"It's not statistically likely you're going to be shot in the US. Get over that propaganda."

This isn't really relevant. That is like saying 'you're not statistically likely to die from lung cancer' - the Tobacco companies still undermined democracy using propoganda for years to prevent the state from doing its job. IE legislating for what is in the best interest of the people.

This is the issue i'm taking. The fact that you ARE more likely (statistically speaking) to be murdered by gun in the US than in Ireland. Something you should care about, if you want to. (also this is true for Cuba, but that very much ignores the fact that homicide rate in Cuba appears to be higher than the US... despite the fact that gun crime is almost non-existent; this doesn't really undermine my point. As Cuba has some of the lowest murder rates in any Latin American country (comparing like with like), and the US has one of the highest in the OECD (again, like with like).

And ""You should be using your free speech to right the wrongs being done in your name (by your representatives)."
I will be. I'm going into politics, and that's not so I can shake hands and kiss babies."

Good for you, unfortunately, it is possible that all you'll do is shake babies and kiss hands. Because that is what you have to do to be good at your job.

If you want to make an actual difference, you should get involved with an NGO and eventually become a lobbyist.

@JY (y do u have a French first name as family name?)
"""do i balme OMNIPOWERFUL DICTATORS, for their countries policies: YES." why are you blaming them?"

b/c they have control of their country's policies... once again it's almost like you're trying to be insightful, but there's no more substance. if i have control of the law, and i decided to kill thousands, i am to blame for the question "Where did all them cubans go?" ONCE AGAIN: trying to sound insightful, but you're not." -- my mistake: that should have been "Why are you balming them?" as in URSS and PRC have [em]balmed Stalin and Mao...or something along these lines open to ur interpretation. Please adjust your comment accordingly and I will reply #Bitchesunite#damnautocorrect#CENSORED!!!byaproductdesignedintheUSbutproducedinChinaandJapancausetheyknowhowtodostuffinsteadofknowinghowtotrytogetitdone

"""SOCIETY is the problem, not gov't." -- Mark these words!"

in this individual case of protesting. i will NOT be misquoted, stop splicing what i'm saying. i blame the gov't for a lot of shit, but the citizenry not rallying behind a cause, is in America: the citizenry's fault." -- in particular if they don't support your stance but the government (oh dear) does (-- sounds pretty dictatorphile to me).

" the first wave of indian killing occurred before the USA was formed. then the settlers killing indians after the constitution was founded, was on land that was a part of America yet (I KNOW THIS DOESN'T JUSTIFY IT, BUT THE CONSTITUTION HAS ZERO CONTROL OF LADNS OUTSIDE AMERICA)" -- not quite true. #Guantanamo. And I was speaking about such a country not only of the US (so the UK would be included in terms of language and deeds).

"LASTLY: "by the same constitution"

look up the word amendment. it might do you some good." -- amendments are a result within the constitution and by this already embedded in it when it was crafted and by this already of the constitution ab ovo. checking out some legal theory might be helpful here, cause so *few* people thinking they understand it really don't.

"the third wave was done ILLEGALLY. Andrew Jackson kicked the indians off their lands when the SUPREME COURT said that it was illegal. the supreme court: AS CREATED BY THE CONSTITUTION, said that this was wrong." -- so you state that a bunch of corrupted old men (and the occasional hottie in her youth but now not so much anymore) appointed behind closed doors aka SCOT US (really, who wants to be scotted?) with constitutionally desired tied hands (so that they wouldn't dare to interfere with the will of the people, enshrined in the actually elected, and if then without effect) and no accountability to no-one must not be ignored? doesn't compare quite well to the rest of your rant.

"i looked it up and it is talking about voting choices and social decisions. but... it fails in areas where more information is provided. all in all i don't know what you're trying to say or justify with this paragraph. clarification needed." -- look better, cause it has nothing to with information. Rather it states that even under complete information social choice will always result in a minority losing something (which in the case of the argument was made-up from one single person).

"MAYBE b/c they've overstretched their power in the past, and we don't take kindly to that. " -- e.g.? If there is none (and there is none) so there is no other reason except the conclusion that both, DP and GOP Americans are actively promoting international crimes and assisting, defending and nurturing people that would have been otherwise brought to jail. That both flanks of American politics do this just says all about all of them.

"ONLY the US?" -- yes? or would you state that the US is no an important country? cause then I would retract the only...

""while we try to actually get stuff done" -- better stop trying, considering the results"

HA. so funny. you think i voted for Trump?" -- I've been searching for an hour here^ but could find any reference to Trump. Where do you get your accusations from?

"try maybe actually asking me about my views" -- better not... the glimpse you gave me was sufficient.

""should have the right to write a single line of comment on this issue?"" -- ended with a question mark. #thoughtaquestionwasdifferentfromacommandment#shouldInotkilleveryoneIlike?beingproscribedbythebibleaccordingtoJamietYanik (<- it is the same grammatical construction with respect to the original commandment as your interpretation of my harmless and humble question: question := commandment AND inverted negation)

" you asked why " -- where is this different from asking for an argument as in give an argument as to why you think the way you do about it ?"<,>"¿ [ \newcommand{?"<,>"¿}{\asking_for_an_argument} ]

well, I could go on. but before please check this out: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irony (it sometimes helps reading the old ones... in their original language. furthers education and that stuff, ...) with these concluding remarks, I go, get stuff done and will only once come back to read your reply.

@orathaic you made a statement that the NRA lobbied for gun owners, might I suggest that the NRA lobbies for those who give it the most money, the arms industry, not individual gun owners.

Sorry Major, i didn't mean to say gun owners, infact i think i was comparing the NRA lobbying to Tobacco companies lobbyingz

Customers suffer. Except for the gun lobby, more armed people => more killed by guns => more people fear guns => more gun sales...

Whereas smokers dying tends to decrease the market...

If i said gun owners that was a mistake.

@orathaic, well done in your systematic demolition of TrPrado's flawed & convoluted "arguments & propositions" ( I use those two terms perhaps loosely )
I made a comparison between Castro and Franco...
Your excellent example of Castro's independent policies from his Soviet Russian allies of Cubas intervention in Angola. And how it was more than just a military intervention.
It compares to Franco's independent toughness with his more foolish fellow Fascist's Hitler and Mussolini
The USSR has fallen before Castro's Cuba

Exactly Orathaic, most of the individual gun.owners are like the mug smokers, cannon fodder is the term I think. The NRA is about boosting gun manufacturers profits, fighting safety regulations etc etc