Posted on 02/22/2015 9:03:48 PM PST by upchuck
Including suicides in gun deaths is a wrong approach. That inflates the numbers.
If they truly wanted to die, sleeping pills and other things on hand would have been used. You can’t blame guns for that.
Obama was ELECTED! So theoretically he is not a dictator. A dictator is NEVER elected.
Reasons Obama won TWICE:
Too many low information voters.
Too many dumbed down Americans by teacher’s union.
Too many people like living off gov’t dole.
Not enough people save and invest and thus have no skin in the game. The top 10% own 95% of all stocks & rental properties & commercial properties.
Single issue republicans stay home on election day unless the nominee fits 100% of their agenda. These voters prefer getting screwed by Obama over a moderate “RINO”.
Yep smell too. Sound, smell, feel. All reminds me of freedom!
That concept goes back a long way.
Under Shariah law, only Muslims could own weapons. Dhimmi were to be protected by Muslims but could not own swords, spears and other weapons.
It was another way to keep them subservient, at the mercy of would-be criminals and reliant on the expensive intervention of armed Muslims to protect them.
After the "turn in" I read a report that said there were 1.5 million Ruger 10/22 rifles imported during the prior 10 years.
I have no idea where I read this.
Thanks-—I was a tad confused.
.
Not true.
For instance, Cuba had elections throughout Fidel Castro's rule. They have the parliamentary system so he didn't personally stand for popular vote, but the elected parliamentarians always voted him in again and again.
Going further back, Hitler was elected.
If you look into this, dictators are almost always elected, over and over with 80+ percent of the vote.
This is because those Americans know their history.
Yes I heard about that. So lets go out and get them!
Tights, rights, it be all good. Teleprompter problems.
Excellent post!
Are you equivalencing elections in Nazi Germany & Communist Cuba with US elections? Then you have just made yourself illogical.
In case you do not understand, only elections in democracies count. Cuba, Nazi Germany, Saddam’s Iraq & USSR were not democracies.
No, I was merely demonstrating the untruth of your statement "dictators are NEVER elected".
Having made this rash and unthinking statement you are backpedalling and trying to put more conditions on it than you started with. You didn't have these conditions up front, and you might admit that there is a generous amount of observer bias in deciding what is a "good" election vs. a "bad" election.
As an American I certainly want to believe that our elections are "good", although I need only look at the fraud in many elections and I can find lots of reasons why US elections might not be the gold standard we think they are. Go back 50 years and Kennedy's victory over Nixon in 1960 was almost certainly fraudulent with Chicago producing as many Dem votes as necessary for Kennedy to win. The Gore people tried hard to steal the 2000 election.
Go back to Nazi Germany, and as much as you might not want to agree, it is obvious that a majority of voters ended up supporting Hitler. This was a German election. As much as the rest of the world didn't like the result, it was a German decision to make.
Same with Castro in Cuba. At least at the beginning, more ordinary people wanted him than wanted his predecessor.
Lastly, you need to read a good civics book. The US is not a democracy, despite what the evening news says. We are a Republic, that pesky old Constitution says so, and it is true.
Fraud is number one. (Precincts with 110% of the vote and 100% Obama, for instance).
2: He looks black. As for his heritage, that's questionable, but he was packaged and sold to American Blacks as "one of us" and they went for it, hook, line, and sinker.
3: Promises of 'free stuff'.
4: Liberal "white guilt".
5: The syncophantic media, from tingles in their legs to appraisals of how "clean" he was, Obama could do no wrong and suffered no scrutiny.
These all worked in concert with the factors you mentioned.
You are right on all counts, especially white guilt.
Fraud was certainly a factor in 2012, 2008. And it will be again in 2016.
I blame the GOP for having done nothing when they had troika power in 2003-2005.
An excellent example of elections is India.
It is the world’s largest democracy, with 4 times as many voters as United States. Their recent election ousted the entrenched congress party, which was in power for about 63 years, total out of a total of 68 years since India became a democracy. How did they do it? By nominating a charismatic nominee who had a demonstrable record of successful capitalistic policies in his state where he was chief minister for 10 years. If you think there was no fraud or errors in India’s election, can we share some of the stuff you are smoking? But it was a LEGAL election.
And yes, I know the difference between a pure democracy and a republic. Almost all democratic countries on earth today are some form of democracy. In a pure democracy, the mob rules. In a republic the elected representatives rule. When I said democratic election, of course I was talking about the republics. Any political junkie will understand that.
So, again, there is a huge difference between elections in Saddam’s Iraq, Stalin’s USSR, Castro’s Cuba and elections in democracies such as India and USA. If you fail to see the difference you are throwing out subterfuge.
Getting to the final point, Obama was elected LEGALLY since you failed to prove in a court of law about election fraud. Which simply means he is legally not a dictator. If Obama is acting like a dictator, I can agree. So whose fault is that? The congress and the judiciary for letting him get away with usurpation of executive power.
Lost in the gun rights debate, much to the detriment of American freedom, is the fact that the Second Amendment is in fact an “AMENDMENT”. No “Articles in Amendment” to the Constitution, more commonly referred to as the Bill of Rights, stand alone and each can only be properly understood with reference to what it is that each Article in Amendment amended in the body of the original Constitution. It should not be new knowledge to any American the Constitution was first submitted to Congress on September 17, 1787 WITHOUT ANY AMENDMENTS. After much debate, it was determined that the States would not adopt the Constitution as originally submitted until “further declamatory and restrictive clauses should be added” “in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its (the Constitutions) powers”. (This quote is from the Preamble to the Amendments, which was adopted along with the Amendments but is mysteriously missing from nearly all modern copies.) The first ten Amendments were not ratified and added to the Constitution until December 15, 1791.
In this Light:
“A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” What provisions of the original Constitution is it that the Second Amendment is designed to “amended”?
THE SECOND AMENDMENT IS AMENDING THE PROVISIONS IN THE ORIGINAL CONSTITUTION APPLYING TO THE “MILITIA”. The States were not satisfied with the powers granted to the “militia” as defined in the original Constitution and required an amendment to “prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers. “(Again quoting from the Preamble to the Amendments.)
What was it about the original Constitutional provisions concerning the “Militia” that was so offensive to the States?
First understand that the word “militia” was used with more than one meaning at the time of the penning of the Constitution. One popular definition used then was one often quoted today, that the “Militia” was every able bodied man owning a gun. As true as this definition is, it only confuses the meaning of the word “militia” as used in the original Constitution that required the Second Amendment to correct. The only definition of “Militia” that had any meaning to the States demanding Amendments is the definition used in the original Constitution. What offended the States then should offend “People” today:
“Militia” in the original Constitution as amended by the Second Amendment is first found in Article 1, Section 8, clause 15, where Congress is granted the power:
“To provide for the calling forth the MILITIA to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrection and repel Invasions.” Article 1, Section 8, Clause 16 further empowers Congress:
“To provide for the organizing, arming, and disciplining, the MILITIA, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;” Any “patriot” out there still want to be called a member of the “MILITIA” as defined by the original Constitution?
Article 2, Section 2, Clause 1 empowers: “The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the MILITIA of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States;” The only way the States would accept the “MILITIA” as defined in the original Constitution was that the Federal “MILITIA” be “WELL REGULATED”. The States realized that “THE SECURITY OF A FREE STATE” required that the “MILITIA” as originally created in the Constitution be “WELL REGULATED” by a “restrictive clause.” How did the States decide to insure that the Constitutional “MILITIA” be “WELL REGULATED”? By demanding that “restrictive clause two” better know as the “Second Amendment” be added to the original Constitution providing:
“THE RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED.” The States knew that “PEOPLE” with “ARMS” would “WELL REGULATE” the Federal “MILITIA”!
Now read for the first time with the full brightness of the Light of truth:
“A WELL REGULATED MILITIA, BEING NECESSARY TO THE SECURITY OF A FREE STATE, THE RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED.”
For those still overcome by propaganda:
The Second Amendment declares by implication that if the “MILITIA” is not “WELL REGULATED” by “PEOPLE” keeping and bearing arms, the “MILITIA” becomes a threat to the “SECURITY OF A FREE STATE.”
The “MILITIA” has no “RIGHT TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS” in the Second Amendment, rather it is only “THE RIGHT OF THE “”PEOPLE”” TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS (that) SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED.”
“an annual toll of around 32,000,”
In a country where 2,500,000 die every year from all causes, this would be a total of 1.3% What foreigners often fail to understand is the sheer size of the US- we are nation of 300+ million people. As a percentage, this is miniscule, even if it is enough to wipe out the “armies” of some socialist rump states of the European Union. Of course, it gets painted as huge by the domestic enemies of the US who wish for the government to monopolize real power and intend to create said monopoly in the name of ‘safety’ or some other utopian rubbish.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.