Dan Gross
NRA-ILA
The Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence has never had a firm grasp on the English language, as evidenced by the repudiation of their bizarre interpretation of the Second Amendment at the U.S. Supreme Court. However, this week, in an attempt to demonize NRA, Brady Campaign took their hyperbole to a new low, referring to the NRA as “terrorists.” That’s right; according to the Brady Campaign, the grassroots organization comprised of 5 million freedom-loving members that are dedicated to using the democratic process and legal framework to defend the constitutional rights of all Americans are “terrorists.”
The craven statement was made by Brady Campaign President Daniel Gross to The Hill. In the article, Gross criticized two Democratic presidential candidates, the NRA D- rated Bernie Sanders and F rated Lincoln Chafee, for not sufficiently conforming to the group’s radical gun control agenda. In taking particular issue with Chafee’s debate performance, in which the candidate stated he would try to negotiate with NRA, Gross stated, “[t]his is not a negotiation with the NRA… We don’t negotiate with terrorists.”
Unfortunately, this is not the first time radical gun control advocates, and others, have used this type of reprehensible language to slander gun owners or NRA. In early 2013, Stop Handgun Violence founder and president John Rosenthal, who is best known for his anti-gun billboard outside Boston’s Fenway Park, said on the Ed Schultz radio show that the NRA “in my mind is a terrorist organization as far as I'm concerned.”
crybaby gun nuts
ReplyDeleteSo what are you saying--that Gross and Rosenthal did not call NRA members "terrorists"?
Are you also going to deny that the Obama regime has claimed the authority to kill "terrorists" with drones, or by whatever other means the regime chooses?
"We don't negotiate with terrorists," is a bit lighter than, for example, "The NRA are terrorists." It's sort of a backhanded slap. But whenever it's convenient you pretend not to get such nuanced language.
DeleteCryin' and whinin' is what you guys do best, victims that you are.
"We don't negotiate with terrorists," is a bit lighter than, for example, "The NRA are terrorists." It's sort of a backhanded slap. But whenever it's convenient you pretend not to get such nuanced language."
DeleteWell Mike, the language isn't so nuanced when you look at the numerous outlets that have jumped on this concept in a fairly short period of time. Perhaps the only question is who publically said it first?
"The fact is that the NRA is almost solely responsible for the ease with which weapons can be sold, bought and used in America. As a result, it is nothing less than a terrorist organization, enabling killings of innocent victims and whose very soul is awash in blood."
https://www.laprogressive.com/the-nra-has-the-blood-of-innocents-on-its-hands/
"Therefore the NRA should take its rightful place on the State Department list of terrorist organizations, because its influence is more of an immediate threat to the lives of our citizens than foreign terrorists.
Although the NRA is not an officially state-sponsored organization it is the supporter of the state with its massive member and lobbyist donations to our elected officials."
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/terrorists-nra-article-1.2384289
Now as far as I'm concerned, representatives from both groups can say whatever they please since we're sort of into that sort of thing in the US. Though with these people who are high up the leadership ladder for organizations such as Brady and the NRA, you have to be cautious of whether they are speaking as an individual, or representing the group.
It does sort of tie in to the new up-front talk of gun control and being ant-NRA that has become popular on the Democratic side during this election cycle.
Everyone is trying to outdo each other in being in favor of ever more extreme gun control laws to the point where one peopular candidate has even expressed admiration for the Australian gun confiscation program.
I'm personally enjoying this outburst of total honesty from the Democratic side because they always seem to offer lame mealy-mouthed claims of supporting the Second Amendment while not really considering it an individual right.
In previous elections, candidates that supported more restrictions of gun laws tended to utter Second Amendment platitudes and doing their best to dodge speaking in detail to avoid losing votes. This newly found up-front "honesty" is quite refreshing and it will be interesting to see how it works out for them.
And in the meantime, whatever Democratic candidate wins the primary, there will be plenty of pertinent statements available to show what their true stance is now.
"We don't negotiate with terrorists," is a bit lighter than, for example, "The NRA are terrorists."
DeleteYou could perhaps (weakly) make that case, having conveniently left out much of what was said:
In taking particular issue with Chafee’s debate performance, in which the candidate stated he would try to negotiate with NRA, Gross stated, “[t]his is not a negotiation with the NRA… We don’t negotiate with terrorists.”
Gross is saying that the reason to not negotiate with the NRA is that "we don't negotiate with terrorists." That is indeed another way of saying, "The NRA are terrorists."
Besides, even if it were "only" "a backhanded slap," do only whiners and crybabies object to being slapped? Maybe in your bizarre, depraved, degenerate world. Not in the world of humanity.
The representatives of the gun control lobby seem to be tiring of their version of the facts falling on deaf ears and perhaps are hoping that getting more "in your face" and confrontational will sell their plan. Or at least get it more air time. Here is another example of the high road taken by gun control spokespersons, though in fairness, at least he realized he messed up and apologized. Something you don't see often. Though not until he attempted to ridicule him for reporting it to the police.
ReplyDeleteKeep in mind that at one point Parker had said he was going to have to buy a gun to "protect himself" from gun rights advocates.
"Andy Parker has become the public face of gun-control efforts in Virginia in the aftermath of his daughter’s slaying, appearing with Gov. Terry McAuliffe (D), campaigning for legislative candidates who favor gun control, and starring in TV commercials that are part of a $2.2 million ad buy bankrolled by former New York mayor Michael R. Bloomberg’s gun safety group."
"Late Tuesday, Parker sent this message to Sen. William M. Stanley Jr. (R-Franklin), via Facebook: “I’m going to be your worst nightmare you little bastard.”
https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/virginia-politics/va-state-senator-reports-alleged-threat-by-father-of-slain-tv-reporter/2015/10/28/24b67b0a-7d95-11e5-beba-927fd8634498_story.html
"On Thursday, Parker issued a statement through Everytown for Gun Safety, a gun-control advocacy group saying, “In my grief over the murder of my daughter and my anger over a political system that allows incidents like that to continue, I spoke regrettably. I apologize for my words, but make no mistake, I will continue to seek justice and change as a father in memory of my daughter.”
http://www.wdbj7.com/news/local/andy-parker-apologizes-after-senator-claims-he-sent-threatening-messages/36135540
Considering how you like to bring up the extreme language of people like Ted Nugent, and how his exercise of free speech should somehow be stifled, how is it that when the gun control side starts wandering into that area, you consider someone calling him to task to be, "cry baby gun nuts"
Perhaps you could share your opinion of this upward trend of vitriol now coming publicly from both sides of the issue.
Do you really think the Gross backhand slap in this article compares to Nugent's blatant vitriol?
DeleteFine, no negotiation. But isn't that the complaint of the NRA? That they are not willing to "compromise"?
ReplyDeleteI wonder if Gross and Rosenthal have considered the possibility of unintended consequences.
ReplyDeleteIf, after all, the millions and millions of Americans who are NRA members (plus the hundreds of thousands who are members of more hardcore, less compromising gun rights advocacy groups) are to be branded "terrorists," and face the consequences of that designation, what incentive do we have to continue to refrain from using violence and force of arms to achieve our political goals?
If we're already "terrorists" before we start cleansing the nation of the forcible citizen disarmament vermin, how much worse can our situation get when we kick off the festivities?
What do you mean before? Haven't some of you already done that?
DeleteHaven't some of you already done that?
DeleteNope--exactly zero of me has done that before. Actually, I can't think of a single terroris act, by anybody, that was intended to further the cause of gun rights. I suppose if one were really unconcerned with looking ridiculous, one might cite the Oklahoma City bombing as an example, but we can of course all dismiss such types with an indulgent chuckle.
1. "If we're already "terrorists" before we start cleansing the nation"
DeleteIn this one you're talking about "we," presumably, gun owners, or gun rights supporters.
2. "Nope--exactly zero of me has done that before. "
Then, when challenged, you switch it to just yourself.
That's pretty cool, Mr. Slick.
Then, when challenged, you switch it to just yourself
DeleteYou're flattering yourself if you think you've "challenged" me, but fine--let's talk about acts of terrorism committed with the intent of thwarting the "gun control" agenda. Can you name any such acts committed by any person with any link to me, any history of association with me, having had any communication with me, any dealings of any kind with me?
And again, even if we drop the requirement for some mysterious link to me, I'm still waiting for your first example of any act of terror committed with the intent to defeat "gun control," even without that link. Probably a good thing I'm not holding my breath, huh, Mikeb?
Sure Kurt, you and everyone you know and every gun owner you've ever met are all superior examples of responsible and safe gun handling. Not a one of you ever did anything that could be considered terrorism?
DeleteGiven the ever-loosening definition of terrorism, I find that highly doubtful - brandishing and terroristic threats comes to mind.
Not a one of you ever did anything that could be considered terrorism?
DeletePeople have the right to "consider" anything they want. If they "consider" anything I (or any other gun owner I know) have done to be "terrorism," they're idiots, but people have the right to be idiots (good thing for you, eh?).