
San Francisco Declares the N.R.A. a ‘Domestic Terrorist Organization’ - godelmachine
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/09/04/us/san-francisco-nra-terrorist.html
======
arikr
This seems rather silly. But I haven't looked into it. Am I missing something?
What's the perspective where this makes sense?

~~~
mcpherrinm
Context of this is:

There was a visible mass shooting in Gilroy very recently, and a lot of people
are upset.

The gunman used a semiautomatic rifle which is illegal in California, but was
legally purchased in Nevada.

The NRA has continually fought to ensure people have access to the tools to
commit these atrocities.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gilroy_Garlic_Festival_shootin...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gilroy_Garlic_Festival_shooting)

~~~
mieseratte
How awful of the NRA to fight for a constitutional right to bear arms.

~~~
Cthulhu_
Just because it's a right doesn't mean it needs an organization to advocate
it.

I mean you have the right to smoke, but any organization promoting it has been
squashed by legislation, banning advertisements and glorifying it. Why?
Because smoking causes cancer and will kill you and your kids.

Why should that not apply to guns, which are built to kill? It's a weird
double standard. Sure you have the right to have a gun, but it doesn't mean it
has to be advocated by an organization.

It does make me wonder though, how come the NRA is successful where the multi-
billion dollar tobacco industry failed?

~~~
trampypizza
I wonder if it is because the tobacco industry was fighting a war against the
very direct link between smoking and cancer. Ultimately the science proved
that smoking is damaging to your body, and that damage is expensive to fix,
and the cost is somewhat paid for by society.

Guns are a 'tool' I suppose, and therefore will always require a user. Not
every gun owner is going to use it to kill people. It's harder then to make
the argument that guns are inherently bad, it's the people using them
incorrectly that is the problem. I certainly think that there are other
factors in American society which contribute and to these horrible events,
such as mental health and education. I think this because there are other
countries, such as Canada, where many people have weapons but these tragedies
occur a lot less often.

As a Brit, I think some of the gun stuff in the States is bananas, but I do
recognise that there is a significant cultural difference that means I
probably wont get why people are so keen to protect gun ownership to the
extent that they do. I don't mean to suggest that either way is right or
wrong, but I do feel that the use-case for an AR-15 is limited. Surely that's
a bit over the top for hunting? And defending your home may be easier with a
handgun. I am no expert though, and would be interested to hear some other
views.

[0] [https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-
canada-41488081](https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-41488081)

Edit: I should also say that I recognise that mass shootings make up a tiny
percentage of gun-deaths and that they receive a disproportionate amount of
media attention.

~~~
jadell
> I wonder if it is because the tobacco industry was fighting a war against
> the very direct link between smoking and cancer. Ultimately the science
> proved that smoking is damaging to your body, and that damage is expensive
> to fix, and the cost is somewhat paid for by society.

It would be great to have scientific evidence on mass gun ownership's effects
on health and society, and linkages between gun violence, mental health, and a
variety of other factors.

Unfortunately, Congress forbids the federal health research bodies (NIH, CDC,
etc.) from funding or studying research into those effects. Congress made that
decision because of lobbying pressure by...let me check my notes here...huh,
interesting, the NRA.

~~~
CompanionCuuube
> Congress forbids the federal health research bodies (NIH, CDC, etc.) from
> funding or studying research into those effects.

That's not actually true. The limitations set in the Dickey amendment were
only regarding the use of funding to the CDC's National Center for Injury
Prevention and Control for the purpose of advocating gun control.

~~~
jadell
Dickey covers the CDC and the NIH (as of 2011). And the common interpretation
of that amendment[0] is that it is unclear where the line exists between
research conclusions and advocating for gun-control.

The CDC's entire purpose is to come up with mitigation plans for public health
issues. If a study finds that increased rates of gun ownership alone causes an
increase in gun violence, what conclusions would the CDC be allowed to come
to, and what possible mitigation could they recommend that couldn't be viewed
as advocating for gun control?

Their position is to avoid all such research entirely. The letter of the law
seems to speak only to funding, but its effect is to shut down all research
into the issue. Which, of course, was the intended effect from the beginning.

[0]
[https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5993413/#__sec2...](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5993413/#__sec2title)

~~~
CompanionCuuube
> If a study finds that increased rates of gun ownership alone causes an
> increase in gun violence

If a study finds that increased rates of gun ownership when isolated from the
list of variables that they have controlled for, is linked by _correlation_ to
an increase in gun violence then why do you believe publishing that
correlation is supportive of gun control?

~~~
jadell
It doesn't matter what I believe. It matters how the NRA, those in Congress
and the administration who are anti-gun-control will spin those findings.

I strongly doubt such a conclusion would pass by unchallenged. If I had to
guess, it would probably lead to letting go at least the head investigators of
that study, and at most, replacing the head of the CDC.

A study with a conclusion like that was what lead to the Dickey amendment in
the first place.

~~~
CompanionCuuube
I would be more concerned about those in Congress who are pro gun control
would spin those findings to push for gun control.

It's not a problematic conclusion because a correlation isn't causation. There
is a lot more to study and frankly just going direct from that kind of
correlation to gun control is intellectually lazy.

------
alexmlamb
It seems weird to me to conflate "advocating the legal right to own technology
that can be used to do X" with "doing X", even though obviously you can
disagree with both.

~~~
danaris
I think it's quite reasonable to make a distinction between Xs that are "kill
people" and Xs that are not.

~~~
AnimalMuppet
That same argument leads to a ban on cars, or even electricity.

~~~
danaris
That's true, the phrasing isn't quite what I intended. More accurate would be
"whose purpose is" rather than "that can be used for".

------
advanceduser
I understand that I am severely limiting my options in tech employment by not
moving to SF or NY, but the all-out assault on freedoms prevalent in both
regions is a total dealbreaker.

~~~
davvolun
Excuse me for asking you to show your work, but how does this limit anyone's
freedoms?

Further, are you not aware of the difference between San Francisco and say,
Cupertino, Mountain View, Palo Alto... do I need to go on?

(Nevermind the astronomical housing prices and the relatively easy and
affordable public transit into the city, making it more than feasible to work
in the city and live elsewhere...)

------
BiasRegularizer
Non-american here. Can someone explain what's so shady about NRA aside from
their lobbying for gun rights? Also what is NRA's rational/rebuttal for their
shady behaviors?

~~~
danaris
As I understand it (and I do not remotely claim to be an expert), they used to
be an organization that provided gun safety training, supported gun clubs and
shooting ranges, and did some lobbying for gun rights as well—but within
reason, supporting provisions like background checks.

Then, some time in the '70s or '80s or so, they decided they really wanted to
make lots more money, and the way to do that was to radicalize their support
base. These days, they not only oppose any and all restrictions on the
purchase of firearms (including preventing random people from getting their
hands on military hardware, preventing convicted violent felons, domestic
abusers, and the mentally ill from buying firearms, etc), but they are
actively involved in spreading propaganda to keep their base scared of an
Other that they'll need guns to protect them from. This ranges from Democrats
coming to take their guns, to immigrants coming to take their jerbs, to brown
people coming to take their women.

They foment racism and hatred, specifically in order to ensure that people
will keep paying them to protect the only amendment to the Constitution that's
truly sacred: the right of every single real (white, straight, cis, Christian,
male) American to own whatever guns he wants.

~~~
dole
When Wayne LaPierre took control in 1991 is pretty much when they started
pumping money into advertising and building his personality cult.

------
mikejb
I don't live in the US, and the consequences of this aren't 100% clear to me,
but am I correct in assuming

\- Members of the NRA are now 'domestic terrorists', i.e. when entering the US
they have to tick the "I'm a terrorist" box?

\- Donating to the NRA can be considered financing terrorism?

I'm not a big fan of private gun ownership, but if these interpretations are
accurate, this move seems pretty excessive.

~~~
luckylion
I don't believe a city (or even county) view of who's a terrorist has any
relevance to federal procedures.

~~~
keiru
Imagine if the NSA suddenly had to spy on 5 million people. Oh wait.

------
brianhorakh
Sweet , anybody that gives money to the nra in san fransisco should be
eligible for property seizure by sherrif/police now. Ironically California has
strict "proof required" Property seizure laws. Thinking peter theil would be a
good candidate.

[https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.mercurynews.com/2019/04/21/...](https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.mercurynews.com/2019/04/21/police-
agencies-forfeit-millions-after-new-law-chokes-off-funds-from-asset-
seizures/amp/)

️Patriot act! Donations to nra are tax deductible, so the state already has a
record.

------
wpdev_63
You would think with all the protests in hong kong against an authoritarian
government that they would value their 2nd amendment rights.

All you have to do is browse hn once in awhile to see several articles about
the US gov't brazenly breaking our constitutional rights.

~~~
robotron
You have a good point but it's hard to rally around gun ownership when you're
dodging bullets taking your kids out to shop at Walmart.

~~~
wpdev_63
Maybe the only reason the american gov't isn't as bad as the chinese gov't is
that we can, in fact, defend ourselves.

~~~
krapp
Yes, that is literally the _only_ reason.

It's not because of the differences in culture, or the nature and history of
governance, or any other possible externality. The only reason the US is not a
totalitarian state where dissenters are run over by tanks and sent to death
camps is because the American government is simply terrified of and quelled by
the mere presence of an armed populace.

I have a magical rock in my garden that repels tigers. I never see any tigers
in my garden, so it must work.

~~~
wpdev_63
I mean correlation does not mean causation but the gov't keeps upping the
black budget every year and we all know what they do in those gov't
basements... It's just a matter of time that industrial factory overflows and
spills blood on the streets.

If the gov't was going to put you in a camp because you were jewish or
japanese or even muslim, wouldn't you want to have a gun? I know it would make
them think twice that's for sure.

~~~
krapp
>If the gov't was going to put you in a camp because you were jewish or
japanese or even muslim, wouldn't you want to have a gun?

Sure. But of course, the Second Amendment was a thing when the government from
rounding up the Japanese, with popular support.

Hell, after 9/11 much of the gun-owning community would have _supported_
rounding up all of the Muslims into camps. Currently, they don't seem to be
too upset about the government aggressively rounding up immigrants.

I don't agree with the premise that government can never be trusted, but an
armed mob always can. The world has plenty of democratic states which seem to
function without an armed populace keeping them in check.

>I know it would make them think twice that's for sure.

It wouldn't stop them, though.

~~~
wpdev_63
>Sure. But of course, the Second Amendment was a thing when the government
from rounding up the Japanese, with popular support.

I guess, maybe the people didn't exercise their rights.

>Hell, after 9/11 much of the gun-owning community would have supported
rounding up all of the Muslims into camps. Currently, they don't seem to be
too upset about the government aggressively rounding up immigrants.

You can absolutely be on the left and believe in the right to bear arms.
Fighting for our constitutional rights is not a partisan issue.

>I don't agree with the premise that government can never be trusted, but an
armed mob always can. The world has plenty of democratic states which seem to
function without an armed populace keeping them in check.

Another name for an armed mob is called a militia. They were formed when we
fought against 'taxation without representation'.

>It wouldn't stop them, though.

Maybe, the only time I can think off of the top of my head of a government
subjugating a well armed people was the english/american civil war.

Regardless, I would absolutely exercise my right to bear arms if
mao/stalin/hitler gov't came knocking on my door.

~~~
krapp
>I guess, maybe the people didn't exercise their rights.

They didn't want to, that was the general point of my comment. American gun
owners aren't a guaranteed bulwark against tyranny - they're just as likely to
welcome and defend it, if their ideology supports it.

>You can absolutely be on the left and believe in the right to bear arms.
Fighting for our constitutional rights is not a partisan issue.

I have yet to meet an NRA member (and granted, I haven't met them all) who
doesn't believe the American left poses an active threat to their right to
keep and bear arms, and who wouldn't consider a "pro 2nd Amendment leftist" to
be a contradiction in terms.

In theory, you're correct. In practice, thanks to the success of the NRA and
Republican party, American gun culture (at least the activist part of it) has
become synonymous with conservative, right-wing identity politics.

~~~
CompanionCuuube
> They didn't want to, that was the general point of my comment. American gun
> owners aren't a guaranteed bulwark against tyranny - they're just as likely
> to welcome and defend it, if their ideology supports it.

> I have yet to meet an NRA member (and granted, I haven't met them all) who
> doesn't believe the American left poses an active threat to their right to
> keep and bear arms, and who wouldn't consider a "pro 2nd Amendment leftist"
> to be a contradiction in terms.

Your first statement proves the importance of having the right to keep and
bear arms be upheld in the "American left".

And you will probably run into many in the Democratic party who think being a
"pro 2nd Amendment leftist" is a contradiction in terms too.

------
PeterStuer
If you want to play semantics labeling a gunlobby 'terrorist' still makes more
sense than declaring a 'war' on drugs.

From a European perspective the level of gun violence in the US is completely
absurd and out of control and has been for decades.

------
millstone
Here is the text of the resolution:

[https://sfgov.legistar.com/View.ashx?M=F&ID=7568748&GUID=DF6...](https://sfgov.legistar.com/View.ashx?M=F&ID=7568748&GUID=DF64490F-D8BC-4BF7-A43D-287F02BECCCA)

------
yongjik
As someone (not a US citizen) who thinks the second amendment can go fuck
itself, this isn't helping anyone and looks incredibly childish. Instead of
changing people's minds, this will just make gun right activists angry, and
make them feel their viewpoint is validated.

This is just preaching to the choir, for scoring some cheap political points.
Don't they have better things to do?

------
briantakita
Too bad people who don't follow the law won't respect the gun bans like law
abiding citizens...

Also in the news, Social Credit Red Flag Laws based on speech...

Surely these laws will be applied evenly to all people & not used to suppress
anybody like what has happened repeatedly throughout history. It's different
this time, right?

Enjoy the dystopia folks!

------
leemailll
Would this lead to legal actions?

------
WheresTheLogic
San Francisco is getting more ridiculous by the second

~~~
cannot-remember
Curious non-American here. Is this really so ridiculous?

~~~
rhino369
Yes, labeling a group with 5 million members that supports a right expressly
protected by our constitution is ridiculous.

------
sahin-boydas
now what? if there is a company (ex some car rental companies

------
29athrowaway
Did you mean: "San Francisco"?

------
nailer
Does the NRA directly attack civilians? Do they aim for political change?

My understanding is that they do not carry out attacks on civilians and they
seek to maintain the status quo.

Regardless of your position on gun control (personally I'm in favour of gun
control), words have meaning.

Edit: missed a 'not' above, pardon the confusion

~~~
Cthulhu_
Do their members? Yes.

The NRA is a lobbying organization that spends hundreds of millions [0] on
advocating political change (or blocking it), so your second question is also
a yes.

[0]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Rifle_Association#Lob...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Rifle_Association#Lobbying_and_political_activity)

~~~
nailer
Could you please answer the questions in the comment you're replying to,
rather than answer different questions? Thanks.

