Democrat Congresswoman Calls Millions Of Americans "Domestic Security Threats"

[Thunderflash500]

She's right to fear the people. It shouldn't be any other way.

 

[Anung Un Rama]

Nor is it a republic. However, you can't outright rewrite history and pretend they weren't a socialist party when their platform was state-run jobs for workers, free education, Nationalized Healthcare and gun control.

1. @Farmer Br0wn's argument that Nazi Germany was Socialist was because they included it in their name.
2. The Nazis crushed unions, banned the Socialist Democratic Party, and sent socialists to death camps. The Nazis did not take over private industry to support workers. If there was anything Hitler hated more than Jews it was Socialists. Hitler's consolidation and usage of state power is defined as Fascism, not Socialism.

 

[Rational Poster]

That wasn't my question. What's sad is that you already know this.

What is the difference between Nazi Germany socialism and Venezuela's socialism?

They both descended into brutal, murderous dictatorships, and they're both socialist.

Again you've made an assertion and refused to provide any evidence for it. Simply grabbing your clutching pearls in disbelief is not evidence.

Nazi Germany was a totalitarian oligarchy.

Venezuela is a failed oil kleptocracy.

 

[D3THRONED]

Lol what a dumb bitch and the few of you defending her.

 

[spamking]

Also, the title of this thread is completely disingenuous. It's clear she meant the organization and that particular spokesperson, not all NRA members.


#FAKENEWS

And?

Obviously others feel that Dana's NRA add clearly wasn't meant to incite actual violence against anyone . . . . soooooo.

 

[kpt018]

No, I'll gladly agree they're a security threat if you show me they're calling for violence. That's a crime.

They are, but in a way that people who like the NRA can "play dumb" and so that they, as an organization, can defend themselves legally. But it's a case of "we know what they're saying".

 

[Cubo de Sangre]

What is given via judicial activism can be taken away via judicial activism.

Scalia put the individual right on a foundation of sand, all it takes is the right argument to collapse it.

The right to keep and bear is clearly stated as a right of the people. And in practice people in America have always had guns. If incorporating the 2nd is judicial activism then so is the incorporation of every other Amendment. If that's the "right argument" that you have in mind I'll agree with it since I'm not convinced in that interpretation of the 14th. But it's all of them or none of them that stay or go.

 

[spamking]

She's totally right.

Compared to who?

The NRA and my fellow members should be the least of her concern . . .

 

[TheStruggle]

1. @Farmer Br0wn's argument that Nazi Germany was Socialist was because they included it in their name.
2. The Nazis crushed unions, banned the Socialist Democratic Party, and sent socialists to death camps. The Nazis did not take over private industry to support workers. If there was anything Hitler hated more than Jews it was Socialists. Hitler's consolidation and usage of state power is defined as Fascism, not Socialism.

Hitler's purge of socialists was about control not hate of ideology. He killed his right hand man for trying to take credit for his movement. To believe this, you would have to believe Hitler hated Socialists so much yet allowed his political party to be called National Socialists while preaching socialist policies in his own country to gain power.

 

[Cubo de Sangre]

They are, but in a way that people who like the NRA can "play dumb" and so that they, as an organization, can defend themselves legally. But it's a case of "we know what they're saying".

Wanna bet that violence is perpetrated by a gun nut against the NY Times? I'll take the opposite position.

 

[Farmer Br0wn]

1. @Farmer Br0wn's argument that Nazi Germany was Socialist was because they included it in their name.

Not only was it socialist in the title, the Nazi government was also socialist in policy implementations. Germany often boasts about having the "Oldest National healthcare system in the world". This ended up being yet another weapon the Nazi party would use against any political opponent.

2. The Nazis crushed unions, banned the Socialist Democratic Party, and sent socialists to death camps. The Nazis did not take over private industry to support workers. If there was anything Hitler hated more than Jews it was Socialists. Hitler's consolidation and usage of state power is defined as Fascism, not Socialism.

What you just described was a socialist dictator taking out any possible political opposition.

This is different from Venezuela, how?

 

[spamking]

They are, but in a way that people who like the NRA can "play dumb" and so that they, as an organization, can defend themselves legally. But it's a case of "we know what they're saying".

Dude. I think you may have been hit with "the clenched fist of truth" one too many times . . .

Here's the transcript of one of the ads . . . please point out the call to become violent or go after the left with violence.

"They use their media to assassinate real news. They use their schools to teach children that their president is another Hitler. They use their movie stars and singers and comedy shows and award shows to repeat their narrative over and over again. And then they use their ex-president to endorse the resistance.

"All to make them march, make them protest, make them scream racism and sexism and xenophobia and homophobia. To smash windows, burn cars, shut down interstates and airports, bully and terrorize the law-abiding — until the only option left is for the police to do their jobs and stop the madness.

"And when that happens, they'll use it as an excuse for their outrage. The only way we stop this, the only way we save our country and our freedom, is to fight this violence of lies with the clenched fist of truth. I'm the National Rifle Association of America, and I'm freedom's safest place."

 

[Anung Un Rama]

Not only was it socialist in the title, the Nazi government was also socialist in policy implementations. Germany often boasts about having the "Oldest National healthcare system in the world". This ended up being yet another weapon the Nazi party would use against any political opponent.


What you just described was a socialist dictator taking out any possible political opposition.

This is different from Venezuela, how?

Germany's National Healthcare System started with Otto von Bismarck in 1883.

 

[ultramanhyata]

The founding fathers were insurrectionists. I guess if you don't believe in protecting yourself from tyranny then you are pro-fascist. The Constitution was put in place as it is, to do the best to try to keep the government at bay. They placed a premium on personal freedom, and they knew the government might grow and grow and creep into a tyrannical beast. So yes, the CITIZENS need rights like the 2nd Amendment to help make sure the government doesn't become all powerful.

The Constitution is also supposed to foster a mindset in American Citizens. A mindset that people should come first. A mindset that personal freedom is more important than government restrictions. A mindset that is clearly lacking in Europe. They have no free speech. They have no gun rights. They literally have no freedom and no hope to fight for it. The government is their god, and if they speak out against it they can and will be jailed by agents of the state. If that is what you want, then good for you. I like freedom, or at least as much freedom as we can retain.


Gun grabbers are freedom takers. If you think they will stop at gun rights you are crazy. They are going after free speech. They are going after personal property. They want everything.

I'll take this as a "proud to be a threat to domestic security" confirmation. I think you guys should have tee shirts made.

 

[dontsnitch]

They are, but in a way that people who like the NRA can "play dumb" and so that they, as an organization, can defend themselves legally. But it's a case of "we know what they're saying".

Given that this congresswoman also claims that Dana herself is complicit in these threats, I think we need more evidence than what's available from needing to read between the lines. At the very least, if you're saying that they're not overt threats, the accusation shouldn't be presented as if they are. Being a domestic security threat is a strong charge.

 

[Anung Un Rama]

Given that this congresswoman also claims that Dana herself is complicit in these threats, I think we need more evidence than what's available from needing to read between the lines. At the very least, if you're saying that they're not overt threats, the accusation shouldn't be presented as if they are. Being a domestic security threat is a strong charge.

Agreed. Both parties were irresponsible and deliberately trying to motivate (unhinge) their more radical followers. Seeing as one was speaking directly to gun owners and showing propaganda footage and referring to fellow Americans of a different political leaning as "them"... I would say the NRA's video was far more inflammatory.

 

[HomerThompson]

And?

Obviously others feel that Dana's NRA add clearly wasn't meant to incite actual violence against anyone . . . . soooooo.

It's not about how anyone feels. The message is clear as day.

 

[dontsnitch]

Agreed. Both parties were irresponsible and deliberately trying to motivate (unhinge) their more radical followers.

Without question this is taking place, but it's especially disconcerting when the perpetrator is a congresswoman.

 

[Cubo de Sangre]

Given that this congresswoman also claims that Dana herself is complicit in these threats, I think we need more evidence than what's available from needing to read between the lines. At the very least, if you're saying that they're not overt threats, the accusation shouldn't be presented as if they are. Being a domestic security threat is a strong charge.

Step one in silencing someone is to brand them a terrorist, racist, homophobe, etc.

 

[Falsedawn]

The right to keep and bear is clearly stated as a right of the people. And in practice people in America have always had guns. If incorporating the 2nd is judicial activism then so is the incorporation of every other Amendment. If that's the "right argument" that you have in mind I'll agree with it since I'm not convinced in that interpretation of the 14th. But it's all of them or none of them that stay or go.

DC vs Heller (establishing the individual right to own firearms) was absolutely judicial activism, we've been through this before. That's what we call it when you overturn 70 years of jurisprudence because you can't finish reading a sentence.