Previous post
The San Francisco Board of Supervisors hates all the gun violence. And clearly, all the gun violence in California is the fault of the National Rifle Association.
So, what did San Francisco do? They passed a resolution declaring that the NRA is a “domestic terrorist organization” and they will SHUN THEM. SHUUUUUUUNNNNN THEM. No, really. If this wasn’t so stupidly dangerous, it would be stupidly laughable.
District 2 Supervisor Catherine Stefani wrote the scathing declaration reading in part, “the National Rifle Association spreads propaganda that misinforms and aims to deceive the public about the dangers of gun violence.”
She continued, “The NRA exists to spread dis-information, and knowingly puts guns into the hands of those who would harm and terrorize us,” said Stefani, whose district includes the Marina and Presidio.”
“The NRA has it coming to them, and I will do everything that I possibly can to call them out on what they are, which is a domestic terrorist organization,” said Stefani.”
In fact, Stefani wrote the declaration following the July mass shooting at the Gilroy Garlic Festival.”
The gunman killed three people before being cornered and shot by police and ultimately taking his own life.”
“Then the next weekend we had Dayton, Ohio. We had El Paso, Texas. Now we’ve had Odessa, Texas, and people are dying every day in this country,” said Stefani. “And doing nothing is not an option, and that it what the NRA continues to do.”
While it would be easy to dismiss this stunt by the San Francisco Board of Supervisors as temper tantrum-like posturing, this is dangerous crap they are peddling. Let’s think about the ramifications of what San Francisco is saying, and how their actions might be interpreted.
Now, when you read the resolution, it accuses the NRA of “spreading propaganda,” “promotes gun ownership,” “incites members to acts of violence,” “has armed those
individuals who would and have committed acts of terrorism,” and “promoting extremist positions,” among other things. Wow. Very terroristy. And in response to all the Very Bad Things that the NRA does, the city of San Francisco will… not do business with the NRA, and tell everyone else not to do business with them, either. Oh. Really. THAT’S how San Francisco responds to domestic terror organizations??? No wonder they can’t clean up human poop in the city! They just declared a group “domestic terrorists” and their way of fighting against said “domestic terrorism” is to not associate with them in business relationships?
This proves two things:
1) San Francisco doesn’t actually believe that the NRA is a “domestic terrorist organization” because if they did, they would be directing their law enforcement to actively hunt down NRA members before they commit another mass shooting in California, and
2) San Francisco doesn’t take real crime seriously, because if they did, they would not be equating a lobbying group that is exercising their First Amendment rights with terrorists.
So, why doesn’t San Francisco send law enforcement off with lists of NRA members in hand to start arresting them? After all, aren’t they a part of a now-declared “domestic terrorist organization” and should be stopped at all costs? No? Freedom of association, you say? Presumption of innocence, really? Search warrants, what? Hmm, this is starting to sound problematic for San Francisco.
Also, the Gilroy shooter was not exactly an NRA member. If he were, we would have heard about it. Neither can the police ascertain his motives. How do you stop people from committing crime? Could the San Francisco Board of Supervisors answer that question, please?
And could the Board also answer this question: what happens if or when someone decides to harm or murder a NRA member for simply being a member of the NRA? After all, the Board has declared the NRA a “domestic terrorist organization” – does that mean its members are to be treated accordingly? What happens when the Board’s political grandstanding actually gets someone killed?
But this is par for the course in San Francisco, where criminals are now lovingly called “justice-involved persons” and law-abiding gun owners are shunned as “domestic terrorists” if they happen to belong to the NRA. Virtue signal activated; facts be damned.
Welcome Instapundit Readers!
Featured image via Pixabay, Pixabay license
Dan says: We can all marvel as we watch the Golden Gate city swirl around the bowl with all of the homeless feces as it makes it’s way down the drain.
Charles N. Steele says: I think the Board of Stuporvisors should be pressured to state what actions should be taken against NRA members — pressure them to lay out implications explicitly. What “propaganda” will be banned, how should it be done, what should be done to members, (ban from public office? strip voting rights? imprison us? kill us? etc.)
Let’s hear it.
Brian Brandt says: “. . . what should be done to members, (ban from public office? . . .”
Don’t put it past them. Local to me, a town closed down an entire volunteer fire department because one member considered joining the ‘Proud Boys.’
https://www.inquirer.com/news/pennsylvania/haverford-fire-proud-boys–20190904.html
Scott says: You’re not too far from my old part of the world.. one of the reasons I moved, dims were getting far too much of a stranglehold on the area.. Sadly, the same stupidity followed me..
GWB says: I’m wondering why “slander” or “libel” made no appearance in this post. Because that’s exactly what they’ve done, and if I were NRA counsel I’d have already filed the suit.
And, when you pick the jury, make sure it only includes people who have to step over human waste and detritus every day.
the National Rifle Association spreads propaganda that misinforms and aims to deceive the public about the dangers of gun violence
Project much, Sweetcheeks?
knowingly puts guns into the hands of those who would harm and terrorize us
That’s a claim of criminal action – absolutely slanderous.
The NRA has it coming to them
And there’s the actual malice – required for “prominent entities.”
Heck, if I were a member, I would sue, myself! (Think San Fran has trouble balancing their budget now? Wait until they have to pay an Oberlin-size judgment.)
This proves two things:
Actually it proves it is slanderous. Proceed from there.
what happens if or when someone decides to harm or murder a NRA member for simply being a member of the NRA?
If that doesn’t happen in a Left Coast enclave, the jurisdiction should send someone to arrest this woman and the rest of the board as accomplices in the crime.
And then the victims should sue the pants off of them, too.
This level of lying rhetoric needs to stop. And it will only stop when someone is finally held accountable.
GWB says: You know, you can tie this in with your “Media Continues Targeted Social Media Tattling” story, too. Because every time someone uses the “NRATerroristOrganization” hashtag, they should be included in the slander/libel lawsuit.
SFC D says: Well, I guess it’s time to renew my NRA membership. I’ve never met a better group of terrorists.
Charles N. Steele says: I’m a life member of NRA, and member of the even better GOA. I’m waiting for the SF Stupidvisors to show up and attempt my extraordinary rendition. That should be fun.
gibsg00 says: I joined and I don’t even have a gun.I’ll join anything the left hates.
Manyo says: Re Catherine Stefani, Where are the Salem Witch trials now that we really need them. Add the rude, vulgar speaking Sen. Hironi, Sen. Duckworth, the Gang of Four( Reminiscent of Communist China’s Gang of Four that set out to destroy ell vestiges of Chinese culture and art. These are truly evil women and maybe the Metoo’s should take note of the immense harm they ar doing to feminist credibility.
Marc says: After the San Francisco’s Marxists declare all privately held guns are illegal, only the criminals will have them.
11 Comments