NRA: a international terrorist organisation

22 comments on “NRA: a international terrorist organisation ”

• Comments are now closed

1. Leaps 1

   6 September 2019 at 9:23 am

   Yes, well done indeed San Francisco – standing up to the NRA bully boys is a brave thing to do and it needs to be done.
2. Andre 2

   6 September 2019 at 9:29 am

   Yep, the NRA has been so successful spreading terror that schools are now being designed specifically to slow down active shooters.

   https://slate.com/business/2019/08/school-shootings-design-architecture-sandy-hook-columbine.html
3. ianmac 3

   6 September 2019 at 9:45 am

   NRA declared a Terrorist Organisation. Yep. That fits. But what action could be taken?
   • lprent 3.1

     6 September 2019 at 10:02 am

     Amongst other things, putting them on the list of terrorist organizations means that the intelligence agencies will be required to look at their local contacts.
   • Rae 3.2

     6 September 2019 at 3:37 pm

     The acceptance by the main population of that title, and just let it permeate.
4. A 4

   6 September 2019 at 9:50 am

   I heard from an old timer that the NRA used to be really good (this is around 1970s? I can't recall). They taught safety to their members and caution. That was then…
   • lprent 4.1

     6 September 2019 at 10:05 am

     They were a gun safety organisation for most of their history from the 19th century up until recent decades. But from the 1970s onwards they seem to have been focused into being a sales lobby for the gun manufacturers.
     • New view 4.1.1

       6 September 2019 at 8:20 pm

       From the 1998 Charlton Heston headed the NRA for five years. I believe he was instrumental in raising the public profile and increasing the power and popularity of the NRA. They have huge influence over successive governments but more than that the abuse of that power for the promotion of their ideals and financial gain is almost treasonable. Labelling them terrorists is fine by me and I’m a firearm owner. Too many Americans have had an insane love affair with firearms (mainly for self defence!!) for too long. If the SanFrancesco board want to draw attention to this long-standing blight on American society with this accusation. Well done and good luck.
     • A 4.1.2

       6 September 2019 at 8:47 pm

       Ahh. That makes sense. I don't think the label inappropriate.
5. Wayne 5

   6 September 2019 at 9:57 am

   Lprent

   Although I understand the sentiment, you know perfectly well there is zero prospect of designating the NRA as a terrorist organisation under the Terrorism Supression Act. The Board of San Francisco’s action is intended to be symbolic. The Board knows they can’t go beyond that. But a designation under the TSA has real effects.

   I also think asking the government to do so (if you are actually serious about that, though I don’t think you are) just creates problems for government. They have to say “no” for reasons you know well.
   • lprent 5.1

     6 September 2019 at 10:07 am

     Why not?

     They make about as much sense as about half of the organizations on those lists because they are far more international, far more political in their intrusions in the domestic policies of other countries, and probably responsible for more deaths.
     • Wayne 5.1.1

       6 September 2019 at 12:28 pm

       Iprent

       You know that the NZ government won’t do this. The reasons are obvious. Whether you like it or not, the NRA is a legal organisation in the US. Any action by NZ to declare the NRA would be seen as a hostile action by the US government.

       As you know perfectly well the NZ government doesn’t indulge in “virtue signalling” stunts.

       This item is your own virtue signalling. Fine for an individual or for civil society, but not for government.

       Anyway you know all this, and I should not get distracted by it,
       • Stuart Munro. 5.1.1.1

         6 September 2019 at 7:32 pm

         The NRA is no more relevant to or welcome in NZ than NAMBLA was. We banned them, and we can ban the NRA too.
         • New view 5.1.1.1.1

           6 September 2019 at 8:49 pm

           It’s not what they are but what they’ve achieved that’s the issue. Any wealthy cooperation that’s big enough to throw the incumbent government a bone (a lot of bones) is going to test that governments resolve not to be bribed. Sounds easy. Heard of Google or Facebook.
           • Stuart Munro. 5.1.1.1.1.1

             6 September 2019 at 9:40 pm

             You seem to be confused – perhaps you could rephrase that.
   • Anne 5.2

     6 September 2019 at 11:31 am

     If it looks like a terrorist organisation, sounds like a terrorist organisation and acts like a terrorist organisation then it is a terrorist organisation.
6. Barfly 6

   6 September 2019 at 11:26 am

   "a international" – "an international" – sorry for being picky
7. Paul G. Buchanan 7

   6 September 2019 at 2:01 pm

   Although I understand and appreciate the sentiment herein expressed, on this one I beg to slightly differ. Non-state terrorist organisations are those that commit acts of politically motivated violence, not those that enable them (I will leave aside the notion of state terrorism, to include state terrorism in and outside of war. Here I refer to non-state politically-motivated violence, often irregular in nature, against non-military targets). Tying the two together is a slippery slope on which the valid methodological practice of conceptual transfer–where concepts borne of different contexts are transferred to new ones without loss of definition–is replaced by conceptual stretching, where concepts are distorted in order to be applied to contexts that they were not designed to address.

   This has already happened with the sloppy application of the term "terrorist" to all sort of hate crimes that have nothing to do with terrorism (which requires targets, subjects and objects that are distinct from each other). And let's remember: while some of the mass murders committed in the US have been ideologically motivated (e.g. El Paso, Pittsburgh), most others (Las Vegas, Sandy Hook etc.) are not. That makes it even more problematic to hang the terrorist label on the NRA because much of the violence that it supposedly is tied to is non-ideological in nature.

   That is the flaw in the suggestion to apply the term "terrorist" to organisations that, as evil as they may be, do not themselves engage in acts of politically motivated non-state violence. This is akin to designating a Communist Party as a terrorist organisation just because some Marxist-Leninist rebels that share ideological beliefs with it engage in guerrilla warfare using terrorism as a tactic. Or, stretching the notion a bit, designating the Green Party as a terrorist organisation because some animal rights and environmental activists engage in violent direct action against people and property (something that many on the right hand side of the political ledger just might welcome). Again, it is about the slippery slope between those who advocate certain views and those who commit violent acts based upon shared belief in some of those views. I prefer to not go down that path.

   Unfortunately, in the spate of anti-terrorist legislation passed world-wide after 9/11, organisations that fund, front or in a variety of ways enable terrorist groups to operate have been designed as terrorist entities themselves. That was a mistake. They should have been treated as accessories or conspirators but not as the equivalent of perpetrators of ideologically motivated violence. The distinction may appear to be a fine one but is necessary because it recognises, much as in the case of protective offensive speech versus hate speech, the distinction between words and types of deeds. That does not exonerate them of complicity or even culpability in the event of a terrorist attack if links between enablers and perpetrators are proven, but it does differentiate between the degree of complicity or culpability involved. And since terrorism is defined by the act of violence rather than the cause being espoused, this allows us to focus on physical acts rather than motivation when designating individuals and groups as terrorists.

   Now, if the NRA can be shown to have direct (institutional) links to white supremacists and/or engages in the incitement of violence against others, then it can be charged with being part of a criminal conspiracy or, if the links to actual acts of terrorism are established, as part of a terrorist entity. But until that is the case I would prefer to leave the designation of terrorists to perpetrators rather than enablers.

   I agree that the SF designation is more symbolic than substantive. On the other hand, I also like the idea that localities can use a symbolic designation to prevent organisations like the NRA from operating within their jurisdictions. It is just another form of the "local standards" argument that allows local governments to enforce housing codes, public order laws, noise control etc. But from my somewhat pedantic perspective it would have been preferable if SF had designated the NRA as a "crime enabling entity" which, however less emotive and regardless of the NRA's legal status, gets closer to what it actual does in the public sphere.

   In any event, as Wayne has mentioned, it is unlikely that this particular Labour-led government is going to follow SF's lead even if the NRA has interfered in the gun legislation debate after March 15. Besides the semantic issues I have raised and the practical difficulties involved, it has displayed a degree of timidity when it comes to confronting powerful overseas actors on contentious matters. With the NRA holding one of the main strings controlling the actions of the empty shell in the Oval Office, it is simply a case of not wanting to buy a fight with a a larger partner.
   • New view 7.1

     6 September 2019 at 10:08 pm

     PGB. I won’t take up quite so much space as you. It’s subjective. I don’t like them a lot so calling them terrorists is ok for me. It’s how I see them. I couldn’t give a monkeys fuck what the correct definition is. They have no moral values they’re manipulative and powerful. I’ll call them what I like and I’m ok with you having a more educated definition of terrorism.
8. Chris T 8

   6 September 2019 at 3:36 pm

   The NRA aren't terrorists.

   They are just a massive lobby group.

   Always wondered why they had so much power given they only have a self proclaimed (so probably exaggerated) 5 million members, out of a country of 327 million.

   Assuming it is to do with how much money they give to the Reps and Dems, as both bow to their whim.
   • Incognito 8.1

     6 September 2019 at 7:23 pm

     So much power in the hands of so few. How could this happen in a society that values equity and is governed democratically?
9. vto 9

   6 September 2019 at 7:36 pm

   Mr Prent you should lobby the government to do this. It would be surely less difficult than both Kirk giving the finger to the French atomic testing and Lange giving the finger to the US nuclear ships.

   Unfortunately Adern ain't in the same league though.

• Comments are now closed

• Log in
• Donate
• Contribute post

• Articles RSS