It's the Guns, Stupid

It's the Guns, Stupid

There are 103299 comments on the Truthdig story from Apr 20, 2007, titled It's the Guns, Stupid. In it, Truthdig reports that:

“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

Join the discussion below, or Read more at Truthdig.

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#103142 Mar 26, 2013
just an allusion wrote:
<quoted text>
I'm STILL waiting for you to PROVE. IT.
Like I've said before too "just an allusion"...YOU ARE DELUSIONAL!!! especially when it comes to the Facts.

“Si vis pacem, para bellum !!”

Since: Dec 07

Southeast Virginia

#103143 Mar 26, 2013
Spocko wrote:
<quoted text>
You brain-dead too? I have guns, I shoot targets every Sunday morning with my marine buddies, none of us supports the absurdities of you freaking gun-a-holics!
Sure you do.

Since: Oct 11

Location hidden

#103144 Mar 26, 2013
Teaman wrote:
I believe there was a civil war just prior to that amendment.


Yes, and it was the whole reason for the Amendment because the suppression of some peoples' "inalienable...self evident" right to be treated as all others, given the all-too-obvious fact that "all men are created equal", was being violated by certain narrow-minded, small-brained, hate-mongering racists, though my point was that it is not solely up to the states to decide "social issues" as the Federal government has more than adequately been recognized as the leading authority in such matters.
Teaman wrote:
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.
Got any proof of this, or is this just more anarchistic, anti-government propaganda?
Teaman wrote:
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.


Actually the point is that, while a state CAN add rights that either supplement those set in place by the Constitution/the Federal government, none of those newly devised rights can neither supercede or circumvent the Federally defined outlines of said rights.
Teaman wrote:
The danger now is we are being ruled by nine unelected justices legislating from the bench using selective incorporation.
As the highest court in the United States, whose roots are based in the inception of the United States their selves, that has ultimate appellate jurisdiction over ALL federal courts and over state court cases involving issues of federal law, and original jurisdiction over a small range of cases, we pretty much have always been, the only difference now/the reason for the animosity is that they're not deciding matters in YOUR favor...You cannot dispel the wisdom of ages merely because it doesn't coincide with/support your new world view of this or that matter.

Hey! Anarchist, if you don't like the US, why don't you leave it? if you really want to go, I can secure you a berth on the next cargo ship heading away from here for parts unknown.
Spocko

Oakland, CA

#103146 Mar 26, 2013
Armed Veteran wrote:
<quoted text>
Sure you do.
And unlike you, I also have a brain ...:-)
downhill246

Boca Raton, FL

#103147 Mar 26, 2013
Spocko wrote:
<quoted text>
You brain-dead too? I have guns, I shoot targets every Sunday morning with my marine buddies, none of us supports the absurdities of you freaking gun-a-holics!
Gee, most of the former military I know support my absurdities including the ones that shoot with me.
Go figure.

Since: Oct 11

Location hidden

#103148 Mar 26, 2013
Teaman wrote:
<quoted text>
Not by the federal government. They are banned in my state.
I believe the state was mentioned in the court decision you posted.
So, you're telling me that ALL guns are banned in New Jersey?

Since: Oct 11

Location hidden

#103149 Mar 26, 2013
Teaman wrote:
<quoted text>
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.
Then explain to me what you perceive to be "unconstitutional" about banning slavery and, following the "principle" of that answer, what you perceive to be "unconstitutional" about banning access by the general public-at-large to certain types of firearms for their own safety, you know, much like the Federal government imposed speed limitations, seat belt laws, and restricted the use of certain chemicals and toxins in our foodstuffs, and any number of other Federally-backed restrictions/limitations oriented towaeds, basically, protecting us from ourselves.
downhill246

Boca Raton, FL

#103150 Mar 26, 2013
just an allusion wrote:
<quoted text>

<quoted text>
Got any proof of this, or is this just more anarchistic, anti-government propaganda?
<quoted text>
Hmmm... the 14th Amendment was also called the bayonet amendment. I wonder why, don't you?
Spocko

Oakland, CA

#103151 Mar 26, 2013
downhill246 wrote:
<quoted text>
Gee, most of the former military I know support my absurdities including the ones that shoot with me.
Go figure.
Birds of a feather ...
downhill246

Boca Raton, FL

#103152 Mar 26, 2013
just an allusion wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes, and it was the whole reason for the Amendment because the suppression of some peoples' "inalienable...self evident" right to be treated as all others, given the all-too-obvious fact that "all men are created equal", was being violated by certain narrow-minded, small-brained, hate-mongering racists, though my point was that it is not solely up to the states to decide "social issues" as the Federal government has more than adequately been recognized as the leading authority in such matters.
<quoted text>


The irony here lies in the fact that one of the main purposes of the 14th Amendment was to allow freed slaves to travel from one state to another while armed.
downhill246

Boca Raton, FL

#103153 Mar 26, 2013
Spocko wrote:
<quoted text>
Birds of a feather ...


stay warm in cold weather.
gubbub

Pittsburgh, PA

#103154 Mar 26, 2013

Excuses Are Reason for Human,,Guns have no excuses.

Since: Oct 11

Location hidden

#103155 Mar 26, 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.
NO ONE IS ARGUING AGAINST AN INDIVIDUALS' RIGHT TO BEAR ARMS!! NO ONE!!!

Why do you keep bringing it up?

The ONLY point of contention is whether or not anyone has any right, be it real or imagined, to possess/own ANY type of firearm...that is all.

Perhaps if you were to stop confusing the issue with innuendo, supposition and conjecture, we might actually be able to both realize some sort of progress in this debate...?

I get it that you THINK that you should be able to possess or own any type of firearm you'd like, I even understand that you THINK that the Constitution extends to you this perception of a right to own or possess any type of firearm that you like, but merely THINKING that you should doesn't lend any credence to the actuality/reality of the matter, nor will imposing your existentialistic ideology on the issue.

There are people out there in the World who THINK they should be allowed to rape other people, who THINK that they should be allowed to molest children, who THINK that they should be allowed to rob or murder people even, etc., etc., etc., ad infinitum, yet merely THINKING that one should be allowed to do or possess or own something does not stand to automatically confer any actual entitlement to the desire/want/possession/ownersh ip of such.

See what you get for thinking?
Sir Bucking Fastard

UK

#103156 Mar 26, 2013
Spocko wrote:
<quoted text>
You brain-dead too? I have guns, I shoot targets every Sunday morning with my marine buddies, none of us supports the absurdities of you freaking gun-a-holics!
YOU are a Lucking Fiar.
YOU have NO guns AT ALL, TUCKFARD!!!

Since: Oct 11

Location hidden

#103157 Mar 26, 2013
Someone You Know wrote:
Uh... if you look at world murder statistics (not just gun violence) the US is at about the middle of the spectrum so it's obvious it's not just about the guns, stupid.
I'm not giving mine up.
No one wants you to give up your gun...All that anyone has campaigned for are logical, reasonable, sensible restrictions on the TYPES of firearms the average person can have access to/ownership of, and more stringent background checks to keep ALL firearms out of the hands of criminals and the mentally impaired.

That's all!
Sir Bucking Fastard

UK

#103158 Mar 26, 2013
just an allusion wrote:
<quoted text>
NO ONE IS ARGUING AGAINST AN INDIVIDUALS' RIGHT TO BEAR ARMS!! NO ONE!!!
Why do you keep bringing it up?
The ONLY point of contention is whether or not anyone has any right, be it real or imagined, to possess/own ANY type of firearm...that is all.
Yeah? Well, what do YOU not understand about the RIGHT TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS SHALL N-O-T BE INFRINGED?
just an allusion wrote:
Perhaps if you were to stop confusing the issue with innuendo, supposition and conjecture, we might actually be able to both realize some sort of progress in this debate...?
TAKE YOUR OWN ADVICE, BITCH!
just an allusion wrote:
I get it that you THINK that you should be able to possess or own any type of firearm you'd like, I even understand that you THINK that the Constitution extends to you this perception of a right to own or possess any type of firearm that you like, but merely THINKING that you should doesn't lend any credence to the actuality/reality of the matter, nor will imposing your existentialistic ideology on the issue.
And YOU engage in nothing other than parsing, i.e., take a little here, take a little there, take some more later on until there is NOT A THING LEFT!

The DEATH of a THOUSAND CUTS!
just an allusion wrote:
There are people out there in the World who THINK they should be allowed to rape other people, who THINK that they should be allowed to molest children, who THINK that they should be allowed to rob or murder people even, etc., etc., etc., ad infinitum, yet merely THINKING that one should be allowed to do or possess or own something does not stand to automatically confer any actual entitlement to the desire/want/possession/ownersh ip of such.
See what you get for thinking?
But you talk ALL ABOUT YOURSELF with THAT statement!

In other words, you engage in that tactics otherwise known as casuistry, projection, and bloviation, all wrapped into one!
Sir Bucking Fastard

UK

#103159 Mar 26, 2013
just an allusion wrote:
<quoted text>
No one wants you to give up your gun...All that anyone has campaigned for are logical, reasonable, sensible restrictions on the TYPES of firearms the average person can have access to/ownership of, and more stringent background checks to keep ALL firearms out of the hands of criminals and the mentally impaired.
That's all!
BULLSHIT!

That's the fact of the matter, plain and simple.

What YOU are seeking is NOT 'gun-control.' Rather, what YOU are after is PEOPLE control.

You engage in 'GOLDILOCKS GUN-CONTROL':
This gun is too big, that gun is too small, this gun is too powerful, that one is too weak, this one is too black, and ugly, and that one is not pink enough.

Face it, YOU BITCH: YOU HATE GUNS, and THAT is the ONLY THING WHICH MATTERS.

Since: Oct 11

Location hidden

#103160 Mar 26, 2013
Anonymous of Indy wrote:
<quoted text>I know people who have worked as state and Federal Employees and there is a big difference even in pay scales & benefits and the Federal Employees get a hell of a lot better in benefits that State Employees you should Google it which I don't need to I know.
We were talking about state 'Senators' and state 'Representatives'...Just because their position title is prefaced by the term "state" does not make them 'state-level' employees!

You are displaying your idiocy!
Sir Bucking Fastard

UK

#103161 Mar 26, 2013
just an allusion wrote:
<quoted text>
Then explain to me what you perceive to be "unconstitutional" about banning slavery and, following the "principle" of that answer, what you perceive to be "unconstitutional" about banning access by the general public-at-large to certain types of firearms for their own safety, you know, much like the Federal government imposed speed limitations, seat belt laws, and restricted the use of certain chemicals and toxins in our foodstuffs, and any number of other Federally-backed restrictions/limitations oriented towaeds, basically, protecting us from ourselves.
YOU are so CFUKING ignorant of matters that you're a veritable idiot!
The U.S. Government has NO authority to regulate the wearing of seat belts, regulate roadway speeds, or even regulate the uses of whatever chemicals WITHIN STATE BORDERS.

The only reason those laws are enforced is because YOUR elected representatives in the several states AGREED to accept money as a BRIBE.

S HIT, you BITCH, YOU don't even know your own Federal Constitution, yet here YOU are pretentiously proffering up opinions which have ZERO validity!
Sir Bucking Fastard

UK

#103163 Mar 26, 2013
just an allusion wrote:
<quoted text>
We were talking about state 'Senators' and state 'Representatives'...Just because their position title is prefaced by the term "state" does not make them 'state-level' employees!
You are displaying your idiocy!
YET MORE IDIOCY from THE IDIOT!

Elected people in state offices are INDEED EMPLOYEES of the state, you DUMB SH IT!

VERY BIG HINT: WHO pays their wages?

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
News Congressman plans to introduce national conceal... 57 min duzitreallymatter 42
News Trump nominee will politicize Dept. of Justice 10 hr Dolly6807 2
News DNC Chair Frontrunner Rep. Keith Ellison (D-Min... 11 hr Trump your President 58
News Big Law Firms Target Your Second Amendment Rights 12 hr Say What 1
News 'Miss Sloane': Bad behavior on Capitol Hill 19 hr Frogface Kate 1
News Mapping Reform: Where are Things Likely to Change? Thu Scout1 1
News Hudson Proposes National Concealed Carry Bill Dec 6 duzitreallymatter 3
More from around the web