Obama Busted in What May Be the Crime of the Century…


B

Bikenut

Guest
Numbers are so much fun....

Let's take that statistic of 31,672 firearm deaths and do some comparing.....

One estimate says there are 270 to 310 million guns in the U.S.

A minority of Americans own guns, but just how many is unclear | Pew Research Center

so if we take the smaller number...270 million and subtract the 31,672... that means there were 269,968,328 guns that nobody used to kill anyone. Or the percentage of guns that were NOT used to kill was.... 98.9%

And then there is this...

Total population in 2010 for the U.S. according to the U. S. Census was 308,745,538

2010 Census

and that means if we subtract the 31,672 ..... 308,713,866 people did not kill anyone with a gun in 2010.

But then.... someone is sure to say that if getting rid of guns could save just one of that 31,672 it would be worth it (think of the children!) but then there is this...

GunCite-Gun Control-How Often Are Guns Used in Self-Defense?

How Often Are Firearms Used in Self-Defense?

There are approximately two million defensive gun uses (DGU's) per year by law abiding citizens-snip-

(there are links to the sources of that data in the article linked to)

Soooo.... even if the number of 2 MILLION! defensive gun uses is an estimate it would be fair to say that out of 2 million attacks many of those would have been life threatening for the victim (could some of them involved children being in danger of death?) perhaps more than the 31,672 of deaths where a gun was used? Not saying I have any proof of that simply because it is impossible to prove something that didn't happen but those numbers certainly are something to think about.

But it is the "victim defended themselves with a gun and their death/dire injury during an attack didn't happen" part that gun control zealots like to simply ignore.

And... just like I did above to show a different perspective on that number of deaths.. careful choice, and use, of statistics can be a way to bolster an argument, defend a belief, and/or further an agenda.........

And then there is this....

There are lies, damned lies and statistics. - Mark Twain at BrainyQuote
 

FactsNotFiction

New member
Numbers are so much fun....

Let's take that statistic of 31,672 firearm deaths and do some comparing.....

One estimate says there are 270 to 310 million guns in the U.S.

A minority of Americans own guns, but just how many is unclear | Pew Research Center

so if we take the smaller number...270 million and subtract the 31,672... that means there were 269,968,328 guns that nobody used to kill anyone. Or the percentage of guns that were NOT used to kill was.... 98.9%

And then there is this...

Total population in 2010 for the U.S. according to the U. S. Census was 308,745,538

2010 Census

and that means if we subtract the 31,672 ..... 308,713,866 people did not kill anyone with a gun in 2010.

But then.... someone is sure to say that if getting rid of guns could save just one of that 31,672 it would be worth it (think of the children!) but then there is this...

GunCite-Gun Control-How Often Are Guns Used in Self-Defense?

How Often Are Firearms Used in Self-Defense?

There are approximately two million defensive gun uses (DGU's) per year by law abiding citizens-snip-

(there are links to the sources of that data in the article linked to)

Soooo.... even if the number of 2 MILLION! defensive gun uses is an estimate it would be fair to say that out of 2 million attacks many of those would have been life threatening for the victim (could some of them involved children being in danger of death?) perhaps more than the 31,672 of deaths where a gun was used? Not saying I have any proof of that simply because it is impossible to prove something that didn't happen but those numbers certainly are something to think about.

But it is the "victim defended themselves with a gun and their death/dire injury during an attack didn't happen" part that gun control zealots like to simply ignore.

And... just like I did above to show a different perspective on that number of deaths.. careful choice, and use, of statistics can be a way to bolster an argument, defend a belief, and/or further an agenda.........

And then there is this....

There are lies, damned lies and statistics. - Mark Twain at BrainyQuote

Strange logic there.

It doesn't matter how many guns there are per se, it matters how many people are using guns. Some people have a dozen firearms in their house. According to the latest information 35% of US households have at least one firearm. A drop from the 1970's when half of all homes had firearms. So clearly those that do keep a firearm keep more than one.

As of 2014 there were 115,227,000 households in the US. that means 40,320,000 households have guns. So if there were 2,000,000 instances of defensive gun use each year, that means that 1 in 20 households have had to use a firearm to defend themselves each year. How many of you have ever had to use your firearm to defend yourself here in the US? I've had firearms for 30 years and have never had to point them at someone, but with that 1 in 20 number odds are I should have done it at least once. And to a large extent your view of whether you pulled your gun to defend yourself is rather subjective, obviously if someone breaks into your home at night armed with a knife you got an open and shut case there, however if you get into argument with a drunk in a bar, and he say's he'll mess you up but doesn't actually make any sort of physical advance and you pull your gun have you over-reacted? It's very likely that the person involved in the latter case will state that he pulled his gun because he felt a real threat, but that all depends on how fearful a person you are doesn't it?

The thing with the 2 million figure is that it's not based on actual police reports or any actual documented cases. It's the result of a poll by Gary Kleck in which gun owners are asked if they have used their gun for self defense, and again that's subjective. However, most of the reports of a gun being used in self defense relates to an escalating argument, and when these instances have been reported to the police and brought before a judge, the judge usually rules the use as illegal, even if the gun owner had a permit, so in most cases it was "Brandishing", which is a crime and maybe why the owner claimed he was responding to a threat, when it was not a response to a real threat. And as it turns out guns in the home are used more often to intimidate intimates or family members than to thwart crime.

The National Crime Victimization survey, done annually by the federal government, estimates about 100,000 defensive gun uses a year, not actual shootings but cases where a gun may have prevented a crime. That's a 1 in 403 chance, not 1 in 20.
We may never get an accurate answer to this question. However the more than 30,000 people who die from firearms every year is not a disputed number, nor is their relationship to those that killed them. These are accurate facts from police and FBI investigations and were almost certainly derived from court and hospital documents as well. And also the 70,000 who are wounded every year (the number is up from what I quoted earlier because I found a more recent study) that means that 100,000 people and their families, endure a firearm death or injury, and do not forget the health care cost of that, according to Forbes firearm deaths and injuries cost us $174 BILLION a year, or $564 for each one of us.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/abrambr...and-violence-cost-every-american-564-in-2010/

Gun Threats and Self-Defense Gun Use | Harvard Injury Control Research Center | Harvard School of Public Health
How Often Do We Use Guns in Self-Defense? - Businessweek
Link Removed
 
B

Bikenut

Guest
Strange logic there.-snip-
Not strange logic... just a different way of looking at the numbers. A glass half full or a glass half empty kind of thing.

It can seem shocking if one only looks at the number of 31,672 people dying from being shot with guns but understanding that comparing that number to the 308,713,866 people in the U.S. who did not die from being shot can bring that statistic into perspective. After all.. the numbers themselves show that not only did 308,713,866 people not die from being shot the numbers also show 308,713,866 people did not kill anyone with a gun.

But in the end... I just wanted to show that the very same numbers for the very same thing can be used to present a positive or a negative view to serve the agenda/perspective/beliefs of the one presenting the numbers.
 

FactsNotFiction

New member
Not strange logic... just a different way of looking at the numbers. A glass half full or a glass half empty kind of thing.

It can seem shocking if one only looks at the number of 31,672 people dying from being shot with guns but understanding that comparing that number to the 308,713,866 people in the U.S. who did not die from being shot can bring that statistic into perspective. After all.. the numbers themselves show that not only did 308,713,866 people not die from being shot the numbers also show 308,713,866 people did not kill anyone with a gun.

But in the end... I just wanted to show that the very same numbers for the very same thing can be used to present a positive or a negative view to serve the agenda/perspective/beliefs of the one presenting the numbers.

So by your logic it's ok that about 32,000 people are killed and another 70,000 shot because there's only a 3000 in 1 chance of being shot every year? You do know that 32,000 dead a year is almost 11 9/11's every year right? And that in the last 25 years more than 800,000 Americans have been shot dead, and 2.5 million wounded. Every year there is a 1 in 356 chance of being murdered by a firearm, and remember in cases where the killer's ID is known the victim knew the killer 70% of the time. There's a 1 in 6500 chance of being killed by an accidental discharge. How long do you think it will be before someone you care about gets shot or killed?

My point is that there is a problem here. And at some point the public is going to have enough of it and put an end to gun rights. Remember the number of households with guns is 35% down from 50%, the trend is not good. Having a firearm is a serious responsibility and to be honest there are many people with firearms who are less than responsible.

I could't help but notice your quote, about fragile egos, etc... sorry but you have that facing the wrong way. If you really feel a need to carry a gun, it's your own fear you're trying to control and you're trying to achieve power over others not available to you through your own physical abilities.

http://www.nsc.org/NSCDocuments_Corporate/2014-Injury-Facts-Odds-Dying-43.pdf
 
B

Bikenut

Guest
So by your logic it's ok that about 32,000 people are killed and another 70,000 shot because there's only a 3000 in 1 chance of being shot every year?

For some reason I suspected you would try to twist what I said into an emotional lie. I did NOT say that nor does my logic say that. I said that while 32,000+ people are killed ... and I never said a word about any additional people being shot... there are also 308,000,000+ people WHO ARE NOT SHOT. At no time did I mention anything at all about it being Ok for people to get shot but .... nice try to spin what I said.

You do know that 32,000 dead a year is almost 11 9/11's every year right? And that in the last 25 years more than 800,000 Americans have been shot dead, and 2.5 million wounded. Every year there is a 1 in 356 chance of being murdered by a firearm, and remember in cases where the killer's ID is known the victim knew the killer 70% of the time. There's a 1 in 6500 chance of being killed by an accidental discharge. How long do you think it will be before someone you care about gets shot or killed?

And you do know that there are still millions of people who were NOT shot.... right?

My point is that there is a problem here. And at some point the public is going to have enough of it and put an end to gun rights. Remember the number of households with guns is 35% down from 50%, the trend is not good. Having a firearm is a serious responsibility and to be honest there are many people with firearms who are less than responsible.

I do not agree that the public is going to put an end to gun rights. I firmly believe the government, in it's desire to remain in power, will try it's best to regulate the right to keep and bear arms to a point where it is impossible to exercise that right legally. And I believe the real problem is as long as gun owners are afraid to exercise the right to keep and bear in fear of upsetting the public it will be much easier for the government to do it.

I could't help but notice your quote, about fragile egos, etc... sorry but you have that facing the wrong way. If you really feel a need to carry a gun, it's your own fear you're trying to control and you're trying to achieve power over others not available to you through your own physical abilities.

Correct me if I'm wrong... did you just out yourself as being anti gun?

http://www.nsc.org/NSCDocuments_Corporate/2014-Injury-Facts-Odds-Dying-43.pdf
Part of my response is in blue contained within the body of the post I quoted above...

By the way... what you are referring to about "fragile egos" is not a quote but is what I wrote for a signature on my posts... and it looks like it hit a nerve.
 

vernsimpson

New member
After reading his 33 posts I have concluded that FactsNotFiction is really not interested about all the facts. He is a typical lib who cherry picks his facts to suit his stance and ignores anything that would make his stance unstable or even be false. A typical leftist! So to save my computer's sanity i do believe I will add this person to my "ignore List"! He seems to only want to pick a fight and cause trouble.

This forum is getting to many who want to do this! As a supporter of this site I must say to Luke, if this continues I will no longer support or be a member of this site!

Luke, I am ALL for a good healthy discussion on whatever topic! But IMHO we have to many who only want to pi$$ off people and are not only anti-gun people but want to do away with 2A, no matter how much they protest that they are gun owners and 2A supporters!
 

billt

Banned
After 11 pages of bellicose bravado, statistics massaged by their respective sources to fill agendas, and the ridiculous tit-for-tat, and that-is-that statistical linking, which has given a few users such knowledge as useful idiots may pen.

The communist liberal leaders demonize wealth because they know over 90% of the people who vote for them are too stupid to have any. The 10% or less who do possess wealth are a no greater percentage than the bulk of the voting Republicans today. However, the wealthy communists try to justify having it by saying it should be taxed more. But they'll never say how much. They will never give you a number when asked. Just nebulous catch phrases like, "their fair share", or some such nonsense. Soros and Buffet lead that charge. Followed by the Hollywood limousine liberal crowd like Oprah, Clooney, Affleck, and Sarandon. And all of their peons who follow them like Lemmings, are all stupid enough to believe them. Michael Moore raved about Cuba's health care system. Do you honestly think he would fly his over weight, fat ass to Havana if he suddenly got chest pains? But it would be great for you though.

.

The communist Democratic leaders have the empty minds of their followers trained to believe that wealth is bad only if you provide it for yourself. And in the process become less government dependent. This is their greatest fear. Because by becoming wealthy and self reliant, you immediately become no use to their party what so ever. Because they cannot provide anything for you that you cannot provide for yourself. More of and better than. If the liberal Democratic communists lose their idiot, poor base, they've essentially lost their entire party. This is one of the main reasons Obama and his bunch scratched their collective asses when the unemployment rate was high. Less jobs equates to more government dependency and fewer with health care. Less is always more to the communist Democrats. This is why they're always pushing for a higher minimum wage. Obama is always claiming you can't support a family on minimum wage. No $h!t Sherlock. That's because it was never designed to. But for those who are dumb enough to try, (and there are many), enter the communist liberals who will be right there with EBT cards, "free" health care, "free" day care, and every other carrot on a string, the idiot minorities with a family of ten, will grab like a brass ring, and vote Democratic as soon as they get any of it, all for the hope of getting more free.

.

And they'll keep voting communist for their entire lives. Getting idiots hooked on government handouts is no different than the corner pusher getting the local doper hooked on drugs. First it's, "try this, it will really help you feel better". Not long and he's got them eating out of his hand. Just like Hussein. This in turn, will make the Hildabeast's job even easier. Because all she has to do is keep the wheels of the gravy train well greased with plenty of handouts. The only way you can combat this, is to try to convince these idiots it's better for them to get educated, and in the process provide for themselves. Or else kill them. Both are impossibilities at this juncture. This is why the Republicans can't win. In most all cases, a starving dog will only let the person feeding him, pet him. They're too afraid of everyone else, and see them as the enemy who will take their food. Idiot liberals are no different. Argue with any of them, and right away you're "uncaring".
 

CapGun

New member
Strange logic there.

It doesn't matter how many guns there are per se, it matters how many people are using guns. Some people have a dozen firearms in their house. According to the latest information 35% of US households have at least one firearm. A drop from the 1970's when half of all homes had firearms. So clearly those that do keep a firearm keep more than one.

As of 2014 there were 115,227,000 households in the US. that means 40,320,000 households have guns. So if there were 2,000,000 instances of defensive gun use each year, that means that 1 in 20 households have had to use a firearm to defend themselves each year. How many of you have ever had to use your firearm to defend yourself here in the US? I've had firearms for 30 years and have never had to point them at someone, but with that 1 in 20 number odds are I should have done it at least once. And to a large extent your view of whether you pulled your gun to defend yourself is rather subjective, obviously if someone breaks into your home at night armed with a knife you got an open and shut case there, however if you get into argument with a drunk in a bar, and he say's he'll mess you up but doesn't actually make any sort of physical advance and you pull your gun have you over-reacted? It's very likely that the person involved in the latter case will state that he pulled his gun because he felt a real threat, but that all depends on how fearful a person you are doesn't it?

The thing with the 2 million figure is that it's not based on actual police reports or any actual documented cases. It's the result of a poll by Gary Kleck in which gun owners are asked if they have used their gun for self defense, and again that's subjective. However, most of the reports of a gun being used in self defense relates to an escalating argument, and when these instances have been reported to the police and brought before a judge, the judge usually rules the use as illegal, even if the gun owner had a permit, so in most cases it was "Brandishing", which is a crime and maybe why the owner claimed he was responding to a threat, when it was not a response to a real threat. And as it turns out guns in the home are used more often to intimidate intimates or family members than to thwart crime.

The National Crime Victimization survey, done annually by the federal government, estimates about 100,000 defensive gun uses a year, not actual shootings but cases where a gun may have prevented a crime. That's a 1 in 403 chance, not 1 in 20.
We may never get an accurate answer to this question. However the more than 30,000 people who die from firearms every year is not a disputed number, nor is their relationship to those that killed them. These are accurate facts from police and FBI investigations and were almost certainly derived from court and hospital documents as well. And also the 70,000 who are wounded every year (the number is up from what I quoted earlier because I found a more recent study) that means that 100,000 people and their families, endure a firearm death or injury, and do not forget the health care cost of that, according to Forbes firearm deaths and injuries cost us $174 BILLION a year, or $564 for each one of us.

How Guns And Violence Cost Every American $564 In 2010 - Forbes

Gun Threats and Self-Defense Gun Use | Harvard Injury Control Research Center | Harvard School of Public Health
How Often Do We Use Guns in Self-Defense? - Businessweek
Link Removed

How about a way to saving "just one life" to make more laws worth it. Save many more! Get behind an effort to drop the speed limit nationally to 35MPH.
Think of how many lives you can take credit for saving.
As far of those 30k deaths. How many were not accidents or NDs, more to the point. Yes, how many were the result of a willful law breaking act.
Tell us how many of those deaths can be eliminated by more gun control laws...all "sensible" of course. It is a simple task right? Just get the guns out of the hands of criminals. Those that posses guns illegally. Wait, if all us legal gun owners gave up our guns and eliminated the 2A , then the "trickle down" effect would eliminate the possession of guns by everybody. Gotta be! Wow then there would be no murders right! Killing eliminated just like that. I feel safer already. After all feelings are important. Symbolism over substance! Eh?
Then we can figure out how much health care costs us all for drug/alcohol abuse, poor dietary choices, risky life choices. If I missed anything I am sure you have a way to take care of those problems also. Thanks for your clear understanding of all these problems and your clear rational ideas on how to eliminate the behaviors that cause these problems. Of course when it comes to gun violence it has nothing to do with behavior! It's the GUN!!!:dirol:
 

Bill Amsden

New member
Wow.....you guys have given way more time to FNF than he deserves on this thread IMO, can't believe I wasted my time reading his crap. He clearly is not open to others veiws or opinions. Although you guys tried, too many times did I see him turn comments around for another arguement. Think I'll be ignoring his $hi! from now on.
 
First off I enjoy the shooting sports. And in fact I used to have an FFL. But if there's anything that gives credence to the anti gun movement, besides of course 30,000 firearms deaths a year and things like Sandy Hook, it's the thought that people like you, with your paranoid views and glaring ignorance are armed. Fearful paranoid people are not exactly the ideal role models for gun ownership. However, that same "quality" makes them easy to manipulate, selling to fear works. So you question why gun sales have gone through the roof under Obama? Because the gun manufacturers told you that Obama was going to ban all guns sales and you needed to buy them before he did. Well he didn't ban them did he, but those gun manufacturers sure made a lot of money didn't they? A simple rule in life, if you want to know motivation follow the money.

I admit I didn't like Bush's policies and the disastrous results of them, but he was still my president and a fellow human being, so while I may well criticize his policies I did not stoop to being a 10 year old and have to make up a silly name for him.

And regarding communism, your whole wacky theory that the controllers of the government put a commie in charge is really illogical and out right absurd. Again follow the money, who is making all the money? The big corporations and through them the wealthy. You can deny that all you want, but that's just a obvious fact. The rich are getting richer and the rest of you are getting poorer. The share of wealth in this country owned by the wealthy is growing, and that means for the rest of us it's dropping.

So which party favors lowering taxes on the rich, cutting capital gains taxes and inheritance taxes which only really benefits the rich, cutting benefits and services to the poor and middle class, which again means lower taxes on the rich, allowing corporations to keep their profits over seas, and keeping wages down. Which party allowed the banks from 2003-2007 to make 20% of all mortgages to subprime borrowers, that is unqualified borrowers, and lowered or removed down payment requirements, so that Wall st could have more mortgages to package and sell as mortgage backed securities, and then in order to let wall st gamble with even more money that wasn't theirs changed the net capital rule to allow wall st to have up to 40 times leverage, that is gamble with 40 times more money than they actually had. And then when that gambling wrecked the economy, Wall st got bailed out to the tune of $700 Billion, and were back in business again like nothing happened. I'll give you a hint, it wasn't Obama's party.

And coincidently when we had two former oil men in the White House, Bush and Cheney, oil hit it's all time price of $147 a barrel, which made their friends and campaign backers an awful lot of money. And Of course Halliburton, of which Cheney used to be CEO, made almost $40 Billion off the Iraq war. Even Rand Paul says that we wen to war for Halliburton. Follow the money.

So back to your brilliant plan to have a country controlled by rich people, big corporations and wall st, choosing to put a "commie" in the White House. And the first things that Obama did was try to regulate Wall st, and you can hear wall st squealing about that, and raise taxes on the wealthy. I'm sure the rich were real happy about it.

So besides your theory being utter nonsense, it does show you have an excellent imagination.
Link Removed

Link Removed
 

billt

Banned
Another thing you have to remember, is above all Hillary Clinton herself is a total socialist / communist. She is good at packaging and selling socialism to the idiots that want it. Biden isn't good enough at it. In fact, he isn't much good at anything.

.



While we look at socialism and wonder how could anyone be for it, it isn't that difficult to understand if you look at it from the have nots point of view. Most wouldn't have a thing without it, so what do they have to lose by supporting it to the bitter end?

.



The problem is through the decades, the world has dumbed down to the point we have more idiots to support, than we do productive members of society to support them. A bit like having the life raft turn over with only 1 swimmer, and 10 people who can't. They'll drown the swimmer, and all die in the process. But they would die anyway, so to them what's the difference?

.



Our nation has become so overly saturated with minorities and stupid idiots we can't possibly turn this around. One only has to look at the "occupy" movement. Yes, we could and should cut out Welfare and Food Stamps immediately, but it won't happen. The entire Democratic Party of this country is based on the supporting of idiots. More idiots, more votes.

.



This is where the Hildabeast comes to the party dressed to kill. For this to turn around you have to convince worthless, lazy, uneducated people that self reliance, along with supporting yourself and family, is better than having the government do it for you. You will never do that because they are too stupid to care. It's easier for them to sit on their ass and collect a check. They have been taught to feel, by people like Hussein, that they in fact "deserve" it. Both Hussein and the Hildabeast are experts at picking up that ball and running with it. They're two peas in the same pod.

.



Look at Wisconsin a few years back. They were going broke in spite of being taxed to death. They elected Scott Walker to cut government spending, and in the process clean up the financial mess that is destroying that state. He did, and now they want to kill him for it. The reason is simple. They want their free stuff regardless of the financial consequences. Hooray for me, and screw you. This is the mentality of today's uneducated, union loving, liberal, entitled communist voter.

.




The Wisconsin union loving communists want to go back to the way it was of being over paid, and at the same time watch as their state goes down the financial drain. They don't care. Back to the swimmer / lifeboat analogy. You cannot have an intelligent argument about socialism with these people, because the ones who support it are idiots. If you want to see the result of trying to have such an argument, go out in your front yard and argue with a tree. The Clintons won't have that argument. They'll just send the tree a check.
 

Ghost Rider

New member
I don`t get it. obumble has broken or ignored hundreds of laws, committed more acts of treason than anyone can count, but this douchebag piece of schit seems to be untouchable, and gets away it all of it, WHY ???. He should have been in prison long ago, but why is he allowed to stay in office ?. Lets also not forget old shotgun joe, I`m sure he is just as guilty as obumble, we just never hear much about him.
 

aacx22

Tested Selected Initiated
I don`t get it. obumble has broken or ignored hundreds of laws, committed more acts of treason than anyone can count, but this douchebag piece of schit seems to be untouchable, and gets away it all of it, WHY ???. He should have been in prison long ago, but why is he allowed to stat in office ?. Lets also not forget old shotgun joe, I`m sure he is just as guilty as obumble, we just never hear much about him.

If Obama had done all that he would certainly be impeached and jailed. The millions of internet sleuths have not figured out anything that the GOP doesn't already know.
 

billt

Banned
I don`t get it. obumble has broken or ignored hundreds of laws, committed more acts of treason than anyone can count, but this douchebag piece of schit seems to be untouchable, and gets away it all of it, WHY ???. He should have been in prison long ago, but why is he allowed to stay in office ?

.

3 words. BLACK / POLITICAL / CORRECTNESS.
 

FactsNotFiction

New member
Part of my response is in blue contained within the body of the post I quoted above...

By the way... what you are referring to about "fragile egos" is not a quote but is what I wrote for a signature on my posts... and it looks like it hit a nerve.

Bikenut, I didn't twist anything, I just asked a simple question because it seemed quite clearly that you were justifying all those deaths because only a small portion of society gets shot every year. Or as you put it, "you know there are millions of people who will not get shot...right" So by your logic cancer is not a big deal either because because of the 320 million americans only 1.655 million will get cancer any given year. Leaving 318,345,000 Americans who won't get cancer.

As for the public putting an end to gun rights, the trend is actually heading that way. 40 years ago 50% of households have firearms, today it's 35%. As the country gets more and more urbanized and higher levels of population density, there will be more gun restrictions imposed. In addition the minority populations are growing fast than the white population, and eventually the white population will just be another minority, so even states like Texas are expected to turn blue. Nearly all state referendums that were more liberal won, and while the GOP maintains control of the house there were 5 million more votes for Dems than Republicans, and in the last 3 elections the Democrat senators got 20 million more votes than the republicans, and in the last 5 out of 6 presidential elections the Dems got more votes. So nationally the trends are clear.

Am I anti gun, no, I own several and I enjoy target shooting. However there are too many guns in the hands of irresponsible people, and I'm not just talking criminals. Drive out west and you'll see that almost every road sign more than year old has a bullet holes. And I don;t just mean on some lonely back road, I mean you drive on Interstate 80 and you'll see bullet holes in signs. That tells me that there are far too many idiots with guns, and their stupidity gives ammunition to those that wish to ban guns.

And BTW I've been shot at here in the US, not intentionally just some idiots target shooting and not having enough sense to think about where their bullets end up, but having a bullet pass you so clause as to hear it go by, really makes you think about just who has access to guns.

I wonder how many of you would be in favor of eliminating all driver's licenses, car insurance, even driver's ed, and just allowing anyone to walk in and buy a car without any experience driving. Not even knowing what the road signs mean. Well that's how we roll in the US when it comes to firearms. As for your whole fragile egos, inner fear things and the desire to dominate others, you really are deluded. Not having the need to carry a gun means you're not afraid, you're not trying to dominate others. Do you carry a gun? Why?

I'll tell you why I got a carry permit. It's not to actually carry,because I won't, it's because I like target shooting and have homes and financial interests in more than one state, and having a carry permit, from a place like Utah gives me blanket protection regarding many state laws when I travel if I have my gun in the car. Might I ever carry a sidearm? Yes, if I'm hiking in bear or mountain lion country and don't want to only rely on bear spray. And why carry it then? Fear of bears and mountain Lions while I'm alone on a trail at sunset. And mind you that's because I've had encounters with them before. So why would someone need to carry a sidearm into a mall or a grocery store? And why on Earth would someone need to open carry in that situation? Do they like scaring moms with their kids? Or is it a need to dominate others?
 

FactsNotFiction

New member
The communist liberal leaders demonize wealth because they know over 90% of the people who vote for them are too stupid to have any. The 10% or less who do possess wealth are a no greater percentage than the bulk of the voting Republicans today. However, the wealthy communists try to justify having it by saying it should be taxed more. But they'll never say how much. They will never give you a number when asked. Just nebulous catch phrases like, "their fair share", or some such nonsense. Soros and Buffet lead that charge. Followed by the Hollywood limousine liberal crowd like Oprah, Clooney, Affleck, and Sarandon. And all of their peons who follow them like Lemmings, are all stupid enough to believe them. Michael Moore raved about Cuba's health care system. Do you honestly think he would fly his over weight, fat ass to Havana if he suddenly got chest pains? But it would be great for you though.

.

The communist Democratic leaders have the empty minds of their followers trained to believe that wealth is bad only if you provide it for yourself. And in the process become less government dependent. This is their greatest fear. Because by becoming wealthy and self reliant, you immediately become no use to their party what so ever. Because they cannot provide anything for you that you cannot provide for yourself. More of and better than. If the liberal Democratic communists lose their idiot, poor base, they've essentially lost their entire party. This is one of the main reasons Obama and his bunch scratched their collective asses when the unemployment rate was high. Less jobs equates to more government dependency and fewer with health care. Less is always more to the communist Democrats. This is why they're always pushing for a higher minimum wage. Obama is always claiming you can't support a family on minimum wage. No $h!t Sherlock. That's because it was never designed to. But for those who are dumb enough to try, (and there are many), enter the communist liberals who will be right there with EBT cards, "free" health care, "free" day care, and every other carrot on a string, the idiot minorities with a family of ten, will grab like a brass ring, and vote Democratic as soon as they get any of it, all for the hope of getting more free.

.

And they'll keep voting communist for their entire lives. Getting idiots hooked on government handouts is no different than the corner pusher getting the local doper hooked on drugs. First it's, "try this, it will really help you feel better". Not long and he's got them eating out of his hand. Just like Hussein. This in turn, will make the Hildabeast's job even easier. Because all she has to do is keep the wheels of the gravy train well greased with plenty of handouts. The only way you can combat this, is to try to convince these idiots it's better for them to get educated, and in the process provide for themselves. Or else kill them. Both are impossibilities at this juncture. This is why the Republicans can't win. In most all cases, a starving dog will only let the person feeding him, pet him. They're too afraid of everyone else, and see them as the enemy who will take their food. Idiot liberals are no different. Argue with any of them, and right away you're "uncaring".

You have no idea of what a communist is. Please don't use words that you don't understand it just makes you look ignorant to educated people. Communism is an economic model, here's the definition:

noun
1.
a theory or system of social organization based on the holding of all property in common, actual ownership being ascribed to the community as a whole or to the state.
2.
(often initial capital letter) a system of social organization in which all economic and social activity is controlled by a totalitarian state dominated by a single and self-perpetuating political party.

Do you still have private property? Is the country ruled by just one party? Have you noticed that the rich have been getting richer while most of you have been getting poorer?

The funny thing is that the economy almost always does better under a Democratic president. Lower unemployment, stock market does better, GDP is higher, deficit growth is lower, pretty much every economic indicator is better under a Democrat. Those damn democrat commies and their creating more jobs, creating more business profits, lowering the debt commie policies. Here's a quote from Fortune magazine,
"“The U.S. economy not only grows faster, according to real GDP and other measures, during Democratic versus Republican presidencies, it also produces more jobs, lowers the unemployment rate, generates higher corporate profits and investment, and turns in higher stock market returns. Indeed, it outperforms under almost all standard macroeconomic metrics.”

In the last 100 years the average increase of the DJIA under a Democrat president was 15.31%, under a Republican only 5.47%. So the stock market does 3 times better under a Democrat, now there's communism for you!!!! Oh wait, that's actually the perfect example of capitalism.

Here's something out of Bloomberg:

"The BGOV Barometer shows that, over the five decades since John F. Kennedy was inaugurated, $1,000 invested in a hypothetical fund that tracks the Standard & Poor’s 500 Index (SPX) only when Democrats are in the White House would have been worth $10,920 at the close of trading yesterday.

That’s more than nine times the dollar return an investor would have realized from following a similar strategy during Republican administrations. A $1,000 stake invested in a fund that followed the S&P 500 under Republican presidents, starting with Richard Nixon, would have grown to $2,087 on the day George W. Bush left office." A five times better return under a Democrat president. More of that communism at work I guess.

And the only two times when conservatives held the White House, the Senate and the House all at the same time, for an extended period of time and could therefore impose their policies with little restriction, led to two things, The Great Depression of 1929 and the Great Recession of 2008. Of course you'll dismiss this as commie propaganda put out by those commies on Wall st.


Why the economy performs better under Democratic presidents - Fortune
Want a Better Economy? History Says Vote Democrat! - Forbes
Link Removed
Link Removed
Republican or Democrat Presidents: Which Are Better for the Stock Market? - DailyFinance
Stocks Return More With Democrat in White House: BGOV Barometer - Bloomberg
 

Members online

No members online now.

Forum statistics

Threads
49,435
Messages
623,611
Members
74,269
Latest member
NearshoreRnD
Top