NRA RIP

And yet such restrictions possess no physical means of preventing the misuse of motor vehicles for the purpose of carnage. If an individual decides to plow into a crowd of individuals, just as was done in the city of Nice in the nation of France, what can be done to prevent them from actually engaging in such?

 

Nope alchohol is perfectly analogous.

 

If crackpots were to insist they did not have to demonstrate competence, had the right to drive anywhere they pleased

 

Clearly, you do not like the more apt comparison concerning the ownership and operation of mechanical devices in public.

 

Driving is a privilege, owning and Carrying a gun is a right one explicitly shall not be infringed upon.

 

​

The recent revelation concerning "Fancy Pants" LaP's sporting his Beverly Hills men's boutique chichi threads in a French chateau must have the dues-paying dupes singing the song of angry men!

​

 

And they only lost their license after committing a serious crime.

... That would still leave a gap between guns and cars, because gangsters wouldn't use cars any more or differently than they do now to commit their daily murders, nor would more non-gang people be likely to use cars rather than guns for their murders or suicides, nor would the people who die due to accidents involving guns be more likely to die by other means. The roads would be more dangerous, but the overwhelming tragedy of widespread gun ownership would endure. So, in the end, I don't know why some people even want to bring up cars and drunk drivers, because cars and guns have such different uses and relate so very differently to the commission of violent crimes.

 

There is no preventing it, but there are mitigations. The same is true of gun violence. Every life saved and every person spared the horror of losing a loved one to such violence is worth it.

 

And yet there is no way of proving whether or not a life is saved or otherwise spared. Therefore it is nothing but speculation and guesswork.

 

Considering the statistics we have, I'd say it's a bit more than speculation and guesswork.

 

And yet those who commit so-called "studies" to try and demonstrate the effectiveness of firearm-related restrictions compared to other states without such restrictions in place, admit that they are guessing what the projected level of firearm-related violence would be if such restrictions had not been in place.

 

You really have to look outside of the United States for comparison, since more restrictive gun laws in a given state are countermanded to an extent by the less restrictive laws in other states, and there are many ways people skirt around the existing laws because they're all pretty weak in the grand scheme of things thanks to the gun lobby and all.

 

I expect that the democratic will in America shall eventually prevail against the special interests who have thwarted public safety and made firearm permissiveness their obsession, resulting in the US's undisputed preeminence in firearm fatalities among advanced nations.

The exposure of the corrupt elite enriching themselves off the NRA via their paranoidal propaganda will expedite that empowerment of the People.

 

Matters outside of the united states are of no relevance to the discussion, due to the fact the united states is not any other country, nor does it have the same type of culture of any other country. It is a wholly unique example that is not found anywhere else in the entire world.

 

Whether Fake Don wimps out again remains to be seen, but Fancy Pants LaP has spoken to Fake Don...

 

It is entirely relevant, because human beings are universal and because the unique aspects of our culture have little to do with why mass shooters do what they do. Every country has its minorities and its nativists, and every country has its mentally ill individuals.

 

If you need to pretend that Americans are uniquely disposed, among the peoples of all advanced nations, to shoot to death themselves and one another with far greater frequency, that is an odd and fatalistic rationale for the unique, level of permissiveness that occasions the ongoing carnage.

When others are demonstrably are more successful, pragmatic self-interest dictates one not feign a false superiority.

Whining impotence, that Americans are inherently incapable of confronting the problem, is a sad response to it.

 

Yes, every nation has their alienated young men, mental illness, and video games. What they do not have is the firearm permissiveness and the astronomical level of firearm fatalities of the US.

 

And every country also has its own mass killings. It is merely the implement utilized that differs. However the important fact, that numerous individuals are murdered in a single incident, remains the same throughout.

 

The people of the united states are indeed uniquely predisposed towards killing themselves and one another, through whatever means necessary.

 

They merely have higher levels of violent crimes, victimization of private citizens, murder by means other than firearms, and successful terrorist attacks. Hardly a worthwhile trade off, just to brag about how they have fewer firearm-related deaths than other countries.

 

Turns out the NRA was too corrupt for even ex-con Ollie North.

Imagine that

 

In that case, allowing the majority of Americans to address the nation's firearm permissiveness by legislative means to protect themselves won't have much of an impact, so why not let them? Government by the People deserves a chance.

 

Yes, and guns are by far the deadliest implements available. Their availability here may also be contributing to would-be mass murderers deciding to commit mass-murders in the first place, because they know that they can obtain a gun pretty easily and kill a lot of people that way.

 

On May 7, 2018, the National Rifle Association (NRA) announced that North would become the organization's next president within the following weeks.[53][54] He succeeded Pete Brownell, the incumbent. North is a board member in the NRA and appeared at NRA national conventions in 2007[55] and 2008.[56]

North began his term as president in September 2018.[57]

In April 2019, in the midst of a wide-ranging dispute involving the NRA's chief executive Wayne LaPierre, the NRA's advertising agency Ackerman McQueen, and the NRA's law firm Brewer Attorneys & Counselors,[58] North announced that he would not serve a second term as president,[59][60] ostensibly against his wishes.[61] On April 24, 2019 North asked LaPierre to resign.[58][62] On April 16, 2019 North and NRA first vice president Richard Childress wrote to the chairman of the NRA audit committee and the NRA’s secretary and general counsel calling for an independent audit of the billing from the NRA’s law firm, Brewer Attorneys & Counselors.[63][64][65] In an April 24, 2019 letter to the executive committee of the NRA board, North said that he was forming a committee to investigate alleged financial improprieties, allegations which he said threatened the NRA’s non-profit status.[63] In an April 25, 2019 letter to the NRA board, LaPierre said that North was threatening to release damaging information about him.[60] On April 27, 2019, in a letter read on his behalf at the NRA’s annual convention in Indianapolis, Indiana, North announced he would not serve a second term.[62] North's term ended on April 29, 2019, when he was replaced by Carolyn D. Meadows.[66] On May 3, 2019 Senators Ron Wyden of Oregon, Sheldon Whitehouse of Rhode Island, and Bob Menendez of New Jersey, members of the Senate Finance Committee, wrote to North, LaPierre, and the NRA's advertising agency Ackerman McQueen requesting copies of the letters to the NRA board by North and LaPierre, seeking documents related to the allegations, and directing records preservation.[67][68]