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
96,541 - 96,560 of 103,234 Comments Last updated Jun 22, 2014

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#103138
Mar 26, 2013
 
just an allusion wrote:
<quoted text>
And have subsequently been adjudicated as irrelevant and, summarily, dismissed as frivolous.
THAT'S the reason why there has been no mention in the news or anywhere else of the BS you've cited, because it is BS!
The US Constitution is not Bullshit at all but to most modern liberals feel the US Constitution is Bullshit especially the 2nd amendment is when it does not fit their agenda which is the way most Modern Liberals like Dianne Feinstein feel along with most of the Media today that is biased and is Liberal in the modern sense which they don't want people to know and realize that their Federal Bill of Rights under the US Constitution were striped from them and left up to the states because of the flaw in the 14th amendment and it was the SCOTUS that Incorporated the Bill down to the State Level and blame the public educational system by the Government for that beside 2010 was when the 2nd amendment which was the last amendment under the Bill of Rights to be Incorporated which the Modern Liberals cant stand became a right to all the states including Illinois so get over it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incorporation_of...

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#103139
Mar 26, 2013
 
just an allusion wrote:
<quoted text>
So, in your opinion, those responsible for reporting the news, deciding the outcome of legal matters, and instituting the laws, policies and procedures by which we interact with one another and the world around us "know no difference" between the truth and a lie"?"
Like I've said before...YOU. ARE. DELUSIONAL!!!
Like I've said before too "just an allusion"...YOU ARE DELUSIONAL!!! especially when it comes to the Facts.
Spocko

Oakland, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#103140
Mar 26, 2013
 
downhill246 wrote:
<quoted text>
Let me try that.
How incredibly sad when the dislike of guns defines a man's entire existence.
That works.
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!

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#103141
Mar 26, 2013
 
just an allusion wrote:
<quoted text>
Neither video in the link you provided worked...Got another link? One that works? Perhaps from the ACTUAL source and not some third-party
Or, maybe we need only take note of the "Editor's note" at the bottom of the page to debunk your claim:
"Editorís note: Connecticut State Police have confirmed that Adam Lanza did, in fact, use a Bushmaster .223 high capacity rifle and two hand guns. As far as we can tell, NBC has not issued a retraction."
Just scroll to the bottom of the page and read the notation directly above the Faceboof and Tumblr links.
just worked for me like I've said before too "just an allusion"...YOU ARE DELUSIONAL!!! especially when it comes to the Facts.

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#103144
Mar 26, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#103146
Mar 26, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

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

Boca Raton, FL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#103153
Mar 26, 2013
 
Spocko wrote:
<quoted text>
Birds of a feather ...


stay warm in cold weather.
gubbub

Pittsburgh, PA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#103154
Mar 26, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

http://www.youtube.com/watch...
Excuses Are Reason for Human,,Guns have no excuses.

Since: Oct 11

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#103155
Mar 26, 2013
 

Judged:

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.
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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#103156
Mar 26, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#103158
Mar 26, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

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!

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

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

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.

•••
•••