NRA RIP

The united states needs to experience a significant depopulating event. What better way than through their own actions?

The rest of the world would be so much better off if the united states were to be rendered uninhabited by its own actions and inactions. Let the public kill itself to whatever degree it wishes. It will do nothing to negatively impact the rest of the world that knows so much better.

 

The operative word in the above statement is "may" meaning it is being admitted to it being nothing more than a hypothesis and guesswork.

There is no evidence to suggest anyone in the united states, be they mass murderers or otherwise, made the decision to go out and kill based purely on the knowledge that they could acquire a firearm and do such.

 

Genocide much?

 

Is it being suggested the population of the united states going extinct would not serve to improve conditions for the rest of the world?

Where would the terrorists and organized criminals of the rest of the countries obtain their firearms, if there is no one left in the united states to either produce or export them in the name of profits over lives?

Let the united states go extinct through its own actions and inactions, and the violence-related problems experienced by the rest of the world will be much better off.

 

I never said the decision was made purely on that basis. But it is clearly a factor. Our country is uniquely inundated with mass shootings and our country uniquely treats personal possession of semi-auto guns as a right rather than a tightly controlled privilege.

 

Trump always wants it both ways, meaning he has no core beliefs. He believes whatever is politically expedient at the time. On national television, in front of students from Parkland, Fla., Trump told them and the nation he wanted background checks. That was a year and a half ago. Nothing was done.

On Monday, Trump tweeted that he wanted background checks. A couple hours later, he spoke to the nation and said absolutely nothing about background checks.

Trump, speaking to reporters Wednesday before visiting Dayton, Ohio, and El Paso, where weekend shootings left 31 dead, said there “was great appetite for background checks” amid an outcry over government inaction in the face of repeated mass shootings.

Following the slaughter of innocent civilians, two mass murders committed by white supremacists influenced by the President's hate-filled rhetoric, Trump let it be known that he has repeatedly told lawmakers and aides in private conversations that he is open to endorsing extensive background checks in the wake of the mass shootings. In a way his ham-handed approach is almost comical. He lacks both imagination and discreetness.

Trump's comments prompted a warning from the National Rifle Association, and there were concerns among White House aides. They need not worry. Trump cannot be trusted. He will say whatever is politically advantageous at the moment, and he should never be taken seriously.

The NRA opposes the legislation sponsored by Sens. Patrick J. Toomey (R-Pa.) and Joe Manchin III (D-W.Va.). NRA chief executive Wayne LaPierre spoke with Trump on Tuesday after Trump expressed support for a background check bill and told him it would not be popular among Trump’s supporters.

Trump's sycophant in the Senate, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.), said he would not bring any gun-control legislation to the floor without widespread Republican support.

Trump knows that will not happen. So, all his talk and tweets about background checks is no more than phony rhetoric designed to win votes and counter his inflammatory statements that encouraged the mass murders in the first place.

Barring another mass shooting, which is entirely possible because Trump defends his rhetoric, this time next week there will be no further talks about background checks. That is what happened after Columbine, Sandy Hook, San Bernardino, Parkland, and Las Vegas, and that is what will happen now.

This source helped with this post. https://www.washingtonpost.com/poli...f82060-b92d-11e9-a091-6a96e67d9cce_story.html

 

The disgraced NRA, under "Fancy Pants" LaP, is now firing blanks. America's preeminence as the world's undisputed Firearm Fatality leader is in jeopardy.

​

In the aftermath of the back-to-back shooting massacres, the NRA's immense power to stymie any significant legislation is being challenged by the American people.

Fancy Pants has been engulfed in turmoil and legal issues as he mounts the group's latest effort to push back against sensible gun control measures that are supported by a large majority of Americans.

​

The El Paso shooter was the eighth linked to racial or ethnic hatred since Trump took office — a trend that mirrors an apparent increase in extremist violence motivated by white supremacy.

Law enforcement authorities are investigating the NRA's finances, and the gun group has ousted top officials and traded lawsuits with the longtime marketing firm credited with helping to shape LaPierre's and the NRA's bully boy image.

LaP's seven-figure salary, penchant for luxury clothing shopping sprees. and reports that he sought to have the NRA buy him a $6 million chateau at an exclusive golf community have drawn considerable scrutiny amid allegations of rampant misspending.

"They've done so much damage to their reputation that the effectiveness of any NRA statements in really swaying opinion has to be considered diminished," said Rob Pincus, a longtime NRA member and firearms instructor who founded a group calling for LaP's resignation. "Anything that gets said by LaPierre is going to be followed by 'amidst turmoil over $300,000 in suits and a $6 million mansion they were going to buy him,' and all these other allegations that are out there."

 

Then the remaining two hundred and forty three supposed mass shooting incidents have had nothing to do with Donald Trump being president of the united states.

 

I don't speculate regarding the extent to which Trump has increased the frequency of firearm terrorism by white supremacists and other homicidal crackpots who exploit permissiveness. Whether he is cited by mass killers as their "symbol of white solidarity" or not, patriotic Americans will act to address the problem.

Fortunately, the outrage of Americans coincides with the enfeeblement of Fancy Pants LaP and his scam, and progress, however lethargic and meager, is now, finally, very likely.

Conservative Law Professor John Yoo, writing in the conservative National Review:

The Second Amendment is not “unlimited.” It is not a right “to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose.” Instead, the Court provided examples of permissible regulation of firearms consistent with the Second Amendment. The right does not “protect those weapons not typically possessed by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes, such as short-barreled shotguns,” nor does it grant an unregulated right to carry concealed firearms. These limits were “supported by the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons.”

With regard to background checks, the Court included examples of “presumptively lawful regulatory measures.” According to the majority, “nothing in our opinion should 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.”

To be sure, the federal background-check system does not appear to be a long-standing regulation; it began with the 1993 Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act. The background-check system, however, is merely a means to carry out regulations that are long-standing. Enacted in 1968, the federal Gun Control Act prohibits the transfer of handguns to, among others, convicted felons and anyone under 21.

Neither the Supreme Court nor the federal courts of appeals have held these restrictions on possession to violate the Constitution. As the Supreme Court observed in Heller, its decision does not “cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill.” If these restrictions do not violate the Second Amendment, it is difficult to find that a background-check system would violate it, as a background-check system is only a means of enforcing the underlying rules. Indeed, the background-check system would appear to be a vital mechanism to ensure that firearms sellers do not violate the terms of the national Gun Control Act.​

 

The American People are now demanding that firearm permissiveness be addressed, and catching LaP with his fancy pants down.

 

​

At least modest progress in the People's fight against firearm permissiveness in the US is now inevitable.

​

The corrupt elite's fleecing their scam's hapless members is being exposed.

 

Flat out lie and a good indication that you know nothing about the NRA other than what you have been programmed to spew.

 

More lies from fake news.

Carry Guard is still in business and doing rather well.

 

This time, you don't even try to post another fake response without a link.

 

You falsely claimed the ILA was created in 1934 which is false, I can only assume you lack the ability to fact check your sources or you would know that.

 

By the NRA's own account, its Legislative Affairs Division was formed after the National Firearms Act of 1934:

NRA formed the Legislative Affairs Division in 1934.
https://www.nrablog.com/about-the-nra​

"Beginning in 1934 with the creation of its Legislative Affairs Division, the NRA became more involved politically in
pursuing the protection of the Second Amendment rights of Americans to own, display, carry and use firearms."
https://www.reference.com/governmen...t-national-rifle-association-7884b40e5eda8da5
​

I'm happy to have clarified that for you, but it is not especially pertinent to the corrupt NRA's current scandals that are unfolding.

The NRA had lied about the planned chateau for "Fancy Pants" LaP:

​

 

Which indicates once more you understand little about the current NRA, the LAD did no serious lobbying, other than range protection, the ILA which was formed after the 77 meeting is the strong-arm of NRA lobbying, the NRA cannot lobby too much as a non-profit, the ILA as a for profit can lobby as much as membership wants to fund it for.

Maybe you might try getting a clue, so you don't appear to be so un-informed about the NRA.

By the way I have been a member of the NRA since 1969, so unlike you I have a real good of their real history and realize they where formed long before 1977, so you can knock off your criticism and personal attacks.

 

As I had correctly noted, as confirmed by the NRA's own account, its Legislative Affairs Division was formed after the National Firearms Act of 1934.

If you are upset because you did not know that - "You falsely claimed the ILA was created in 1934 which is false" - that's not my fault.

 

"Fancy Pants" LaP's manure barge is sinking.

​

 

You sure are good at making stuff up! You work for CNN??

That's not true. I know the Wright family. The women are not giving them up.

 

And once again you have demonstrated you understand little about the NRA and Legislation.

"Established in 1975, the Institute for Legislative Action (ILA) is the "lobbying" arm of the National Rifle Association of America. ILA is responsible for preserving the right of all law-abiding individuals in the legislative, political, and legal arenas, to purchase, possess and use firearms for legitimate purposes as guaranteed by the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution."

https://www.nraila.org/

 

You are still confused.

As I had correctly noted, as confirmed by the NRA's own account, its Legislative Affairs Division was formed after the National Firearms Act of 1934: "NRA formed the Legislative Affairs Division in 1934."

Your link to the imploding organization's propaganda site says nothing concerning the NRA's Legislative Affairs Division.

 

Then you do you use them to proffer your false narrative?

None the less, it clearly shows you have no idea of what you are proffering about the NRA one way or the other.

Yet another link explaining how incorrect you are.

The National Rifle Association of America (NRA) is a gun rights advocacy group based in the United States.[4][5][6] Founded in 1871, the group has informed its members about firearm-related legislation since 1934, and it has directly lobbied for and against firearms legislation since 1975.[7]

The Institute for Legislative Action (NRA-ILA), the lobbying branch of the NRA, was established in 1975. According to political scientists John M. Bruce and Clyde Wilcox, the NRA shifted its focus in the late 1970s to incorporate political advocacy, and started seeing its members as political resources rather than just as recipients of goods and services. Despite the impact on the volatility of membership, the politicization of the NRA has been consistent and its PAC, the Political Victory Fund established in 1976, ranked as "one of the biggest spenders in congressional elections" as of 1998

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Rifle_Association#Lobbying_and_political_activity

 

I thought that you would be able to grasp the direct, verbatim, linked quotation posted by the NRA on their own site:

"NRA formed the Legislative Affairs Division in 1934."​

If you need to pretend the NRA is lying to you, you can, of course.

 

Again you don't have a clue as to how the NRA got into pro-gun lobbying, the LAD only lobbied for ranges protections, nothing else, now let the sink in if possible.

The pro-gun did not begin until the NRA-ILA was formed but you wouldn't know that because you just parrot what the MSM has programmed you to believe.