The NRA got their start as a civil rights organization fighting those laws.

LIES.

Yes and no:

The NRA was founded in 1871 after the Civil War by Army and Navy Journal editor William Conant Church (pictured above) and General George Wood Wingate of the Union Army, who were both dismayed at the horrible accuracy of Union soldiers during the Civil War. The original purpose of the organization was for rifle marksmanship training. However despite this, the NRA is the oldest civil rights organization in the United States. [emphasis mine]

Concealed carry permits have not been linked with a reduction in crime.

The supposed rebuttal, to which you linked, cites a single study, which did not rebut the original assertion by John Lott. The large collection of people authoring it could not come up to any conclusion — in their esteemed opinion, there is no link between the carry laws and the murder rate. From your link:

We conclude that Lott and Mustard have made an important scholarly contribution in establishing that these laws have not led to the massive bloodbath of death and injury that some of their opponents feared. On the other hand, we find that the statistical evidence that these laws have reduced crime is limited, sporadic, and extraordinarily fragile.

So, if John Lott is right, relaxing concealed carry laws will help. If he is wrong, it will not hurt. What grounds are there, again, for the massive violations of the 2nd Amendment, that you and yours are demanding?

Nasty regimes in need to hide their mismanagement of their own country with a war, as well as criminals — they all prefer unarmed victims.

Thus, personal weapon is a perfectly peaceful symbol. Being able to print one — and keep it at home — is a good way to protect one's domicile, without begging the government for a permission to exercise the Constitution-guaranteed right.

But admitting that would be impossible for any UN committee/commission. Because each of those dictators has a vote in the Assembly, that's not any different from the votes of the free(er) countries...

I wonder, if marijuana plants can be used for same... A close enough relative to hemp for the latter to be banned in some places...

Try driving through an "EZPass" lane without the transponder. The letter you'll receive later will demand the $0.50 toll, plus $50 "Administrative Fee".

Happened to me...

Well, that did not prevent you from claiming, there are "thousands" of successes... But then you get called on it and can not name even a handful... Maybe, there really aren't (that m)any?

Right, because it's impossible for government to handle health insurance well.

"Fallacy of excluded middle". I did not say it is "impossible". It is possible — and is, indeed, done in all the places you list. But it is done poorly in all of those places.

Instead it involves the always efficient "private sector"

Free market is the most efficient thing humanity has come up with. Our problem was that this particular market was not at all free — not for decades... Instead of freeing it, Obamacare made it even worse...

Failure to deal with the nation ending enormous failure of the "free market" solution to a social issue of health care

Sadly, the healthcare market in the US has not been free since the 1940-ies. During the War the government sought to limit workers' salaries, so, to attract talent, employers started offering "benefits" — like health insurance. This separated payers for health-care from the consumers of it — triggering the spiraling costs as the patients demanded the very best, while blaming the insurers for attempts to keep the costs sensible. The government compounded the problem making such benefits tax-deductible for employers, without counting them as taxable income for the employees.

Actually freeing the market would've helped — but, for some reason, the "reformers" were dead set against the competition (without which the market can not be considered free). Even buying a health plan from a different State is illegal, certainly not from a foreign insurer. One can even be forgiven for thinking, the sabotage of the market was deliberate — so as to allow to claim "market failure" and finally give the politicians the power they all tend to crave after 2 or 3 terms in office (some even sooner).

Instead of freeing, the market got under an even harder government control. Yes, control of that same benevolent omniscient government, that can not consolidate freaking datacenters... But don't worry, they will know, how to best allocate your monies (that you paid in taxes through your life) to your healthcare — that you will need primarily after retiring...

Oh, and the actual government agency ensuring compliance will be the same one, that already picks targets for audits and scrutiny based on the taxpayers' political persuasion. Are you honestly claiming, healthcare will improve in such circumstances? Will you really be surprised to learn, 30 years from now, that Conservatives are having their life-support turned-off, say, 30% sooner, than Progressives because the local "Independent Payment Advisory Board" (a.k.a. "death panel") decided against their case?

If, as even the Democrats admit, the government is "too vast" for the President to be responsible, we ought to be shrinking it, rather than continue its expansion to the new domains (like, uh, healthcare)...

What is your problem? You act like that natural limits are planned and get so uptight about it. The truth is that expansion for ever doesn't work and with luck, in general, people will naturally stop breeding like crazy because they won't be worried about most of their children dying.

Naturally is fine. The problem is, whenever some report of "new evidence" of "global warming" — no scratch that, the spring was too cold — of "unusual weather" comes out, a large number of people can be reliably predicted to "demand action". And that action, somehow, always implies increasing governmental control over our lives at best, or, at worst, flat-out handing bits and pieces of sovereignty to some international body — so that enlightened people will be able to help us, oafs, live "better" without having to bother with periodic elections.

So much so, one can not help but begin agreeing with the paranoics, who claim that transfer of power is the goal in itself — and the idea of "climate change" is just means to that end. And that is my problem.

Yeah, right. "Empowering women". Sure. And what about those, who want to have children? Many children? As many, as they can afford — both in health and monies? Will you merely ridicule them ("breeding cows"), or shame them (as "selfish"), or discourage them — or will you put an outright limit on fertility?

Once you accept the argument, that humans are the problem — and ought to be limited, you are on a very short and very slippery slope to eliminating humans — or wanting to. Some have already reached that point...

The Earth is limited

Yes. And the number of electrons in the Solar System is limited too. I posit, that the world's population can easily quadruple in size — and the planet can continue to easily support the numbers. Even in China — the most crowded country on Earth — there are vast unsettled areas. USA territory is only slightly less than China's, but has 1/5th of the population — America can quintuple in size before reaching China's population density, in other words.

The vast continent of Antarctica is completely empty — settling it would be far easier, than even sending robots to Mars. Even easier to populate are the giant empty spaces in the Australian "outback", Russian Siberia, and Canadian woods. Today's common place technology would allow repopulating the vast deserts of Sahara, Gobi, and others — if, indeed, there was a need... But there simply is not.

Well, I did not have Hitler in mind. Though now that you mention it, the idea, that "climate skeptics" must be put into "reeducation camps" should've made me think of him too.

Actually, in the US, it is exactly the better-off women, who breed more. Perhaps, that's because we are not encouraging procreation as much as other Western countries. But, whether you merely "discourage" breeding, or actively punish it (like China), you aren't particularly far from viewing humanity as a threat to "mother Earth". And that, in itself, is a short step from "doing something about it".

Well, problem solved then... But if were really this simple, I doubt we would've even heard of it.

I suspect, the original research is, indeed, freely available — but everybody wants to read it in a well-established magazine. The publication, likely, claims the rights to the resulting articles only.

Why do readers prefer those, instead of the original research — that's another story. But if the magazine is adding any value (even if merely of the perceived kind), then they are entitled to whatever compensation the market is willing to pay them for it...