NRA Sues San Francisco After Lawmakers Declare It A Terrorist Organization

NRA Sues San Francisco After Lawmakers Declare It A Terrorist Organization

Good, this is ridiculous lol.

1) It hasn't been singed by the Governor yet, so it means nothing

2) If signed: "San Francisco's resolution, which lacks explicit enforcement tools..."

So the NRA is suing over being called "mean names" thus far? Isn't that supposed to be something only "Leftist!" do?

Originally posted by Surtur
NRA Sues San Francisco After Lawmakers Declare It A Terrorist Organization

Good, this is ridiculous lol.

Amen. 👆

If any organization/group should be called terrorists it is obviously the Antifa thugs. Certainly not the law-abiding NRA though.

Originally posted by Robtard
1) It hasn't been singed by the Governor yet, so it means nothing

2) If signed: "San Francisco's resolution, which lacks explicit enforcement tools..."

So the NRA is suing over being called "mean names" thus far? Isn't that supposed to be something only "Leftist!" do?

Nah this isn't just about being called a mean name. This article gives a good rundown of why this is chilling even if it never gets signed:

https://reason.com/2019/09/10/lawsuit-argues-that-san-franciscos-anti-nra-resolution-violates-the-first-amendment/

And if it never gets signed it was just pointless virtue signaling.

See #2, even if signed, this resolution is seemingly toothless from the go.

Suing them means nothing until they actually win.

Originally posted by Robtard
See #2, even if signed, this resolution is seemingly toothless from the go.

Article I linked addresses this:

"Notably, Stefani's main defense against the NRA's constitutional claims seems to be that the supervisors didn't really mean it. "It's a resolution," she told The New York Times. "It's not an ordinance. It's nonbinding." But even the threat of scrutinizing contractors for ties to the NRA can be expected to have a chilling effect, and any attempt to follow through on the aspiration to stop contractors from doing business with the organization would implicate the First Amendment."

If they never ever intend to follow through on this, may I ask what the point was? Besides wasting money.

It's seemingly just an empty gesture even if signed.

I'm also okay with the NRA suing here, we live in a country where people sue each other over anything. One more won't break it.

But 'chilling effect' is the gripe, cool. Let's pocket that and remember it for the future.

So then it'd be fair to label it "virtue signaling" ?

You can do so if you wish, I'm not bothered by it.

Not what I asked, but let me be more clear: would you say calling it virtue signaling was inaccurate?

Already answered:

Originally posted by Robtard
You can do so if you wish, I'm not bothered by it.

Stop being passive aggressive.

Hypocrisy overload. Moving on.

Originally posted by dadudemon
Suing them means nothing until they actually win.

I'm wondering how this isn't slander?

Imagine the shitstorm if republicans did the same thing to Planned Parenthood. Do you think we'd see democrats shrugging their shoulders and going "meh it is toothless" ?

Odd, certain leftists usually get really mad when people use the wrong names.

See the multiple examples of meltdowns over "misgendering".

Originally posted by Surtur
I'm wondering how this isn't slander?

Imagine the shitstorm if republicans did the same thing to Planned Parenthood. Do you think we'd see democrats shrugging their shoulders and going "meh it is toothless" ?

It'd be pretty ironic given that Planned Parenthood were the victims of a terrorist attack by a Republican.

Originally posted by jaden_2.0
It'd be pretty ironic given that Planned Parenthood were the victims of a terrorist attack by a Republican.

Even more ironic planned Parenthood was created by a woman that was pen pal to Hitler. Specially created the organization to destroy Black people. And since it’s creation more Black babies have been aborted than borne.

@squall: also ironic that Hillary Clinton--who claims to fight for minorities-- praised that same woman.

Originally posted by jaden_2.0
It'd be pretty ironic given that Planned Parenthood were the victims of a terrorist attack by a Republican.

Perhaps, but this would not be shrugged off with "meh it's toothless".

It would be "REPUBLICANS ARE TRYING TO TAKE AWAY ABORTION OMG! DOES THEIR EVIL KNOW NO END? I BET THEY WANNA SHOOT BABIES IN THE FACE FOR TARGET PRACTICE!"

Originally posted by jaden_2.0
It'd be pretty ironic given that Planned Parenthood were the victims of a terrorist attack by a Republican.

How many of those terrorists were also members of the NRA? And then, how many of those, assuming any were part of the NRA, were encouraged by NRA leadership to commit terrorist attacks against Planned Parenthood?

In the US, under culpability "means tests", you need to prove it was leadership or direction set by leadership (pamphlets, memos, etc.) that lead to the crime. And the "influence" or "direction" from leadership must also be reasonably attributable to the crime committed. Meaning, you cannot just say it was the NRA's fault if the council said, "We must win back our rights from the oppressors!" and someone decided that meant bombing a Planned Parenthood clinic.

Of course, I took your obviously troll comment seriously. You triggered some folks with this post so carry on. 🙂