to take this idea and run with it, life could get extremely ugly, extremely fast. The whole Constitution has to be protected, not just selected parts.

  22. The use of the word “terror” and “terrorist” has been one of the single greatest causes for loss of our freedoms as a nation. Some politician merely utters the word(s) and then our freedoms and rights are legislated away.

    The same people claiming to protect us from terrorist are the real terrorist.

    Everyone must die at some point, I do not fear death, not everyone can live free, I fear loss of freedom.

    • The wonderful thing about freedom is that it can never be taken from you, only voluntarily given up. True, it might mean you have to choose between a hopeless last stand or going to a gulag, but it’s your choice to make.

  23. “There is a far greater chance of any of us being killed by a bullet in our home or neighborhood than there is being killed in a terrorist attack.” — Dan Gross

    That is true if you are NOT armed.

    It is about as far from the truth as you can get if you “home carry”.

    As usual, the liberal solution is to make someone else do something to fix your problem. People like Gross recognize that they are incredibly vulnerable to armed criminals when they are not armed. So, rather than taking responsibility for their personal security and arming themselves, they expect everyone else to give up their arms in the asinine hope that it will somehow disarm criminals and eliminate their vulnerability.

  24. I’ll gladly join the ranks of Washington, Jefferson, and Franklin as “terrorists” to those who would rob others of liberty.


Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here