The NRA has been stumping for Greg Abbott pretty hard and heavy. I hear their radio spots at least a few times every day. Beto O’Rourke has an F rating according to the NRA. However, Greg Abbott has been governor for eight years. I’m still not sure why we should vote for him. The only thing he tells us is why we shouldn’t vote for Beto O’Rourke.

Terrorism is defined as “the unlawful use of force and violence against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives.” I don’t know why that word popped into my head just now. It must be one of those random thoughts that have nothing to do with anything.

That same dictionary defines domestic terrorism as “the committing of terrorist acts in the perpetrator’s own country against their fellow citizens.” The Patriot Act said that people are engaging in domestic terrorism is they perform an act “dangerous to human life.” So, if we follow this random tangent to it’s logical conclusion we would have to assume that people that participate in mass shooting events are domestic terrorists.

Mind you, I’m not calling the NRA a sponsor of domestic terrorism. I’m simply defining terms. The city of San Francisco has already done that. Many Americans already agree with San Francisco. However, lets walk this through. You have an organization that opposes waiting periods, background checks, and any sort of regulation of semi-automatic weapons, age limits, licensing, or carry restrictions. They support an 18 year old’s right to openly carry an AR-15 whether they have passed a background check or not.

So, there is a sizeable gap between supporting any right to own a firearm and where the NRA currently stands. According to Gallup, as of 2020 only 32 percent of Americans owned a firearm and only 44 percent lived in a household with at least one firearm. However, that is in stark contrast to the number of firearms actually in the United States. So, if there are 1.2 firearms per person, but only 32 percent of people own a firearm then that means that the average gun owner has three or more guns.

Whether the NRA are domestic terrorists, support domestic terrorism, or are indifferent to terrorism is for shock jocks to consider. One could credibly claim that the NRA serves a very small segment of society. After all, even most gun owners are in favor of waiting periods, background checks, and restricting access to certain weapons. Most support age restrictions as well. So, when one earns an F grade from the NRA what exactly does that mean? I’d say it means he is a decent and reasonable human being.

A thought occurred to me when I heard the third version of the Greg Abbott attack ads against Beto O’Rourke. It seems he is too extreme on gun control. They played what was obviously an abrupt cut of him saying he would confiscate everyone’s AR-15. Then, they went on to talk about how he has an F rating according to the NRA in terms of his voting record.

I could say a lot of things here and did when I was in the car by myself. A few of those things are words that shouldn’t be said around young children or anyone of a delicate nature. I could also say a few choice things about the NRA and have before. If I ever run for office they will be data mined and I’ll have to explain them off somehow. That’s kind of the point. This is the world we live in now.

If I translate my inner thoughts in the most delicate way possible, I’d say I couldn’t care less what the NRA thinks of me or my stances on gun control. I’m not looking for NRA approval after all. I’d rather be a good human being and promote policies that support life and public safety. If they would like to abrupt cut that and infer that I am saying they are not for supporting life or public safety they can go ahead. Hell, I’ll even underline and bold it for them.

As much as I or anyone else would like to call them domestic terrorists or people that sponsor domestic terrorists it wouldn’t be responsible for me to do that. After all, most people don’t make complex distinctions between sane and responsible gun owners and those that are insane and unreasonable.

The point is that when we advocate something we have to consider the feasibility of it getting approved and whether it would actually work. There are any number of ways of taking guns off the streets that don’t involve going door to door and taking it from their cold, dead hands. The unfortunate reality is that if you used the door to door method you would likely invite that outcome more than a few times.

Few things in this world make me more angry than gun violence. When I hear the stories of dead children, scared children, or frightened multitudes in any public place it makes me want to scream at every Republican politician and anyone with an A grade with the NRA. I’d like to say they can take their A grade and thousands in PAC contributions and shove it up their backside.

As Democrats, liberals, progressives, leftists, or caring moderates we must agree on one thing and only one thing. We want to make the world a better and safer place. I think all of us can agree on that. We may not agree on how to completely do that or what lengths we need to go to so that can happen. We need to focus on what we do agree on and move from there. In terms of gun control, we agree on background checks, waiting periods, and the ban of certain weapons. We agree that other weapons shouldn’t be legally owned or wielded by teenagers.

We need to enact these laws on things we do agree on and put our heads together on the rest. Confiscation is way too controversial and likely too dangerous to enact. Let’s think of other ways to regulate behavior without punishing responsible gun owners. We are smart people, so we can make this happen.

The official definition of a terrorist is “that of a person that uses unlawful violence and intimidation against civilians in the pursuit of political aims.” You’ll immediately notice that at no time does it actually mention death or murder. That is what a lot of people mistake for terrorism. Death is but a side effect. The real goal is the political agenda.

Shortly after the Uvalde massacre, the following advertisement started making it circles around the internet. As you look at this picture, I want you to remember one thing. This isn’t the picture of some jackass taking a picture with his son. That would be bad enough. This is a picture from the maker of the gun designed to sell it. It’s a damn advertisement.

 

Now, let’s first dispense with a few misconceptions. This was intentional. You can’t imagine the number of people that had to sign off on this advertisement. This isn’t the work of some junior level temp that sent out an advertisement like some kind of rogue Bond villain. Dozens of people viewed it and at least half of dozen had to sign off before releasing it into the wild.

Tbere are a few things we know. The first thing is that even the rank and file in the NRA isn’t on board with what leadership is doing. Leadership doesn’t represent them anymore. We also know that the NRA has shifted over the intervening decades where they represent the interests of gun manufacturers more than the interests of individual gun owners.

For those keeping up, Daniel Defense was the producer of the weapon. They are the ones that released the picture above. So, in essence, the NRA and these gun manufacturers are willing to lie to their constituents about the availability of guns and the political motivations of Congressional Democrats and Joe Biden. They want to scare the flock into buying more guns.

So, they want to lie and intimidate the people into doing what they want. Just ask yourself how you feel when you see that picture above. What is the gut emotion in play here? Mind you, I don’t know that the NRA or Daniel Defense wants people to die. However, they are not above using their deaths in order to further their political agenda. They want more people to buy guns. They want more guns and bigger guns. We already have more guns than people. Why not two times? Three times? Four times?

So, when an interest group and a company uses fear and intimidation to further a political agenda what exactly do we call that? What do we call it when that interest group continues to hold it’s rallies and conventions days after these tragedies? It isn’t hard to picture members of the Taliban or Al Queda dancing up and down on 9/11. Heck, politicians used those images to stoke anger in us. Simply transpose the images of politicians and rednecks dancing on stage and cheering and it is the same exact thing.

I want you to take a good look at that picture above. Is that a picture from a company that is so tone deaf that they just don’t know they are being overwhelmingly offensive? Do you really believe that? Or, is that the photo designed to trigger people on one side or another. What do you call people that use fear and intimidation for their own political ends and profit? I wish there was a name for that. It’s right there on the tip of my tongue.

Gun manufacturers are protected from liability lawsuits by a law pushed by Republicans and signed by GWB in 2005; up until Sandy Hook, PLCAA (Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act) was a bulwark against claims against manufacturers, distributors, and dealers.   Sandy Hook changed that when the parents of slaughtered children went after Remington, not for the gun, but for their advertising that was aimed…wait for it…at kids.  Advertising was a gap in the law that the counsel for the parents exploited, because Remington pushed assault weapons at young boys.  The principle ad was if you had a Bushmaster AR-15, you earned your Platinum Man Card.  That’s right, no shit.  Here’s one of the ads:

On top of that, Remington licensed the Bushmaster to make the video game, Call of Duty, that showed kids how to tape two 30 round magazines together to quickly reload so they could kill more people.  The lawsuit  worked, the  SCOTUS allowed the case to go forward, and Remington ended up coughing up $73 million to the families who lost children in the Sandy Hook massacre.

Fast forward to this week at Uvalde, Texas.  The AR-15 that the shooter used was manufactured by Daniel Defense, a company based in Georgia.  Here’s a tweet the company posted on May 16th.  Bad timing, to say the least:

In case you can’t read the caption, it says, “Train up a child in the way he should go, and when he is old, he will not depart from it.”  That’s not the only tweet, but it seems that’s enough.

I think there is a really good lawyer who would love to take this case against Daniel Defense.  Tick, tick, tick…

Dan Crenshaw has announced that he’s not able to attend the NRA convention in Houston this weekend because of his…wait for it…trip to Ukraine.  His office has confirmed that he will conveniently not be back in time to make his appearance at the convention.  His spokesperson also asserted that his extended trip in Ukraine has nothing to do with the slaughter of 10 people in Buffalo and 21 people (including 19 small children) in Uvalde.  It’s simply pure coincidence.

Sure.  He’s not as stupid as he acts.

Don’t know if y’all saw it yesterday, but the NRA announced on Twitter that it has cancelled its 2021 annual meeting to be held in Houston out of uncharacteristic concern for the health of its members who would be exposed to COVID.  As we all are painfully aware, we’re now experiencing a 4th wave of infections due to the callous incompetence and indifference of Abbott and his supporters.

Harris County Judge, Lina Hidalgo responded to the NRA’s tweet with this:

Sending thoughts and prayers. https://t.co/fkSBLnk4oR

— Lina Hidalgo (@LinaHidalgoTX) August 24, 2021

Now THAT is some serious shade, mocking the NRA for their normal response to massive gun violence.  They most certainly deserved what Lina dished out, but we’re certainly glad that for once the NRA has done the right thing.