America is a psychopathic nation and its government is run by sociopaths

They’re psychopaths. But this time, the psychopaths are in positions of power, the inmates are running the asylum, and Americans are being manipulated into supporting the very people who are using health as an excuse to destroy our economy and political system. An increasing number of Americans are suffering from mental health issues‍—‌depression, ADHD, opioid-induced madness‍—‌because our society is turning us all into psychopaths. Literally thousands of advertisements per day in which we are told that the products we need to keep us alive are available to the select few who can afford them. We have a cult-like obsession with guns, bombs, and all other instruments of death and destruction. We have devolved into a culture of rape, abuse, and kill at all costs. And yet we still refuse to see through the lies with which we are presented by our government, corporations, and media outlets.<br><br>The cold hard truth is that the probability of an American being killed by a terrorist set on destroying our freedom is extremely low. By contrast, the probability of an American dying in a mass shooting is extremely high. However, the odds of an American dying in a mass shooting are still far lower than those of an American dying in a car accident. But we refuse to consider stricter regulations on driving, or better yet the abolition of cars. But we also refuse to consider stricter regulations on guns, and better yet the abolition of guns. Stricter regulations don’t work, but abolishing cars would lead to economic instability. This argument makes no sense, as abolishing guns would also lead to a massive shift in the economy. But cars are an incredibly important part of our economy, and guns play a relatively minuscule role. This leads to the obvious conclusion that we should abolish cars, not guns.<br><br>This leads to the obvious conclusion that we should abolish cars, not guns. But we can’t abolish cars because they are becoming increasingly important to our economy, whereas stricter regulations on guns would lead to economic instability. Therefore, we should abolish cars, not guns. This is obviously false, as stricter regulations on guns would be more likely to lead to economic instability than would the abolition of cars. Therefore, we should abolish guns, not cars. This argument makes no sense, as abolishing guns would also lead to a massive shift in the economy. But cars are an incredibly important part of our economy, and guns play a relatively minuscule role. This leads to the obvious conclusion that we should abolish cars, not guns. But cars are becoming more and more important to our economy every day, whereas stricter gun regulations would lead to a relatively minor economic shift. In conclusion, we should abolish stricter gun regulations, not cars.<br><br>The cold hard truth is that the probability of an American being killed by a terrorist set on destroying our freedom is extremely low. By contrast, the probability of an American dying in a mass shooting is extremely high. However, the odds of an American dying in a mass shooting are still far lower than those of an American dying in a car accident. But we refuse to consider stricter regulations on driving, or better yet the abolition of cars. But we also refuse to consider stricter regulations on guns, and better yet the abolition of guns. Stricter regulations don’t work, but abolishing cars would lead to economic instability. This argument makes no sense, as abolishing guns would also lead to a massive shift in the economy. But cars are an incredibly important part of our economy, and guns play a relatively minuscule role. This leads to the obvious conclusion that we should abolish cars, not guns.<br><br>This leads to the obvious conclusion that we should abolish cars, not guns. But we can’t abolish cars because they are becoming increasingly important to our economy, whereas stricter regulations on guns would lead to a massive shift in the economy. Therefore, we should abolish guns, not cars. This argument makes no sense, as stricter regulations on guns would be more likely to lead to economic instability than would the abolition of cars. Therefore, we should abolish cars, not guns. This argument makes no sense, as stricter regulations on guns would be more likely to lead to economic instability than would the abolition of cars. Therefore, we should abolish cars, not guns. This argument makes no sense, as stricter regulations on guns would be more likely to lead to economic instability than would the abolition of cars. Therefore, we should abolish cars, not guns. This argument makes no sense, as stricter regulations on guns would be more likely to lead to economic instability than would the abolition of cars. Therefore, we should abolish cars, not guns. This argument makes no sense, as stricter regulations on guns would be more likely to lead to economic instability than would the abolition of cars. Therefore, we should abolish cars, not guns. This argument makes no sense, as stricter regulations on guns would be more likely to lead to economic instability than would the abolition of cars. Therefore, we should abolish cars, not guns. This argument makes no sense, as stricter regulations on guns would be more likely to lead to economic instability than would the abolition of cars. Therefore, we should abolish cars, not guns. This argument makes no sense, as stricter regulations on guns would be more likely to lead to economic instability than would the abolition of cars. Therefore, we should abolish cars, not guns. This argument makes no sense, as stricter regulations on guns would be more likely to lead to economic instability than would the abolition of cars. Therefore, we should abolish cars, not guns. This argument makes no sense, as stricter regulations on guns would be more likely to lead to economic instability than would the abolition of cars. Therefore, we should abolish cars, not guns. This argument makes no sense, as stricter regulations on guns would be more likely to lead to economic instability than would the abolition of cars. Therefore, we should abolish cars, not guns. This argument makes no sense, as stricter regulations on guns would be more likely to lead to economic instability than would the abolition of cars. Therefore, we should abolish cars, not guns. This argument makes no sense, as stricter regulations on guns would be more likely to lead to economic instability than would the abolition of cars. Therefore, we should abolish cars, not guns. This argument makes no sense, as stricter regulations on guns would be more likely to lead to economic instability than would the abolition of cars. Therefore, we should abolish cars, not guns. This argument makes no sense, as stricter regulations on guns would be more likely to lead to economic instability than would the abolition of cars. Therefore, we should abolish cars, not guns. This argument makes no sense, as stricter regulations on guns would be more likely to lead to economic instability than would the abolition of cars. Therefore, we should abolish cars, not guns. This argument makes no sense, as stricter regulations on guns would be more likely to lead to economic instability than would the abolition of cars. Therefore, we should abolish cars, not guns. This argument makes no sense, as stricter regulations on guns would be more likely to lead to economic instability than would the abolition of cars. Therefore, we should abolish cars, not guns. This argument makes no sense, as stricter regulations on guns would be more likely to lead to economic instability than would the abolition of cars. Therefore, we should abolish cars, not guns. This argument makes no sense, as stricter regulations on guns would be more likely to lead to economic instability than would the abolition of cars. Therefore, we should abolish cars, not guns. This argument makes no sense, as stricter regulations on guns would be more likely to lead to economic instability than would the abolition of cars. Therefore, we should abolish cars, not guns. This argument makes no sense, as stricter regulations on guns would be more likely to lead to economic instability than would the abolition of cars. Therefore, we should abolish cars, not guns. This argument makes no sense, as stricter regulations on guns would be more likely to lead to economic instability than would the abolition of cars. Therefore, we should abolish cars, not guns. This argument makes no sense, as stricter regulations on guns would be more likely to lead to economic instability than would the abolition of cars. Therefore, we should abolish cars, not guns. This argument makes no sense, as stricter regulations on guns would be more likely to lead to economic instability than would the abolition of cars. Therefore, we should abolish cars, not guns. This argument makes no sense, as stricter regulations on guns would be more likely to lead to economic instability than would the abolition of cars. Therefore, we should abolish cars, not guns. This argument makes no sense, as stricter regulations on guns would be more likely to lead to economic instability than would the abolition of cars. Therefore, we should abolish cars, not guns. This argument makes no sense, as stricter regulations on guns would be more likely to lead to economic instability than would the abolition of cars. Therefore, we should abolish cars, not guns. This argument makes no sense, as stricter regulations on guns would be more likely to lead to economic instability than would the abolition of cars. Therefore, we should abolish cars, not guns. This argument makes no sense, as stricter regulations on guns would be more likely to lead to economic instability than would the abolition of cars. Therefore, we should abolish cars, not guns. This argument makes no sense, as stricter regulations on guns would be more likely to lead to economic instability than would the abolition of cars. Therefore, we should abolish cars, not guns. This argument makes no sense, as stricter regulations on guns would be more likely to lead to economic instability than would the abolition of cars. Therefore, we should abolish cars, not guns. This argument makes no sense, as stricter regulations on guns would be more likely to lead to economic instability than would the abolition of cars. Therefore, we should abolish cars, not guns. This argument makes no sense, as stricter regulations on guns would be more likely to lead to economic instability than would the abolition of