Gun Rights

Defending 'Reasoned Debate About Public Safety,' San Francisco Supervisors Declare the NRA a 'Domestic Terrorist Organization'

If you disagree with these politicians about gun control, they think, you might as well join the KKK.

|

Yesterday the San Francisco Board of Supervisors unanimously declared that the National Rifle Association is a "domestic terrorist organization," because words no longer have any meaning. Try to follow the reasoning of Resolution 190841:

WHEREAS, The United States Department of Justice defines terrorist activity, in part, as, "The use of any…explosive, firearm, or other weapon or dangerous device, with intent to endanger, directly or indirectly, the safety of one or more individuals or to cause substantial damage to property;" and

WHEREAS, The United States Department of Justice further includes any individual or member of an organization commits an act that the actor knows, or reasonably should know, affords material support, including communications, funds, weapons, or training to any individual has committed or plans to commit a terrorist act, and

WHEREAS, The National Rifle Association musters its considerable wealth and
organizational strength to promote gun ownership and incite gun owners to acts of violence, and

WHEREAS, The National Rifle Association spreads propaganda that misinforms and aims to deceive the public about the dangers of gun violence, and

WHEREAS, The leadership of National Rifle Association promotes extremist positions, in defiance of the views of a majority of its membership and the public, and undermine the general welfare, and

WHEREAS, The National Rifle Association through its advocacy has armed those
individuals who would and have committed acts of terrorism; and

WHEREAS, All countries have violent and hateful people, but only in America do we give them ready access to assault weapons and large-capacity magazines thanks, in large part, to the National Rifle Association's influence; now, therefore, be it

RESOLVED, That the City and County of San Francisco intends to declare the National Rifle Association a domestic terrorist organization…

The resolution does not mention any evidence that the NRA "incite[s] gun owners to acts of violence." But this quote from Supervisor Catherine Stefani, who introduced the resolution, gives you an idea of what she and her colleagues may have had in mind: "When they use phrases like, 'I'll give you my gun when you pry it from my cold, dead hands' on bumper stickers, they are saying reasoned debate about public safety should be met with violence."

That is not what they are saying. Even on a literal level, the slogan means that the person affixing it to his bumper is ready to forcibly resist any attempt to forcibly deprive him of his fundamental right to armed self-defense. More realistically, it is a hyperbolic way of saying the Second Amendment is really important to that person. It does not mean he is ready to shoot Catherine Stefani for advocating gun control. Nor should Stefani interpret the Gadsden Flag as a threat to sic rattlesnakes on her, or New Hampshire's state motto as an incitement to violent revolution.

Stefani, of course, is not threatening her political opponents with violence; she is too civilized for that. Instead, she is arguing that anyone who disagrees with her about gun control should be treated as a pariah and a murderous criminal, on par with members of the Ku Klux Klan. That position is required by her belief in "reasoned debate about public safety."

Advertisement

NEXT: Michigan Governor's Reckless E-Cigarette Ban Relies on a Breathtakingly Broad Reading of Her Authority To Protect 'Public Health'

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. The San Francisco Board of Supervisors can go shit in their hats or in the streets for that matter.

    1. Very convincing argument .
      I will use it when I disagree with your beliefs and actions

      1. Put your hat on your head, your head up your ass and take a shit in it.

        1. Here’s your hat what’s your hurry?

          Oh.

      2. Not sure why you need an argument. San Francisco is quite idiotic here.

        1. Since the NRA is a terrorist organization, why don’t they just firebomb San Francisco to oblivion. Isn’t that what terrorist organizations do? I won’t stop them. I’ll bring marshmallows.

          1. I would rethink that. Considering the massive amount of dope paraphernalia and the need for a daily Crap Map to help people know what sidewalks to avoid, forget marshmallows, I don’t want to be within 100 miles when the place burns.

      3. I think it was rather cogent. They are an odd assembly of turds so it makes sense. Not sure they all wear hats though. Funny I didn’t read yours.

    2. How is that any different from the vast homeless majority of San Franciscans?

    3. The irony is that the NRA has 5 million members nationwide and undoubtedly has several thousand members in San Francisco.

      If even a tiny fraction of the members were domestic terrorists, Supervisor Catherine Stefani and the rest of the San Francisco Board of Supervisors would have been wiped out by nightfall.

      But they are still alive to peddle this nonsense, and they know that this is nonsense.

      Those hostile to the Second Amendment are usually hostile to the First Amendment too.

      1. Of course because progs can’t stand opposition and require 100% compliance.

    4. Or:

      WHEREAS, The San Francisco Board of Supervisors can go shit in their hats or in the streets for that matter.

    5. Nothing wrong with the Bay Area that a couple of airborne nukes wouldn’t fix.

    6. So if a small percentage of the NRA’s five million members were to organize and systematically and regularly defecate in front of the Supervisors’ homes every day, day after day, would that be considered domestic terrorism?

      Or just another day in Scat Francisco?

  2. >Stefani, of course, is not threatening her political opponents with violence

    She’s threatening them with “enhanced interrogation.”

  3. But not Antifa……

    1. Guns, no.
      Bike lock clubs, yes. That’s different.

  4. How you going to have a reasoned debate with batshit insane people who are convinced that you’re the one who’s batshit insane? I just don’t see how this is a fracture that can be healed, there’s just no possible compromise between two groups so far apart on the basic principles of compromise. What compromise can there be between somebody who wants to punch somebody in the face and somebody who wants not to be punched in the face?

    1. Well, I know people who love to be crude and swear are certainly not very convincible

      I almost always reject their comments

      1. I’m sure you find “moralistic” reasons to reject all comments you dislike.

        1. He is the very model of a modern major hernia.

      2. I am sure you utilize the typical passive aggressive modus operandi that so many progs use as a way to establish superiority in their own minds. How clever!

    2. What kind of compromise can be made with people who always want more? See this…

      Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, the liberal Democrat from New York and a strong ally of the Fight for $15 movement, called the vote a “huge deal.” But she signaled the fight is not over.

      “It’s not just about $15, it’s about $15 and a union,” she said.

      And this…

      Rep. Rashida Tlaib (D-Mich.) called for a minimum wage of $18 to $20 on Sunday, an increase over the $15 minimum wage bill passed by House lawmakers Thursday.

      1. Everyone’s been saying that the Greed New Deal would spark inflation.

    3. Whenever there’s a fracture that can’t be healed, don’t they usually amputate?

    4. I don’t see any evidence of there having been any reasoned debate at any level of San Francisco government in the last 100 years.

      1. Need another big one to finish the job after 1906

    5. Having a reasoned debate requires all participants to agree to honestly seek and accept the truth, reality, as the conclusion.

      We don’t have that. We have people with agendas obfuscating the path to truth, preventing any and all conclusions that aren’t part of their agenda. That is why some conflicts seem unresolveable.

      When people honestly seek the truth, reality is the easiest thing to recognize. By finding the single unambiguous question that represents any conflict, the truthful answer, solution, becomes immediately apparent.

      We need people, whose agenda is simply truth, to participate in debate of these important issues.

      1. “obfuscating the path to truth”

        That should be spelled L-I-E

        1. While lying is behind obfuscation of truth, it is often accomplished by making some statements of fact, truth, illegal or otherwise cause for persecution. The justification for which is always based on a lie.

      2. As an example, I suggest the root of the overall gun debate be based on the unambiguous question, “who needs a gun?”.

        The answers, which may generate more unambiguous questions are, sportsmen, people who want to defend themselves and others from crime and people who want to commit crime.

      3. Most progs have been indoctrinated into the belief they have the moral high ground and therefore there is no reason to be civil with the opposition. It is sad but it is difficult to argue with stupid and most are incredibly so.

        1. That makes stupidity/ignorance a strategy doesn’t it? An easy one.

          If you have a losing argument at least you can be difficult to argue with.

  5. San Francisco Supervisors Declare the NRA a ‘Domestic Terrorist Organization’

    Time to finally join.

  6. If my vagina was a gun, you would stand for its rights,

    You would ride on buses and fight all the fights.

    If my vagina was a gun, you would treat it with care,

    You wouldn’t spill all its secrets because, well, why go there.

    If my vagina was a gun, you’d say what it holds is private

    From cold dead hands we could pry, you surely would riot.

    If my vagina was a gun, its rights would all be protected,

    no matter the body count or the children affected.

    If my vagina was a gun, I could bypass security,

    concealed carry laws would ensure I’d have impunity.

    If my vagina was a gun, I wouldn’t have to beg you,

    I could hunt this great land and do all the things men do.

    But my vagina is not a gun, it is a mightier thing,

    With a voice that rings true making lawmakers’ ears ring.

    Vaginas are not delicate, they are muscular and magic,

    So stop messing with mine, with legislation that’s tragic.

    My vagina’s here to demand from the source,

    Listen to the voices of thousands or feel their full force.

    1. If my vagina was a gun,

      We’d still hold you personally responsible for any/all accidental discharges.

      1. Point goes to mad.casual. Would have also accepted “hang-fires” and “If my vagina was a gun, it would be a muzzleloader”

      2. She can borrow my bore snake to take care of that.

    2. Poor grammar

      If— WERE! for hypothetical situations

    3. You know, it’s possible to have both a vagina and a gun.

      And also to like gun rights and female autonomy.

      1. The premise of the poem is that women don’t own guns. Get with the program!

        1. and it is a silly one thus the responses

    4. I once knew a working girl in the Philippines that could do all sorts of things with my gun. She was extremely clever.

  7. Gun rights supporters should not go where they are unwanted. We all need to send a letter to the SF Travel Bureau and tell them visiting there is now off our vacation or business list.

    1. I really don’t think they care. The only thing that lit them up is when they thought they might be losing business because of their epic homeless problem. And even then I suspect that didn’t move the needle much either.

      1. Well, they have lots of needles on the streets, and don’t care about those either…

      2. Deliberately encouraging the homeless to shit on tourist filled streets is part of their long term strategy. They need something to blame the Republicans for in 2020. Even though there are total of nine Republicans in the entire county.

        If homeowner get disgusted and move away, that’s a bonus, because if they can afford to own in the city then they’re part of the evil capitalist class and San Fransisco doesn’t want them.

    2. Agree. Time to avoid San Francisco, Berkeley, etc.

      We really need to work through our professional organizations to boycott these places for conventions, etc.

      1. Be nice if Reason would start the Exodus.

      2. Price has already done that. Holding your convention in San Jose is much cheaper, and has better facilities. Smaller conventions are already moving to hotels in Burlingame, San Matero, Santa Clara, etc.

  8. Reason left out the worst part:

    “The City and County of San Francisco should take every reasonable step to limit those entities who do business with the City and County of San Francisco from doing business with this domestic terrorist organization,”

    So basically, official content discrimination in government contracts.

    1. How many members of the SFPD are also NRA members? Are their jobs safe?

    2. NY been doing this for awhile if I remember correctly. It was only a matter of time before other cities/counties/states/fucktards followed suit.

    3. Out of curiosity, are they going to try to arrest NRA members? I’d think that would give a valid reason to start fighting back.

  9. Y’all left out the best part…

    “FURTHER RESOLVED, That the City and County of San Francisco should take every
    reasonable step to assess the financial and contractual relationships our vendors and contractors have with this domestic terrorist organization; and, be it

    FURTHER RESOLVED, That the City and County of San Francisco should take every reasonable step to limit those entities who do business with the City and County of San Francisco from doing business with this domestic terrorist organization;”

    Sounds like a first amendment issue…

    1. Sounds like a San Francisco can fuck off issue.

    2. I suppose they now need to find a manufacturer that isn’t affiliated with the NRA to arm their city/county law enforcement. Wait till they find out that it’s illegal to import most of the weapons they’ll be wanting from the few that aren’t affiliated (and the quality is unpredictable unless they’re just going to smuggle in AKs made by Russia and China).

      Too bad Oakland is in Alameda County, from what I hear, disarming their PD would save a good number of lives.

    3. Facebook and google both receive financial incentives of advertisements and such with the NRA. Time for san Francisco to ban silicon valley.

  10. Finally took notice. Still they left out the best part, as many have already pointed out. It isn’t just a meaningless declaration. San Francisco is literally trying to scare people from doing business with the NRA, or risk losing business with San Francisco.

  11. So the San Francisco Board of Supervisors just declared that any NRA member (lots of Americans) are terrorists, I guess that means that they can’t go to San Francisco any more.

    Just more Deplorables, I guess.

  12. People need more than simply reciting the 2nd amendment when rejecting gun control.

    Reject it on the grounds of equality under the law which would insure that gun control laws also apply to U.S. citizens that are police or in the military.

    Rather than supporting laws that leave guns in control of only the police and the military

    1. I tend, rather than just going straight to the 2nd amendment, to focus on the statistical evidence, which, virtually one-hundred-percent, undermines the argument that gun-control laws lower, or will lower, homicide rates. That doesn’t seem to make any difference to those who want to see more gun control laws.

      1. Who needs facts when one has feels?

    2. What’s funny is that the NRA is a civil right’s organization. One of the first. Organized under President Grant as part of his multi–pronged anti-KKK plan.

      1. They really only became a civil rights organization later. For most of the history they were focused on promoting good marksmanship and doing training and competitions. The anti-gun control lobbying didn’t really start until the 70s. And the NRA did support early federal gun control laws like the NFA, FFA and GCA.

        1. Yeah, if it hadn’t been for the gun-grabbing hysteria that ensued in the wake of MLK and RFK’s murders, and the rise of Handgun Control Inc., the NRA would have remained a hobby organization. The left will never forgive them for deciding to stand in the way of their glorious progressive police state.

        2. “Support” is too strong a word. “Did not object” is a more accurate characterization.

          The NRA was founded after the Civil War in 1871 by Union Army generals. It was largely apolitical and was focused on sports and training. It did not object to many gun control laws, but was certainly not a proponent of them. In fact, resistance by the NRA helped keep handguns out of the onerous 1934 National Firearms Act. Most gun control laws were enacted by racist Democrats who targeted people of color who could not be trusted to own guns:

          The Racist Roots of Gun Control by Clayton Cramer
          http://www.firearmsandliberty.com/cramer.racism.html

          The wave of gun control in the 1960s, aimed at disarming blacks and troublesome minorities, changed the NRA. A member revolt in 1977 overthrew the old order and made it advocate vigorously for the right to be armed for self protection by all responsible citizens.

    3. I ask them what they’re doing to stop suicides when I meet someone with a bug up their ass about gun control.

      When they say “huh?”, I point out to them that about 2/3rds of US gun deaths are suicides, and repeat the question.

    4. My answer is either comparison to uenumerated rights like abortion or voting, and to the basic problem that without guns, right devolves to might. Do they really want a return to the days when only those who had the idle time and resources to practice swordsmanship were in charge?

      God made man. Sam Colt made then equal.

      It sometimes help to show how ignorant they are about basic things like what a machine gun is, that hunting rifles are generally higher power than military rifles, or how fast anyone can swap magazines with very little training.

      1. “…how ignorant they are about basic things like what a machine gun is, that hunting rifles are generally higher power than military rifles,..”

        Along about age 9 or 10, I was fortunate enough to have a neighbor who was 1) a varmint shooter, 2) reloaded his own .222 rounds in necked-down .30 caliber brass (was that called a “Bee”?), 3) was knowledgeable enough to know why, and 4) was willing to put up with a curious kid.
        One day when I was allowed to tag along on one of his ‘sighting’ outings (and shoot some of his guns), he pointed out the absolutely *amazing* fact that a bullet dropped from the height of his (level) barrel would hit the ground at exactly the same time his fired shot did, some several hundred yards away! Hence, if you knew the distance to the target and the speed of the bullet, it was elementary to figure the required sighting elevation.
        And then, the speed of that bullet contributed mightily to the energy dissipated into that ground hog (which was considerable; not much ground hog left, just a sort of mist) under an equally simple calculation: F=VxM. The M of that .222 wasn’t much, but, whoa, Nelly, that *V* from the powder in the .30 caliber brass!
        Hence, the beginning of my interest in what was known as “science”. Not only are they more powerful in delivery of energy, they are more powerful in arousing interest!
        RIP, Bob.

  13. So cool! Now I am a member of a terrorist organization! My Mom would have been so proud.

    1. Like Luke Skywalker…

  14. Pics have emerged on social media of Ms. Stefani walking around San Francisco, always with one or more armed guards. I guess it’s true that the rules are different for the ruling class and the proles…….

  15. Gee…. the SF Board of Supervisors now lists the NRA, and presumably, its members and supporters, right up there with people who use plastic straws, or, even worse, plastic bags, as well as people who rent out places for people to live in, or want to build places in which people can live, and, people who actually make jobs for people, and the homeless, who have no place to live, and no jobs. Is there anybody left who SF doesn’t hate?

    I haven’t been a member of the NRA for years, preferring to support other RKBA groups instead. Maybe I will join again, if only to get the SF Board’s panties in a knot.

    1. “Panties in a knot” is their idea of foreplay.

      1. LOL. Yeah, I should have seen that….

  16. Now we know who is on the “no fly” list!

  17. San Francisco is a failure as a self governing polity.

    1. No, no, no, Mickey. SF is a total success as a governing body! Well, as long as one likes fascism.

  18. Stefani, of course, is not threatening her political opponents with violence; she is too civilized for that.

    “give up your guns or we will take them by force” is what she advocates so yes, she is in fact threatening political opponents with violence, and it is wholly uncivilized.

  19. Would this count as defamation? I don’t think San Francisco has sovereign immunity in this regard. The accusation is clearly false by any standard meaning of the words used, the logic is so tortured that I cannot fathom any reasonable person saying that it is in good faith or non-malicious, and it clearly falls under defamation both pro-se and includes attempts to bankrupt the NRA via depriving them of donors.

    A freshman law student should be able to win this case.

    1. Why wouldn’t they have sovereign immunity?

      1. You’re right. It’s not as clear cut as I first thought.

        However, It’s an explicit attempt to silence a political opponent and a violation of the constitution on both first and second amendment grounds, so it’s clearly outside the realms of acceptable legislation. It is also a writ of attainder, as they have publicly declared their political opponents criminals and attempted to punish people for associating with them (both a violation of the constitution itself and a first amendment violation for everyone else in the state).

        Since it is outside of their legal authority. It’s not proper government action. Their normal immunity should not apply.

  20. If the NRA were a terrorist organization, the SF city council would be lining up to fellate them.

    -jcr

  21. I have never understood the ¨cold dead hands¨ meme. If one is willing to kill in support of gun confiscation, why wait for the recalcitrant´s hands to get cold?

    1. Who the fuck would want or can afford to live in SF anymore? I used to go there for conferences back in the 90s and early 00s before it had gone completely batshit – not again if I can help it.

  22. It’s awesome to hear they’ve solved the homeless crisis and cleaned the streets of needles and shit…what’s that?…they haven’t done that?…the place is still covered in shit?…ok…never mind.

    1. That’s Politics 101: when you’ve utterly failed to make any headway on an actual problem in your city, such as public defecation (and the resultant disease risk), you call attention to your efforts to fix a FAKE problem (the NRA arming terrorist groups).

      These people care about keeping their jobs and the power that goes with those positions. They therefore can’t afford to be seen failing on the “stop people from public shitting” but they can declare victory every day on their “stop people from shooting” as long as no one fires a gun within the city.

  23. I moved from Cambridge, Massachusetts to San Francisco for a new job, thinking that the People’s Republic of Cambridge was so far to the left that SF couldn’t be much worse.

    I was wrong. Politics in SF is just batshit insane.

    Much better weather, though.

  24. One concept that seems true in history is that large empires near always fall apart where smaller countries seem to do better in the long run. There has been talk of California breaking off.

    Look at China today and through history. It is just too large. People have too many different interests for central government to be effective. Many examples we all know, Roman, Mongol, Greek, USSR,

    It might be a good thing for the US to be 4-5 different countries. Could be related through pacts and treaties into some kind of confederation. Wasn’t that the original idea with states until the federal government became the monstrosity it is today?

    So let the principality of San Francisco to whatever meshuggah thing it wants. I don’t really care.

    1. Wasn’t that the original idea with states until the federal government became the monstrosity it is today?

      That concept died the minute the Constitution was ratified. Granted, it might actually be more realistic now, due to the massive population and economic growth the US has gone through since then. It’s pretty clear that breaking up into smaller sections is probably going to be the only thing keeping another civil war from firing up, although it would be curious to see how that might play out in places like Illinois or New York, where the state is run primarily by people from Chicago and New York City.

  25. I am proud to say that, living in SF for some time, there has never been an elected ‘official’ (idiot) who ever got my vote.
    There is a lot of ruin in such a lovely place and those fucking idiots have yet to use it up, in spite of their best efforts.

    1. Yeah, I recently moved to Silicon Valley, and San Francisco is probably that only place in the country that makes Silicon Valley look conservative by comparison.

  26. Okay. Is there any way the rest of the United States could secede California?

    1. Well, 49 states could secede and form USA-2, keeping the same constitution. Leave California and DC as regular old USA.

  27. Stefani, of course, is not threatening her political opponents with violence; she is too civilized for that.

    To hell with this bitch. And Blake Shelton.

    1. Stefani? Which one.

      Gwen was no doubt uncivilized. Very.

      When she was ska the band upended pop music.

      The rhythm is hard pop with a reggae feel.

      Don’t speak – No Doubt Gwen Stephani

      https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=1usDPlrcv-0

      1. And she was hot as hell, still is. And Blake is an unapologetic redneck who loves hunting and fishing.

  28. Well, after all, that pesky second amendment WAS written by armed revolutionaries who were viewed as terrorists by England – – – –

  29. A friend sent me this just yesterday:

    If all non members of the NRA would stop shooting people,
    gun violence would drop 100%.

    1. +10000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000

  30. “It does not mean he is ready to shoot Catherine Stefani for advocating gun control. Nor should Stefani interpret the Gadsden Flag as a threat to sic rattlesnakes on her, or New Hampshire’s state motto as an incitement to violent revolution.”

    I propose applying the motto and image from the flag of Virginia to her. Virtue triumphing over tyranny seems appropriate.

  31. I find their honesty refreshing. Whenever leftists start going on about how we should trust them because they don’t want to take our guns away and they just want “a few” gun “safety” laws, it makes my head hurt because it’s so transparently false.

    Better to get it out in the open.

    1. And now if they don’t want to be “out woked” by their opponents and cancelled by the twitter crowd, they have to sign on to this. I agree, better to know your enemy’s real goals.

  32. Wow. I think instead, we should declare Planned Parenthood a terrorist organization. They have encourage and participated in MILLIONS of human deaths. The N. R. A.? They have supported and defended the 2nd amendment of the U.S. constitution, It is our right as U. S. Citizens to have the means of self defense. Period. The N.R.A. promotes gun safety, lawful, safe ownership of firearms. I have visited the N.R.A. Museum of firearms. I am not a member, but I am a supporter of their right to organize. I donated money to their museum. Millions of great law abiding voting Americans are members or supporters of the N.R.A. San Francisco has gone way too far. People will be reminded that u. s. House speaker Nancy Pelosi and her Democrat party are associated with this San Fran. Crowd come election time, they will vote. Planned Parenthood Is a better canidate for recornization as a domestic terrorist organization….just saying.

    1. The difference between planned parenthood and the N.R.A. is,
      one sells arms, the other defends the second amendment.
      *ducks*

  33. I’ve been reading the comments on the SFChronicle article, even the liberals there think the BOS are idiots for doing this

    1. Nothing gets Trump reelected like extreme Lefties getting regular Democrats to not vote for their candidate.

    2. For decades NRA has paid reprint rights for anti-gun op-ed and cartoon editorials. If they fail to get permission to reprint this San Francisco resolution verbatim they are missing the best recruitment tool ever.

      FILE NO. 190841

      RESOLUTION NO.

      Supervisor Stefani

      BOARD OF SUPERVISORS

      [Declaring the National Rifle Association as a Domestic Terrorist Organization]

      Resolution declaring that the National Rifle Association is a domestic terrorist organization and urging other cities, states, and the federal government to do the same.

      WHEREAS, The United States is plagued by an epidemic of gun violence, including over 36,000 deaths, and 100,000 injuries each year, and

      WHEREAS, Every day approximately 100 Americans are killed with guns, and

      WHEREAS, There has been more than one mass shooting per day in the United States in 2019, and

      WHEREAS, The gun homicide rate in the United States is 25 times higher than any other high-income country in the world, and

      WHEREAS, On July 28, 2019, Gilroy, California became the 243rd community in the United States to be the victim of a mass shooting, and

      WHEREAS, Stephen Romero, age 6, Keyla Salazar, age 13, and Trevor Irby, age 25, were murdered in the senseless act of gun violence that day, and

      WHEREAS, There have been at least three mass shootings since the events in Gilroy, and the number continues to grow, and

      WHEREAS, Reported hate crimes have increased by double digits since 2015, and

      WHEREAS, There are over 393,000,000 guns in the United States, which exceeds the country’s current total population, and

      WHEREAS, Our elected representatives, including the President, have taken an oath swearing to “support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic.”

      WHEREAS, The United States Declaration of Independence declared that life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness are unalienable rights, and

      WHEREAS, The United States Constitution specifically delineates that the country was founded to establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, and promote the general welfare, and

      WHEREAS, The United States Department of Justice defines terrorist activity, in part, as, “The use of any explosive, firearm, or other weapon or dangerous device, with intent to endanger, directly or indirectly, the safety of one or more individuals or to cause substantial damage to property;” and

      WHEREAS, The United States Department of Justice further includes any individual or member of an organization commits an act that the actor knows, or reasonably should know, affords material support, including communications, funds, weapons, or training to any individual has committed or plans to commit a terrorist act, and

      WHEREAS, The National Rifle Association musters its considerable wealth and organizational strength to promote gun ownership and incite gun owners to acts of violence, and

      WHEREAS, The National Rifle Association spreads propaganda that misinforms and aims to deceive the public about the dangers of gun violence, and

      WHEREAS, The leadership of National Rifle Association promotes extremist positions, in defiance of the views of a majority of its membership and the public, and undermine the general welfare, and

      WHEREAS, The National Rifle Association through its advocacy has armed those individuals who would and have committed acts of terrorism; and

      WHEREAS, All countries have violent and hateful people, but only in America do we give them ready access to assault weapons and large-capacity magazines thanks, in large part, to the National Rifle Association’s influence; now, therefore, be it

      RESOLVED, That the City and County of San Francisco intends to declare the National Rifle Association a domestic terrorist organization; and, be it

      FURTHER RESOLVED, That the City and County of San Francisco should take every reasonable step to assess the financial and contractual relationships our vendors and contractors have with this domestic terrorist organization; and, be it

      FURTHER RESOLVED, That the City and County of San Francisco should take every reasonable step to limit those entities who do business with the City and County of San Francisco from doing business with this domestic terrorist organization; and be it

      FURTHER RESOLVED, That the City and County of San Francisco should encourage all other jurisdictions, including other cities, states, and the federal government, to adopt similar positions.

  34. Defending ‘Reasoned Debate About Public Safety,’ San Francisco Supervisors Declare the NRA a ‘Domestic Terrorist Organization’.

    If you disagree with these politicians about gun control, they think, you might as well join the KKK.

    The KKK was started by Democrats.

    1. Ku Klux Klan doctrine is still proudly in the Democratic Party platforms, just disguised.

      The Klan believed that non-whites were incapable of self-rule. The DNC states that it “disenfranchises” minorities to require ID to vote — that is simply a soft way of stating the belief that minorities are TOO STUPID to understand how to get or use ID,

      The Klan imposed laws requiring background checks for gun purchases, restrictions on the types of guns which could be owned, and limits on amounts of ammunition which could be kept. The DNC has doubled down on this by adding laws which prohibit ownership by people convicted of certain low-level crimes, for which whites are far less likely to be arrested, much less convicted, than are blacks.

      The Klan used fear to control members and other citizens. As does the Democratic Party.

      1. Gun laws like the Florida law requiring a permit to buy a revolver or Winchester rifle may have been written in race neutral language, but it was not enforced against whites, and even may not have been enforced against resident Florida blacks.

        A lot of these 19th and 20th century “reasonable regulations” gave been accepted in 21st century scholarship (hint Stevens and Breyer) as though they were enforced as written. They were selectively enforced with a wink-and-nudge and not literally enforced against the general population. When the Florida law was enforced against a defendant with standing to challenge it in court, it was declared unconstitutional.

        Watson v. Stone, 148 Fla. 516, 524, 4 So.2d 700, 703 (1941)
        Justice Buford of the Florida Supreme Court noted in his concurring opinion narrowly construing a Florida gun control statute:
        “I know something of the history of this legislation. The original Act of 1893 was passed when there was a great influx of negro laborers in the State drawn here for the purpose of working in turpentine and lumber camps. The same condition existed when the Act was amended in 1901 and the Act was passed for the purpose of disarming the negro laborers …. The statute was never intended to be applied to the white population and in practice has never been so applied …. there has never been, within my knowledge, any effort to enforce the provisions of this statute as to white people because it has generally conceded to be in contravention of the [Florida State and United States] Constitution[s] and nonenforceable if contested.
        [emphasis added]
        Summary of Argument, folio 2, page 17 in
        http://www.abanet.org/publiced/preview/briefs/pdfs/07-08/07-290_RespondentAmCuCongrRacialEqualitynew.pdf
        accessed through American Bar Association blog
        [link tested and working 28 Dec 2015; 13 Jan 2017; 5 Sep 2019]

  35. I wonder how many towns in the Jim Crow South declared the NAACP to be a terrorist organization.

  36. You can see me speaking at the same meeting on a prior item if you watch the film. This is one of their stupid nothingburgers that just offends the people they want to influence.

    The item I spoke on at the meeting is the Mission Rock development, which portends to become San Francisco’s Love Canal. They’re permitting the construction of 3500 units on top of a former toxic waste dump. Why isn’t that in the news?

    1. It’s San Francisco. The toxic waste dump is the cleanest part of town.

  37. While ignoring the biggest, bloodiest terrorist organization of all, Der Staat. (Google “Democide.”)

    1. Go to Google News Archives and search for Ayn. What comes up among millions of pages of newsprint is a single article in which Ellen Goodman says Ayn Rand was an antichoice Dixiecrat. So tell me about Google and the Wikipaedia…

  38. San Francisco Supervisor Catherine Stefani: “When they use phrases like, ‘I’ll give you my gun when you pry it from my cold, dead hands’ on bumper stickers, they are saying reasoned debate about public safety should be met with violence.”

    No, they are saying they won’t voluntarily surrender their guns to confiscation. Sounds to me like Stephani wants to do violence; how else to pry guns from cold, dead fingers just because owners object to blanket prohibitions. AND if you want to take guns by kicking in doors in the night, don’t be surprised if people armed against home invasion defend themselves.

    When the Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini issued a fatwah over The Satanic Verses my wife bought a copy of the book just because Freedom of Speech.

    Now that the Ayatollahs of San Francisco have issued a fatwah over NRA, (humm, I’m already a member, already donated to NRA-ILA) guess I’ll have to finally buy a Ruger AR556 just because Right to Keep and Bear Arms.

  39. When it comes to cotton, Connecticut residents are “throwing in the towel” and moving towards Turkish cotton. “I’ve never seen so much interest in our towels before” says Ismail Aktim, Vice President of Classic Turkish Towels, an online Turkish towel retailer based in Connecticut.

  40. So this anti-Bill of Rights screeching is different from the rationalization for changing the LP’s 2016 Migration plank into an invitation for uninspected entry?

Please to post comments