Some general observations on guns and our Republic

[solo1]

Some years ago my family had the opportunity of taking guests to our rifle range.  These guests were special.  They were a family, father, son, and wife, and were citizens of great Britain.  The father was a former Royal Guard member which, I understand, is a valued position.  At any rate, he was allowed to own only one firearm in his country,  a .22 rifle

The whole family was a joy to be with.  The father's son especially won me over with his politeness and calling me 'Sir"  We gave the family the opportunity to shoot every firearm in our possession .  It was golden to watch them as they enjoyed themselves, a particular joy denied them in their own country.

I was reminded of our own 2nd Amendment.  It was created shortly after our country's Revolution and freedom from Great Britain.

If any one would doubt the purpose of the Second Amendment, I would refer them to Letter number 46 by James Madison in "The Federalist"

We are a unique Republic as only the United States, of all the countries in the world,  has a specific Amendment that gives us the RIGHT to 'keep and bear arms' and we take that very seriously.

Citizens of other countries seem not to understand why this is so.

The 2nd Amendment is sometimes misused by evil minded persons just as the 1st Amendment is very much misused by a mass media who have their own agenda, an agenda that is determined to undermine the Second.

i personally make no excuse for our Second Amendment!   The writers of our Constitution were very wise.

Wayne, Solo1

[Robert]

Solo while I do agree with what you wrote I fear we are no longer a Republic 

[solo1]

Yes Robert, I know that also.  We have strayed far.

However the present reelected POTUS won his second term by electoral vote, not popular vote, so that vestige of a Republic remains.

[Jabba]

I love this country.  Dearly.  It provides rights and opportunity that can be found no where else.  For us to get back on track... it WILL be painful.  The people that are on the dole will fight it tooth and nail.  The people paying the bill have GOT to get together and take the country back.  They takers will be so resistant that there will be blood shed.

There was the first time.  There has been since.  The crops of freedom are watered with the blood of Patriots.  I fear MY generation has never learned that and thus, is not defending those crops as diligently as is required.


Jabba

[saddlesore]

I love this country.  Dearly.  It provides rights and opportunity that can be found no where else.  For us to get back on track... it WILL be painful.  The people that are on the dole will fight it tooth and nail.  The people paying the bill have GOT to get together and take the country back.  They takers will be so resistant that there will be blood shed.

There was the first time.  There has been since.  The crops of freedom are watered with the blood of Patriots.  I fear MY generation has never learned that and thus, is not defending those crops as diligently as is required.


Jabba

+1+1+1

[CoachDoc]

Yes Robert, I know that also.  We have strayed far.

However the present reelected POTUS won his second term by electoral vote, not popular vote, so that vestige of a Republic remains.

The POTUS won both the electoral vote as well as the popular vote. When the dust settled Obama was 3 million votes ahead of Romney (my new neighbor, by the way). I think a lot of people went to sleep on election night when the election had been called and conceded, and that early Romney was indeed ahead in votes. By the morning when all the West Coast votes were counted Obama had made up that deficit and increased his margin to the 3 million level.

[MP]

Yes Robert, I know that also.  We have strayed far.

However the present reelected POTUS won his second term by electoral vote, not popular vote, so that vestige of a Republic remains.

The POTUS won both the electoral vote as well as the popular vote. When the dust settled Obama was 3 million votes ahead of Romney (my new neighbor, by the way). I think a lot of people went to sleep on election night when the election had been called and conceded, and that early Romney was indeed ahead in votes. By the morning when all the West Coast votes were counted Obama had made up that deficit and increased his margin to the 3 million level.

I think you misunderstand Wayne's intent.  I take it thus.

We still use the Electoral College to elect the President.  We do not use popular vote to do so.  Thus, we are a Republic.

I do not think he meant Obama got less votes than Romney.

MP

[solo1]

I knew some one would question it here.

Electoral college=Republic.   Electoral College is what counts.

Popular vote=Democratic.    Popular vote doesn't count (yet).

I didn't mention the popular vote, wasn't necessary.

[Steve K (IA)]

Yes Robert, I know that also.  We have strayed far.

However the present reelected POTUS won his second term by electoral vote, not popular vote, so that vestige of a Republic remains.

Popular Vote
           Obama            Romney
Total    63,714,092    59,782,295
Percent    50.7%            47.6%

[Jeff K]

Yes Robert, I know that also.  We have strayed far.

However the present reelected POTUS won his second term by electoral vote, not popular vote, so that vestige of a Republic remains.

Popular Vote
           Obama            Romney
Total    63,714,092    59,782,295
Percent    50.7%            47.6%

You don't listen very well, do you?

[wiggydotcom]

I knew some one would question it here.

Electoral college=Republic.   Electoral College is what counts.

Popular vote=Democratic.    Popular vote doesn't count (yet).

I didn't mention the popular vote, wasn't necessary.

Hmmm, I don't know how you could have explained it any better. I suggest next time you TYPE SLOWER!

[solo1]

I am now typing slower.

Once again, the electoral college elects the president and vice president by indirect means as a result of the popular vote.  That is a Republic type of government.  The first candidate that gets 270 Electoral votes wins the election.

There have been three instances in our history where the presidential candidate won the election but not the popular vote. 1876, 1888, and 2000 where Bush won over Al Gore.

There was a reason why the our forefathers set it up this way but I won't go into that. 

Once again, popular vote is a democratic process in presidential elections.   The Electoral Vote is a Republic type of process.

The popular vote doesn't directly elect, the Electoral College does that. 

[wiggydotcom]

I am now typing slower.

Once again, the electoral college elects the president and vice president by indirect means as a result of the popular vote.  That is a Republic type of government.  The first candidate that gets 270 Electoral votes wins the election.


There was a reason why the our forefathers set it up this way but I won't go into that. 

So all the dead voters from Chicago couldn't singlehandedly elect the next President? 

[blastedbugler]

In Australia voting is compulsory.
The Prime Minister is the leader of the political party in power, but is not elected by the people.
If a party doesnt like their leader ( even if he is Prime Minister ) he can be dumped by his party.
This happened recently when Rudd was dumped & Gillard became Prime Minister.
This is called the Westminister System & came from the UK.
Making voting compulsory goes some of the way in stopping pressure groups getting control.

A question to those in the USA.
Using the existing USA system what do you think the result would have been if every American citizen had to vote ?.

Don ( Aussie )

[Serk]

A question to those in the USA.
Using the existing USA system what do you think the result would have been if every American citizen had to vote ?.

Don ( Aussie )

None of the above.

[MP]

A question to those in the USA.
Using the existing USA system what do you think the result would have been if every American citizen had to vote ?.

Don ( Aussie )

None of the above.

1/4 could not read the ballot.

The other 1/4 does not have a clue who the president is, cannot name ONE Supreme Court judge, etc.  They know NOTHING, except who Snookey on Jersey Shores is!

I do NOT want them to vote.  I actually believe we should have a simple test to take, before you are allowed to vote.  If you know NOTHING about what is going on, why should you be allowed to vote?

MP

[Jabba]

I sort of agree.  I wold like it if there was a test of some sort to vote.  Maybe that you have been a net positive influence on society... meaning you have put more into the system than you have taken out.  But a short civics test would be a great start.

Jabba

[solo1]

The founder couldn't foresee TV.   

They were concerned that a candidate could be very popular in a concentrated area like NYC or Boston which could skew the results.   The electoral vote corrected that back then because it counted the total number of votes in each state.

Today, because of the instant communication of TV, internet, etc. it doesn't work very well.  More and more the big cities like Los Angelos, Chicago, NYC, Philly, and even Detroit have gotten out the vote because they like the message of big government.

Big cities are much more dependent on the government and most of the residents, in their philosophy of a free ride, coupled with ignorance, have a much bigger influence on the vote than the rural area conservatives.

But most of us know that especially after the latest election...


At any rate, on a positive note,  everyone have a Merry Christmas!

Wayne, solo1

[Oss]

good question!

I would like it to go further than that though

If you are elected to Congress   If you dont vote then you get thrown out of office

Too many congressmen and senators dont show up to vote on bills,
and who knows if ANY of them bills get read