Horrible, Horrible Day’: Multiple Fatalities At Molson Coors Facility In Milwaukee, Mayor Says

Since they haven’t been guess that proves guns are useless for self defense.

 

First, if such is the case then go about proving such. Prove that it is members of the NRA who are engaged in the killing of others. Prove that the members of the NRA have committed each of the so-called "slaughters" being referred to on the part of yourself.

Second, exactly what qualifies as being a "real" man, and how do firearm owners not qualify as being such? Explain.

 

You forgot or your question or perhaps have language limitations. The question was who is responsible for the slaughter not who is doing the slaughter.

 

When an individual commits murder, they are responsible for the murder themselves, it is not the fault of some outside party who played no part in the act. Unless it can be proven members of the NRA have engaged in the murdering of others, the above statement is factually incorrect.

Has the NRA released so much as even a single statement, holding that they support the actions of a mass shooter, and believe their actions were justified?

Beyond that particular matter, is the off topic notion of their opposition to so-called "universal background checks" somehow making them physically culpable for any killings that are committed with firearms. With only one exception, that being Adam Lanza who acquired his weapons via murder and theft, every mass shooting that has been committed in a twenty two year period has been committed by individuals who purchased their firearms from a federally licensed firearms dealer, and who passed the mandated background check required to purchase said firearms.

What good do background checks on all firearm transactions do, when the ones responsible for the mass killings are capable of passing background checks to begin with? How has a lack of background checks on private transactions served to facilitate any firearm-related killings? How is the NRA responsible for these killings?

Explain such. Refrain from the hatred-filled diatribe against political opponents, and actually present something coherent.

 

Ever heard of the concept of accessory to murder?

 

Exactly what has the NRA actually done, that would in any way actually meet the burden of proof necessary prove accessory in the commission of even a single crime? What have they done that has allowed any firearm-related murder to take place, that simply would not have been possible had they not been present in some fashion?

One cannot simply claim accessory with that being the long and short of the matter, one must actually prove the accessory relationship not only exists but also applies. A prosecutor would certainly have to prove such in a court of law to warrant such charges and indictments, the same burden of proof must be met on the part of yourself.

 

Even you can access the history of the NRA opposing any and all gun legislation. Or you can just post one single piece of legislation they have supported to prove me wrong.

And now on to your next attempt at diversion.

 

How does opposing legislation meet the burden of proof necessary to qualify as being an accessory to murder, or other firearm-related crimes? Explain such. Can politicians be charged as accessories based on how they did or did not vote on particular pieces of legislation?

The argument being presented on the part of yourself is that the NRA is more responsible for murders than the individuals who committed the murders directly.

Following the logic presented on the part of yourself, every resident of the state of California can be charged as an accessory to each and every crime committed by illegal aliens currently in the state. The residents of the state of California elected the politicians who voted to declare the state of California a sanctuary state to actively and deliberately shield illegal aliens from law enforcement efforts at identifying and apprehending them.

 

What part of the word “ accessory” do you not understand?

 

If the word "accessory" were truly understood in this particular matter, it would be explained on the part of yourself precisely how the NRA opposing firearm-related restrictions meets the burden of proof necessary to warrant an accessory charge.

 

Was the donkey whose jaw Samson used to kill 1,000 Philistines an accessory to those murders?

 

well I do enjoy your comparing the NRA to the jawbone of an ass.