Likewise, BLM members are not out there looting and vandalizing in BLM's name.
This is unfortunately incorrect.
But NRA members are out there using intimidation, terror and death threats in defense of mass shootings...
And this is semi-fortunately incorrect. If you will observe your links (
some of which seem to translate "did not denounce something" with "therefore supports something", which is an interesting standard for you to raise in this thread), you will note not a single instance the NRA or it's membership using intimidation, terror, and death threats
in defense of mass shootings. Instead, you have highlighted some instances of anti-gun activists claiming to have received death threats (and, given the hyperbolic tribal idiocy of these times, that certainly seems plausible), only one of which seems connected tangentially to the NRA; a case where the local state chapter's spokesman called an anti-gun advocate a terrorist. I solidly concur that is stupid and harmful rhetoric, and he shouldn't have said it.
In no instances, however, were mass shootings conducted on behalf of the NRA, nor did mass shooters stem from the NRA, nor have, for that matter, NRA spokesmen or defenders
defended mass shootings. With the BLM movement, we have seen looters and arsonists claiming to work on behalf of BLM's cause, we have seen them stem from the BLM movement, and we have seen BLM defenders
defend the looting and arson.
So, no. The standard is simple. Let me know when NRA members conduct mass shootings in the name of defending the Second Amendment, and the NRA's defenders or spokesmen defend mass shooting. Until then, your attempt to tie the two together lacks supporting reason. The NRA doesn't want it's members to play footsie with mass shooters or become them - the NRA wants it's members to
kill mass shooters.
From the internet, where else?
Ah. So it is not a matter of "anyone who buys a gun can get an NRA membership for free". Instead "some gun manufacturers are offering NRA memberships with purchase as an incentive".
