It's the Guns, Stupid

It's the Guns, Stupid

There are 103321 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.

GoGoBar

Thailand

#106567 May 3, 2013
This is worse than the drivelling bucktoothed backwoods lawyer spam over the legality of Obamacare.

As soon as the Democrats get a majority in both houses there will be Comprehensive Firearm Legislation similar to Hawaii and then Scotus will receive a case to decide the issue and the result will be the same as Omamacare.

One of the Justices will wish to top Roberts in the History books.

The NRA had no effect on the last election and they will have no effect on any further elections. Why?

50 million starving Americans on foodstamps.

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#106568 May 3, 2013
GoGoBar wrote:
This is worse than the drivelling bucktoothed backwoods lawyer spam over the legality of Obamacare.
As soon as the Democrats get a majority in both houses there will be Comprehensive Firearm Legislation similar to Hawaii and then Scotus will receive a case to decide the issue and the result will be the same as Omamacare.
One of the Justices will wish to top Roberts in the History books.
The NRA had no effect on the last election and they will have no effect on any further elections. Why?
50 million starving Americans on foodstamps.
we are going to see a repeat of the 1994 democrat losses
GoGoBar

Thailand

#106569 May 3, 2013
Anonymous of Indy wrote:
<quoted text>we are going to see a repeat of the 1994 democrat losses
Who do predict will get GOP?

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#106570 May 4, 2013
GoGoBar wrote:
<quoted text>
Who do predict will get GOP?
I don't know what you mean but I just don't want to see again what happened after the GOP gained control after 1994 and repealed a bunch of legislation like they did when the GOP controlled Congress repealed the Glass–Steagall Act which is what created the 2008 financial crisis because of the GOP BS.
Becky

Nanjing, China

#106571 May 4, 2013
Larry wrote:
<quoted text> haha Euro boy, wel thats your first lie.. Howards victory over Keating was one of the largest in history. He is our seccond longest serving prime minister.
.......after 20 years of bobbing around putting his hand up for the Party leadership and being knocked back in favour of amateurs like McMahon, "Birthday Cake" Hewson and even Peacock
......and at last his government was given the boot, and his own electorate kicked him out of his seat

Since: Feb 11

March, UK

#106572 May 4, 2013
Ahomana wrote:
<quoted text>
Oh I am aware of that, the idiot I am responding to obviously is not....so educate your brethren there buddy...The point I was making that regardless of what it stated in the fourteenth ammendment the judiciary made the worst mistake of it's life....and it took another 70 years before some black Americans had the same rights as those stated in the fourteenth amendment..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.
At the time of which you speak, people of non white races were considered sub-human. There were those that believed this to be so, and those who merely found it convienient. Nice try though.

Since: Dec 10

Glandore, Australia

#106573 May 4, 2013
Anonymous of Indy wrote:
<quoted text>Similarities exist between the Supremacy Clause and the Privileges or Immunities Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which states:
"No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States."
The difference between the two is that while the Supremacy Clause deals with the relationship between the Federal Government and the states, the Fourteenth Amendment deals with the relationships among the Federal Government, the States, and the citizens of the United States.
Supremacy Clause
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supremacy_Clause
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.

Since: Dec 10

Glandore, Australia

#106574 May 4, 2013
Anonymous of Indy wrote:
<quoted text>You are right about the 14th and the articles in the links below confirms it because 14th amendment actually did strip the Federal US Constitution's Bill of Right(1st 10 amendments of the US constitution) from the citizens of the states and left each state at its own discretion create their own States Constitutions which some states did restrict freedom of the press, freedom of assembly, and freedom of religion, and many of them did including the rights especially of the newly freed blacks(Former Slaves).
The Fourteenth Amendment: The Framing of America's Second Constitution
None of the guarantees in the Bill of Rights applied against state government. States were free to restrict freedom of the press, freedom of assembly, and freedom of religion, and many of them did &#8213; enthusiastically,” said Epps, author of Democracy Reborn: The Fourteenth Amendment and the Fight for Equal Rights in Post-Civil War America.“The 14th Amendment bars the states from discrimination among races, between sexes, between natives and newcomers, even between citizens and aliens. Everyone born in the United States is a citizen because of the 14th Amendment. State governments must conduct elections according to the principle of one person/one vote because of the 14th Amendment. In fact, the United States is something that we might call ‘an advanced democracy,’ because of the 14th Amendment.”
http://law.duke.edu/news/1730/
Did the 14th Amendment really incorporate the Bill of Rights?
The Truth
It is only possible to make the case that the 14th Amendment extended the Bill of Rights down to the State and local level if you distort the plain meaning of the amendment as understood by those that wrote it and ratified it. This distortion must be so great that it violates many of the fundamental philosophies the Constitutional was based on . The Supreme Court has been engaging in exactly this level and type of distortion ever since the 1940s when it began implementing the doctrine of incorporation. Through this doctrine of incorporation the nine unelected justices that make up the Supreme Court have completely re-written the Constitution and Bill of Rights. They have done this by distorting the meaning of these documents so much they now mean nearly the opposite now than they did when written and ratified.
http://constitutionmythbuster.com/2011/07/28/...
Agreed, yet some nitwits not just the judiciary or congress, who have chosen to bastardise the fourteenth the second and the on occasion the first amendment to suit their bigoted ideals simply to protect only "their rights" to own weapons what about denying other citizens of America the same rights to limit guns not required for the militia or for the protection of it's citizens but clearly as a tool of murder ....clearly they show their ignorance to these amendments where they have been been broken time and time again to yoke slaves or deny Native Indians or children born to foreign parents, their rights to freedoms and American citizenship before, so if it has been done before, it can and will probably happen again.

Since: Dec 10

Glandore, Australia

#106575 May 4, 2013
spider1954 wrote:
<quoted text>
At the time of which you speak, people of non white races were considered sub-human. There were those that believed this to be so, and those who merely found it convienient. Nice try though.
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???
bang -------bang bang

Torrance, CA

#106576 May 4, 2013
Ahomana wrote:
<quoted text>
That is partly true mostly nonsense John Anderson was deputy leader, he belonged to the National party which is a party that represents the position of the rural sector and they are in a coalition with the Liberals here, he was against gun control because "part" a very minor part, of the rural sector either didn't understand it or feared it would affect their way of life....5.2% of this country own guns...and a small portion of those opposed gun control....when I say the majority of Australians are and were against gun control I mean it...we already had 95% opposition, add to that about a third of gun owners who were also in favor of the changes as they knew it wouldn't affect them adversely... and though Howard faced opposition from John Anderson on behalf of his constituents he was never going to have the power to prevent Howard implementing gun reform...the people wanted it en masse and they got what they wanted...Until 1996, the federal government had little role in firearms law.(Following the Port Arthur massacre, the Howard Government (1996–2007), with strong media and public support, introduced uniform gun laws with the cooperation of all the states, bought about through threats to Commonwealth funding arrangements.)And if you think threatening governments with funding are a bad thing you should check into how many times a State government has turned the table, that is how politics is conducted in every civilized country...money talks.... Since 1996 ALL STATES, subscribe to the NFA...as it should be...The ends justified the means.... Australians are better off because of Howard's power to stand by the peoples backing of this particular policy... You don't need to vote on all issues...public opinion is everything in this country....The wheels turn slowly, but they do turn....so yemoron....although John Anderson opposed the gun control reforms...it was understandable knowing why and where he was coming from, he was supporting those who opposed it so they could voice their dissent through him, be it ignorant and ill informed ....In short if you are going to comment on an issue it is important for you to put it in proper context eh Pacha!
you piece of shit british subject that can't buy a gun run chicken run
bang -------bang bang

Torrance, CA

#106577 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???
you have no rights cause you are sub human moron that talks bullshit

Since: Feb 11

March, UK

#106578 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???
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.
bang -------bang bang

Torrance, CA

#106579 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???
you british subjects should be on disabilty pensions your nanny government will take care of you

Since: Dec 10

Glandore, Australia

#106580 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.
Yes I see that...

Since: Dec 10

Glandore, Australia

#106582 May 4, 2013
GunShow1 wrote:
<quoted text>
American Indians are a sovereign nation unto themselves. The duty of the United States is to abide by the treaties made with the native American peoples.(Of which, every single one has been violated). Which provides further evidence that our government is TOTALLY CORRUPT, and should be summarily charged with treason. Which the 14th amendment amply provides punishment for.
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.

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#106583 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.
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.

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#106584 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.
Your right since you said that I remember reading about that about the Indians and how the Federal Government denied them citizenship on the grounds that they were not American citizens under the 14th amendment til 1924.

Indian Citizenship Act of 1924

The Indian Citizenship Act of 1924, also known as the Snyder Act, was proposed by Representative Homer P. Snyder (R) of New York and granted full U.S. citizenship to America's indigenous peoples, called "Indians" in this Act.(The Fourteenth Amendment already defined as citizens any person born in the U.S., but only if "subject to the jurisdiction thereof"; this latter clause was thought to exclude certain indigenous peoples.) The act was signed into law by President Calvin Coolidge on June 2, 1924.

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

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#106585 May 4, 2013
Ahomana wrote:
<quoted text>
Agreed, yet some nitwits not just the judiciary or congress, who have chosen to bastardise the fourteenth the second and the on occasion the first amendment to suit their bigoted ideals simply to protect only "their rights" to own weapons what about denying other citizens of America the same rights to limit guns not required for the militia or for the protection of it's citizens but clearly as a tool of murder ....clearly they show their ignorance to these amendments where they have been been broken time and time again to yoke slaves or deny Native Indians or children born to foreign parents, their rights to freedoms and American citizenship before, so if it has been done before, it can and will probably happen again.
I agree and History has proven it.
Teaman

Abingdon, VA

#106586 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???
The Bill of Rights was initially intended to protect the states from the federal government or whatever federal power it may develop. Some states demanded protection before ratifying the constitution. They were, in effect, separate united countries back then.

Some states/colonies abolished slavery, as you stated, because they could then. The constitution allowed for slavery to keep the southern colonies united, yet the states could go against the constitution and abolish slavery on their own. Because it was allowed didn't mean is was forced on the states.

The 14th amendment was only intended to provide the recently freed slaves citizenship and equal protection under the fifth amendment to the freed slaves "in their jurisdictions". An amendment is the only way a supreme court decision (Dred Scott decision) can be overcome unless the court overturns its own decision. You're right, Dred Scott made a slave a non person, thus the 14th amendment to overcome it. The civil war didn't change a supreme court decision.

Incorporating other rights into the 14th amendment didn't start until the early 20th century. Incorporating all of the Bill of Rights began under Justice Black about 1947.

The down side of incorporation is my state has no provision for rights to bear arms in its constitution. Without incorporation my state could effectively outlaw any firearm of any kind if it wanted to as some early states abolished slavery. Now, it can't.

Now, the federal government can fabricate rights an impose itself on the states. Abortions, forcing states to educate illegal immigrants, and so on. It is a controversial amendment. Although it was intended to protect the rights of recently freed slaves, it was also used to limit their freedom under Plessy vs. Ferguson, separate but equal (segregation). Although it was intended to protect the states from the federal government, it is now used by the federal government to impose itself on the states. Although most decisions were good, some of them were bad. A controversial amendment full of ironies.

I'm waiting to see how it is used in regard to the gay marriage decision.
Larry

Australia

#106587 May 4, 2013
Becky wrote:
<quoted text>
.......after 20 years of bobbing around putting his hand up for the Party leadership and being knocked back in favour of amateurs like McMahon, "Birthday Cake" Hewson and even Peacock
......and at last his government was given the boot, and his own electorate kicked him out of his seat
yeah not every one liked him.. I thought as a person, he was a an excellent role model, and personally I thought he was a good leader, but ultimately the country decided they had enough of him..

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 Hillary Clinton wavers on Second Amendment righ... 19 min WasteWater 1,018
News Obama to seek healing in Orlando even as politi... 5 hr Where Is My America 58
Freestanding B-e-l-f-a-s-t Sink Unit Thu boyocuy 1
News The Latest: House GOP says electronic devices s... Jun 23 payme 2
News Bristol Palin is engaged (May '15) Jun 22 Uncle Bens AWOLdaddy 68
News Mom breaks down after seeing 3-year-old do lock... Jun 21 FormerParatrooper 1
GD Designs Reviews Jun 21 senjuhasirama777 1
More from around the web