Fearmongering ad by the NRA

[Syne]

Right is not alt-right, but I don't expect a partisan hack like you to know the difference. Do you even think there are any right to center-right politicians? Can you name some?
Or are they all alt-right to you? O_o
The 2nd Amendment is a well-established right position. It doesn't become an alt-right position just because you now hate it more.
And for the umpteenth time, what fear are they pushing? Can you even name one? O_o

And leftists like you have more than proven impervious to logical arguments.

[Magical Realist]

They should never have fearmongered. It makes them look like the paranoid anti-govt conspiracy theorists that all gun nuts innately are. I guess they know who they're pandering to.

[Syne]

Can't even name a single fear they're push, huh?
Where was there any anti-government sentiment?
Your own paranoia is inventing crap for you to fear.

[Magical Realist]

[Image: FC6ELBCCFEYWJGBNG34LPNYZ5A.jpg]

[Syne]

Yep, partisan paranoia.
You still can't name a single fear the NRA is pushing.
But if you really want to call people who believe in a Constitutional right murders, we can talk about how much more money Planned Parenthood gives to politicians (without even a Constitutional right) than the NRA. At least PP literally does kill kids itself and promote more of those killings. The NRA has never promoted killing anyone. On the contrary, they've the biggest source for gun safety education.

---

[Image: Image00007.jpg]

[Image: Image00008.jpg]

[Magical Realist]

You do realize how awful our drug problem would be if we made meth and heroin legal don't you?

[Image: ows_151872995975164.jpg]

[Image: 86f773d3c20f680713dddf5969d504d0934d95a6...3c43c7.jpg]

[Image: nratoon10.jpg?w=620]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SwEyBItsXkw

[Yazata]

I agree, and I'm not demonizing the NRA. In this latest school shooting in Florida, it's clear that many dropped the ball, and the shooter should never have even had the opportunity to enter that school. I've stated that earlier in the thread, but the NRA does appear to be more concerned with its own self interests, whenever these situations spring up in the media.

The media aren't blameless in that regard. Whenever a criminal or a psycho shoots multiple people, especially at a school where our emotional reaction to children being hurt kicks in, the media jump on the event with both feet and try to exploit it for their own political purposes. They shape how people are intended to think about the event by how they shape the media narrative.  

A criminal or a psycho shoots some high-school kids and the narrative isn't about what to do about those in our midst who might be at a higher probability of doing something similar, it's about further eroding and restricting the freedoms and civil liberties of the mass of innocent law-abiding citizens who had nothing to do with the crime.    

They don't seem to have much compassion, rather, they seem concerned over how this will affect gun laws, and their organization.

Trying to turn school mass-murders into ammo in a fear-based campaign against the average person's civil-liberties isn't very compassionate. Celebrities jumping on board in hopes of increasing their popularity with their adolescent fan-bases isn't very compassionate either.

It's all just the attempt to exploit one person's suffering for another person's ends.

[Magical Realist]

There is no constitutional right to have a gun. The framers said the people's right to bear arms shall not be infringed BECAUSE of the need to maintain a well-regulated militia. They had no standing army back then, so citizens could be called to battle at any time. Nowadays the only well-regulated militia is the National Guard and the U.S. Military forces, who ofcourse should have guns and be trained in using them. Citizens no longer have the responsibility for this and therefore no need for guns. It is telling that at the NRA headquarters there is a sign with the Second Amendment quoted on it EXCEPT for the militia clause. That tells you immediately how they are misinterpreting it. They essentially cherry picked one phrase out of its surrounding context to support their financially-driven cause.

[Yazata]

There is no constitutional right to have a gun. The framers said the people's right to bear arms shall not be infringed BECAUSE of the need to maintain a well-regulated militia. They had no standing army back then, so citizens could be called to battle at any time. Nowadays the only well-regulated militia is the National Guard and the U.S. Military forces, who ofcourse should have guns and be trained in using them. Citizens no longer have the responsibility for this and therefore no need for guns. It is telling that at the NRA headquarters there is a sign with the Second Amendment quoted on it EXCEPT for the militia clause. That tells you immediately how they are misinterpreting it. They essentially cherry picked one phrase out of its surrounding context to support their financially-driven cause.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/07-290.ZS.html

[Magical Realist]

There is no constitutional right to have a gun. The framers said the people's right to bear arms shall not be infringed BECAUSE of the need to maintain a well-regulated militia. They had no standing army back then, so citizens could be called to battle at any time. Nowadays the only well-regulated militia is the National Guard and the U.S. Military forces, who ofcourse should have guns and be trained in using them. Citizens no longer have the responsibility for this and therefore no need for guns. It is telling that at the NRA headquarters there is a sign with the Second Amendment quoted on it EXCEPT for the militia clause. That tells you immediately how they are misinterpreting it. They essentially cherry picked one phrase out of its surrounding context to support their financially-driven cause.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/07-290.ZS.html

Erroneous decision based on a conservative-majority court under GWB. Did you know the SCOTUS once supported slavery?