It's the Guns, Stupid

Apr 20, 2007 | Posted by: roboblogger | Full story: Truthdig

“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

Comments (Page 4,825)

Showing posts 96,481 - 96,500 of103,232
|
Go to last page| Jump to page:

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#103057
Mar 25, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#103058
Mar 25, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#103059
Mar 25, 2013
 
Where were the guns, Stupid?http://www.pressconnect s.com/article/20130325/NEWS01/ 303250025
downhill246

Boca Raton, FL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#103060
Mar 25, 2013
 
AnnAgain wrote:
<quoted text>
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.


Sounds great but the court consider the "arms"of the 2nd Amendment those weapons normally carried by a soldier and last time I checked atomic weapons weren't on that list.
AnnAgain

Oakland, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#103061
Mar 25, 2013
 
downhill246 wrote:
<quoted text>
Sounds great but the court consider the "arms"of the 2nd Amendment those weapons normally carried by a soldier and last time I checked atomic weapons weren't on that list.
The 2nd amendment lists weapons? Who dropped you humorless idiot on your empty head?

Since: Dec 10

Perth, Australia

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#103062
Mar 25, 2013
 

Judged:

1

AnnAgain wrote:
<quoted text>
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.
I know what you have spouted is the rantings of a madman and shouldn't be responded to but several relevant points need to be made to educate you to the reality of why we are all still here.
Humans were not born with tools and weapons strapped to their person yet they survived, not because of "weapons" but in spite of them simply because of evolution made them adapt to their enviroment quicker than any of the other species of man....It appears homo sapiens sapiens outlived the other species of humans because their bodies, eyes, ears noses etc adapted faster to their environment, even after the baby Ice age when the temperature altered by a whopping 6 degrees and they lost their original food source they adapted to find new ones and farm them to keep them alive, if they had not triumphed then none of us would be here today.....and all this without a weapons.....Go figure genius.
downhill246

Boca Raton, FL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#103065
Mar 25, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

1

AnnAgain wrote:
<quoted text>
The 2nd amendment lists weapons? Who dropped you humorless idiot on your empty head?
Easy there AnnAgain, you are just bitter because of everyone you know, you are the only person whose anti-depressants are prescribed by a proctologist.

Since: Dec 10

Perth, Australia

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#103066
Mar 25, 2013
 

Since: Feb 13

United States

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#103067
Mar 25, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Ahomana wrote:
<quoted text>
I know what you have spouted is the rantings of a madman and shouldn't be responded to but several relevant points need to be made to educate you to the reality of why we are all still here.
Humans were not born with tools and weapons strapped to their person yet they survived, not because of "weapons" but in spite of them simply because of evolution made them adapt to their enviroment quicker than any of the other species of man....It appears homo sapiens sapiens outlived the other species of humans because their bodies, eyes, ears noses etc adapted faster to their environment, even after the baby Ice age when the temperature altered by a whopping 6 degrees and they lost their original food source they adapted to find new ones and farm them to keep them alive, if they had not triumphed then none of us would be here today.....and all this without a weapons.....Go figure genius.
The ancient peoples did have weapons though, even the cave men, some were found on the 'ice man', ever heard of him. Sorry but I cant remember where he was found, he even had arrow heads in the pouch he was carrying. Off the subject a little bit, but still interesting, he had tatoos, so even that artform dates back to prehistoric times. I guess that ole saying is true, the more things change the more they stay the same.
downhill246

Boca Raton, FL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#103068
Mar 25, 2013
 
Ahomana wrote:
http://www.youtube.com/watch...

Way to go, Steve Lee.
Spocko

Oakland, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#103069
Mar 25, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Ahomana wrote:
<quoted text>
I know what you have spouted is the rantings of a madman and shouldn't be responded to but several relevant points need to be made to educate you to the reality of why we are all still here.
Humans were not born with tools and weapons strapped to their person yet they survived, not because of "weapons" but in spite of them simply because of evolution made them adapt to their enviroment quicker than any of the other species of man....It appears homo sapiens sapiens outlived the other species of humans because their bodies, eyes, ears noses etc adapted faster to their environment, even after the baby Ice age when the temperature altered by a whopping 6 degrees and they lost their original food source they adapted to find new ones and farm them to keep them alive, if they had not triumphed then none of us would be here today.....and all this without a weapons.....Go figure genius.
Good Lord man, get s sense of humor and while you're at get a life
Sir Bucking Fastard

UK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#103070
Mar 25, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Ahomana wrote:
<quoted text>
I know what you have spouted is the rantings of a madman and shouldn't be responded to but several relevant points need to be made to educate you to the reality of why we are all still here.
Humans were not born with tools and weapons strapped to their person yet they survived, not because of "weapons" but in spite of them simply because of evolution made them adapt to their enviroment quicker than any of the other species of man....It appears homo sapiens sapiens outlived the other species of humans because their bodies, eyes, ears noses etc adapted faster to their environment, even after the baby Ice age when the temperature altered by a whopping 6 degrees and they lost their original food source they adapted to find new ones and farm them to keep them alive, if they had not triumphed then none of us would be here today.....and all this without a weapons.....Go figure genius.
And THANK YOU for further exposing YOUR COMPLETE and TOTAL INVETERATE IGNORANCE!!!

You say that "Humans were not born with tools and weapons strapped to their person (sic)."

BUT, YOU COMPLETELY, and TOTALLY neglect to remark of that facility of which all humans are born: A BRAIN.

GOT BRAINS? No, YOU DO NOT!!

Well, if YOU do possess such, then YOU CERTAINLY DO NOT evince any such with your BLATHERING!!!

Since MOST humans (yourself not included, and that would explain much) have brains, then that matter of TOOLS is foremost, amongst which would be GUNS, KNIVES, and EXPLOSIVES!!!

So then, QUEEN OF STENCH (WHEW!!!) YOU once again have LOST YOUR ARGUMENT!!!

Now, GO AWAY!!! You make me retch!!
Boss Man

Oaxaca, Mexico

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#103071
Mar 25, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

1

America was made with firearms! Americans love firearms. Our Founding Fathers kicked ass with firearm so we would not have to live under a tyrranical dictatorship like many countries do. When they rebel the wish they had firearms. Our Nation has been called upon by many countries in Great need of our firearms. Every citizen that does not have a firearm and needs a policeman is only calling a man with a gun because hes to stupid to keep and carry his own firearm. Americans will fight to keep their guns. Any American who does not want a gun is not required to keep one. Its a personal preference and would that should not be taken lightly. Its a God given inalienable right and we will keep our guns forever. Anyone who does not like an Armed Society should get on the first boat or plane and get the fuck outa Dodge. I hate control freaks! And i hate idiots who vote for the socialistic communist inspired bastards too.!

Since: Dec 10

Perth, Australia

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#103072
Mar 25, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

crawlfish wrote:
<quoted text>The ancient peoples did have weapons though, even the cave men, some were found on the 'ice man', ever heard of him. Sorry but I cant remember where he was found, he even had arrow heads in the pouch he was carrying. Off the subject a little bit, but still interesting, he had tatoos, so even that artform dates back to prehistoric times. I guess that ole saying is true, the more things change the more they stay the same.
You and the those that ticked your post obviously didn't read my post correctly, if you go back and read it again you will realise that man live a long time without weapons and his survival in the beginning wasn't because of tools or weapons, especially bombs?....Sheesh educating people is soooo hard.

Since: Dec 10

Perth, Australia

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#103073
Mar 25, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Boss Man wrote:
America was made with firearms! Americans love firearms. Our Founding Fathers kicked ass with firearm so we would not have to live under a tyrranical dictatorship like many countries do. When they rebel the wish they had firearms. Our Nation has been called upon by many countries in Great need of our firearms. Every citizen that does not have a firearm and needs a policeman is only calling a man with a gun because hes to stupid to keep and carry his own firearm. Americans will fight to keep their guns. Any American who does not want a gun is not required to keep one. Its a personal preference and would that should not be taken lightly. Its a God given inalienable right and we will keep our guns forever. Anyone who does not like an Armed Society should get on the first boat or plane and get the fuck outa Dodge. I hate control freaks! And i hate idiots who vote for the socialistic communist inspired bastards too.!
No countries didn't call on you, you bullied your way there or sent your guns and bombs to creat havoc in their countries...Owning guns is not a god given right, if it is show me where it says that in any bible save the one in your mind. If you think that those who follow the law are wrong then move to get rid of your cops and soldiers and see how far you get with your gun...oops now all the anarchist have them....how long do you think YOU would last in such a lawless society...not long I am betting. You would not have a president or a country if the British hadn't given...yes, I said given it back to you...the British along with the Canadians had the president and his men on the run and had taken possession of the presidents mansion....You only got back your country and now white house through the generosity of the British and dare I say Canadian armies.....so how do you like them bickies buddy boy.

Tell me when this thread is updated: (Registration is not required)

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

Showing posts 96,481 - 96,500 of103,232
|
Go to last page| Jump to page:
Type in your comments below
Name
(appears on your post)
Comments
Characters left: 4000
Type the numbers you see in the image on the right:

Please note by clicking on "Post Comment" 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.

•••
•••
•••
•••