Is the NRA partially to blame for the Charlottesville violence?

They're fine people, they're not there to scare anyone.

 

Sure thing Carnac.

At ease Marine.

 

I've seen enough of your posts to know.

You're welcome to show otherwise.

 

The militia mentioned were neutral parties. They were neither neoNazi or Antifa.

Considering there were no gun battles, I don't see what the NRA could be blamed for. Maybe without the guns it would have been worse.

 

There was at least one Patriot group there that a good friend of mine was a part of. My friend happens to be black, and the group he went with was made up of about 60% military veterans and roughly 50% black and African American. Clearly, not there to support any Nazi/white supremacist rally. His stories of what happened there are harrowing to say the least.

Terry McAuliffe is a liar and a scumbag.

 

"The contemptible events in Charlottesville this weekend were exactly what the NRA leadership has been working towards. To say this isn’t an NRA issue because nobody was shot would be an dangerous error. Their tactics are simple: Stoke rage and fear into one group to sell them guns. Then, advertise to the other group and convince them to buy guns as protection from the first group. Their goal is to divide and cash in!

"They are using us like puppets, and many NRA members are resigning because the leadership does not represent them any more. If the shooting in a Charleston church wasn’t proof enough of this domestic terrorist threat, Charlottesville undoubtedly is. The NRA paid $30 million for Donald Trump. His lack of clarity on this issue is not a mistake. Today’s radicalized NRA was not the only reason for the violence this weekend, but it wouldn’t have happened without them."
http://www.app.com/story/opinion/re...r-nra-blame-events-charlottesville/565477001/

Interesting theory.

 

One without much evidence to support it.

 

It's an utter bovine excrement theory, and I am sick and f-ing tired of people with an anti-constitution mindset lying and denigrating the NRA to push their anti-liberty, pro-violence nonsense.

 

Why didn't the evil White people use these guns?

Why did one of the White guys uses a Dodge Challenger instead of a gun to hit protesters?

Why don't you create a car control thread, as these days, vehicles seem to be more effective than guns killing people?

 

Cool story bro.

 

Buddy of mine had this to say on the subject after the Barcelona attack:

"13 people dead, many more injured, by the criminal and terrorist use of an automobile. I looked-up Barcelona's public transportation system, and it's rather extensive. What realistic use would a civilian have for possessing an automobile in that city? If it's for legitimate use, such as a delivery or catering business, they could be issued a variance permit subject to a background check and license for each operator. Otherwise, all civilian possession of automobiles in large cities should be completely outlawed. They're just too dangerous!!
Did the person who committed this massacre have a criminal history or history of violence? Could this have been prevented by a background check and government licensing? Perhaps strict licensing standards for anyone who wishes to be able to operate an automobile within metro limits would have saved these people because it would have prevented this terrorist from having access to a deadly weapon.

I'm going to be a PITA and keep harping on this. Cars kill more than 2000 times as many people as guns, and yet they're available for anyone, any time, no limits. It isn't right!"

 

No doubt cars can be very effective at killing people in certain situations. I'd still say that overall guns are more ideals tools for murder. They are cheaper and easy to conceal. They can be used to easily murder people both indoors and outdoors. It would be difficult to kill people in many indoor areas with cars. You don't have to worry about wrecking guns and thus not being able to use them again. They are probably more useful for the common criminal (not terrorists). Additionally, cars serve a very practical purpose- transportation. So it's harder to justify banning them.

 

Why did you automatically read "control" as "ban"? Habit?

 

Thats his endgame, and many like him.

 

My firearm serves a very practical purpose as well: stopping someone who wants to kill me.

 

Cars are just plain better than guns for killing lots of people out in the open.

All the poor guns can do is put a tiny hole in someone, usually not killing them. Science is also not on the side of guns. A powerful .50 cal rifle only can come up with a piddling 500 foot pounds of energy. Whereas a car hitting a person at 40 MPH delivers over 182,000 foot pounds of force. As long as people are on the ground floor, a standard car can easily ram into a building and kill those inside. Car bombs and truck bombs make hardly anyone safe. Look what happened in OK City.

Cars, not guns need to be banned by Safety Nazis such as yourself. It's up to you to save us!

 

You might want to check your numbers on the .50 rifle. My .300 WSM has 2000 ft-lbs of energy at 500 yards at 5000 ASL.

 

I disagree. I comment on posts as I see them. I don't want to read all the crap before I say my piece about it.

 

"The Chilling Effects of Openly Displayed Firearms
"Charlottesville marks a new era of even bolder assertion of the right to threaten violence for political purposes....

"We can begin by acknowledging that America’s ranching days are behind it. Within metropolitan areas, there is no reason—zero—that a weapon should ever be carried openly. The purpose is always to intimidate—to frighten others away from their lawful rights, not only free speech and lawful assembly, but voting as well....

".... every white man who played vigilante in Charlottesville this weekend went home unharmed to his family, having successfully overawed the police—and having sent a chilling message of warning to lawful protesters.

"No other democracy on Earth tolerates such antics. When libertarian-minded Americans lament the over-militarization of police, they might give some thought to what it takes to police a society where potential lawbreakers think it their right to accumulate force that would do credit to a Somali warlord. And not only accumulate it, but carry that force into public to brandish against fellow citizens who think differently from their local paramilitaries.

"At Charlottesville, blessedly, no gun went off. But at Dallas last year, the guns did.

"It’s not necessary to live like this. No other advanced democracy does. As Americans critically self-examine the forces in their society that enabled the tragedy in Charlottesville, they might give a thought as well to the permission they allow the even graver tragedy that might have happened—and that sooner or later, surely will."
https://www.theatlantic.com/politic...harlottesville-could-have-been-graver/537087/

If there had been a shootout between police and armed protesters things likely would have turned out a lot worse.

 

That still makes it 1,000 times less powerful than a Toyota Camry.

 

I looked all over the Internet and couldn't find which SCOTUS decision this was. Do you have a link?

 

So you're ready to acknowledge the inappropriate actions of Antifa?

Really? I'm sure America's ranchers would be stunned to hear that.

What ridiculous rhetoric. For heaven's sake, go to your doctor and get yourself a prescription for Growacet.

Here's a newsflash for you: WE ARE NOT A DEMOCRACY. We are a Constitutional Republic, and our Founders built checks against pure democracy directly into the Constitution.

Man, what a load of complete and utter bovine excrement hyperbole.

You know what? Freedom is a risky proposition. A society structured to ensure freedom and political liberty for its people accepts that there is a danger of people misusing and abusing their rights. People accept these risks in exchange for the benefits of living in a free society. Unfortunately, there are a bunch of spineless sheep out there the bleat and tremble at any sight of possible risk and wail for someone to save them. These people refuse to take responsibility for themselves and demand their fellow citizens have their ability to take responsibility for themselves be stripped from them, by force if necessary.

Makes me sick to my stomach, and I hold such people in abject contempt.

 

Pray tell, even with all of the privately owned firearms that were present, there were absolutely zero shots fired during the event.

 

Why did the presence of the firearms not serve as sufficient motivation to drive everyone away from the scene? Why are there pictures of private citizens standing around in the presence of those that are armed, and showing absolutely nothing that resembles either fear or concern? Are we to believe that the mere presence of openly carried firearms is sufficient to intimidate freedom of expression, but wholly insufficient to make individuals leave the area for their own safety?

If law enforcement believed the presence of privately owned firearms would be an issue, they would have called in the SWAT team and deployed military equipment. Since such did not occur, it was apparently not considered an issue.

 

The NRA failed to reach "terrorist" status since their members aren't killing innocent people. The real terrorists appreciate your efforts to disarm their victims.

I think it is safe to assume that everyone who wants a gun has one. This includes felons, gang members, and terrorists. To say that violence wouldn't have happened without the NRA is just a poor attempt to direct blame from those responsible. It may just be that more violence was deterred by the sight of firearms.