No, I did not hook up with the “Fine people” of America’s White supremacist/Nationalist. Their strong beliefs, and mine, are as far apart as the East is from the West.
However, after reading the resolution unanimously adopted by the San Francisco Board of Supervisors on September 3, 2019 declaring, the National Rifle Association (NRA) is a “Domestic terrorist organization”, I knew it was time for me, and other embarrassed San Franciscans to push back.
So, for my part, I decided to join the NRA in protest of my local government’s grandstanding politics while they continue to ignore gun violence on the streets of San Francisco.
Of course, there is never a good reason to join a terrorist organization; be it foreign or domestic. But to call the NRA a domestic terrorist organization, is an asinine stretch as well as a blatant display of political hypocrisy.
July 16, 2019, prior to the NRA resolution, SF Supervisor Sandra Lee Fewer, put forth a resolution that rebranded those caught up in the criminal justice system. Examples: 1) “formerly incarcerated person,” “returning resident,” or “justice involved,” not “felon” or “offender;” 2) “person on parole” or “person under supervision” not “parolee” or “probationer;” 3) “currently incarcerated person,” not “convict” or “inmate.”
“We don’t want people to be forever labeled for the worst things that they have done,” Supervisor Matt Haney said.
But that stated reasoning contradicts the label placed on the NRA of a, “Domestic Terrorist Organization.” And since when did name-calling any group a terrorist ever lead it to repentance?
Credit to San Francisco Mayor London Breed, she, declined to sign either resolution.
The resolution rebranding the NRA author is SF Supervisor Catherine Stefani, a self-described “gun violence prevention activist.” And it may very-well have been a stance by a well-intended mother. But the fact, Stefani was once a prosecutor makes the resolution read more like a scapegoat indictment of the NRA for what lawmakers WILL NOT DO.
The first question Stefani should answer, is, in crafting the resolution, did she ever consider consulting San Francisco Police Department (SFPD)? Many members of the SFPD as well as other law enforcement are proud, reasonable and responsible members of the NRA. And consulting with law enforcement might have given her a better understanding of the reasonable aspects of the NRA, chiefly promoting gun safety.
Only a gullible person would view the resolution as gospel.
For instance, one line on the second page reads: “The National Rifle Association musters its considerable wealth and organizational strength to promote gun ownership and incite gun owners to acts of violence…”
Hell, I could say the same about YouTube.
The terror in this YouTube video was the work of a 13-year-old San Francisco boy and not a “Man” as reported. This kid and many other teens terrorizing the streets of San Francisco get some of their education on guns not by being NRA members or reciting their rhetoric. They get their education on “anything guns” by a well-known YouTuber who has over 4 million followers.
And for those who think I might be some NRA sympathizer or apologist, let me set the record straight. I have long believed; this is an organization of cowards, for hiding behind the Second Amendment’s right to bare arms to justify its love or rights for firearms. If you fear your government will take away your gun(s), why lean on its founding document?
It is my personal belief that the NRA’s days as a non-profit organization are numbered due to its leadership breaking rules. And I have full confidence in New York Attorney General, Letitia James to do her job on the rule of law. That said, I hope the NRA survives under new leadership and new name to promote gun safety and common sense on guns in America but not as a non-profit status after D.C. gets through with the NRA.
People need to understand, if there are “393,000,000” guns in America verses 330,000,000 people, it is easier to get rid of all people, than it is to get rid of all guns.
Speaking as an uncle to three nephews; all shot in the head 7 years apart, of which, only one survived, I am not sitting on the sidelines while the NRA hides behind the Constitution and Congress hides behind the gun lobby.
I have proposed an idea of legislation to the San Francisco Board of Supervisors that is not a non-binding (no teeth) resolution. I proposed a law, making San Francisco a “No gun violence filming zone”; directed at Hollywood and the entire filming industry. I claim this industry continues to sit out on the debate concerning gun violence in America.
But when I submitted my proposal to the San Francisco Board of Supervisors, I and it were ignored. Why?
My guess: The San Francisco Board of Supervisors is scared of possibly turning away one dollar from the filming industry, which is ironic because of what their resolution stipulates: “FURTHER RESOLVED, That the City and County of San Francisco should take every reasonable step to limit those entities who do business with the City and County of San Francisco from doing business with this domestic terrorist organization…”
Sure, its’s a stretch to suggest the NRA would think to come to San Francisco to film a membership drive type commercial. But in comparing the board’s non-binding resolution to not do business with the NRA with my proposal, the NRA and its CEO Wayne LaPierre would not, by law, be granted a permit to film such a commercial anywhere within the City and County of San Francisco.
What is so embarrassing about the San Francisco Board of Supervisors is the fact, they banned E- cigarettes and plastic straws. But when it came to the subject of gun violence, they were only brave enough to stick their tongue out at the NRA.