Associating the National Rifle Association with domestic terrorism is the equivalent of pointless name calling and won’t change the fact that there are unnecessarily more guns than people in America.
The San Francisco Board of Supervisors passed a resolution Sept. 3 designating the NRA a domestic terrorist organization and encouraged others to follow.
The city will also reassess its contractual and financial relationships with vendors who do business with the NRA.
The underlying reason why the board decided to pass this resolution was that “the National Rifle Association through its advocacy has armed those individuals who would and have committed acts of terrorism,” according to the text in the resolution.
Even though the NRA does propagate not restricting gun ownership, calling the NRA terrorists won’t have any significant change to reform gun control.
According to a Small Arms Survey, U.S. civilians alone account for 393 million of the worldwide total of civilian held firearms which exceeds the country’s current total population.
With 289 reported mass shootings in the U.S. this year as of Sept. 3 according to the Gun Violence Archive, the NRA’s push for pro gun ownership is unacceptable.
But that still does not deem the NRA as a domestic terrorist group.
The issue with calling the NRA a domestic terrorist organization is that you’re dealing with a group that focuses on technicalities. And by using rhetoric in the NRA bylaws, their members cannot be terrorists.
The NRA argue that since their bylaws prohibit violence and overthrowing the government for political aims it goes against the definition of terrorism.
Basically the NRA is relying on their words and strict definitions, just like they do when regarding the second amendment.
The thing is, the NRA does need to understand they have a significant influence on their supporters and people who support gun ownership.
And that population is huge.
According to the Pew Research Center who focus on social and demographic trends, three out of ten adults in the U.S. say they currently own a gun.
Plus with the latest instances of gun violence and mass murders involving people like the 19-year-old Gilroy Garlic Festival shooter, the NRA needs to recognize that not everyone needs a gun.
In a response to San Francisco’s resolution naming the NRA domestic terrorists, the NRA is suing the San Francisco Board of Trustees for infringing their First and Fourteenth Amendment rights.
NRA CEO Wayne LaPierre said in a statement following the lawsuit, “This lawsuit comes with a message to those who attack the NRA: we will never stop fighting for our law-abiding members and their constitutional freedoms.”
But the constitutional freedoms LaPierre describes is the real problem.
If the NRA truly believes in strictly following the text in the Constitution the only way to limit their propaganda of everyone owning a gun is to amend the Constitution and the Second Amendment.
In an interview with The Atlantic, U.S. Representative David Cicilline said, “I think a proposal to amend the Constitution to substantially change the Second Amendment would more likely be used by the NRA to galvanize their supporters and maybe even engage less active gun owners.”
This is the approach the San Francisco Board of Supervisors should have taken, rather than the pointless name calling.
If people like the NRA truly believe in following strict rhetoric and see a change in the language of the Second Amendment based on hard facts, they will have to follow the changes.
But cities should not follow in San Francisco’s steps or the back-and-forth name calling will never end.
