It's the Guns, Stupid

It's the Guns, Stupid

There are 103292 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.

spocko

Oakland, CA

#106588 May 4, 2013
GunShow1 wrote:
<quoted text>
Here, let THIS echo in that empty head of yours, kool-aid drinking troll:
"The right to vote, before this amendment to the constitution, was wholly granted or denied and regulated by the several states of the Union; and now the citizens of these United States have granted and guaranteed by national authority that which before they enjoyed--if enjoyed at all--at the will of the local or state governments. To make available the right to vote to all citizens of the United States without regard to race, color, or previous condition of servitude was the direct purpose of the fifteenth amendment. We cannot see therefore, how legislation which has this purpose directly in view cannot be appropriate because it was not directed against some denial or infringement by general or state legislation. The mode of the assertion of the constitutional right to vote in the fifteenth amendment is not altogether a novel feature in our constitution as has been remarked on a former occasion during the trial of this cause. "The privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended unless, when in cases of rebellion or invasion, the public safety may require it." Section 9, art. 1, par. 2. This clause comprehends the constitutional grant of the writ of habeas corpus under the form of an expression of denial of its suspension except in certain cases. Article 1st of the amendment to the constitution, is in these words: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, or abridging the freedom of speech; or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances." In this article it will be observed that the right to full liberty of religious faith, as regards any attempt to control it by the general government, secured to the citizen by the constitution of the United States, is granted under a form of expression, forbidding congress to make any law "prohibiting the free exercise thereof;" and that the right to a free press and free speech are granted under a form of expression denying their abridgment. So also with the right of the people to assemble and petition the government for a redress of grievances. Article 2d of the amendment is in these words: "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." This constitutional right to keep and bear arms, is thus conferred by the declaration that it shall not be "infringed."--Judge Edward Green Bradford, UNITED STATES v. GIVEN,[17 Int. Rev. Rec. 195.] Circuit Court. D. Delaware. 1873. Civil Rights--Violation BY State Officer--Powers of Congress.
Yawn zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
Guns don’t kill people, people kill people – oh really? Guns are harmless inanimate objects and do nothing. Well, I got news for you gunloons, so is a ham sandwich or any other inorganic object, problem with your semi-conscious logic is that your “harmless” gun is the only lethal and incredibly deadly object when combined with humans or perhaps monkeys as well. Of the tenths of thousand homicides by firearm in the US every year, how many fall into the "Protection from Tyranny" or "Resistance To Tyranny" categories? Can we ask these loons to get back to us with an argument that deals with reality?

For a moment there I thought it was SNL...
http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2013/05/...

“Evolved hunter/gatherer”

Since: Jan 08

Location hidden

#106589 May 4, 2013
Larry wrote:
<quoted text> ok I ve made my mind up, a gun is not just a tool, it is a tool designed to kill.
This is not just a tyre, its a tyre designed for travelling on sand. It be the seccond part of the rational that is important aye.
No. Any tool is designed for a particular purpose, and the second rationale that is important is that ALL tols can and do get misused.

Hammers are designed to strike things. Sometimes they get misused and are used to strike other humans.
Baseball bats are designed to hit something. Sometimes they are misused and they are used to hit people.
Knives are designed to cut things. Sometimes they are misused and idiots use them to cut humans.

What was water "designed" for Larry?

We have already covered that guns were designed to kill, and the fact that those tools too, unfortunately get misused.
It is a proper use of a gun designed to kill, to use it to kill what's for dinner.
It is a proper use of a gun designed to kill, to use it to kill when one's life is in emminent danger and under attack from another.

It is an improper use and misuse of a gun designed to kill, when it is used in a homicide of any kind or type.

“Evolved hunter/gatherer”

Since: Jan 08

Location hidden

#106590 May 4, 2013
Larry wrote:
<quoted text> ok I ve made my mind up, a gun is not just a tool, it is a tool designed to kill.
This is not just a tyre, its a tyre designed for travelling on sand. It be the seccond part of the rational that is important aye.
Possessing a thing, an inanimate object, is NOT a crime nor should it be. The misuse or abuse of that thing, or to use it in an act of crime of any type or kind, IS an improper use of a benign inanimate thing.
Penalize the criminal actions of a person and avoid penalizing those who merely possess a thing.

Guys have penises Larry, you know that. Should all penises be removed from all men simply because some men use theirs in acts of crime?
Yes, we know that Aho wants all penises removed, but it is you I am asking the question.

“Evolved hunter/gatherer”

Since: Jan 08

Location hidden

#106591 May 4, 2013
Gen wrote:
Sooner or later, there will be smart bullets on the counters. If you purchased a box, you will be fully responsible for your account.
Best regard,
It is unenforcible Gen.
Many folks load their own ammunition.

“Evolved hunter/gatherer”

Since: Jan 08

Location hidden

#106592 May 4, 2013
Ahomana wrote:
<quoted text>
last and for all, tell us what the people of Alaska and Wyoming will be losing exactly if gun control is enacted..ie what guns are the government wanting to ban and how many people in Alaska and Wyoming use them and how often will they be affected at all..and let us have a debate on what guns will effect in every state...Let us start with Alaska... if you are seriously intending to continue this line of bunkum ..Begin the debate....
Why do YOU think gun control laws affect......first State....ALASKA, and how?
Impossible to have this debate Aho. YOU are NOT a part of it. ONLY Americans allowed in the debate.

“Evolved hunter/gatherer”

Since: Jan 08

Location hidden

#106593 May 4, 2013
Ahomana wrote:
No takers eh! Gutless when it gets down to the nitty gritty, yemorons. Just proves you don't want a genuine debate because you are frightened of losing it....you are all just spewing propaganda because you are brainwashed lunatic gun lovers, with no leg to stand on when you have to actually state how it remotely affects any of you or your lifestyle. Go figure.
"actually state how it remotely affects any of you or your lifestyle"

That's the point Aho.

It does NOT effect you or your lifestyle so ... it's none of your beeswax.

“Evolved hunter/gatherer”

Since: Jan 08

Location hidden

#106594 May 4, 2013
Larry wrote:
<quoted text> good point.. Bit outdated
It is a moot point Larry, because the verbage in the constitution says "ALL" men. Keep in mind that the word "men" in that context meant mankind, which includes women too.
The fact that "ALL" men were not being given these same protections and priveledges, like voting and citizenship, at the time of the writing of the constitution, means that it became neccessary to specifically spell out what and who "ALL" meant. It became necessary to specifically and individually eliminate the situations that were in violation of the verbage as originally written. Civil rights and women's sufferage are essentially the same thing in this situation - two cases of where the word "ALL" was being ignored, until it was spelled out in amendment form.

That is similar to the inalienable right to keep and bear, in as much as it became necessary to point out specifically, that ALL men are born with a certain inalienable right to keep and bear, so they found it necessarry to specifically and particularly point out that the government has NO authority to overrule a natural inalienable right, which ALL men possess as a matter of their very births.

“Evolved hunter/gatherer”

Since: Jan 08

Location hidden

#106595 May 4, 2013
Ahomana wrote:
<quoted text>
So is some peoples attitude towards the meaning of the constitution.:)
Really?
You really think so?

Then tell us EXACTLY what the constitution means.

“Evolved hunter/gatherer”

Since: Jan 08

Location hidden

#106596 May 4, 2013
Ahomana wrote:
<quoted text>
so you ignored the laws back then when it suited you to deny a black mans rights, and now you believe it can't be done in regards to guns...a tad naive methinks.
"you believe it can't be done in regards to guns"
No one has said that it can not be done.
The point is that it is FORBIDDEN to be done.

"ignored the laws back then when it suited you to deny a black mans rights"
Yeah how about that Aho? EVIL dwells in the heart of man. Guess what? We fixed it.
Apples and oranges Aho.
You are either incredibly dense or unbelievably intentionally obtuse and deceitful.

“Evolved hunter/gatherer”

Since: Jan 08

Location hidden

#106597 May 4, 2013
Ahomana wrote:
<quoted text>
Well if they've been amended for, which these clearly state they have, they can be amended against eh!
You make the mistake of thinking and saying that the 2nd was a change or modification of the original verbage. You are incorrect.
The 2nd amendment changed nothing in the verbage or meaning. All it says is that the government has no authority to infringe upon what was already written and pointed out in the Declaration of Independence.

The 2nd does NOT say anything even remotely similar to " the people shall have a right to keep and bear arms"

It says "THE RIGHT". That means this inalienable right already exists, and the authority for that right comes from a prior source - namely our very births, as spelled out in the "self evident" paragraph of the DOI.

“Evolved hunter/gatherer”

Since: Jan 08

Location hidden

#106598 May 4, 2013
GunShow1 wrote:
<quoted text>
The Native Americans were defending their own land and rights. They had every right to war against a government that failed to abide by ANY of the treaties it had made. The Law of Nature/Nations makes that fact abundantly clear.
Yes.

“Evolved hunter/gatherer”

Since: Jan 08

Location hidden

#106599 May 4, 2013
Ahomana wrote:
<quoted text>
But the problem is there have been numerous cases where the rights and privileges of one group or another ?|"equal under the law" have been abridged, isn't that right.
Yes.
Moot point tho.
Men and women are imperfect creatures.

“Evolved hunter/gatherer”

Since: Jan 08

Location hidden

#106600 May 4, 2013
Ahomana wrote:
<quoted text>
if it has been done before, it can and will probably happen again.
No kidding.
The Utopia you pursue does not exist.

“Evolved hunter/gatherer”

Since: Jan 08

Location hidden

#106601 May 4, 2013
Ahomana wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes but some states already had freed their slaves and the bill of rights gave everyone the right to equality...even in this time...was that NOT the whole point of the exercise, you think???
So?
You have no point. In fact all you did was verify what the other poster had already written.

“Evolved hunter/gatherer”

Since: Jan 08

Location hidden

#106602 May 4, 2013
spider1954 wrote:
<quoted text>
I take your point and agree, but remember this, the constitution and bill of rights was new at that time. The difficulty here was getting all of the States to conform. Although the States are united they are efectivly individual of each other and therefore have differences, just the same as different countries that are allied in times of crisis.
Good analogy.
Mr Tumescent

UK

#106605 May 4, 2013
Aquarius-WY wrote:
<quoted text>
Good analogy.
Exactly! Just as any group of people might disagree otherwise about other things, they all agreed with the totality of the matters put forward, AND the thrust of the statements made, inasmuch as THEY all knew that in the finality of ALL things, EVERYONE would benefit in the end.
Mr Tumescent

UK

#106606 May 4, 2013
Aquarius-WY wrote:
<quoted text>
So?
You have no point. In fact all you did was verify what the other poster had already written.
You're wasting your time conversing with a self-propelled vaginal stimulation device, i.e., an Australian 'vibrator.'

GunShow1

“Shall NOT be infringed!”

Since: Apr 13

San Jose, CA.

#106607 May 4, 2013
Anonymous of Indy wrote:
<quoted text>just look at the 16 Amendment which throws a wrench at Article 1 Section 8 Clause 1 of the original US constitution and the keyword is Uniform which is no more because of the 16th amemdment.
Clause 1. The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;
http://www.shmoop.com/constitution/article-1-...
The Real Problem Is The 16th Amendment
The 16th amendment more or less declares that all of our income is the property of the Federal government. Any amount they let us keep is the result of the benevolence of Congress. The Courts have ruled as such throughout the history of the income tax. This includes any income, from gifts to fringe benefits. If your employer pays for a business lunch, the Federal government can tax you for 100% of your lunch if they so desire.
http://stevenbirnspeaks.com/2012/06/29/the-re...
Amendment IX

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Since: Dec 10

Glandore, Australia

#106608 May 4, 2013
Anonymous of Indy wrote:
<quoted text>True just like right now here in the US where the gays are pushing to be allowed to be able to marry just like a man and a woman can which to me if you allow gays to marry then the Federal Government should allow polygamy too that the Federal Government outlawed & made illegal years ago which is no different because there again the Federal Government is giving one group of people rights and privileges(The Gays) and restricting the rights and privileges of another group(polygamist) which don't have then.
Gay people should have the right to bond, and unlike polygamy it is a relationship that involves two people. Gay people are just that people they have been so since the beginning of time and up until religion took hold were accepted active members of society. It is impossible to ignore a group in society because you don't like the fact that they are the same sex, as more often than not they are successful at meaningful lifetime bonded relationships than most hetro's, they raise their adopted children with the same love and concern as hetro's and for anyone to deny them the right to equality is against everything that the constitution stands for, but mostly against humanity...Gay people don't exist to nark you or me, they merely exist, like you and me. I am not a religious person but even if I were I would not judge someone because of their sex or because someone says I should....The authors of the bible wrote such hateful and horrible things often, and some of them was against gays...but it didn't say for YOU to be their judge...that is presumable your gods job...We would all get along a hell of a lot better if we threw that book in the bin and took all for who they are without prejudgment of and ignorant and bigoted ideal, methinks.:(

GunShow1

“Shall NOT be infringed!”

Since: Apr 13

San Jose, CA.

#106609 May 4, 2013
Ahomana wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes the American Indians are a sovereign nation but they were denied citizenship on the grounds that they were not American till 1924 and they didn't have the right to vote, a right most American citizens take for granted....and that was after the constitution was enacted.
Your government couldn't be corrupt if it wasn't for the people...who overwhelmingly supported Custer, the people who overwhelmingly supported the war on Iraq,...you get the government you deserve when most of you can't be bothered getting out of bed to vote...or you chose a party simply because they are the one you and your families have always voted for....the same happens here with the ignorant, when they don't look at the party and what they stand for, just vote the same way they have always done or literally think they both stink so fuck it, so donkey vote...it is the cowards way of saying I didn't vote for either of them because I don't care enough about my country or my voting rights.
Not quite. It doesn't matter how the people vote at this point and time. The politicians and judges do what they want to do anyways. The only time they even remotely appear to back off. Is when there is a HUGE OUTCRY of public opinion. This nation has been sold out, just as yours and most others.

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 Ex-GOP Mayor Michael Bloomberg Will Spend $80M ... 4 min Annie Oakly 17
News US civilian shoots dead armed car thief: police 36 min The Green Watch Dog 49
News Student arrested for refusing to leave 'die-in' 4 hr Marauder 71
News Deerfield residents react to judge's temporary ... Jun 18 Marauder 3
News Largest maker of bump stocks will stop acceptin... Jun 17 Into The Night 995
News Americaa s Largest Doctora s Group Calls for a ... Jun 17 Say What 1
News Newspaper fires anti-Trump cartoonist; mayor wa... Jun 14 Gunner 3