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.

GunShow1

“Shall NOT be infringed!”

Since: Apr 13

San Jose, CA.

#106610 May 4, 2013
Teaman wrote:
<quoted text>
The Bill of Rights...
"But if the execution of the laws of the national government should not require the intervention of the State legislatures, if they were to pass into immediate operation upon the citizens themselves, the particular governments could not interrupt their progress without an open and violent exertion of an unconstitutional power. No omissions nor evasions would answer the end. They would be obliged to act, and in such a manner as would leave no doubt that they had encroached on the national rights. An experiment of this nature would always be hazardous in the face of a constitution in any degree competent to its own defense, and of a people enlightened enough to distinguish between a legal exercise and an illegal usurpation of authority. The success of it would require not merely a factious majority in the legislature, but the concurrence of the courts of justice and of the body of the people. If the judges were not embarked in a conspiracy with the legislature, they would pronounce the resolutions of such a majority to be contrary to the supreme law of the land, unconstitutional, and void. If the people were not tainted with the spirit of their State representatives, they, as the natural guardians of the Constitution, would throw their weight into the national scale and give it a decided preponderancy in the contest. Attempts of this kind would not often be made with levity or rashness, because they could seldom be made without danger to the authors, unless in cases of a tyrannical exercise of the federal authority."--Alexander Hamilton, Federalist No. 16, Tuesday, December 4, 1787.

GunShow1

“Shall NOT be infringed!”

Since: Apr 13

San Jose, CA.

#106611 May 4, 2013
Anonymous of Indy wrote:
<quoted text>Its all about the interpretation of the US constitution and who sets on the SCOTUS and their views of the US Constitution and why its critical on selecting justices.
NEGATIVE. The feces-flinging monkeys in black robes are NOT the "ultimate authority", We The People are. The Constitution needs NO interpretation. It was explained clause by clause, and line by line in the Federalist Papers. The court only has power to interpret the "laws" made in pursuance thereof. That which you contend would place us under s judicial despotism.

"The adversaries of the Constitution seem to have lost sight of the people altogether in their reasonings on this subject; and to have viewed these different establishments, not only as mutual rivals and enemies, but as uncontrolled by any common superior in their efforts to usurp the authorities of each other. These gentlemen must here be reminded of their error. They must be told that the ULTIMATE AUTHORITY, wherever the derivative may be found, RESIDES IN THE PEOPLE ALONE, and that it will not depend merely on the comparative ambition or address of the different governments, whether either, or which of them, will be able to enlarge its sphere of jurisdiction at the expense of the other. TRUTH, no less than decency, requires that the event in every case should be supposed to depend on the sentiments and sanction of their common constituents."--James Madison, The Federalist No. 46, Tuesday, January 29, 1788.

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#106612 May 4, 2013
Ahomana wrote:
<quoted text>
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.:(
that I disagree because you are back pedaling and you are going back against your own argument of restricting the rights and privileges of another group that you were using against and about the 14th amendment of the US Constitution.

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#106613 May 4, 2013
GunShow1 wrote:
<quoted text>
NEGATIVE. The feces-flinging monkeys in black robes are NOT the "ultimate authority", We The People are. The Constitution needs NO interpretation. It was explained clause by clause, and line by line in the Federalist Papers. The court only has power to interpret the "laws" made in pursuance thereof. That which you contend would place us under s judicial despotism.
"The adversaries of the Constitution seem to have lost sight of the people altogether in their reasonings on this subject; and to have viewed these different establishments, not only as mutual rivals and enemies, but as uncontrolled by any common superior in their efforts to usurp the authorities of each other. These gentlemen must here be reminded of their error. They must be told that the ULTIMATE AUTHORITY, wherever the derivative may be found, RESIDES IN THE PEOPLE ALONE, and that it will not depend merely on the comparative ambition or address of the different governments, whether either, or which of them, will be able to enlarge its sphere of jurisdiction at the expense of the other. TRUTH, no less than decency, requires that the event in every case should be supposed to depend on the sentiments and sanction of their common constituents."--James Madison, The Federalist No. 46, Tuesday, January 29, 1788.
Justices on the SCOTUS have the final say if a law is being challenged remember we live in a Republic not a Democracy.

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#106614 May 4, 2013
GunShow1 wrote:
<quoted text>
Amendment IX
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
9th amendment and 16th amendment are two different amendments and 16th amendment is what it is which before taxes had to be uniform.

Strange as it may seem, the Sixteenth Amendment (which gave the American people the affliction of confiscatory income taxes) was never supposed to have passed. It was introduced by the Republicans as part of a political scheme to trick the Democrats, but it backfired.

Background

The Founding Fathers had rejected income taxes (or any other direct taxes) unless they were apportioned to each state according to population. Nevertheless, an income tax was levied during the Civil War and upheld by the Supreme Court on somewhat tenuous reasoning. When another income tax was enacted in 1893, the Supreme Court found it unconstitutional. In connection with the two Pollock cases reviewed in 1895, the Court declared that the act violated Article I, section 9 of the Constitution.

History of the 16th Amendment

by W. Cleon Skousen

http://www.latterdayconservative.com/articles...

Since: Dec 10

Glandore, Australia

#106615 May 4, 2013
Teaman wrote:
<quoted text>
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.
very informative as always...:)
There are people in the world that treat another group of our society with bigotry and ignorance, as they have done to women,(the most downtrodden group in the world)...followed by ageism where the elderly are no longer treated as having any rights past 65 or of having any use to our society, race because the colour of your skin denies you the rights to equality and gays who have been denied the same rights we all should have to a union based on respect and love for one another. The rights for gays to marry is not an issue to me as others(and for those like me that believe these people don't magically disappear if you don't think about them simply because you are not happy with their sexual orientation) the right to marriage is one they deserve as equally as do we.
Mr Tumescent

UK

#106616 May 4, 2013
Anonymous of Indy wrote:
<quoted text>Justices on the SCOTUS have the final say if a law is being challenged remember we live in a Republic not a Democracy.
YOU ARE INCORRECT!
If YOUR U.S. Supreme Court 'rules' a certain contrary way, then YOU —the PEOPLE— may counter them via your own U.S. Congress.
And since YOUR U.S. Congress is 'supposed' to represent the lot of yourselves, the by your vote, it is YOU whom has the ULTIMATE, i.e., LAST, word on matters, and NOT your U.S. Supreme Court.

GunShow1

“Shall NOT be infringed!”

Since: Apr 13

San Jose, CA.

#106617 May 4, 2013
Anonymous of Indy wrote:
<quoted text>Justices on the SCOTUS have the final say if a law is being challenged remember we live in a Republic not a Democracy.
You obviously don't read, or understand plain English. We The People ARE the "ULTIMATE AUTHORITY". >ALL< of those in government are merely OUR hired >servants<. The >servant< does NOT tell their MASTER'S what they can, and cannot do. The MASTER'S tell their >servants< what they are permitted to do. As well as what they CANNOT do. THAT is the whole INTENDED PURPOSE of a Constitutional Republic.
gohdude

Pittsburgh, PA

#106618 May 4, 2013
youtube.com/watch... …
Guns are fine,,its the Humans

Since: Dec 10

Glandore, Australia

#106619 May 4, 2013
GunShow1 wrote:
<quoted text>
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.
It has been sold out by the people, because without the people the government wouldn't exist...you can't expect to back big business like the NRA so that they pay money to influence the decisions of congress and your sitting member to the point of corruption and then expect a government run without likewise input and corruption....it is unreasonable and hypocritical.

GunShow1

“Shall NOT be infringed!”

Since: Apr 13

San Jose, CA.

#106620 May 4, 2013
Mr Tumescent wrote:
<quoted text>
YOU ARE INCORRECT!
If YOUR U.S. Supreme Court 'rules' a certain contrary way, then YOU —the PEOPLE— may counter them via your own U.S. Congress.
And since YOUR U.S. Congress is 'supposed' to represent the lot of yourselves, the by your vote, it is YOU whom has the ULTIMATE, i.e., LAST, word on matters, and NOT your U.S. Supreme Court.
PRECISELY. We can also counter it through MASS civil disobedience to unconstitutional dictates. Even the courts have ruled as such in multiple instances.

Since: Dec 10

Glandore, Australia

#106621 May 4, 2013
Aquarius-WY wrote:
<quoted text>
Impossible to have this debate Aho. YOU are NOT a part of it. ONLY Americans allowed in the debate.
Well I believe I have an opinion on it and therefore have as much right to you to air it on an open forum...if you are cannot come up with some strong reasons to oppose the debate I understand but don't pooh pah it on the bases YOU believe I don't have a right to be here....that is just cowardly.

GunShow1

“Shall NOT be infringed!”

Since: Apr 13

San Jose, CA.

#106622 May 4, 2013
Anonymous of Indy wrote:
<quoted text>9th amendment and 16th amendment are two different amendments and 16th amendment is what it is which before taxes had to be uniform.
Strange as it may seem, the Sixteenth Amendment (which gave the American people the affliction of confiscatory income taxes) was never supposed to have passed. It was introduced by the Republicans as part of a political scheme to trick the Democrats, but it backfired.
Background
The Founding Fathers had rejected income taxes (or any other direct taxes) unless they were apportioned to each state according to population. Nevertheless, an income tax was levied during the Civil War and upheld by the Supreme Court on somewhat tenuous reasoning. When another income tax was enacted in 1893, the Supreme Court found it unconstitutional. In connection with the two Pollock cases reviewed in 1895, the Court declared that the act violated Article I, section 9 of the Constitution.
History of the 16th Amendment
by W. Cleon Skousen
http://www.latterdayconservative.com/articles...
Regardless.

Amendment IX

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

There can be no rule-making, court decision, vote, or legislation which eliminates the positive guarantees expressed in the FUNDAMENTAL LAW. Especially concerning NATURAL RIGHTS. For they belong to us as much as if they had NOT been inserted in the Constitution. Would suggest that you study the basics of U.S. Constitutional law.

Since: Dec 10

Glandore, Australia

#106623 May 4, 2013
Aquarius-WY wrote:
<quoted text>
"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.
It affects me in as much as seeing uneducated people being browbeaten by ignorance and propaganda by gun toting idiots that actually don't have a leg to go on seeing that you are not losing your guns and I was about to clearly prove that, but alas no takers...who would have thought that gun toting fearmongers wouldn't want an open state by state debate to clearly define the actual loss or gain(background checks) to gun owners. You have not surprised me in the slightest, in fact you run true to form.

GunShow1

“Shall NOT be infringed!”

Since: Apr 13

San Jose, CA.

#106624 May 4, 2013
Anonymous of Indy wrote:
<quoted text>Justices on the SCOTUS have the final say if a law is being challenged remember we live in a Republic not a Democracy.
And you are woefully INCORRECT. And THAT because we are a Constitutional Republic. Our hired servants are BOUND by solemn oath to uphold and defend the Constitution. And if they VIOLATE that oath, then We The People are no longer bound in allegiance to obey ANYTHING they dictate.

>You< are contending that we are under obligatory rule. And THAT is most certainly NOT the case.

“Evolved hunter/gatherer”

Since: Jan 08

Location hidden

#106625 May 4, 2013
Mr Tumescent wrote:
<quoted text>
You're wasting your time conversing with a self-propelled vaginal stimulation device, i.e., an Australian 'vibrator.'
I'm a gardener. Some seeds do not sprout so you keep replanting until they do.

“Evolved hunter/gatherer”

Since: Jan 08

Location hidden

#106626 May 4, 2013
Anonymous of Indy wrote:
<quoted text>Justices on the SCOTUS have the final say if a law is being challenged remember we live in a Republic not a Democracy.
A republic yes. However, do not the people retain impeachment power through their rerpresentatives, over the SCOTUS?

Since: Dec 10

Glandore, Australia

#106627 May 4, 2013
Aquarius-WY wrote:
<quoted text>
Really?
You really think so?
Then tell us EXACTLY what the constitution means.
What it means is that you bigot use it to beat everyone over the head with it, just to keep your guns...Do you think the forefathers could predict that their ideal of a decent fair society is what you have now? do you think that they would be happy at how you(especially the gun lovers) have allowed children to be murdered for the greed by companies and the stupidity of the masses to have guns flood your streets ...do you think the forefathers could have foreseen how weapons that fire 40 bullets can be used, not for the militia or in defense of your family but to aid a single nutter to shoot and kill en masse...How many multifamily murders by gun were there in their time.....How many drive by's, how many husbands shooting their wives....they would say as I say...you have bastardised their meaning on the right to bear arms.
Mr Tumescent

UK

#106628 May 4, 2013
Aquarius-WY wrote:
<quoted text>
I'm a gardener. Some seeds do not sprout so you keep replanting until they do.
As a 'gardener,' you should know that 'some seeds' simply aren't worth your time of day.

Just feed them to the birds, as they are essentially nothing more than 'birdshit.'
;-)

“Evolved hunter/gatherer”

Since: Jan 08

Location hidden

#106629 May 4, 2013
Ahomana wrote:
<quoted text>
very informative as always...:)
There are people in the world that treat another group of our society with bigotry and ignorance, as they have done to women,(the most downtrodden group in the world)...followed by ageism where the elderly are no longer treated as having any rights past 65 or of having any use to our society, race because the colour of your skin denies you the rights to equality and gays who have been denied the same rights we all should have to a union based on respect and love for one another. The rights for gays to marry is not an issue to me as others(and for those like me that believe these people don't magically disappear if you don't think about them simply because you are not happy with their sexual orientation) the right to marriage is one they deserve as equally as do we.
Marriage is not a right.
Two or more people have a right of joining in unions to procreate, but they certainly do not have a right to marriage. The right of personally joining together is part of the right to life portion of the self evident inalienable rights referred to in the DOI.
Legal marriage is a priveledge granted to those of which the state approves. Rights do NOT have state fees attached to them nor do rights require licensing to enact them. Priveledges however are just such a occurance, as a license to marry is granted by the state after qualifying and paying a fee to the state for the license.

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 Obama to seek healing in Orlando even as politi... 16 min payme 56
News Hillary Clinton wavers on Second Amendment righ... 41 min payme 993
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