It is tragically ironic how the lunacy of madmen inspires even greater lunacy in liberals.
The NY Daily News really jumped the shark this Saturday when, only two days after an Oregon gunman killed nine students and faculty members at Umpqua Community College, columnist Linda Stasi called for the State Department to classify the National Rifle Association as a “terrorist organization.”
“One terrorist group is responsible for more civilian deaths since December 2012 (the Sandy Hook massacre) than Al Qaeda, Boko Haram, Hamas and the Taliban,” the rabid leftist wrote.
“It is the National Rifle Association, and for their unending lobbying that’s kept a lid on gun control, we now have 428 times more American deaths by gun than deaths by foreign terrorists.”
“Therefore,” she added, “the NRA should take its rightful place on the State Department list of terrorist organizations, because its influence is more of an immediate threat to the lives of our citizens than foreign terrorists.”
What a bunch of bilge. As Breitbart contributor Awr Hawkins pointed out, only organizations that sponsor terrorism make it onto the State Department’s list. The NRA, on the other hand, exists to defend the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution. See the difference?
The ironically named Stasi tried to back up her phony claim by basically making the case that madmen are able to obtain the guns they use to kill because of the NRA’s lobbying efforts. The premise was that madmen would be unable to kill or kill as many if America embraced stricter gun laws.
Except for the ONE THING that thinking Americans keep saying over and over again: Criminals don’t obey gun laws? When will the liberals ever get this through their heads?
Source: SPREAD THIS: Liberals Call For Naming the NRA a “Terrorist Organization”
Join the conversation!
We have no tolerance for comments containing violence, racism, vulgarity, profanity, all caps, or discourteous behavior. Thank you for partnering with us to maintain a courteous and useful public environment where we can engage in reasonable discourse.