Driver Who Hit Toddler Starts Events That Leave 4 Dead

Like this one:

http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/milwaukee-police-chief-suspect-fatal-shootings-dead-30369527

This kind of thing didn't happen years ago, and with nothing like the frequency that it's happening now.

Now look at this;

and tell me that's not one of the precise arguments the NRA uses to get people to buy guns, that is, the idea that we all have every right to murder any politician we please if we should disagree with them enough. If you say you have a right to kill a politician because he's imposing Health Insurance on you it seems a fairly small step to say you have the right to shoot down the person who's just run down your child, accidentally or not. Once you say murder is OK, for ANY reason, then ANY reason is just what you're going to get.

The guy in this article was ,certainly, the NRA. They may even claim him as a member already but I'm sure he would have been a prime candidate for their ads if he's not.

I'm beginning to believe one major step we could take towards a sane gun policy is to abolish the NRA. It could be done fairly easily. There are perfectly Constitutional laws against functioning as a non-profit organization when you're really a trade association and other established laws against inciting to murder. Arrest their leadership on criminal charges and sue them 6 ways from Sunday, it worked for the KKK and it will work for them

 

I haven't seen the NRA advocate shooting someone who accidentally hits your child with a vehicle. Can you please point me to your source?

 

It is not.

The National Rifle Association does not present the message of "kill politician X." If they did then you would have cited the message on their cite. You did not, so the do not.

Except there was no proof that the individual was a member of the National Rifle Association. Not everyone who carries a firearm is a member of the National Rifle Association.

 

I have to admit I didn't go through their whole site. It's poorly organized, I have High Blood pressure and can only deal with so much conservative drivel. I did manage to hear part of a speech by their President and he seemed perfectly aligned with what was said above. Admittedly, he didn't mention any individual (though he came close) but it still seemed to me he was promoting the idea in the quote from original article.

I believe I made it rather clear that there was no evidence the murderer was in the NRA, but he was doing what the NRA promotes.

 

why not blame the NAACP for the shooting? is there any evidence that this shooter was an NRA Member. You want to get rid of the NRA because the NRA funds candidates for office who are not left wing socialist gun grabbers.

and I believe your slander against the NRA violates the rules here

 

LOL all Liberals have high blood pressure, it's caused by looking for imaginary causes promoted by the NRA then having to defend them.

 

Like most of the anti-NRA drivel we see from people whose main motivation is they are Democrat party supporters and don't' like how the NRA helps mainly Republicans, its stuff he made up that has no basis in fact. He might investigate the number of Black Democrats who have engaged in illegal gun assaults or murders vs the Number of NRA members-of any color. I suspect if he really wants to attack an organization because its members cause gun crime, the NRA would be at the very bottom of that list

- - - Updated - - -

you are lying about the NRA again. There is no evidence whatsoever the NRA promotes murder. YOu only hurt your leftwing side when you make such silly comments that are so easily destroyed

 

Lets not be caught up in semantic quibbles, shall we? The NRA does not promote the specific crime in question, that is true, but the NRA does promote the idea that one main reason for an armed America is to keep our politicians in line. I can only surmise that the method of doing so they promote is by armed resistance, in short, murder, and like I said in the OP, once you approve of murder, you've approved of murder, the reason for it really doesn't matter.

 

You have yet to show where the NRA promotes summarily killing a person who accidentally hits one's child with a vehicle.

 

I had no idea an avowed Marxist like yourself would even bother with the US Consititution.

Here are what your Commie heroes said about the public being armed:

”The arming of the whole proletariat with rifles, guns, and ammunition should be carried out at once [and] the workers must … organize themselves into an independent guard, with their own chiefs and general staff. … [The aim is] that the bourgeois democratic Government not only immediately loses all backing among the workers, but from the commencement finds itself under the supervision and threats of authorities behind whom stands the entire mass of the working class. …As soon as the new Government is established they will commence to fight the workers. In order that this party (i.e., the democrats) whose betrayal of the workers will begin with the first hour of victory, should be frustrated in its nefarious work, it is necessary to organize and arm the proletariat.” – Karl Marx, Address to the Communist League (1850)

"Yet now of all times, at the present revolutionary moment, it is most urgent and essential that there be a universal arming of the people. To assert that, while we have a revolutionary army, there is no need to arm the proletariat, or that there would “not be enough” arms to go round, is mere deception and trickery. The thing is to begin organizing a universal militia straight away, so that everyone should learn the use of arms even if there is “not enough” to go round, for it is not at all necessary that the people have enough weapons to arm everybody. The people must learn, one and all, how to use arms, they must belong, one and all, to the militia which is to replace the police and the standing army.
The workers do not want an army standing apart from the people; what they want is that the workers and soldiers should merge into a single militia consisting of all the people.” – A Proletarian Militia by VI Lenin

Comrade Stalin, the fierce defender of the fledgling workers’ Soviet democracy and the Champion against Nazi aggression, said that the “most important countermeasure against counterrevolution is the arming of the workers and peasants.”
Finally, from the writings of the revered leader and liberator of the Chinese people, Mao Zedong, we find this important commentary on the role of the Red Army: ”The Chinese Red Army is an armed body for carrying out the political tasks of the revolution. Especially at present, the Red Army should certainly not confine itself to fighting; besides fighting to destroy the enemy’s military strength, it should shoulder such important tasks as doing propaganda among the masses, organizing the masses, arming them, helping them to establish revolutionary political power and setting up Party organizations.”

http://www.politicsforum.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=146877

Of course once Communist dictators sieze power, it becomes manditory that the populus be disarmed, as you would agree:

Soviet Union - 1929 -- Soviet Russia was established following the Bolshevik Revolution in 1917, when ruling Czar Nicholas II tossed 11 million Russian peasants into World War I. Frustrated and angered by the loss of life, scores of armed Russians - many current or former Russian soldiers who were led by Marxist Vladimir Lenin - rebelled against a ruling regime that was already teetering on the edge of collapse.

Firearms were allowed to remain in the hands of Soviet citizens until 1929, when private gun ownership was abolished - a time which saw the rise of one of the world's most repressive regimes, that was led by Soviet Premier Joseph Stalin (he ruled from 1941-1953 but was entrenched in the country's leadership by 192.

From 1929 to the year Stalin died, tens of millions of Soviet dissidents or anyone the country's leadership believed were a threat, were rounded up and either murdered or placed in labor camp/prisons and forced to work, sometimes to their deaths. Early in Stalin's political career, he launched two national collectivization campaigns in order to transform the country into an industrial power. Both campaigns, however, were rife with murder on a massive scale.


Learn more: http://www.naturalnews.com/039264_gun_control_timeline_true_history.html#ixzz3XZdGPxNd

 

So, we should have given up during the cold war and let the Soviet Union spread communism because America was threatening to nuke the world? "Deterrence" is often a wise and useful tactic. Just because we have guns doesn't mean we expect to use them.

 

we DO want the ever-present threat of (righteous) violence to prevent the NEED for violence, that is correct. When you get right down to brass tacks, such a threat IS the only thing that has ever held back the power-hungry and if you're a politician, power hungry is what you ARE. So yes, the threat of the gun IS a deterrance to tyrannical behavior, once that behavior escapes the boundaries of voting and decency. Which is why so many wannabe-hitlers just HATE the idea of guns. If you are not (down deep) wanting to do something for which you KNOW that you SHOULD be shot, why care that I have a gun, hmmm? I don't care if YOU have a gun, so how about you accord me the same sort of freedom?

 

How is it a slander? Do they or do they not say that one reason Americans should be armed is as a defense against tyranny from our own government?

It was my doctor who got me against the NRA, he treats lots of gunshot wounds.

Please note that it was not me who first played the race card

Please destroy it then. I want to see your argument

 

Bovine excrement.... and bandwidth grabber

 

It promotes the idea that you can and should kill someone with whom you disagree enough. What you disagree about and how much is enough is irrelevant, as the NRA goes into neither aspect themselves. If it is not state sanctioned or in self defense, killing is murder, and murder, as I have been at pains to point out, is murder.

 

No, it doesn't promote the idea that you can and should kill someone with whom you disagree enough. If you claim they do, please provide proof.

 

I thought political discussion was the reason we're here. I do note that you typical response is a model of conciseness and shows to good example the general conservative standard of erudition and scholarly care for detail.

 

So, and again, the NRA does not promote the idea that Americans should be armed as a defense against tyranny from our own government?

 

Nuclear war, and it's threat, were never really approved by either side. All the SALT treaties were instituted and ratified while the Cold War was still on. The NRA is saying that violence is good, and should be promoted as a means of settling disputes.

 

You have a fundamental misconception of what the NRA stands for.
The NRA believes that every American that can legally own a firearm, should be able to if they choose, without government interference. Thats it. Nothing more, nothing less. Our Bill Of Rights guarantees this.
They condemn illegal use of firearms. And promote safe use. They do more to promote firearm safety than any other organization in America.
This gentlemen in this incident has a criminal record, therefore possessed and used a firearm illegally.
How is the NRA responsible for when someone chooses to ignore the law that the NRA supports?
The NRA represents it's members that want the government not to infringe upon their second amendment rights. Without the NRA, the millions of 2nd amendment supporters would have no voice.

 

What does that have to do with killing someone with whom one disagrees? You said that the NRA advocates killing someone if you disagree with them. You have yet to provide any proof of this outrageous claim.

 

I call them as I see them. It is clear to me the OP is devoid of value and truthfulness, but looks to promote old liberal talking points. I'm sure the author had concrete medical proof of such a claim since it does suggest a medical condition is being created by the NRA. Yet no proof being offered. Hence... bovine excrement.

 

Absolutely false. You are just making things up. There is no basis of fact. Read what you just said......"should kill someone with whom you disagree "
This shows you have no idea what you are talking about..
NRA believes that if you are legally able to own a firearm, that you have the right to defend your self and your family from an imminent threat to your life.
That's hardly someone that you just disagree with.

 

This is soooo silly. You cannot be "turned into a psychopath." You either ARE a psychopath or you are not a psychopath.

The NRA is an organization designed to protect our second amendment right from people such as yourself.

 

Only is the dispute is that someone is trying to kill you or your family.