I'm motivated this morning as I am engaged in an online debate with some good people that have an opinion opposite mine on the topic of gun control. Their argument, as passionate as they are about it, is based on emotion, not on fact. It's hard to argue fact to people once their emotions get involved. Harder still, is arguing with people that have based their strong opinion on the slanted angles of major media, but have never bothered to research for themselves the facts.

Hilter used propaganda in the media to control his countrymen. Unfortunately in America, this same tactic is being used.

I am against any sort of gun control. Any. In my opinion, when the founding fathers used the phrase "...the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed..." that the phrase is beyond argument.

The founding fathers didn't say "...to be regulated by government..." or "...rights are for the current government to decide." The founding father also did not say "shall be infringed by the will of the government." The founding fathers said "shall not be infringed."

This means:

infringe [in-frinj]

Part of Speech: verb

Definition: violate

Synonyms: borrow, breach, break, contravene, crash, disobey, encroach, entrench, impose, infract, intrude, invade, lift, meddle, obtrude, offend, pirate, presume, steal, transgress, trespass

Notes: to impinge is to come into contact or encroach or have an impact; to infringe is to encroach on a right or privilege or to violate

Antonyms: comply, discharge, obey, observe

(source:http://thesaurus.com/browse/infringe)

This is pretty clear to me. There really can be no argument.

Let's compare gun related deaths to something else people are passionate about: Gay rights.

To quote from the CDC website from 2010:

"An estimated 15,529 people with an AIDS diagnosis died in 2010..."

To quote from another page of the CDC website from 2010:

Firearm homicides: •Number of deaths: 11,078
•Deaths per 100,000 population: 3.6

(sources: http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/resources/factsheets/us.htm, and http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/homicide.htm)

Gays murdered 4500 more people than guns in 2010 using gun control advocates' rationale.

So, maybe we should really be banning gays.

Being gay and having AIDS is MUCH more dangerous than owning guns. Almost 4500 MORE people were killed by being gay and having AIDS in 2010 than were by guns.

It isn't a Constitutional Right to be gay.

It isn't specifically written in the Bill of Rights for the United States that anyone can be gay.

Ban assault gays! Nobody NEEDS to be gay!

I only make these statements to illustrate how ridiculous the statements are to "Ban assault weapons!" and "Nobody NEEDS assault weapons!"

Truly, I don't have anything against gays, but I'm trying to make a point.

Really, I'm trying to trick you. I want you to think. I want you to argue with me that the rate of deaths by AIDS doesn't solidly reflect that everyone that died from AIDS was gay.

True.

Using the rationale of gun murder data, it is also true to say that gun murder statistics do NOT include any sort of rate of gun murder from LAWFUL gun owners. The gun murder data also does NOT reflect the rate of gun murder in "gun free" zones. Sounds a little fishy, yes? Using this rationale, if owning a semi automatic defense rifle makes you a murderer, being gay makes you a carrier of AIDS and a danger to others in society. Being gay makes you a murderer of almost 4500 more people per year than guns kill.

Grouping all gun owners (lawful and criminals) into a category that suggest that they will commit violent crime is dangerous and irresponsible. It is NO different than suggesting that ALL gays can/might/will have AIDS and could be a danger to society via infection with their disease.

Also, I will argue that not everyone that has a gun of any sort has murdered anyone. If you consider that a MUCH greater percentage of the population has guns than is gay, the rate of death per gun owned in America is very, very low in comparison to the rate of death from AIDS by gays.

People are so quick to forget that the gun murder capitals of the USA right now have the strictest gun laws. You do know that it is fact that you are more likely to be killed by a gun as a civilian in Chicago than you are as military personal in the middle east. I will post one source of this information behind this post. If you think it's bullcrap, search for yourself.

(source:http://www.wnd.com/2013/01/chicago-murders-top-afghanistan-death-toll/)

Again, I have nothing against gays. Nothing at all. I'm just trying to make a point.

I got myself into an online argument yesterday and today on Facebook (strange, right?). It's with a liberal who again, as they all seem to do, blames Bush for the war in the middle east.

I remember 9/11/01 like it was yesterday. I remember where I was and what I was doing when I heard the news of the attacks. I remembered being saddened by the planes crashing into the buildings. I was very saddened by the lives lost. I remember the surge of patriotism that many Americans felt directly after these attacks. America was fueled by emotion and wanting/needing to pounce on somebody like a rabid tiger. Americans were buying flags to support America and shirts to proclaim their hatred of terrorism. There was a flag slapped anywhere a flag could go. Everyone was a patriot. We were united as we had ever been as a country.

Unfortunately at the time, I was saddened by some of our responses as Americans. In my opinion, many people allowed the emotion of the situation rule their thought process. Americans became an ANGRY MOB THAT IS GOING AFTER ALL RAGHEADS! It's true. It was sad. I kept wondering if killing people in revenge really the answer? Is sending my friends to fight or die the correct course of action? Was that really the answer? Did we want another Vietnam?

Also, why couldn't our little flags for our cars have been built in the USA and not China? Did anyone realize that it has been said again and again that this war was all oil (and terror, right?), and when Americans put those little flags on their cars, they got worse gas mileage? (RCA dog look) Didn't we want less dependence on foreign oil? I win?

Don't get me wrong, I'm as patriotic as a person can get. I love America.

I remembered some interesting facts about that time (circa 2001), and one of them was the procedure in which America went to war in the middle east. Realize that it was the Bush years, not the farce of government we have now with King Obama. So, what does that mean?

In the past few years, Obama placed us in Libya illegally and undeclared. Obama has us messing around with Syria illegally and undeclared. Obama does not care to follow Constitutional process to go to war. Obama doesn't care about getting out of the wars we are in. Obama wants us to be in more wars and wants to give more and more of our money away to people that want to kill us. Liberals ignore these conflicts completely.

Bush followed constitutional procedure to go to war. He was advised on courses of action. He and his advisers presented Congress with a plan. Congress approved that plan with the overwhelming support of the American people. It was a declared war that had congressional approval. This is our Constitutional process. It had very, very high public approval. At the time, Bush had the highest presidential approval numbers ever by any president. Ever. In case you missed it: Any. Ever.

Anyway, no liberal seems to remember this. How quick they are to forget the facts that do not serve their current agenda.

This morning, I found the Gallup poll from Bush's response to terror. I posted a link to it and the actual data below.

Do all of you liberals want to blame somebody for going to war? Blame yourselves, you hypocrites. It's mathematically impossible to reach 90% approval of war across the American population without at least 60-80% of Democrats being FOR WAR at the time.

So liberals, shut your pie holes. Place your blame where it should go. Own the mistakes of the socialist in chief that you have again elected. Own the FACT that he doesn't care about you or your causes, but rather he just tells you that he does so he can get your support. He exploits you by his actions and he makes you look like fools in any argument supporting his actions to anyone that is informed. You liberals helped open this can of worms, so quit shrugging off the blame. Don't be like the POTUS and get all whiny when you are presented with facts that contradict your half truths.

I'm going to be in the minority here. I officially blame the liberals for war since I was never for it and I am not liberal. There. There's some of your own liberal logic right back to you.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/4924/Bush-Job-Approval-Highest-Gallup-History.aspx

September 24, 2001

Bush Job Approval Highest in Gallup History

Widespread public support for war on terrorism

by David W. Moore

GALLUP NEWS SERVICE
PRINCETON, NJ -- President George W. Bush's call to arms in a nationwide address last Thursday evening has elicited widespread public support for a war against terrorism, as well as the highest presidential job approval rating ever measured by Gallup since it began asking the public for its evaluation of presidents over six decades ago.
According to the latest CNN/USA Today/Gallup poll, conducted September 21-22, 90% of Americans approve of the way Bush is handling his job as president, up four percentage points from a poll last weekend.

George W. Bush's Job Approval Rating

President Bush's current job approval rating is one point higher than the previous high point, registered by his father at the end of hostilities in the Persian Gulf War in late February/early March 1991. Prior to that time, the highest approval rating ever recorded by Gallup was 87%, received by President Harry S. Truman just after the end of World War II hostilities in Europe:

The record high approval rating for George W. Bush comes in the wake of his address to the nation last week, in which he outlined his approach both to retaliating against the terrorists for attacking the United States on September 11 and to mounting a concerted effort to stop global terrorism altogether. Almost three-quarters of all Americans say they saw the address live, and another 14% saw rebroadcasts or excerpts of the speech.

As you may know, President Bush addressed Congress and the nation on Thursday night about the recent terrorist attacks in New York City and Washington, D.C. Did you happen to see President Bush's address to Congress and the nation on Thursday night, or not? IF NOT: Did you see parts of the address rebroadcast later on the news or other programs, or did you not see any part of the address?
	2001 Sep 21-22

Saw Bush's address to Congress and the nation	74%

Saw rebroadcasts or excerpts of Bush's address	14

Did not see either	12

No opinion	*


* Less than 0.5%

Nine in 10 Americans give Bush high marks for the speech, with 62% saying the speech was "excellent" and 25% "good." Another 8% say it was "just okay." Only 1% of Americans say it was a "poor" speech. Among those who watched the speech live, 71% say it was excellent and 22% good.
From what you have heard or read, would you rate George W. Bush's speech to Congress and the nation on Thursday night as -- excellent, good, just okay, poor, or terrible?

	Excellent		Good	Just okay	Poor	Terrible	DID NOT SEE (vol.)	No opinion

2001 Sep 21-22	62%	25		8	1	*	3	1

2000 Aug 4-5 ^	19%	32		17	3	1	26	2

^ From what you have heard or read, would you rate George W. Bush's acceptance speech at the Republican convention [on Thursday night] as -- excellent, good, just okay, poor, or terrible?
* Less than 0.5%
(vol.) Volunteered response

The vast majority of Americans also feel that the president did a good job in his speech of explaining the goals of any military action that may occur as a result of the war on terrorism. Among all Americans, 78% say he has explained the goals clearly enough. Among just those who watched the speech live, 83% find the explanation clear.
Do you think President Bush explained the goals of current U.S. military action clearly enough, or not?

	Yes, explained enough	No, did not	No opinion

2001 Sep 21-22	78%	15	7

Bush's high approval ratings are no doubt in part due to the widespread support Americans give to the president's plan of action. The poll shows that about three in four Americans say that Bush's proposed military response, as well as his proposed diplomatic and economic pressures, are "about right," while among those who disagree, most would opt for more rather than less action.
QUESTIONS SPLIT SAMPLED

Do you think President Bush has -- [ROTATED: gone too far in terms of a military response to the terrorist attacks, done about right, or not gone far enough in terms of a military response to the terrorist attacks]?
BASED ON -- 519 -- NATIONAL ADULTS IN FORM A; ±5 PCT. PTS.

	Gone too far	Done about right	Not gone far enough	No opinion

2001 Sep 21-22	4%	75	19	2

Do you think President Bush has -- [ROTATED: gone too far in terms of an economic and diplomatic response to the terrorist attacks, done about right, or not gone far enough in terms of an economic and diplomatic response to the terrorist attacks]?
BASED ON -- 486 -- NATIONAL ADULTS IN FORM B; ±5 PCT. PTS.

	Gone too far	Done about right	Not gone far enough	No opinion

2001 Sep 21-22	4%	79	14	3

More generally, 89% of the American public say they favor the United States taking military action in retaliation for the September 11 attacks, essentially unchanged from responses to the same question asked one week previous.
Do you think the United States should -- or should not -- take military action in retaliation for Tuesday's attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon?

	Should	Should not	No opinion

2001 Sep 21-22	89%	7	4

2001 Sep 14-15	88%	8	4

Survey Methods
These results are based on telephone interviews with a randomly selected national sample of 1,005 adults, 18 years and older, conducted September 21-22, 2001. For results based on this sample, one can say with 95 percent confidence that the maximum error attributable to sampling and other random effects is plus or minus 3 percentage points. In addition to sampling error, question wording and practical difficulties in conducting surveys can introduce error or bias into the findings of public opinion polls.
Do you approve or disapprove of the way George W. Bush is handling his job as president?

	Approve	Disapprove	No opinion
	%	%	%

2001 Sep 21-22	90	6	4

2001 Sep 14-15	86	10	4
2001 Sep 7-10	51	39	10
2001 Aug 24-26	55	36	9
2001 Aug 16-19	57	34	9
2001 Aug 10-12	57	35	8
2001 Aug 3-5	55	35	10
2001 Jul 19-22	56	33	11
2001 Jul 10-11	57	35	8
2001 Jun 28-Jul 1	52	34	14
2001 Jun 11-17	55	33	12
2001 Jun 8-10	55	35	10
2001 May 18-20	56	36	8
2001 May 10-14	56	31	13
2001 May 7-9	53	33	14
2001 Apr 20-22	62	29	9
2001 Apr 6-8	59	30	11
2001 Mar 26-28	53	29	18
2001 Mar 9-11	58	29	13
2001 Mar 5-7	63	22	15
2001 Feb 19-21	62	21	17
2001 Feb 9-11	57	25	18
2001 Feb 1-4	57	25	18