It's the Guns, Stupid

Apr 20, 2007 Full story: Truthdig 103,368

“And that's the end of the issue”

Why do we have the same futile argument every time there is a mass killing? Advocates of gun control try to open a discussion about whether more reasonable weapons statutes might reduce the number of violent ... via Truthdig

Full Story

Since: Oct 11

Location hidden

#103035 Mar 24, 2013
Teaman wrote:
The constitution leaves social issues to the states or the people as per the 9th and 10th amendments. It didn't leave the federal government that responsibility.
Then explain the Thirteenth(13th) Amendment, a clear cut case of the federal government superseding the will/wants/desires of some states for the betterment of its people/the Nation as a whole.

Since: Oct 11

Location hidden

#103036 Mar 24, 2013
Teaman wrote:
I still don't get your point. Would you feel better if they all had just one round in each child?
I would feel better if they had no bullets in them and were still alive to live their lives, enjoy their childhoods, grow to become the people they would be and live their lives as they chose, much the same as each and every one of us are and have been able to do, an inherent right of every person which was taken away from the children and their teachers by that murderer.
Teaman wrote:
I still don't get your point.


The point is that the killer wouldn't have been able to murder so many children and people had they not had a high round capacity weapon.

Since: Oct 11

Location hidden

#103037 Mar 24, 2013
Teaman wrote:
<quoted text>
An attempt at providing a different perspective you may understand. Banning abortions would make them go away, right? Like banning guns would do the same thing.
The banning of guns is the topic.
Only CERTAIN guns, NOT all of them, sheesh!

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#103038 Mar 24, 2013
just an allusion wrote:
<quoted text>
And now you're introducing Slavery in order to deflect the conversation from the actual subject at hand?!?
<quoted text>
Inasmuch as states cannot impose laws that violate Federal authority/mandate/the U.S. Constitution, just how far do you think Oklahoma and Texas are going to get with that?
Paying lip service to some wishful thinking does not make it actionable and/or valid law.
you don't know Sen. Dianne Feinstein then which is what she basically told Sen. Ted Cruz which is legislate a law that is unconstitutional like her Assault Weapons Ban and let the Federal Court System hammer it out and make the ruling which like Ted Cruz told her that her Assault Weapons Ban violated the US Constitution to begin with and he was Right but her excuse was she isn't a lawyer like Sen. Ted Cruz.

Since: Oct 11

Location hidden

#103039 Mar 24, 2013
Anonymous of Indy wrote:
<quoted text>here is the proof & link again with the SCOTUS Cases where the SCOTUS incorporated the Bill of Rights which you keep over looking and the link that has been posted several times and the reason you keep overlooking the link is because it does not fit your agenda just like the ruling in McDonald v. Chicago in 2010 does not fit Dianne Feinstein's agenda either.
Specific amendments
Many of the provisions of the First Amendment were applied to the States in the 1930s and 1940s, but most of the procedural protections provided to criminal defendants were not enforced against the States until the Warren Court of the 1960s, famous for its concern for the rights of those accused of crimes, brought state standards in line with federal requirements. The following list enumerates, by amendment and individual clause, the Supreme Court cases that have incorporated the rights contained in the Bill of Rights.(The Ninth Amendment is not listed; its wording indicates that it "is not a source of rights as such; it is simply a rule about how to read the Constitution." The Tenth Amendment is also not listed; by its wording, it is a reservation of powers to the states and to the people.)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incorporation_of...
Again, if there were any REAL actionable cause there, then why haven't they pursued it in the courts?

Since: Oct 11

Location hidden

#103040 Mar 24, 2013
Anonymous of Indy wrote:
<quoted text>Assault Rifle not used in Sandy Hook Shooting
http://americanlivewire.com/assault-rifle-not...
Coroner Confirms: No Assault Weapon Used in Sandy Hook Shooting
http://conservativebyte.com/2013/01/coroner-c...
Police Find Long Gun In Trunk Of Car In Sandy Hook Parking Lot: Newtown Connecticut School Shooting
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v =wLrxSgkqJQcXX
Sandy Hook bushmaster found in trunk was not found and he explains why.
http://www.youtube.com/watch...
All of this BS you posted has already been addressed and dispelled in the news, the court and via law enforcement spokespersons.

Since: Oct 11

Location hidden

#103042 Mar 24, 2013
Anonymous of Indy wrote:
<quoted text>you don't know Sen. Dianne Feinstein then which is what she basically told Sen. Ted Cruz which is legislate a law that is unconstitutional like her Assault Weapons Ban and let the Federal Court System hammer it out and make the ruling which like Ted Cruz told her that her Assault Weapons Ban violated the US Constitution to begin with and he was Right but her excuse was she isn't a lawyer like Sen. Ted Cruz.
You do understand/are aware that state Senators and Representatives are Federal employees...Right?

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#103043 Mar 24, 2013
just an allusion wrote:
<quoted text>
Again, if there were any REAL actionable cause there, then why haven't they pursued it in the courts?
cases already have and been pursued which now all the Bill of Rights( the 1st 10 amendments of the US Constitution) have been Incorporated down to the State Level by the SCOTUS over the years and 2nd amendment was the last one in 2010.

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#103044 Mar 24, 2013
just an allusion wrote:
<quoted text>
You do understand/are aware that state Senators and Representatives are Federal employees...Right?
no there is a difference between State & Federal elected officials.

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#103045 Mar 24, 2013
just an allusion wrote:
<quoted text>
All of this BS you posted has already been addressed and dispelled in the news, the court and via law enforcement spokespersons.
not BS at all only from the people that know no difference believe that.

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#103046 Mar 24, 2013
just an allusion wrote:
<quoted text>
All of this BS you posted has already been addressed and dispelled in the news, the court and via law enforcement spokespersons.
NBC Admitted: No 'Assault Rifle' Used in Newtown Shooting

http://www.ijreview.com/2013/01/30208-nbc-adm...
Tray

Tupelo, MS

#103047 Mar 25, 2013
just an allusion wrote:
<quoted text>
And now you're introducing Slavery in order to deflect the conversation from the actual subject at hand?!?
<quoted text>
Inasmuch as states cannot impose laws that violate Federal authority/mandate/the U.S. Constitution, just how far do you think Oklahoma and Texas are going to get with that?
Paying lip service to some wishful thinking does not make it actionable and/or valid law.
Just as passing laws that violate the Constitutional protected rights are not valid. Gun control laws violate the Constitution there fore are invalid so yes states can ignore them.

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#103050 Mar 25, 2013
Tray wrote:
<quoted text> Just as passing laws that violate the Constitutional protected rights are not valid. Gun control laws violate the Constitution there fore are invalid so yes states can ignore them.
Exactly Right.

“Si vis pacem, para bellum !!”

Since: Dec 07

Southeast Virginia

#103051 Mar 25, 2013
just an allusion wrote:
<quoted text>
If the weapons were not available to ANYONE, then NO ONE could get their hands on them, be they honest citizens or criminals...PERIOD!

There are already MILLIONS of them on the street in the hands of criminals. And as the saying goes.....you can't put the toothpaste back inthe tube. And when they can't get them from were they want, they will simply make there own. Hell...we can't even keep weapons out of prisons. Firearms have even found there way into jail cells.

Please tell me you have not reproduced.
Teaman

Mount Holly, NJ

#103053 Mar 25, 2013
just an allusion wrote:
<quoted text>
Then explain the Thirteenth(13th) Amendment, a clear cut case of the federal government superseding the will/wants/desires of some states for the betterment of its people/the Nation as a whole.
I believe there was a civil war just prior to that amendment. Although one way to propose an amendment is through congress, the states amend the constitution. I would have to research that to see if southern states had seats in congress yet. The 14th was passed using extortion. The southern states were required to vote for it in order to regain their seats. It is possible the same was required for the 13th.

Both amendments were needed to overcome the Dred Scott decision. They are an extension of the 5th amendment and not a social issue. A state can add rights, but can't take away rights found in the bill of rights. The states already had the other rights incorporated into their own constitutions. The point is, the federal government can't take them away. The danger now is we are being ruled by nine unelected justices legislating from the bench using selective incorporation.
Teaman

Mount Holly, NJ

#103054 Mar 25, 2013
just an allusion wrote:
<quoted text>
Only CERTAIN guns, NOT all of them, sheesh!
Not by the federal government. They are banned in my state.

I believe the state was mentioned in the court decision you posted.
Teaman

Mount Holly, NJ

#103055 Mar 25, 2013
just an allusion wrote:
<quoted text>
And now you're introducing Slavery in order to deflect the conversation from the actual subject at hand?!?
<quoted text>
Inasmuch as states cannot impose laws that violate Federal authority/mandate/the U.S. Constitution, just how far do you think Oklahoma and Texas are going to get with that?
Paying lip service to some wishful thinking does not make it actionable and/or valid law.
Again, the object and not the principle. Some states didn't return escaped slaves in violation of federal law. It was about the states going against the fed, not slavery.

The states can [ignore] unconstitutional federal laws.
downhill246

Boca Raton, FL

#103057 Mar 25, 2013
just an allusion wrote:
<quoted text>
I think you're overlooking the ruling in District of Columbia v Heller....
p.s. Believe me when I tell you this: I am perhaps the last person around here that anyone would want to go head-to-head with in a legal battle/a battle of legal precedents.
<quoted text>
Admittedly, this point is debatable and likely fraught with much supposition and conjecture, though I'd have to conclude that the Government, and the Courts, would hinge their decision on basic Common Sense.
<quoted text>
I do not understand the relevance of this comment to the linear progression of the discussion...Perhaps you'd care to clarify"?"
Yet Heller agrees that the right to keep and bear arms is an individual right not dependent on one being a member of a militia. Again the BOR merely secures pre-existing rights which the court in Cruikshank made clear.

As far as common sense goes that is rather subjective, don't you think? The court ruled 5 to 4 in Heller's favor. In your opinion did the majority or the minority use the most common sense?
The example was to show you that in the era that the amendment was written, the citizens often have more sophisticated arms than the military did.
AnnAgain

Oakland, CA

#103058 Mar 25, 2013
downhill246 wrote:
<quoted text>
Yet Heller agrees that the right to keep and bear arms is an individual right not dependent on one being a member of a militia. Again the BOR merely secures pre-existing rights which the court in Cruikshank made clear.
As far as common sense goes that is rather subjective, don't you think? The court ruled 5 to 4 in Heller's favor. In your opinion did the majority or the minority use the most common sense?
The example was to show you that in the era that the amendment was written, the citizens often have more sophisticated arms than the military did.
I am making a dispassionate plea for the legalization of home ownership of
atomic weapons, based on the freedom to bear arms; the fact that that all
radioactive substances are well contained within the bomb casing itself
(i.e. no leakage); the obvious fact that it's not bombs that kill people,
but bombers; and the need for escalation in the war of protection.
I do not want to appeal to yours sense of charity or goodwill; these have
always been besides the point. Humans were meant to carry weapons;
the first tools of man and woman were hand-axes for smiting the enemy,
and, were it not for these tools, the most intelligent of our species
might already have been killed, tortured, maimed. It is weapons, in other
words, that keep us free, giving us the ability to say whatever we please.
And as it has been pointed out, over and over again, if it were not for
people like me, the rest of you would be enslaved forever.
Private ownership of atomic weaponry in the United States would give us a
competitive edge on others who would take away our freedom! And we cannot
assume our armed forces will protect us everywhere in this huge land of
ours; the dispersion of weaponry would ensure that we could fight along
with them, tooth and nail. It was Darwin who pointed out that the strongest
among us are those with the will to survive, acquiring atomic weaponry
at almost any cost, as guaranteed in our Declaration of Independence
(last part, near the signatures).
Remember: It is bombers who kill, not bombs. There is no reason whatsoever,
logical or illogical, that advanced weapons should not be made
available to the general public. The number of bombs in the entire United
States probably amounts to about four or five demented individuals, who
could not afford even a handgun, much less something on the order of
100,000 kilotons. So I urge you: Write your congressman (forget the women)
or better yet: write the United Nations (United Nations, 1 United Nations
Plaza, New York City). If we all do this, both buyers and sellers will
emerge out of the darkness, and our government will capitulate to what,
after all, is our right and our inheritance.

Since: Apr 11

Location hidden

#103059 Mar 25, 2013
Where were the guns, Stupid?http://www.pressconnect s.com/article/20130325/NEWS01/ 303250025

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Guns Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Ferguson braces for grand jury decision 2 hr CSM1 6
Texas law professor calls for repeal of Second ... (Nov '13) 5 hr obama crime syndi... 12,172
Magnum Research Introduces Stainless Steel Dese... 11 hr Here Is One 1
Concealed carry does not make us safer (Nov '09) Tue fae31 6,985
Texas open carry is shooting itself in the foot Dec 20 Independent1 9
Open Carry Activist Charged With Shooting Ex-Hu... Dec 13 Here Is One 3
Deer Hunting Time Dec 9 kurtcooksalot16 1
More from around the web