NM11046
New member
Cuz the definition of a terrorist group is: "one that uses violence and threats to intimidate or coerce people (especially civilians) creating a state of fear and submission typically for political purposes"
Gun Control
- Thread starter Scratchtown
- Start date
BigRedBuster
Well-known member
Or maybe that they promote and benefit financially and politically from violence in America and use fear to keep the faithful followers in line.
Last edited by a moderator:
Redux
New member
BigRedBuster
Well-known member
Which other one is feeding off of violence, promoting it and creating the fear around violence in the US for their own benefit?
Last edited by a moderator:
Redux
New member
BigRedBuster
Well-known member
funhusker
Active member
Because we don't want to see good guys with guns be the only deterrent to violence :dunno
Redux
New member
Unless I'm mistaken, the definition of promotion is putting a message or image out in front of as many people as possible in the effort of rallying people to a cause or event. They promote violence by promoting fear in the form of tragedy. Gets the message across very successfully.
Last edited by a moderator:
BigRedBuster
Well-known member
Wait.....
One side produces and promotes tools that are for no other reason than to kill people. They promote buying more of these tools any time one of their customers is successful in killing lots of people. They demonize anyone who dares promotes the idea that these tools they produce should not be sold and actually have promoted violence against those people.
The other side reports on these events of multiple people being killed by these tools and points to an industry that makes tools that are produced to kill people and says that something needs to be done to eliminate the problem of these tools killing people
And....that's somehow on an equal footing?
Redux
New member
In response to your other post above, yes both sides are promoting fear to achieve a goal.
I can't blame you for painting the picture quoted here. Guns are designed to kill, not JUST people as you stated, but they are designed to kill. The equal footing comes in the form of the dastardly tactics both sides take to ensure their success. It's a business, both sides. The anti NRA side isn't solely benevolent. No group does something unless they stand to gain from it.
BigRedBuster
Well-known member
But, only one of these sides is actually promoting and benefiting from the actual violence. One side wants the violence to stop.
One side would lose money and maybe go out of business if people didn't want to kill other people.
One side would be ecstatic if people stopped killing other people.
No......they are not the same and this is a pretty pathetic usage of "both sides".
Redux
New member
So there is no monetary gain on that side if the NRA ceased to exist? No power gained?
It's all about control. Yup, it would be great if people just up and decided to stop killing eachother. With guns or without.
BigRedBuster
Well-known member
So, The Taliban in Afghanistan uses violence to gain control over the population and the country.
There is a faction of the government that is trying to fight against the Taliban so they stop killing people and terrorizing the country and they would be happy if the country could live in peace.
In your mind, since both of those would gain power if they won, they are equal?
You have a really weird sense of what is equal.
Last edited by a moderator:
Redux
New member
Never said they were equal, just on equal footing in tactics. They both promote fear, that was the original response to your question. Nothing to really debate, they both use fear. Just a fact.