Tokyo Damage Report

Rebranding the NRA as a Terror Group

I’d like to begin this rant with an October 2 tweet from Chuck D:

 

The NRA IS now a Terrorist Organization in The UnitedStateOfAmerica.

The FACT here is White Males will not identify White Males as terrorists

  —  Chuck D @MrChuckD 

 

———————–

 

I whole-heartedly agree that it’s ridiculous (white) mass-shooters are treated better than (Muslim) terrorists. The government and media should treat them both as harshly. But I was against the lib argument of, “Let’s make it equal by calling BOTH groups terrorists!”

Why? Because, why would you ,as a liberal, take the same anti-terrorist institutions like DHS, and CIA, the same institutions in charge of unjustly spying on, and harassing, innocent Muslim-American communities for the past 15 years . . .  why (of all people) would you trust THEM, and give THEM more power, and beg THEM to save us, please save us from the guns?

 

Wouldn’t it be better if we got equality by having BOTH jihadi-style violence AND spree-killer violence handled by civilian courts, so as to preserve the due process rights of ALL Americans, and all that Glenn Greenwald shit?

 

But I’ve since thought of a rhetorical gimmick to own gun nuts, a gimmick which is so effective / audacious, that it has changed my mind on the issue of “declaring mass-murderers terrorists too.”

 

Here goes:

The NRA is itself a traitor, terrorist organization, and – far from being of a bunch of unexplainable lone-wolfs, all the mass-shooters collectively compose the NRA’s armed insurgent wing.

 

Just as groups such as Sinn Fein and Palestinian National Authority are the “respectable, diplomatic” faces of the IRA and Hamas militants, the NRA is just – and always has been – ONE HALF, the VISIBLE HALF of the Gun Maniac Movement, and the maniacs themselves being the “direct action” half. But both the NRA and the Maniacs work hand-in-glove behind the scenes with one simple goal: making it easier for maniacs to get their hands on the best weapons possible.

 

This framing answers the usual rebuttal to the “psycho shooters are terrorists!” argument: “But terrorists by definition are organized, and have a specific political goal. Psychos are by definition lone nuts intent on nothing more than a high body count. Therefore psycho shooters can’t be terrorists.” 

 

You don’t have to be a gun-nut by any means to take this position; like it or not, it’s widely-held.

 

Here’s how I prove that “lone-wolf, apolitical maniacs” are actually an “organized group pursuing political goals”:  focusing not on the NRA’s law-and-order rhetoric, or their gun safety training, or the right to hunt, or even on the second amendment. By instead focusing narrowly on that particular set of specific issues where the interests of spree-killers and the “respectable, pro-law-and-order” NRA overlap 100%.

 

How?

Well, even if we accept the NRA’s framing that each individual maniac has totally private, psycho motivations, who cares? No matter why they kill, the common denominator is, they all want to kill more people with better guns! So by definition Lone Wolfs all share the exact same opposition to regulations on sales of firearms to psychotics, so in that narrow sense they DO move as a unit, and have specific policy goals!

 

And since the NRA shares the same exact position on the same exact regulations, they’re in bed with maniacs.

 

And to the extent that responsible gun-owners threaten rebellion if those same regulations are enacted, then responsible gun owners are linked to maniacs BY MEANS OF the god-damn NRA: they’re by definition part of the same nationwide organization, and they share explicit political goals of getting more unrestricted access to deadlier weapons – the OPPOSITE of apolitical lone-wolves.

 

Ergo, illegal Maniacs and the very legal NRA are just two wings of the same terrorist organization!

 

(Plus, you know, you could make the argument based on the effects of the NRA’s policies on America, in terms of deaths. The outcomes. If it walks like a duck, and etc.)

 

The reason the gun-regulation side hasn’t made progress isn’t so much that they’re out of touch elites: the reason is they’ve been fighting each head separately, as if they weren’t joined at the hip. It’s fucked up the strategy.

 

Once you see the NRA as the equivalent of the Sinn Fein or the Palestinian National Authority, then you can see that it’s been intimidating and extorting the rest of the country, in the same way as Hamas or the IRA does (i.e. through threats of  a nationwide uprising; threats which are made credible by the constant ‘lone wolf’ shootings)

 

It’s the same exact game as, “If you don’t deal with Sinn Fein through the normal political channels, you’ll have to deal with wave after wave of IRA bombings. You choose, suckers!

 

Once the terrorist framing is in place, we can start talking about how many bodies the gun maniacs catch yearly, versus how many American civilians are killed by jihadi terrorists yearly.  Once you establish such an ‘apples-to-apples’ comparison, it’s easy to see where the Government’s resources and money should go.

 

After all, what politician wants to be soft on terrorism?

 

Here’s the benefits of focusing narrowly on only those issues where the NRA takes the side of maniacs over the safety of average gun-owners: it drives a wedge between the NRA and ‘good guys with guns’, in 3 ways at once:

 

1)    Instead of the NRA giving Congresspeople a ‘report card’ based on how well the Congresspeople vote the NRA party-line, what if SPREE KILLERS THEMSELVES gave the NRA a ‘report card’ based on how well the NRA supported the SPREE KILLERS’ INTERESTS in Congress???  What God-fearing, flag-waving, Heartland American could support an institution which gets an “A+” from Dylans Roof and Klebold??

2)    My framing doesn’t just use the NRA’s own logic against it, but it does so in such a way that leads the listener inexorably to the conclusion that the NRA itself is a terrorist organization which must be abolished by whatever Federal or local measures are used to abolish ISIS training camps and recruitment offices on US soil! I don’t even think I’ve ever heard gun-regulation people demand that, since it’s such an advanced idea. But this provides the legal pretext for just such a put-em-on-the-defensive-for-once maneuver!

3)    This takes the focus off of “Do you broadly support the Second Amendment in general? Or do you want to BAN ALL GUNS EVERRRRRR?????” which is always gonna be a losing question for gun control people. And it shifts the focus where it belongs: why does the NRA fight against gun regulations which even a lot of gun owners support? And what specifically ARE those gun regulations, anyway? My argument relies on publicizing the many different options for regulation: The more options we talk about, the more examples we can give people of how the NRA gets an “A+” rating from spree-killers with each and every example.

 

Wedge issue, I’m saying.

 

Not just verbal Judo, but a Judo which pits one fundamental Conservative principle (the Second) against a whole CLUSTER of OTHER Conservative principles: (Anti-terrorism, patriotism, anti-crime, etc).

“Surely you can support just one of these regulations, if only to not be completely a maniac supporter, right?”

 

For each reform or regulation which the NRA and its partners (the Maniacs), say:

HERE’S THE KILLERS’ POSITION.

HERE’S THE NRA’S POSITION.

WHAT’S YOUR POSITION?

 

As a bonus, this framing leaves the hated ‘Coastal Elites’ out of the debate altogether! Instead, it emphasizes that, far from being a beleaguered resentful Middle American minority being lectured by Elites, it’s about ordinary Americans making up their OWN minds, about WHICH conservative principles take priority over other conservative principles.

Keep it simple:  killers’ position, NRA’s position, YOUR position.

 

Despite my reservations about expanding state power to combat terror, I find this tactic persuasive for two reasons:

1)    Even if banning the NRA altogether is too far-fetched to be practical, if this talking-point becomes famous enough to get any MSM attention it would benefit us by moving the ‘Overton Window’ hella left!

2)    Even if it’s too far-fetched to be practical, it’s still a darn good troll.

 

USING THIS TACTIC AGAINST GENERAL MAINSTREAM PEOPLE:

 

Why is it a good troll? It attacks the NRA not on their weak point, but on their strong point: their Heartland, Middle American, Silent Majority-type Cred.  That’s where they get their power from – not just the guys with 100 rifles, but those guys’ families and friends who also vote.

 

It takes the narrative: “Even if you don’t own hella guns, we’re YOUR people in DC – we represent the broad majority of normies who believe broadly in the Second Amendment!”… this tactic takes the very narrative which the NRA itself has spent so much effort in promoting, and JUDOS that shit back against the NRA, beating them with their own Heartland Values cudgel!

 

This is accomplished by means of an ingenious two-for-the-price-of-one-pivot maneuver of my own Machiavellian design:

 

It reframes the narrative away from:

“Look how different we, the NRA, are from coastal elites! YOU DON’T WANT TO BE ONE OF THEM, DO YOU? ”

 

And judos the narrative like so:

 
“Look how close we, the NRA, are to the maniac murderers! YOU DON’T WANT TO BE ONE OF THEM, DO YOU?”

 

(making this point particularly juicy: the NRA’s unwavering and oddly specific support for the right of PEOPLE ON THE TERRORIST NO-FLY LIST to BUY MORE GUNS (provided it’s bought from a gun show or other no-Federal-background-check-type purchase!).  It’s crazy this hasn’t already sunk them, since it flies in the face of their all-American rhetoric which their own fanbase laps up!)

 

Instead of, “do you want to be on the side of the CONSTITUTION? Because that’s the side of the NRA!” it’s now,

“Do you want to be on the side of the MANIACS? Because that’s the side of the NRA! Do you want to support a two-faced organization which OPERATES JUST LIKE HAMAS?!?!?!?”

 

Instead of, “Look at how far the Coastal Elites are from Middle America!” it’s now:

“Look at how far the NRA (in its support for the Maniac Agenda) is from Middle America!”

 

HOW THE TWO PIVOTS WORK:

First, this scenario takes the ‘playing field’ that the NRA itself promotes to the world: “We’re over here politically, and they’re over there!”… but rather than the distance between NRA and Coastal Elites, my shit focuses on the distance between the NRA and the killers!

 

Second, and more powerfully, it then DELETES THE COASTAL ELITES FROM THE SCENARIO ENTIRELY, by pivoting from “NRA vs. Elites” to “NRA vs. YOU, the Middle American who doesn’t want to be on the side of maniacs.”

 

That way, I take the adversarial relationship and resentment in the existing NRA narrative (the whole divisive, “Vs.” part) and substitute the NRA itself in the bad guy role formerly occupied by Elites.

 

We keep the resentment, but instead of lecturing people like, “Admit you’re wrong! Be more like us, the condescending elites,“ we rock it like this: “Precisely because you’re Heartlanders who are not terrorists, you have to ask YOURSELF if you’re really living up to your own values if you’re supporting the NRA’s peculiar views of the Second.” 

 

That’s another level of judo: turning it from a lib-conservative fight, to a fight of Conservative Principle Vs. Other Conservative Principle.

 

(I’m dictating this while driving: it occurs to me that it would be hilarious if in my distraction, I fatally ran over a bicyclist, because I was so engrossed in my anti-gun rant!)

 

PUTTING THIS ARGUMENT INTO PRACTICE AGAINST THE RIGHTEOUSLY HARDCORE 2ND  AMENDMENT PERSON:

 

Any time you hear an anti-regulation talking point, answer, “Isn’t that exactly what [name of mass shooter] would say? And how does  it make you feel, being on that side? Surely you’re in favor of some regulation, just to be able to say you’re not taking the same exact policy position as maniacs?”

 

ANOTHER WAY: THE ONE-TWO TRAP

YOU: Why are you taking the maniacs’ exact policy position if you’re not pro-maniac?

THEM: That’s blatantly unfair! I want to STOP bad guys! We’re on OPPOSITE sides!

YOU: Ok, opposite sides. (thinks) So, why are the MANIACS so eager to take YOUR position on gun regulations?

The cool thing is, there IS no ‘third position’ for the other person to argue and weasel out of it – since they literally ARE taking the same policies as maniacs!

Owned.

No comments

No comments yet. Be the first.

Leave a reply

Mexico