Why do commie Dems want gun manufacturers held liable when a murderer uses their product

PP has different blood on its hands, to continue with this line of rhetoric.

the one you imply with your question, namely that liberals tend to assume that black people are less able to handle rudimentary, customary responsibilities, like obtaining IDs. The underlying assumption, when you get past the rhetoric, is precisely that: black people won't be able to navigate the procedures necessary to obtain identification.

Did you happen to see any articles on a recent study done about language and political beliefs? The researchers found that while moderates and conservatives generally speak the same to members of minority groups the same way they speak to whites, liberals tend to adjust their language "down" when speaking to them. You've probably experienced this before. I certainly have. Many times. The ones that stand out were examples in college. Occasions in which black students misstated facts, mispronounced words, or made points that were obvious and added nothing to the discussion, which then were left uncorrected or were not constructively criticized . Now, it might be explained that the professor and the other students did not speak up out of fear of being labeled "prejudiced," but I don't think that fully explains it. There is an underlying, paternalistic belief that members of minority groups can't be expected to do the same things as most whites can do. Like using proper terminology or diction. Like find the DMV or figure out a way to get there when they're poor. Unsurprisingly, these ideas seem to be much more prevalent among people in the intelligentsia and higher socioecnomic strata, rather than among working class whites. It turns out that assuming a belief system that you believe is most compassionate towards black people doesn't produce a great affinity with actual black people, nor does it provide you with a better understanding of their lives.

And driven by castration anxiety... evolution's incest prevention mechanism.

They are a single issue organization. They have a job to do to protect that issue. Some people don't like it that they do that job well. Others like it that they do that job well.

The are also the 3rd largest membership organization in the United States, behind AAA and AARP. That makes them pretty effective at what they do...which is (i) train people (including LEOs) in firearms use, and (ii) protect the right to defense from aggression of others.

I don't think we have to engage in any Freudian analysis. Their goals are simply stated by them (and referenced in the Constitution, no less), and they pursue those goals tirelessly.

At least the NRA is staying true to the rights it was formed to protect. Various ACLU chapters are starting to abandon free speech rights and freedom of religion rights, among others. They've lost their appetite for defending many "unsavory" (in their opinion) defendants, which is sad.

None of us have the right to choose to kill someone, 521. Don't you agree?

Our rights have always ended where another person's rights begin. You can swing your fist until it starts to approach my face. You can cut with your knife until it starts to cut another human being who hasn't consented to your acts.

That means that rights will necessarily decrease over time until the government is reset. All we can hope to do is slow the transgressions against human rights by government (thereby lengthening the life of government, ironically). We can never hope to stop the government from violating human rights altogether.

Whether intentional or not, you serve their interests.

Weird that you can accuse a person of X, but when I accuse a person of X, I need deep breathing. Either we both need deep breathing for relaxation, or neither of us does. Do you agree?