• Source: Gage Skidmore/Flickr
  • NRA Posts Image Threatening Pro-Gun Control Lawmakers Including A Bullet Pointed At The Head

    The NRA posted a disturbing photo to Twitter and in an online article that seems to be threatening two lawmakers sponsoring gun control bills.

    A picture is worth a thousand words, and a picture of two people with bullets scattered on and around them, including one pointed at the head, makes an even more powerful – and threatening – statement.

    Perception is reality. No doubt the NRA would say they see nothing threatening about this photo at all. After all, they're "just" bullets, right? 

    If one of these women were your mother, sister, or spouse, how would you feel if you saw this image?


    The NRA, targeting Democratic State Senator Roxanne Persaud and Democratic Assemblywoman Jo Anne Simon, posted this tweet Monday. The link goes to an editorial at an NRA publication, America's 1st Freedom (which most people would think is freedom of speech, not freedom of guns). It begins:

    What’s an anti-gun state legislator to do when the state in which he or she lives already has some of the most restrictive gun-control laws in the nation? Realistically, short of banning all guns and ammunition magazines, what’s left to do in the state of New York?

    Democrat State Sen. Roxanne Persaud and Democrat Assemblywoman Jo Anne Simon think they have the answer—make it nearly impossible for anyone to buy ammunition. 

    New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio was not pleased, and made his objections clear:

    So did Brooklyn borough president Eric Adams:

    CNN reports that "Persaud called the image 'outrageous' and said it contains 'subliminal messages of violence,'" and "Simon said the photo was 'clearly' intended to be 'threatening and intimidating.'"

    New York City Comptroller Scott Stringer called for the Justice Department to "immediately investigate these scare tactics that threaten our democracy," and accused the NRA of "putting the lives of elected officials at risk by posting their snapshots surrounded by real bullets."

    New York City Council Speaker Melissa MarkViverito called it "irresponsible & dangerous":

    The Guardian called the photo "threatening," while blogger Joe Jervis didn't mince words, labeling it a "TERRORIST THREAT."

    Others took to Twitter to denounce the threat as well:



     Image by Gage Skidmore via Flickr and a CC license


    Get weekly news & updates
    Support our work DONATE

    Register to VOTE

    Showing 2 comments

    Please check your e-mail for a link to activate your account.

    • commented 2016-01-05 19:40:51 -0500
      I am glad the DOJ has been informed about this. I see it as a threat and if it were my picture, I would be talking to a lawyer. The NRA is a threat to America. When the 2nd amendment was written they had no idea the kinds of guns we would have and I am SURE they would not have included ones made to kill lots of humans quickly. There is no reason why we can’t limit the type of weapons the average person needs. There are some limits now but not near enough. I applaud the President for making a move and smacking Congress and the GOP.

    • commented 2016-01-05 19:17:54 -0500
      The NRA is a national TERRORIST organization. The Second Amendment is not absolute and has various interpretations. In United States v. Cruikshank (1876), the Supreme Court of the United States ruled that, “The right to bear arms is not granted by the Constitution; neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence” and limited the applicability of the Second Amendment to the federal government.[United States v. Cruikshank – 92 U.S. 542 (1875)] In United States v. Miller (1939), the Supreme Court ruled that the federal government and the states could limit any weapon types not having a “reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia”.[“United States v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174 (1939)”] The Supreme Court recently has held: Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. Miller ’​s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those “in common use at the time” finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons.

    Your rights, your movement.
    Join today:
    Your rights, your movement.
    Join today: