San Francisco declares free speech an act of terrorism

The San Francisco Board of Supervisors has passed a resolution declaring the National Rifle Association a domestic terrorist organization:

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 ...

Incite gun owners to acts of violence? They’re just making it up as they go along.

Frankly, the NRA is often too quick to cower before the gun grabbers, but terrorists?

The resolution goes on to declare: “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 …”

So, does this mean card-carrying NRA members can be barred from bidding on contracts in San Fran? If that happens expect legal action.

The Wall Street Journal points out that in Board of County Commissioners v. Umbehr in 1996 the Supreme Court held that terminating a contract in response to the contractor’s protected speech violates the First Amendment.

San Fran defines extremist positions.

13 comments on “San Francisco declares free speech an act of terrorism

  1. Bill says:

    When you observe such biased and erroneous propaganda, from the governing board of a once great city, it is infuriating, distressing and somehow sad. Perhaps we all should be mindful that given the First Amendment, there is no recourse against their actions and perhaps if those who govern can openly promulgate their hatred, what the NRA does in protecting the 2nd Amendment becomes even more important.

  2. Rincon says:

    For the record, Politifact scores the NRA with 5% true, 29% mostly true, 5% half true, 19% mostly false, 24% false, and 19% pants on fire. For comparison, Hillary Clinton scored 24, 25, 23, 14, 10, and 3. This makes the NRA 39% mostly true or better and 61% mostly false or worse. For Hillary, it was 72 and 28. Quite a difference. So does that mean Hillary is also a terrorist, albeit a less egregious one?

    Well, I think we can all agree that the terrorist label is a stretch, but San Fransisco is probably accurate when they say, “The National Rifle Association spreads propaganda that misinforms and aims to deceive the public about the dangers of gun violence.” That is, unless one considers Politifact to be a bunch or liars, which I’m sure many people do, considering the highly partisan nation we now inhabit.

    Generally, if one person lies in order to better his financial position at the expense of others or to recklessly put others into danger, it’s illegal, and sometimes termed fraud. If a politician, large corporation or, as in this case, organization does the same, it’s called free speech. At some point though, although most of us believe that free speech should be allowed, no one guarantees that if abused by chronic fraudulent claims the speaker shouldn’t be surprised nor defended if someone also exercises their right of free speech and declares them a terrorist organization. The NRA made its bed. Feel free to disagree with San Francisco, but do why do you object more to a set of representatives (may have overreacted by) crying foul when advocates lie with likely results that many are killed than those whose lies likely have led to the deaths of many people?

  3. Steve says:

    Another distraction, DT is absolutely entertaining with his distractions. This latest appears to be distracting attention from failed Taliban peace talks).
    Keep letting the ….


  4. Rincon says:

    Great picture! I tell ya, I like squirrels.

  5. Rincon says:

    In another slight digression, it seems that Republican leaders in Nevada and 4 other states will forego a primary in favor of dictating to the membership of those states that Trump will be their nominee. Although it might have been mostly window dressing, I miss the days when the parties at least tried to make selection of their nominees look like a vaguely democratic process.

    The Trump Dept of Education has also joined in the totalitarian look alike contest. Apparently, they are refusing to provide information to several state Attorneys General in their efforts to investigate student loan practices. So now, this is considered top secret?

  6. Steve says:

    You aren’t alone, Rincon. Seems the whole world loves them…except for power companies. Power companies would rather deal with EMP’s than squirrels.

    Yup, DT’s hiding behind the GOP. (See what I did there? DT’s?)

    Hey! how we gonna keep all these uppity millennial’s in line unless we keep’m all in severe crushing debt for the rest of their lives?

    And the NRA is suing the City of San Fransisco over its declaration.

    It’s freakin’ squirrel fest!

    Y’know what might be a real concern? Is targeting taxes at tourists taxation with out representation?

  7. Like the Dems did not use superdelegates to nominate Hillary.

  8. Rincon says:

    I like your idea of taxation without representation for tourists, Steve – and the dt’s 🙂

    Just because the Dems do it doesn’t make it right. That being said, the difference seems to be that the Democrat superdelegates comprise about 15% of the delegates, while the vote in Nevada has been completely taken away from the people. Am I correct on that? I find the whole process a bit confusing even after several decades.

  9. Steve says:

    The parties get to elect their candidates in any way they see fit. Always been that way, all the way back to the smoke filled, alcohol fueled, back room deal making that decided who got to ride the caboose from state to state.

    Taxing tourists is exactly the same as gouging them at the register. Thing is, if it ever goes away from the taxation department, imagine where all the lost revenue will be found…local small business’s….period. Too weak to mount a fight, also have no vote.

  10. bc says:

    The Dems did use super delegates to nominate Hillary, the fix was in from the beginning that she was going to be the Democrat Nominee. Bern did not get that memo.

    What the Dems got out of it is they chose the one person in the country that could lose an election to the carnival barker Donald Trump. Dems corrupted the process and see where it got them, Looks like we are going the same route and that is not correct either.

    Trump will be the nominee, pretty rare for a sitting president to not be nominated, but he needs to go through the process.

  11. Return to those smoke-filled backrooms. Nevada should stop running the primaries for both parties.

  12. bc says:

    Not sure about whether Nevada should have an early primary or not, that is up to you all.

    As far as the smoke filled rooms the last election showed the worst of both. Dems picked the weakest candidate ever using the back room process and we picked a blowhard, dishonest, racist carnival barker for our party using democracy.

    The Chicago machine still uses the back room to choose who they want to run. The machine does not always win, the mayor’s race just went 75-25 for the outsider over the machine candidate, but most races are decided in the back rooms. Poor quality candidates in general, a lot of machine hacks and corruption abounds.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s