Okay, let's get this right: My original post was titled, "Democratic rule
(that would mean rule by the Democratic party politicians, not Democracy - there is a difference) and the right to arms cannot coexsist."
Democracy is a form of government in which a people vote for what they want.
Newsflash: America is not a Democracy.
Our Form of government is a Constitutional Republic. There is a world of difference.
Article IV, section 4 of the U.S. Constitution declares: "The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union
a Republican form of Government..."
In a Constitutional Republic, the Constitution is the supreme law of the land - what the people - or a group of politicians - wants at the moment is not.
We have a Bill of Rights that guarantees our right to arms. Whether or not a certain group or groups wants that to be so is
irrelevant. Whether or not 50.00000001% of the voters want that to be so is
irrelevant. What a clique of 200 or so socialist/Democrat politicians want to impose on the 280 million of We The People is irrelevant.
In a Democracy, the will of the majority is forced on the minority.
In a Republic, the rights of the minority carry just as much weight as the rights of the majority. As I said before, there's a world of difference.
Nazi Germany was a Democracy. The will of the majority (Germans) was forced on the minority (Jews, gypsies, etc.). In a Republic, the minority has the same rights and protections as the majority. The majority does not get to vote away the rights of the minority. Not so in a Democracy.
A Republican form of government is a representative form - we elect representatives to (allegedly
) carry out the will of the people.
If the people want changes made to the Constitution, there is a prescribed way of making those changes. A 2/3 majority of the states must call for a Constitutional convention in which the representatives meet and discuss the proposed changes. Changes to the Constitution are not lawfully made by fiat, the demands of the majority, or the whim of officials - elected or non-elected.
My original assertion that "Democratic rule and the right to arms cannot coexsist" was made after observing the long history of Democratic politician's blatant attempts to disarm We The Pepole - attempts that are unconstitutional and unlawful under our form of government, a Constitutional Republic.
Democrat politicians at the national level are pathalogically obsessed with disarming We The People.
-If not, then why have they attempted to do so by trickery and stealth??
-If not, then why have their last two failed Presidential bids had as candidates two blatantly antigun bigots?
-If not, why does one of their luminaries openly wish for "Mr. and Mrs. America, turn them (guns) all in" while the rest of the Democratic luminaries work unceasingly for that corrupt and unlawful goal?
It is obvious from listening to their words and looking at their deeds as well as looking at their voting histories that if given the power to do as they please - control of the House, the Senate and the White House - Democratic politicians will destroy our right to arms, even though doing so is unconstitutional and unlawful. They want what they want and they don't care about the rights of We The People.
That's why I made my original statement that "Democratic rule (meaning rule by Democratic politicians) and the right to arms cannot coexsist."
History proves this. And history cannot be denied.
