Oddly enough, besides love, no term seems to generate as much debate with regard to meaning as terrorist. When a man in Las Vegas shot and killed hundreds of concert goers, while it may have been referred to as an act of terror, most were remiss of calling the individual a terrorist. Yet when a person destroys a building by bombing it, but no one is harmed in the process, and the individual's intent was religious/political, then it's said to be a terrorist act. So, what gives? The quantity of deaths obviously isn't a determining factor. The costs of an attack's destruction aren't either. All that seems to matter is the person or group's intent. If the attack was politically-motivated, it's said to be terrorism, but if it wasn't motivated by politics, that very terminology isn't used to describe it. Here's the technical definition of terrorist:
"A person who uses unlawful violence and intimidation, especially against civilians, in the pursuit of political aims."
First off, I take issue with the technical definition. Whether a person's intent is political or not, if he or she destroys property and/or kills individuals, it's going to have a political impact. Also, I have to ask, if one simply uses intimidation, void of actual violence, in the pursuit of political aims, does this constitute as terrorism?
That question brings us to a topic which seems to rear its ugly head three to four times a year anymore - gun reform, the NRA (National Rifle Association) in particular. Following the tragic mass shooting in Parkland, Florida, several mostly Democratic politicians and commentators have referred to the NRA as a terrorist organization, or at least like one. So what's the answer? Has the NRA become a terrorist organization, are they trending that direction but have yet to cross the boundary line, or is a disgrace to make such a comparison?
The NRA used to be a respectable organization. Up until the early '90s, they were about gun safety and responsibility more than anything else. Many of the gun reform measures Democrats have been proposing in recent years were actually backed by the NRA 20 to 30 years ago. My, how times have changed... Ever since the assault weapon ban bill was implemented under the Clinton administration, Republicans started moving right on the issue of guns, and the NRA became more one-sided in their campaign donations, the group has gone from being about safety and responsibility to being about fear and money. Period.
Whenever Democrats get elected to Congress or especially to the White House, the NRA's biggest talking point is, "They're going to try and take your guns away!" Historically, this results in large increases of firearm sales. Whenever a mass shooting occurs, the NRA will utter similar claims, such as: "The government will try to use this to take your guns away!" or "The only way to stop a bad person with a gun is a good person with a gun!" Once again, this typically increases firearm sales. Whenever gun reform legislation surfaces, those same proposals which the NRA backed 20-30 years ago, they ardently protest today, once again declaring that the government is trying to take away the guns of law-abiding citizens. Why? You guessed it, money.
Time and time again, the NRA uses fear to manipulate the public into believing the federal government will strip Constitutional rights away from law-abiding citizens for the sole purpose of increasing their profits. So, the question I previously asked remains, if one simply uses intimidation, void of actual violence, in the pursuit of political aims, does this constitute as terrorism? If so, there can be no question that the NRA has become a terrorist organization. If not, however, while the NRA may not technically be a terrorist group, they're certainly trending in that direction.
https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/terrorist
"A person who uses unlawful violence and intimidation, especially against civilians, in the pursuit of political aims."
First off, I take issue with the technical definition. Whether a person's intent is political or not, if he or she destroys property and/or kills individuals, it's going to have a political impact. Also, I have to ask, if one simply uses intimidation, void of actual violence, in the pursuit of political aims, does this constitute as terrorism?
That question brings us to a topic which seems to rear its ugly head three to four times a year anymore - gun reform, the NRA (National Rifle Association) in particular. Following the tragic mass shooting in Parkland, Florida, several mostly Democratic politicians and commentators have referred to the NRA as a terrorist organization, or at least like one. So what's the answer? Has the NRA become a terrorist organization, are they trending that direction but have yet to cross the boundary line, or is a disgrace to make such a comparison?
The NRA used to be a respectable organization. Up until the early '90s, they were about gun safety and responsibility more than anything else. Many of the gun reform measures Democrats have been proposing in recent years were actually backed by the NRA 20 to 30 years ago. My, how times have changed... Ever since the assault weapon ban bill was implemented under the Clinton administration, Republicans started moving right on the issue of guns, and the NRA became more one-sided in their campaign donations, the group has gone from being about safety and responsibility to being about fear and money. Period.
Whenever Democrats get elected to Congress or especially to the White House, the NRA's biggest talking point is, "They're going to try and take your guns away!" Historically, this results in large increases of firearm sales. Whenever a mass shooting occurs, the NRA will utter similar claims, such as: "The government will try to use this to take your guns away!" or "The only way to stop a bad person with a gun is a good person with a gun!" Once again, this typically increases firearm sales. Whenever gun reform legislation surfaces, those same proposals which the NRA backed 20-30 years ago, they ardently protest today, once again declaring that the government is trying to take away the guns of law-abiding citizens. Why? You guessed it, money.
Time and time again, the NRA uses fear to manipulate the public into believing the federal government will strip Constitutional rights away from law-abiding citizens for the sole purpose of increasing their profits. So, the question I previously asked remains, if one simply uses intimidation, void of actual violence, in the pursuit of political aims, does this constitute as terrorism? If so, there can be no question that the NRA has become a terrorist organization. If not, however, while the NRA may not technically be a terrorist group, they're certainly trending in that direction.
https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/terrorist
Comments
Post a Comment