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.

Since: Dec 10

Glandore, Australia

#106651 May 4, 2013
Aquarius-WY wrote:
<quoted text>
You have a little trouble remaining consistant in your logic.
There is precious little difference between the two parties and both are populated by corrupt officials.
Oh I absolutely agree and that is my point....you made them corrupt by supporting someone you knew was bought and paid for to influence the system in place by which others may have chosen a pollie that has not been influenced(hard call but some do exist)...so most of you(gun supporters as the anti gun lobby) are engaging in and encouraging the corruption of the fair and natural process of government and the peoples rights.

“Evolved hunter/gatherer”

Since: Jan 08

Location hidden

#106652 May 4, 2013
Ahomana wrote:
<quoted text>
What will Alaska lose if gun control is introduced....
A: Nothing, they will still be able to keep their guns needed for personal protection and hunting etc
What will they gain?
A: ALL sellers of guns, in any capacity are required a make thorough background checks on each purchase, this will enable the seller to restrict gun sales to those with only a clean slate. It should also include those who freely admit themselves to a mental medical facility and all records should be linked be they mental or law enforcement to allow those doing the checks to be thorough.
And your plan to enforce this on each and every gun sale including private person to person sales, is ... what? Have a LEO assigned to each and every citizen to monitor their behavior and gun sales?

Your absurdity is showing again Aho.

“Evolved hunter/gatherer”

Since: Jan 08

Location hidden

#106653 May 4, 2013
Ahomana wrote:
<quoted text>
Everyone lives by rules and regulations...even you, else those guns you have are not legal! I know what it means to Americans, it means they can live in a decent society as planned by those who wrote it, or they can live in a society of death and wanton destruction...the amount of gun death sees you living the latter.
I said "overburden of excessive regulations" strawlady.

Since: Dec 10

Glandore, Australia

#106654 May 4, 2013
Aquarius-WY wrote:
<quoted text>
You clearly stated that polygamy is unacceptable and not deserving of any marriage benefits. You clearly are prejudiced against unions that consist of more than two people irregardless of gender.
Then you tried to weasle out of what you stated.
No I did not!...I stated "Gay people should have the right to bond, and unlike polygamy it is a relationship that involves two people." Where in the deluded mind of the reader, does that oppose either?

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#106655 May 4, 2013
Ahomana wrote:
<quoted text>
That doesn't say anything to support me back peddling...did you get it wrong!
this is what you said

"Gay people should have the right to bond, and unlike polygamy it is a relationship that involves two people."

Since: Dec 10

Glandore, Australia

#106656 May 4, 2013
Aquarius-WY wrote:
<quoted text>
And your plan to enforce this on each and every gun sale including private person to person sales, is ... what? Have a LEO assigned to each and every citizen to monitor their behavior and gun sales?
Your absurdity is showing again Aho.
I am saying if you allow the government to introduce the background checks, no one in Alaska will suffer because it will only affect those who choose to conduct business illegally, being thwarted through a private seller and gun shows and garage sales...all must produce evidence of the sale and a reciept for a background check... it is simple really and I don't know why some gun owners along with the NRA are so openly opposed to it, unless as I said they have something to hide?

“Evolved hunter/gatherer”

Since: Jan 08

Location hidden

#106657 May 4, 2013
Ahomana wrote:
<quoted text>
Oh I absolutely agree and that is my point....you made them corrupt by supporting someone you knew was bought and paid for to influence the system in place by which others may have chosen a pollie that has not been influenced(hard call but some do exist)...so most of you(gun supporters as the anti gun lobby) are engaging in and encouraging the corruption of the fair and natural process of government and the peoples rights.
There was a candidate with integrity named Ron Paul. The establishment saw to it that the primaries were rigged in each of several states, and when they could not stop the support for him from the people, they locked him out of the convention even though he had won enough states to officially be on the ballot, and the republican hierarchy refused to seat any of his delegates, up to and including restraining and handcuffing some of them to chairs until their presence was no longer vaild.
You blame the people for that and accuse them of electing corrupt officials in an election process that was corrupt itself.
You got a lot of damn gall lady, or stupidity and have no reasoning skills at all.

Since: Dec 10

Glandore, Australia

#106658 May 4, 2013
Aquarius-WY wrote:
<quoted text>
I said "overburden of excessive regulations" strawlady.
Yes you did, and with 310 million people you need as much regulation as you can get, to keep everyone in check...It isn't as much for those who follow the laws, it is more a clear warning to those that don't.

“Evolved hunter/gatherer”

Since: Jan 08

Location hidden

#106659 May 4, 2013
Ahomana wrote:
<quoted text>
No I did not!...I stated "Gay people should have the right to bond, and unlike polygamy it is a relationship that involves two people." Where in the deluded mind of the reader, does that oppose either?
Anyone who can read is capable of seeing you clearly think multiple partner marriage is unacceptable. You made a destinction of the difference between gays, who's rights you support, and polys, by saying the difference is that only two people can enter into a marriage. The natural and logical conclusion to your remarks on the matter is that you think polys unworthy of the benefits of legal marriage as you think a marriage is ONLY two people.

Like I have said many times Aho, your logic has flaws and inconsistancies, which you deny vehemently whilst at the same time try to denigrate those who point it out.

“Evolved hunter/gatherer”

Since: Jan 08

Location hidden

#106660 May 4, 2013
Ahomana wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes you did, and with 310 million people you need as much regulation as you can get, to keep everyone in check...It isn't as much for those who follow the laws, it is more a clear warning to those that don't.
So, in your little gourd it makes sense to you that societies with more people require more laws to keep them in line as a matter of normal course and action.
Since when does the number of folks in a group, directly and proportionately and logically equate to the need for more laws?
Your contention is utterly ridiculous.
What is needed, is to stop recidivism in our penal system, and close those doors and stop letting violent criminals out to prey on the innocent again and again.
Teaman

Abingdon, VA

#106661 May 4, 2013
Ahomana wrote:
<quoted text>
I am saying if you allow the government to introduce the background checks, no one in Alaska will suffer because it will only affect those who choose to conduct business illegally, being thwarted through a private seller and gun shows and garage sales...all must produce evidence of the sale and a reciept for a background check... it is simple really and I don't know why some gun owners along with the NRA are so openly opposed to it, unless as I said they have something to hide?
That would lead to a [federal] registration of sorts. In NJ one can't sell his pistol to anyone who doesn't have a permit to purchase and a drivers license. To get a permit, one has to go through a background check at their local police dept. That would be the only way to monitor a person to person sale.

“Evolved hunter/gatherer”

Since: Jan 08

Location hidden

#106662 May 4, 2013
Ahomana wrote:
<quoted text>
I am saying if you allow the government to introduce the background checks, no one in Alaska will suffer because it will only affect those who choose to conduct business illegally, being thwarted through a private seller and gun shows and garage sales...all must produce evidence of the sale and a reciept for a background check... it is simple really and I don't know why some gun owners along with the NRA are so openly opposed to it, unless as I said they have something to hide?
It makes no sense whatsoever to single out any state or group of states, as your point (assuming there might possibly be one) goes on to then mention background checks in ALL gun sales affects only those involved in the illegal conducting of business. That would then be true in each and every state.

What's your point in singling out a state?
Teaman

Abingdon, VA

#106664 May 4, 2013
Aquarius-WY wrote:
<quoted text>
It makes no sense whatsoever to single out any state or group of states, as your point (assuming there might possibly be one) goes on to then mention background checks in ALL gun sales affects only those involved in the illegal conducting of business. That would then be true in each and every state.
What's your point in singling out a state?
I believe the argument earlier in the thread was a federal one size fits all law would impose NY and LA values on states like Alaska and yours.

“Evolved hunter/gatherer”

Since: Jan 08

Location hidden

#106665 May 4, 2013
Teaman wrote:
<quoted text>
I believe the argument earlier in the thread was a federal one size fits all law would impose NY and LA values on states like Alaska and yours.
Even so, she jumped the trolley on that post by using an example that does not fit that description, as what she said in her example would effect all citizens the same and would not be state specific nor would it point out the differences in attitudes of urban -v- rural folks where the urban view is being forced on the rural folks.

If she wishes this state to state debate, it would behoove her to use examples that actually adhered to the point.

GunShow1

“Shall NOT be infringed!”

Since: Apr 13

San Jose, CA.

#106666 May 4, 2013
Aquarius-WY wrote:
<quoted text>
A republic yes. However, do not the people retain impeachment power through their rerpresentatives, over the SCOTUS?
Indeed We do. But they have divided us so much that we do not realize the power that we possess. And they have been playing this game with our INALIENABLE RIGHTS, for far to long.

"United We Stand, divided we fall"--John Marshall, U.S. Supreme Court Chief Justice, and delegate to the Virginia Constitutional Convention.

GunShow1

“Shall NOT be infringed!”

Since: Apr 13

San Jose, CA.

#106667 May 4, 2013
Teaman wrote:
<quoted text>
I believe the argument earlier in the thread was a federal one size fits all law would impose NY and LA values on states like Alaska and yours.
The FACT remains, that NEITHER the federal OR the state has the delegated authority to impose ANY prior restraints or limitations on We The People to Keep and Bear Arms PERIOD. And that was the case in this country all the way up until the first tyrannical usurpation of 1934, concerning the fed. Many of the cities and states have been off and on infringing however. And that, because the federal has never lived up to its obligation. Those are our RIGHTS, as citizens of the United States - REGARDLESS of what state we live in. They were our rights as subjects of the British crown. We have let our servants whittle them down by technical [mis]constructions.

GunShow1

“Shall NOT be infringed!”

Since: Apr 13

San Jose, CA.

#106668 May 4, 2013
Ahomana wrote:
<quoted text>
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.
Shove off roohumper, it is no business at ALL of yours concerning our rights.

“Evolved hunter/gatherer”

Since: Jan 08

Location hidden

#106669 May 4, 2013
Ahomana wrote:
<quoted text>
Oh I absolutely agree and that is my point.
...
So, your point was that BOTH parties are corrupt, and then go on to blame the people for having no choice, but yet it is their fault that corrupt folks populate the halls of congress.
Interesting.

“Evolved hunter/gatherer”

Since: Jan 08

Location hidden

#106670 May 4, 2013
GunShow1 wrote:
<quoted text>
Indeed We do. But they have divided us so much that we do not realize the power that we possess. And they have been playing this game with our INALIENABLE RIGHTS, for far to long.
"United We Stand, divided we fall"--John Marshall, U.S. Supreme Court Chief Justice, and delegate to the Virginia Constitutional Convention.
Stockholm Syndrome.

GunShow1

“Shall NOT be infringed!”

Since: Apr 13

San Jose, CA.

#106671 May 4, 2013
Aquarius-WY wrote:
<quoted text>
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.
Most correct.

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 Obey the police, who are almost always right; M... Nov 21 youll shoot your ... 1
News Paxton's acceptance of shootings is unacceptable Nov 18 youll shoot your ... 1
Texas mass shooting Nov 11 Canlendyou 13
News Massachusetts 1st to ban bump stocks since Vega... Nov 11 Watchdog 3
News Existing laws should have stopped shooter Nov 10 payme 1
News Texas Attorney General: The way to stop mass sh... Nov 9 Brenda Lasley 16
30-06 (7.62X63) vs .308 (7.62X51) (Feb '11) Nov 7 Charlie 122
More from around the web