Olympia pro-gun rally message: 'We need to get off our butts'
OLYMPIA, Wash. - The controversy over gun control erupted in massive pro-gun rallies at state capitals across the country on Saturday, including here in Washington state.
More than 2,000 gun owners, many displaying their weapons, gathered at the state capital in Olympia to send a message. And they were passionate about it.
The crowd swarmed the grounds of the Capitol building at a Second Amendment rally organized by several gun rights groups. The protest came as lawmakers here and in Washington, D.C., debate how far to go to regulate gun ownership.
Many gun rally participants were outspoken, as they described what it feels like to have somebody trying to take away something that means a lot to them.
"I think people are really starting to realize, you know, hey - we actually need to get off our butts and do something about it," said gun owner Andrea Piquet.
Many at the rally brought their guns, including the controversial assault-style rifles some lawmakers want to ban. It's legal since Washington is an open-carry state, and participants were making the point that they are law-abiding, responsible citizens.
"To punish the people who didn't do anything for the acts of one madman is inherently wrong," said rally participant Aaron Bartlett, referring to the mass shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Connecticut.
The gun owners say they believe politicians are going too far in proposing more regulations on firearms.
"At what point have you taken away so much that your gun rights don't resemble what they were intended to be in the first place," said Piquet.
Meanwhile, however, on the other side of Olympia, some residents were handing in their guns on Saturday.
The Thurston County Sheriff's Office decided to hold a free firearms disposal event, recognizing the Sandy Hook school shootings have generated strong emotions.
"We've been getting a lot of calls from citizens concerned about what happened," says Thurston County Sheriff John Snaza. "We are understanding of the feelings of the community, 'cause we're in the community."
There was nothing political about the gun turn-in - just a chance for the public to drop off unwanted guns and ammunition so that it can no longer accidentally end up in the hands of a criminal.
As one participant put it: "If somebody broke into our home, that's definitely something they'll be looking for."
More than 2,000 gun owners, many displaying their weapons, gathered at the state capital in Olympia to send a message. And they were passionate about it.
The crowd swarmed the grounds of the Capitol building at a Second Amendment rally organized by several gun rights groups. The protest came as lawmakers here and in Washington, D.C., debate how far to go to regulate gun ownership.
Many gun rally participants were outspoken, as they described what it feels like to have somebody trying to take away something that means a lot to them.
"I think people are really starting to realize, you know, hey - we actually need to get off our butts and do something about it," said gun owner Andrea Piquet.
Many at the rally brought their guns, including the controversial assault-style rifles some lawmakers want to ban. It's legal since Washington is an open-carry state, and participants were making the point that they are law-abiding, responsible citizens.
"To punish the people who didn't do anything for the acts of one madman is inherently wrong," said rally participant Aaron Bartlett, referring to the mass shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Connecticut.
The gun owners say they believe politicians are going too far in proposing more regulations on firearms.
"At what point have you taken away so much that your gun rights don't resemble what they were intended to be in the first place," said Piquet.
Meanwhile, however, on the other side of Olympia, some residents were handing in their guns on Saturday.
The Thurston County Sheriff's Office decided to hold a free firearms disposal event, recognizing the Sandy Hook school shootings have generated strong emotions.
"We've been getting a lot of calls from citizens concerned about what happened," says Thurston County Sheriff John Snaza. "We are understanding of the feelings of the community, 'cause we're in the community."
There was nothing political about the gun turn-in - just a chance for the public to drop off unwanted guns and ammunition so that it can no longer accidentally end up in the hands of a criminal.
As one participant put it: "If somebody broke into our home, that's definitely something they'll be looking for."
Unless your head is buried too far in the sand, you might want to look at this before you begin blaming inanimate metal objects for the violence in our modern day society.........
http://www.tricountygunclub.org/school-tragedy-list/
This is retarted the 2nd amendment clearly states we have the right to defend our self thats why we don't have terrorist acting us  like 9/11 think that was a suicide mission plain and simple they new if anything  if they just came and attacked us they would be dead just like they are now they were stupid for attacking us if a rapist comes to your house and rapes you daughter who is holding a gun to her head and what are you gonna wait for the police to come??? No yall with you dumb signs in the yard sayin u have no protection in your home means anyone would break insteal your crap and kill you plain and simple It is your right your choice to have a gun or not ok so some people dont want a gun WHY WOULD U TAKE OTHER PEOPLES RIGHTS AWAY???? that makes absolutely no since! I agree if someone tried to take my rights away my freedom i would die for my 2nd amendment right this is crazy what obama is doin i am totally pro gun! I didnt know gun can pull their on trigger i know the people that holds the gun does though if more people have more gun if teacher carried gun to protect there student and there self we wouldnt have this problem I mean what scares you more a sign that says this neighborhood is protected by the law or this neighborhood is protected by gun you hurt any children or people we have the right to defend are self people please wise up this is rediculous for a couple people dumb idiotic decisions and the people who done no wrong have to pay the price really??????????????????????????????????????????  Â
And Im glad to see some Americans standing up for our rights. "Liberals" want to take them away. When we have no more rights left, it will be the "Liberals" that will be crying the most......lolololol
You people still dont get it. Its not about the guns, its about our Constitutional rights. Once they start taking them away, we will never get them back. It wasnt the gun that killed, it was the person pulling the trigger. Why dont they go after the drug companies that are pumping people full of mood enhancement drugs. They all have side effects of suicidal thoughts, depression, and so forth. Most of the mass killers were on some kind of drug, legal or not. But they want to go after guns. How fitting. And did you notice how this article was dropped from KOMO's top line up?? Almost looks like Bob is alittle angry himself.......
This comment has been deleted
 @Bob Owen And thus, you profess your profound ignorance of those you despise. Typical of a bigot, who is fueled by fear, ignorance, and seeks to control others in order to counter their own shortcomings.
 @Bob Owen Well, I am one of those, and I have tested that in fact serving in Iraq. How about you bub? People go around taking guns and shooting those of us that believe God gave us those rights.... It'll get ugly real quick. Bob, I don't see how you can be so ignorant. This Country was FOUNDED with these rights in place and strictly stated they SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED UPON. You and you ilk ARE infringing. But telling from comments below, I'm wasting my breath. Maybe you're just a troll, a muppet, or maybe you actually believe your senseless drivel. I don't really care which.
Wow, easy on the caffeine dude. Maybe do a short line next time. I would strongly suggest you not operate a motor vehicle in your present condition. Â
 @oldster70 If Bob's past posts have been any indicator you won't be seeing anything sane or logical from Bob anytime soon.
All right lets level the playing field. Some deranged people kill others using guns. Solution; take guns out of law biding citizens hands. Some people drive under the influence of alcohol or drugs and kill people with their cars. Others get mad and kill or injure others because they get mad. Solution; take cars away from the responsible drivers. Actually taking all the cars away makes sense. It would save over 100 times the number of lives, and probably many 1000 times the number of permanently injured. When you really think about it, there is no logical reason to continue this irresponsible pattern of easy access to these deadly machines. Even if we passed laws limiting gas tanks to 5 gallons, require they be locked in steel buildings with the tanks emptied, criminal irresponsible individuals would get their hands on them. The best part is that we do not even have to violate the constitution to do it. Nothing in our nationâs constitution gives citizens the right to own one of these proven deadly machines. I will not even go into the health benefits, but we all know the exhaust is very carcinogenic and deadly to people with pre-existing respiratory conditions.               Â
 @oldster70 We found a correlation of driving, drinking and death, so we DID take away cars from people who drive and drink. We DO lock people up for "getting mad" and assaulting others.
Unlike cars - which have immense value in helping to get people to work and back, to school and back, to the store and back, to medical appointments (and back), to grandma's house for Thanksgiving dinner (and back), to the sports stadium or arena for a game (and back) - guns are really only valuable for two purposes: killing people or animals and "practicing" to kill people or animals. And if all the gun owners in America used their firearms to hunt and kill animals, then very soon their only remaining value would be killing people and practicing to kill people. It is really just as simple as that.
You are correct that nothing in the Constitution or the Bill of Rights gives anyone the specific right to own an automobile - and one day they may well be banned or taxed so heavily that people will be forced onto public transportation instead. But while the Bill of Rights does grant the right to "keep" arms and to "bear" arms, it does not specifically grant any right to "make" arms or to "purchase" arms or by any other method to "obtain" arms. Which may be something we should think about...
Guns are also useful for saving lives. Stopping criminals and their murderous intent in its tracks. How many lives are saved and benefit from guns? The number is in the millions each year. Guns also maintain our freedom. Without guns you wouldn't be able to speak your mind. You would most certainly be groveling at the will of those with guns instead. Guns keep us safe in our homes, in the woods, and on the streets. Guns protect us from the criminal fringe element that would take them from us. Guns are our defense. There are a few very vocal  leftist radicals out there that would deny our freedoms, so thank God for our guns and our Constitution.
 @JLS1950  @oldster70 "guns are really only valuable for two purposes: killing people or animals and "practicing" to kill people or animals"
Wow. You say its as simple as that. Yet its pretty clear from you post you don't know the first thing about gun ownership and firearms in general, disqualifying what you have said. Read up on gun usage and come back when you have a clue. Simple as that.
 @oldster70 Not to mention the damage to the environment and wildlife. ;-)
http://gma.yahoo.com/blogs/abc-blogs/kindergartner-suspended-over-bubble-gun-threat-174618051--abc-news-topstories.html
Here is what the whole anti-gun push is leading to...pretty rediculous.
 @think.about.it That is the schools' only semi-paranoid backlash after David F. Lawler, Jason Harless and Jayson McCoy, Mitchell Johnson and Andrew Golden, Randy Earl Matthews, Kip Kinkel, Columbine and many other such school shootings and gun-possession incidents. It is not a "cause" of this issue, but is rather a perhaps overly-cautious response to the ongoing problem.
If gun advocates really wanted to "solve" issues like this, they would first that thinking up ways to get REAL guns stored more safely so that children and teenagers could not get possession of them and take them to school. Instead, gun advocates and the NRA have stonewalled all such efforts, spending lavishly to battle such measures as requirements that all handguns be sold with trigger locks and that firearms in the home or in a vehicle be securely locked up unless actually being carried on the person.
Frankly - with all the hoopla in public schools over the past 20 years, including one elementary school student suspended or expelled years ago because the "prize" in his Cracker Jacks snack turned out to be a 3/4" plastic "gun" - I am surprised that any toymaker would even create and market a Hello Kitty Bubble Shooter pistol!
No gun ever "accidentally" found it's way into the hands of a criminal.
Â
On a side note, I should call Thurston County to see if they wanna donate that ammo.
Â
 @Gadsden No, but the one left in a gym bag in a car by a cop in violation of both department policy and the law did find its way into the hands of a criminal.
Lawmakers tried to require that all handguns be sold with trigger locks so if the purchaser merely used the locking device, at least the gun would be harder for children to pick up and fire. But the NRA and gun advocates would have none of it. Measures to require gun safes or other anti-theft measures have been similarly stonewalled.
The current situation is analogous as if home builders were permitted to sell houses that had no doors - much less doors that actually locked. Guns are the easiest and perhaps most lucrative of targets for burglars.
 @JLS1950 You know all guns come from the factory with a cable lock, right?
When does the government stop legislations for the greater good of society?
What will they take away next your property rights, will the government tax in excess if you are to successful in our society, will they mandate that you have health insurance, will they mandate seat belt laws or how about how much sugary pop one can purchase?
If government is so inclined to stop needless death by banning semi automatic firearms one would think that they would start by banning
Smoking â its cause cancer
Alcohol â its causes liver disease and driving fatalities
Vehicles â most all vehicles can exceed the posted speed limits which can causes death if one gets into an accident
Fatty foods â stroke, heart disease ecta
For me itâs not the fear if and when they will or wonât take away our 2nd amendment right itâs when does it stop and how far will it go.
@Jack_Smith There are laws re: smoking, alcohol, vehicles, and fatty foods.
Â
Sensible regulation and monitoring is part of why we have a government.
@flashlight  I know there are laws pertaining to i.e. smoking, taxes, property rights, alcohol, ecta that was the point. I believe our government is over reaching its powers in many cases. So called sensible legislation is impeding our lives and I believe not to our benefit. Your definition of sensible government is obviously different than mine. I would like to see far less federal government my life rather than more.
 @flashlight  @Jack_Smith Whoa, there. You put "sensible" and "government" in the same sentence. I don't think you have been paying attention for the last few decades.
 @JLS1950  @RN1  @flashlight  @Jack_Smith Well when the government starts doing something right we will start saying "Good job". Instead they screw up practically everything and you wonder why we are cynical?
JLS1950 Itâs not that government can do no right it just over reaches its powers in many cases. We just have a lot legislation that is overextending.
 @RN1  @flashlight  @Jack_Smith Well, that is a common prejudice especially on the Right: that government can do no right - despite that by very definition American government IS the people. It is just that especially "conservatives" have somehow lost all pride of ownership in their own government. I suppose that at the rate we're going, they'll probably insist we have to import THAT from China also! </snipe>
@Jack_Smith that's why many beleive it is about control, not about the number of people dying, if it was really about the number, then there are other things that could be done to save more than 350 people a year ( which is the approx deaths from rifles) I thought all lives were equal? but I guess, a life is worth more, if it is a kid killed by a rifle.Â
 @Dave Lancaster  @Jack_Smith If gun advocates truly believed it was about "control" then they would be willing to propose and accept such sensible alternative measures as requirements for safe storage, requirements to control access by minors, mandatory timely reporting of firearm and ammunition thefts (including gun serial numbers) and perhaps even at least some sensible restriction on the sizes of magazines available for purchase by the general public.
What gun advocates really believe is that it is an infringement upon their personal license to be idiots at the expense of others' safety.
 @SeattleJoe  @Dave Lancaster  @Jack_Smith You seem to be an anomaly among gun advocates posting here, then. But what measures do you support as helpful?
 @JLS1950  @Dave Lancaster  @Jack_Smith In fact I have supported several measures that would help and I oppose that won't. Its as simple as that.
@JLS1950 @Dave Lancaster @Jack_Smith Why would anyone store their guns or render them useless? Would you lock away fire extinguishers or put locks on them so they can't be used when needed? Â
 @SeattleJoe  @Dave Lancaster  @Jack_Smith In other works, you want ot be accepted as sensible and responsible, but you don't want to actually DO anything...!
 @JLS1950  @Dave Lancaster  @Jack_Smith Why would gun advocates want to do your list of actions? Just because you think they are reasonable it doesn't make it so. Also remember that there are reasons that some of these things have been blocked that were unrelated to the restrictions themselves. Bills that to do one thing would be amended to include something completely different and unreasonable and therefore those would be opposed which would of course block the entire bill.Â
I love the "ammunition thefts" part. Thats funny. Along with the hyperbole ("What gun advocates really believe blah blah") where you just couldn't help but malign gun owners since you don't really have any arguments.Â
Doesn't look like a "well regulated militia" to me
 @quorndawg Go research the meaning and interpretation of that term at the time of the writing of the Constitution. How they look has little to do with how well they are trained.
@Bornhere @quorndawg If you research, a group training together was not even a consideration except for the good of the nation.
But that argument has been settled. People can have guns, with some sensible and necessary restraints and regulations.
@flashlight But people should be able to have guns without restraints or regulations.  People on mind altering drugs should be restrained and monitored. I don't need regulations on my guns. They aren't used to commit murder or atrocities. Thats what governments do, after they take your guns.
"I'm willing to die for my second amendment right!"... REALLY MEANS "I'm willing to KILL YOU if if you don't agree with me...!"
Sort of shows what the whole pro-gun lobby is really about.
"I need my guns to protect me against the big bad GOVERNMENT!"
Oh come on now, do you all REALLY believe that a government that has a nuclear arsenal, bombers, jet attack aircraft and attack helicopters with air-to-ground missiles, Predator drones with air-to-ground Helfire missiles, Striker Vehicles, Abrams Tanks, anti-tank rockets, artillery, REAL AR-15s and M16s, .30 and .50 caliber machine guns, CS Gas, etc.... is REALLY scared of your silly little pop-guns? DON'T MAKE ME LAUGH!!!
Just by many of their public statements, these pro-gun nuts demonstrate that they are NOT MENTALLY COMPETENT to possess firearms!
@JLS1950 You are right about one thing.  Now that you made us think about it, we need more and better guns.  We also need to reinstate Pose Comitatus Act.
you just sent him to google
@JLS1950 You know nothing of US History! Wounded Knee the US Army disarmed the Souix Warriors and when their last firearm was surrendered the order was given to open fire and give no quarter to those Indians at wounded Knee. Hauns Mill the Moromons were told by the governemt to lay down their arms for their safety 27 men and children were murdered 20 women were raped then shot by the Government military. Kent state the order was given to open fire on unarmed Students, Ruby ridge the Atternory general ordered that FBI were to shot and kill any person they saw armed or not. Randy weaver wife was shot and killed while nursing their baby, Waco Texas the Federal Government burned to death unarmed men women and children. Sorry there is way plenty of proof this government would and will go tyrannical on its citizens
 @JLS1950 ""I'm willing to die for my second amendment right!"... REALLY MEANS "I'm willing to KILL YOU if if you don't agree with me...!""
Boy the hyperbole wagon is rolling fast today. Do you have anything factual. Something more than the lead up to the "DON'T MAKE ME LAUGH!!!" Â You know, the big long list of stuff the pro-gun people don't actually believe but in your delusional state think they do? We will wait for actual facts, really we'll wait. Just come up with something other than wild hyperbole, anything anything at all.
 @SeattleJoe I've read it all right here...
 @JLS1950 Riiiiight. Hell, even if you did, applying what a few say to the whole is still completely invalid.
 @JLS1950 If all these high tech pieces of military machinery are so grand, what the heck happened in Iraq and Afghanistan? Why were so many of our children sent to their death?
@JLS1950 That is a planted sign, that is why it is mispelled, and in the Picture,
Â
 @Dave Lancaster  @JLS1950 "Oooo! Conspiracy!" Must have been planted by some of the pro-gun posters here, then, as it uses much the same sort of wording.
@JLS1950, right, like a little place called Syria, where rebels have had an ongoing war for 18 months, and appear to be winning, or a little place called Afghanistan, where militants with small arms defeated one of the great world superpowers, the USSR, and are currently costing the US untold values, what with their small arms and radical views, or maybe Egypt, or Libya, hey maybe look at Mexico, where the general population are not allowed to own firearms? How's that working out for the Mexican government?Â
@SargeMcC What are you talking about. First of all it was the US that provided the weapons to afghanistan that helped defeat the USSR.
The US is not taking anyones guns so you don't need to compare us to Mexico.
Maybe I'm missing your point.
@snoopy84, my point is that even though the Afghanis were outgunned by Russia, they were not defeated. You can't say the 'won', but they did not become subjects of the USSR.
As far as Mexico goes, the drug runners, despite world powers that would like to see them controlled and/ or stopped, have managed to continue their operations, despite laws that should prevent them from getting weapons across their borders, they continually get arms. They have not been defeated by their government. Of course I suspect that the corruption of the Mexican 'government' has a lot to do with that.
Restrictive laws here in the US, would not stop a revolution, and would not have a bearing on the outcome, but enacting restrictive laws that Americans felt violated the Constitution and Bill of Rights, could very well cause a massive conflict. The governemnt must be very careful about how far they push.
There must be controls, yes, no responsible gun owner would say there shouldn't be. Back ground checks for all sales, yes, I could get on board with that. Eliminate the ability of a law abiding citizen to purchase a semi-automatic rifle because of the way it LOOKS? No, I can't get on board with that.  Â
 @SargeMcC The rebels in Syria have WAY more than Bushmasters, and they have been taking a beating in terms of death toll among the women and children. Not a very effective argument.
The rebels in Afghanistan were supported by materiel provided directly or indirectly by the United States, Saudi Arabia and a bunch of other nations. They had FAR more than small arms: RPGs, rockets, high explosives, mortars, landmines, grenades, etc. Afghans STILL suffered horrific casualties.
Libyan rebels were supported by all of NATO.
Egyptian "rebels" were supported by the Egyptian military, which in turn is supported by arms from myriad nations.
Mexican drug lords are supported by American drug users and indirectly by the DEA. And STILL about all they are able to do is carry on a war of terror against innocent men, women, children and some tourists! Real role models for American gun nuts, maybe...
 @SargeMcC So - in other words - you agree that NOT ONE of these groups actually prevailed over their government - no matter how nasty - with just a collection of BushMasters, eh?
Which I believe WAS my point...
 @JLS1950 The Syrian rebels have been receiving weapons from outside the borders, yes, but they are still fighting a land battle without armored vehicles, and they have no air capability, and yet, despite heavy losses, they continue to fight.
The Afghanis have been at war for so long they wouldn't know what peace actually looked like. Yes, they also received arms from outside their borders, both currently and when they fought Russia, but again, they were outmatched by air superiority and more advanced technology, and yet, the USSR had to admit that this was a conflict they could not sustain and had to pull out.
Libyan rebels were 'supported' by NATO, to the degree that they would allow and that NATO would sanction. Libya lost air superiority because of NATO, but the rebels still were outgunned on the ground by government forces, until those forces abdicated and joined rebel forces, largely due to the fact that they realized that their government was trying to kill its own population, and couldn't stomach that fact.
Egypt was and still is a mess. Democracy cannot survive in an Islamic society.
Mexican drug lords are NOT getting the majority of their weapons from the US commercial arms system. They can buy military surplus from rogue nations, in bulk, for less than they would pay for American civilian industries produced weapons. This is proven by the type, serial numbers and sheer quantities that the criminals there possessed when they have been neutralized. You can't get RPG's and .50 cal. machineguns on the open market. But the fact remains, in a country that outlawed personal firearms, these drug lords have no problem getting their hands on them, and the government is having a difficult time getting a grip on the problem.Â
 @JLS1950 You obviously know nothing of history. Our military wouldn't be brought to bear like that, guns are also not just a physical deterrent to tyranny, they are a symbolic one too. As in, the more power that the government feels like the population has, the less corrupt they will be.
Â
We don't have a military political party in the US like places like China, Egypt and others do, so our military would not cooperate with orders to nuke the population or use heavy weaponry. However, enough of them might cooperate with light enough equipment that us keeping assault weapons would make the difference.
Â
Go back to school, you obviously flunked history if you forget that Hitler and Stalin took away the guns, and they were democratically elected.Â
@NWCoin
You obviously know nothing of current anti-terrorism law. Challenge the U.S. Government using a firearm, and you can land yourself in Gitmo or in a funerary urn.
Hitler did not take away guns, per se: he just took EVERYTHING away from Jews. Everyone else had their guns - for whatever good it did.
And if you think EITHER Hitler of Stalin was "democratically elected", then it is YOU who either flunked history or else simply cut class every single day of the term!
 @NWCoin ...and just which part of... "passed what is known as âErmächtigungsgesetzâ (Gesetz zur Behebung der Not von Volk und Reich) ["Law to Remedy the Distress of the People and the Reich"], a law that allowed the Nazi/Deutschnationale Coalition to govern WITHOUT THE CONSENT OF PARLIAMENT" ...did you neglect to read and understand?
This was done BEFORE Hitler came to power. Moreover, Hitler NEVER was elected Head of State: he merely ASSUMED that position when Hindenburg died (very "conveniently", I might add.)
Before you go calling OTHER people "idiot"...
 @JLS1950 You're an idiot, that's how people get elected in Parliamentary systems in Europe. Jesus, you obviously never took world history or comparative politics.Â
 @NWCoin Did you actually READ this article, bent nickle?
"The idea that Hitler wasnât elected democratically is probably an allusion to the fact that he[2] never got more than 50% of the votes (the best result was some 44%). Americans, with their âthe winner takes it allâ-system tend to forget that you can win a german election without winning a majority.
"To put the results into perspective, the 43,9% for the NSDAP in the 1933 election was the best result any party had ever had in the Republic of Weimar from 1919 to 1933"
"...Governments were habitually formed without any democratic basis at all, so the result of the 1933 election might have looked like a step forward.
"It turned out that there is yet another way to govern without a majority â in March 1933 the german parliament passed what is known as âErmächtigungsgesetzâ (Gesetz zur Behebung der Not von Volk und Reich) ["Law to Remedy the Distress of the People and the Reich"], a law that allowed the Nazi/Deutschnationale Coalition to govern without the consent of the parliament."
If you understand how parliamentary government works - which is a bit like our Electoral College system but without even a small fraction of the controls and safeguards - then you understand that it is the Parliament - not the people - which elects the Chancellor (which is not even the head of State Pres. Paul von Hindenburg held that role.)
But in Germany, a law was passed - an illegal law actually - that allowed just two parties to form a coalition and govern (legislate) without consent even of parliament. The Deutschnationale Volkspartei was a very conservative party controlled primarily by German industrialists and bankers, nationalists, reactionary monarchists, völkisch, and antisemitic elements - but it did not have the support to gain power except by forming a coalition with the Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei (NSDAP or "Nazi"). The law was passed - and the coalition formed - for the explicit purpose of locking out the leftist parties - especially the Social Democrats and the Communists.
Moreover, even before this cooked "election", Adolf Hitler had already been APPOINTED Chancellor of Germany by Pres. Paul von Hindenburg - not elected at all - and so was already "incumbent" in some sense. But he was still not Head of State. Rather, upon the death of von Hindenburn in 1934, Hitler simply declared the presidency "vacant" and named HIMSELF Head of State without any election whatsoever!
So the fact yet remains that in 1933-34 the Nazi party DID NOT come into power on any sort of direct majority vote of the people of Germany - but rather on the basis of some backroom dealing designed to keep the ultra-RIGHT-wing DNVP in a position of power in alliance with the almost equally right wing NSDAP (Nazis) - which the DNVP leaders thought they could control. They were wrong: one of the first things Hitler did was to eviscerate the DNVP leadership - LITERALLY - in the "Night of the Long Knives" (which lasted much longer than one night, BTW, and also wiped out the LEFT wing of the Nazi party as well as anyone else who could have been a threat to Hitler's power.)
I suggest you quit digging up "proof texts" and posting without first reading them and understanding them to see what they really tell one: it merely exposes you as a fool who doesn't even read his own links.
 @JLS1950 Hitler was elected smart guy, and so were the Soviet candidates, though they often ran unopposed.
Â
http://diebesteallerzeiten.de/blog/2009/02/19/was-hitler-democratically-elected/
This comment has been deleted
@JLS1950 @Rick4001CS Sorry your VP Bidden wrote the patriot act.
 @JLS1950 You are correct even though the point of your thrust is easily deflected. You see, Obama has taken what Bush/Cheney started and ramped it up to a whole new level. I would at least give the Bush/Cheney team the benefit of a doubt when it comes to targeting and assassinating AMERICANS. King Obama on the other hand (OTOH) has already proven that he will target and assassinate American citizens. I fear his tyranny.
 @Rick4001CS Actually, it was Cheney who dreamed up the whole idea. He seems a pretty typical gun nut, too, given his great prowess at hunting... his "friends"!
Exactly JLS, and be declared a terrorist by King Obama and detained indefinitely without legal representation. FOREVER! Or, you could end up on the monitor of some pimple faced puke at CIA HQ in Virginia as he fly's a Hellfire fired from a Drone into your living room. See what the hell people are talking about when they start using the word TYRANNY and GOVERNMENT in the same sentence! And the liberals want us disarmed.....