It's the Guns, Stupid

It's the Guns, Stupid

There are 103340 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: Dec 10

Perth, Australia

#103175 Mar 26, 2013
Teaman wrote:
<quoted text>
Just having a little fun. Canadians are very good people. A lot of them come here for the summer. Carrey may have ruined his career though. That would be the point of the remark.
I know you were Teaman, but just to note, I don't think Jim Carey is too worried about how he is perceived these days, he has made his money and plenty of it...and there are more people around the world that would agree with Jim Carey and watch his movies and anything he does because of his logical stance against guns.:)
Sir Bucking Fastard

UK

#103176 Mar 26, 2013
Ahomana wrote:
<quoted text>
Good on her, and up yours if you can't deal with a it you big sookie la la...go cry in a corner because the bwad little lady has hurt the poor wittle mans ego and he pissed his pants....where is your Mummy you does the wittle kid need a hug?...ROTFLMAO....you feckin' wuse!
Dearest QUEEN OF STINKYNESS, Your attempt at —ahem— humor is a total, and abject failure!

And, I my mommy were to give YOU a hug, it would pop-out that rotten di ldo from your stink crotch!!
:-))

Since: Dec 10

Perth, Australia

#103177 Mar 26, 2013
Teaman wrote:
<quoted text>
Negotiate to get what back if they sailed off in their ships? Washington was nothing more than a reprisal for the looting and burning of York in Canada. No strategic value. Baltimore was the port city they needed and failed to take it. But, you're half right. The Brits were more interested in trade with America than getting bogged down with another war while involved with Napoleon. The British dispute with America went moot when Napoleon was defeated.
Cotton was king at the time. I believe Massachusetts was also trading heavily with the UK at the time. They were going to secede from the union due to the war with the Brits.
Yes America was quite divided at the time because of trade, a good number of the States benefiting from the proceeds wanted the British to remain.

Since: Dec 10

Perth, Australia

#103178 Mar 26, 2013
Sir Bucking Fastard wrote:
<quoted text>
Dearest QUEEN OF STINKYNESS, Your attempt at —ahem— humor is a total, and abject failure!

A: it wasn't humor so much as giving you a taste of your own medicine pacha....women kick your arse on this thread you should just pop back where you came from it is not like anything you say has any worth....
And, I my mommy were to give YOU a hug, it would pop-out that rotten di ldo from your stink crotch!!
:-))
Well I will tell her that is what you think of her smelly parts and not to let you play with them anymore.....your Mammy is a ugly hairy mean bitch and she will knock you into the middle of next week when she finds out that you are getting owned by women she will think you are a sook...and you are.

Since: Nov 11

.

#103179 Mar 26, 2013
Ahomana wrote:
"Armed Veteran"
Luke 22:36
Now they didn't have firearms back then, but they did have swords, which were one of the "arms" of the day.
Waht for why Ahonama wantig guns ?Dob etter with sord chopchop like Cyrano haha

Bee look Topix

Since: Feb 13

Location hidden

#103180 Mar 26, 2013
Obama always ignores the Constitution when it interferes with his Socialist agenda. Why should gun control be any different?
Marauder

Valdez, AK

#103181 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!
"...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 where in the Constitution or the 2nd Amendment is the authority to do what you are asking...?...bearing in mind the full context of the 2nd Amendment.
hotline

Chisinau, Moldova

#103182 Mar 26, 2013
This is what you get america for electing a black president.
What do you expect ? of course he was going to be useless.

America is just going to spiral further and further down the toilet in the future.

This is what you get for flooding your nation with blacks,indians, muslims and other low class immigrants.

Enjoy your future.

Since: Dec 10

Perth, Australia

#103183 Mar 26, 2013
Cyrano de Bee wrote:
<quoted text>
Waht for why Ahonama wantig guns ?Dob etter with sord chopchop like Cyrano haha
Bee look Topix
Learn to speaka da iglish betta Syrup!
downhill246

Boca Raton, FL

#103184 Mar 26, 2013
just an allusion wrote:
<quoted text>
Irrelevant to the current topic of discussion...There's been more than enough distractive, diversionary BS in this discussion already, sheesh!


You asked but apparently didn't want an answer. Weird.
downhill246

Boca Raton, FL

#103185 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.
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?
You may assume whatever you wish to assume while you bloviate but that still doesn't necessarily make your assumptions accurate. The fact that SCOTUS has declared that the 2nd Amendment secures an individual right has rather far reaching ramifications. SCOTUS has declared that the right to keep and bear arms is a fundamental right meaning any gun control legislation is now subject to strict review rather than rational review. Passing restrictive gun laws that can possibly endanger lives with unproven benefits will not pass court muster.As an example restricting law abiding citizens to a seven round magazine in NYS certainly puts the law abiding citizen at a disadvantage since the criminal who could care less about gun laws will still have his Glock with a fifteen round magazine. Attorney Alan Gura who has the Heller and McDonald victories under his belt said the new NYS gun laws are unconstitutional.

Sen. Mike Lee (R-Utah) cited statistics showing that in nearly half of defensive firearm uses, there are two or more attackers, and in nearly 25 percent, there are three or more attackers.

Fordham Law Professor Johnson states that under the Supreme Court's decision in Heller, declaring the Second Amendment to protect a fundamental, individual right to keep and bear all bearable arms for defensive purposes, for gun-ban legislation to survive "requires something far more than simply rational basis. That is, it's not an automatic deference to whatever the legislature does, because now, what we're talking about is a constitutional right."

With that in mind we shall see which "responsible" gun laws survive constitutional challenges to our "fundamental"right to keep and bear arms.
Isn't thinking fun?
Teaman

Mount Holly, NJ

#103186 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.
Although slavery was legal at the time of Dred Scott, that wasn't the point. The point was some states [ignored] federal laws mandating the return of slaves to their owners. I believe we were talking about states ignoring federal laws. That was the principle, a state ignoring a federal law.

I was living in Texas when the federal government imposed the 55mph law. The local highway patrol did not enforce them. This is a perfect example of a federal one size fits all law. While the interstates were posted at 55mph, the local back roads were posted at 75mph. That's right, interstate 55, two lane back road 75. The federal government is the dumbest thing ever. While we're at it, the federal government mandated the thermostats be set at 68 degrees at the time to save heating fuel. I recall the governor at the time calling people in Washington idiots, they want us to burn up our air conditioners. I read in the newspaper about odd and even fuel lines due to a gas shortage up north. I was getting a free car wash with a fill-up. LOL. No one can screw up things worse than the federal government.

Seat belt laws are state laws. Seat belts are voluntary in New Hampshire. Equipping vehicles with them are a federal standard set. Using them is something different.

Protecting us from toxins and chemicals in foodstuffs is one thing the federal government is supposed to do. It doesn't protect us from ourselves, it protects us against corporate fraud and misrepresentation.
Teaman

Mount Holly, NJ

#103187 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>
Got any proof of this, or is this just more anarchistic, anti-government propaganda?
<quoted text>
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.
<quoted text>
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.
I think the point was missed. The amendment was needed to overcome a supreme court decision (Dred Scott). Any supreme court decision can be overcome by an amendment by the states if you can get 38 of them to agree on something.

I don't know how in the world you get Anarchist. An Anarchist is essentially a communist as true communism is stateless. I am for a constitutionally limited federal government. A central power that controls the means of production and distribution of products and property is heading toward a form of fascism.

Wisdom of ages, now that's funny. LOL The wisdom of ages should tell us how great societies of the past collapsed.

Cargo ship? Naw. With the exception of two years in N. Carolina, I grew up in Germany. Texas sounds good right now. Most of the family moved to Georgia. I'll think about your suggestion.

During reconstruction, the southern states had to take a loyalty oath and ratify the 14th amendment to be readmitted into the union and congress. A threat of further military was made.

http://www.apstudent.com/ushistory/outline9.p...

http://countrystudies.us/united-states/histor...
Teaman

Mount Holly, NJ

#103188 Mar 26, 2013
just an allusion wrote:
<quoted text>
So, you're telling me that ALL guns are banned in New Jersey?
The point was New Jersey banned them. I wouldn't impose that on an Arizona rancher on the Mexican border.

This central power, force, and control, and I emphasize control, works for you, doesn't it.

“Si vis pacem, para bellum !!”

Since: Dec 07

Southeast Virginia

#103189 Mar 26, 2013
Spocko wrote:
<quoted text>
And unlike you, I also have a brain ...:-)
Sure you do. But when was the last time you actually used it for something besides keeping your ears from touching each other?

“Si vis pacem, para bellum !!”

Since: Dec 07

Southeast Virginia

#103190 Mar 26, 2013
Ahomana wrote:
"Armed Veteran"
Luke 22:36
Now they didn't have firearms back then, but they did have swords, which were one of the "arms" of the day.
A: you are referencing passages from the bible that didn't apply to you or today...if it did you would probably still be slaves of the British master.....
A hell of a lot longer than someone who has been disarmed by their own willful ignorance.
A: People who only rely on guns to save their lives never last long, others that survive without them have stronger survival skills, they know how to talk their way out of a situation, calm a situation and trade their way out...so I doubt that a guy with a gun would come after me first he would want to get those that threaten him, and that would be you.
This coming from someone who lives on a penal colony. That's rich.
A: Yes we live on land that was originally a penal colony so we have had to deal with being downtrodden and have needed to effect our own survival, so we have evolved with these traits embedded in our genetic makeup, and that is what makes us strong and loyal to one another, it is called mate ship and it is the strongest force (militarily) that you can have, and we have it in spades...you on the other hand have always relied on numbers but with single mindedness you have been and are, aggressive and a bully, your prey is usually unarmed, under armed and under skilled and you don't balk at killing women, children or old men so you don't fight, you murder....Anyone can win with those ideals....We on the other hand seek and equal foe and don't harm innocents, because living on land that was once a penal colony you learn the value of all humanity....you yanks need a good dose.
And the above post just goes to prove you don't know WTF you are talking about. The firearm on my hip (when I choose to wear it) is NOT a go-to-it-first weapon. It is ALWAYS the last resort. As the typical hoplophobe you are, when you see a gun, all you see is aggression. My firearms are DEFENSIVE WEAPONS ONLY. They are there for when the talking stops and the bad guys get aggressive, or especially if they skip right past the talking part.

So tell the group, aussie....what are you going to do when you CAN'T talk your way out of a situation or when the bad guys simply have no interest in talking at all. Call the authorities and PRAY they get there in time???

As far as the rest of your post goes...I'm not sure who the "you" is in that, but it is definitely NOT me. And I will leave you with this bit of advice: If you ever find yourself in a fair fight....your tactics suck. In other words...there is NO SUCH THING as a fair fight. If you want fair, put on some gloves and get into a ring with a referee, but that isn't life.
Good Aussies

Iceland

#103191 Mar 26, 2013
Tyrants, or those with criminal intent, are always afraid of people who have means of self defense.

Since: Dec 10

Perth, Australia

#103195 Mar 27, 2013
Armed Veteran wrote:
And the above post just goes to prove you don't know WTF you are talking about. The firearm on my hip (when I choose to wear it) is NOT a go-to-it-first weapon. It is ALWAYS the last resort. As the typical hoplophobe you are, when you see a gun, all you see is aggression. My firearms are DEFENSIVE WEAPONS ONLY. They are there for when the talking stops and the bad guys get aggressive, or especially if they skip right past the talking part.

A: When you buy a gun you do so as an act of aggression grandpa, not because you are a peace lover.
So tell the group, aussie....what are you going to do when you CAN'T talk your way out of a situation or when the bad guys simply have no interest in talking at all. Call the authorities and PRAY they get there in time???

A: Yes that is exactly what I will rely on, because the authorities will be more likely to protect me than you who has a gun?

As far as the rest of your post goes...I'm not sure who the "you" is in that, but it is definitely NOT me.

A: Never is!

And I will leave you with this bit of advice: If you ever find yourself in a fair fight....your tactics suck. In other words...there is NO SUCH THING as a fair fight. If you want fair, put on some gloves and get into a ring with a referee, but that isn't life.

A: Well there is obviously no such a thing as a fair fight to YOU, so foretold is forewarned, thanks.(and you say you are not aggressive?)...it's not like I believed you yanks ever fought fair in the first place(read prior post) it is our(the Aussie survival instinct that can recognise these basic facts and adapt accordingly)So we'll be right mate, you don't need to worry about little ole' us. LOL.

Since: Dec 10

Perth, Australia

#103196 Mar 27, 2013
Teaman wrote:
<quoted text>
The point was New Jersey banned them. I wouldn't impose that on an Arizona rancher on the Mexican border.
This central power, force, and control, and I emphasize control, works for you, doesn't it.
Well maybe if the yanks stop sending guns accross the border they wouldn't the ranchers wouldn't have issues in Arizona, just a thought there Teaman....:)
Ahomona speaks for nobody

Kansas City, MO

#103197 Mar 27, 2013
Ahomana wrote:
<quoted text>Stupid crap deleted.
Why do you always try and make your arguments as if your speaking for the whole of Australia. Most Australians disagree with you, even in your states last election the shooters party gained seats in the senate. Shooting is becoming more popular here and most people like the USA.

Its you AHOMONA vs the USA people on this forum, not Australia vs USA get it right.

Australia does not support you AHOMONA.

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 D.C. chief: 'We will arrest armed protesters' (May '13) 22 hr Truth and Facts 639
News COD Offers Classes Promoting Firearm Safety thi... May 25 Dr David 1
News No wedding for Bristol Palin May 24 Tazo 9
Stop white on white crime May 20 Truth and Facts 30
News Concealed Carry Reduced Crime But NOT on Chicag... May 18 Truth and Facts 3
News Local Jews upset by Holocaust references in cam... (Jun '12) May 17 Robbie Siegmyer 115
News The Free Beacon Thinks Purchasing Ammunition Sh... May 17 JEFF1234 1
More from around the web