It's the Guns, Stupid

It's the Guns, Stupid

There are 103299 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.

Larry

Australia

#106689 May 4, 2013
Anonymous of Indy wrote:
<quoted text>this is what you said
"Gay people should have the right to bond, and unlike polygamy it is a relationship that involves two people."
bit cautious about that, we already have good treatment of gays in Australia, the very definition of marriage is that it is between a man and a women. What next ?
Larry

Australia

#106690 May 4, 2013
They are carrying on like pork chops, we have more important things than whether two people of the same gender can say they are married! Next it will be kids, mummy and mummy doesnt cut it thanks very much. We should strive for the traditional family where ever possible. Kids deserve a mother and father when ever possible, and I feel strongly about that one. We arnt going to do something because others think its a good idea now, we are cautious about that one, there is more than meets the eye. All about no brainer improvements like gun control, but I dont think we have a problem with gays in this country, they are just like everyone else, but one aspect, why do we need to become all mixed up and do rash things with marriage. Hold those brumbies back, lets have a think about this.
LBer

Long Beach, CA

#106691 May 4, 2013
ww.theblaze.com/stories/2013/04/29/lesbian-ac...

A 2012 speech by Masha Gessen, an author and outspoken activist for the LGBT community, is just now going viral and it includes a theory that many supporters of traditional marriage have speculated about for years: The push for gay marriage has less to do with the right to marry – it is about diminishing and eventually destroying the institution of marriage and redefining the “traditional family.”
Lesbian Activist Admits Gay Marriage Is A Lie

Image: YouTube

The subject of gay marriage stirs powerful reactions on both sides of the argument. There are those who argue that legalizing it would diminish traditional marriage. And those advocating for gay marriage have long stated that the issue will not harm traditional marriage. Ms. Gessen’s comments on the subject seem to contradict the pro-gay-marriage party lines.

Gessen shared her views on the subject and very specifically stated;

“Gay marriage is a lie.”
“Fighting for gay marriage generally involves lying about what we’re going to do with marriage when we get there.”
“It’s a no-brainer that the institution of marriage should not exist.”(This statement is met with very loud applause.)

As mentioned above, Gessen also talked about redefining the traditional family. This may have something to do with the fact that she has “three children with five parents”:

“I don’t see why they (her children) shouldn’t have five parents legally. I don’t see why we should choose two of those parents and make them a sanctioned couple.”

Since: Dec 10

Glandore, Australia

#106692 May 5, 2013
Aquarius-WY wrote:
<quoted text>
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.
Simply to state that the person that compared gay marriage to polygamy was wrong as gays as a general rule follow the norm of a two person bond I have never heard of a gay marriage with more than one partner....this is closer to what is regarded as the so called norm especially that of polygamy that allows many wives...it was that simple for anyone WITH a brain...

Since: Dec 10

Glandore, Australia

#106693 May 5, 2013
Aquarius-WY wrote:
<quoted text>
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.
Bummer.

Since: Dec 10

Glandore, Australia

#106694 May 5, 2013
Teaman wrote:
<quoted text>
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.
The law that exists in NJ is perfect and should be enforced across all states to be effective, it doesn't harm anyone so I don't know why people are trying to prevent background checks especially those who are on here complaining about criminals getting guns...It would in effect be a positive thing to bring gun shows and car boot sellers, anyone that is not a retailer under the same laws and restrictions so prevent that method of obtaining a gun without a permit or background check.

Since: Dec 10

Glandore, Australia

#106695 May 5, 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?
Of course it is important to single out state by state, it is you and those like you that clearly don't want a blanket background check or gun control laws because of the different reasons to have guns in different states...so this way...state by state...we get to the gist of why there even would be problem in any of them singularly ...and we are still on Alaska!
Now you haven't answer what Alaska stands to lose by introducing gun control?....it's your turn

Since: Dec 10

Glandore, Australia

#106696 May 5, 2013
Aquarius-WY wrote:
<quoted text>
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.
Ok lets do that then.... What will Alaska lose under the governments gun control laws?...
What guns do they predominantly use in Alaska?
Do they use assault rifle's?
What specifically are they used for?
Can Alaska do without any of the guns mentioned on the gun control list.
What are the other concerns Alaska has with the government removing assault weapons...
Can Alaska and the government compromise on any of the guns on the list?
Now do you have any more reasons why this can't be discussed in an adult manner to achieve the goals that the government is aiming for, and to allow Alaskan's to have what they require to be safe and maintain their way of life? Next roadblock...
Are Alaskan's in favor of the introduction of background checks to include all gun sales outside retail?

If not state why?...

Since: Dec 10

Glandore, Australia

#106697 May 5, 2013
GunShow1 wrote:
<quoted text>
Shove off roohumper, it is no business at ALL of yours concerning our rights.
Why because now someone is asking the questions that you should have asked and not blindly followed. Or because you don't know the answer so you don't want to have to face there could be a legitimate reason for background checks and gun controls and it has nothing to do with paranoia.

Since: Dec 10

Glandore, Australia

#106698 May 5, 2013
Aquarius-WY wrote:
<quoted text>
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.
Well that was my point actually, glad you could come to the party...you have made them corrupt and now you whinge because you put them there....you have the government you deserve...cheers beetch...

Since: Dec 10

Glandore, Australia

#106699 May 5, 2013
bang -------bang bang wrote:
<quoted text>gun control is for british morons In America, The men who wrote the declaration of independence, the constitution and the bill of rights all had citizens best interests in mind when they allowed us to have fire arms as they knew that one day it would be neccessary for us to take up those arms against a tyrannical government. That time is quickly approaching again
Ah, can't answer the question...choose to fall back on old faithful so you keep the status quo and bury your head in the sand while your citizens are being murdered...way to go you tit, you are a problem solver in the real world eh!....

GunShow1

“Shall NOT be infringed!”

Since: Apr 13

San Jose, CA.

#106700 May 5, 2013
Anonymous of Indy wrote:
<quoted text>13th amendment...
Sorry, but no go:

The nature of this case, its history, and the course of the argument, call on us to declare explicitly what is the effect of a constitutional protection or guarantee of any right, or the injunction of any duty. The twenty sixth section of the bill of rights in the constitution of Pennsylvania, is in these words; "to guard against transgressions of the high powers we have delegated we declare [we the people of Pennsylvania], that every thing in this article is excepted out of the general powers of government, and shall for ever remain inviolate." A higher power declares this constitution and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof, shall be the supreme laws of the land, and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, any thing in the constitution or laws of any state to the contrary notwithstanding" Const. U.S. art. 6, clause 2.

An amendment of the constitution is of still higher authority, for it has the effect of controlling and repealing the express provisions of the constitution authorizing a power to be exercised, by a declaration that it shall not be construed to give such power. 3 Dall. 382.

We have stated to you the various provisions of the constitution of the United States and its amendments, as well as that of this state; you see their authority and obligation to be supreme over any laws or regulations which are repugnant to them, or which violate, infringe or impair any right thereby secured; the conclusions which result are too obvious to be more than stated..."

- Hon. HENRY BALDWIN, Associate Justice of the [U.S.] Supreme Court, Circuit Court of the United States. PENNSYLVANIA, APRIL TERM 1833. Johnson v. Tompkins and others.

GunShow1

“Shall NOT be infringed!”

Since: Apr 13

San Jose, CA.

#106701 May 5, 2013
Anonymous of Indy wrote:
<quoted text>13th amendment made changes to Article 4 too.
Article Four of the United States Constitution outlines the duties states have to each other, as well as those the federal government has to the states. Article Four also provides for the admission of new states and the changing of state boundaries. Additionally, it contains the Fugitive Slave Clause. The passage of the Thirteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, which forbids slavery, made the clause mostly moot.
Privileges and Immunities
Main article: Privileges and Immunities Clause
The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States.
Clause One of Section 2 requires interstate protection of "privileges and immunities". The seeming ambiguity of the clause has given rise to a number of different interpretations. Some contend that the clause requires Congress to treat all citizens equally. Others suggest that citizens of states carry the rights accorded by their home states while traveling in other states.
Neither of these theories has been endorsed by the Supreme Court, which has held that the clause means that a state may not discriminate against citizens of other states in favor of its own citizens. In Corfield v. Coryell, 6 F. Cas. 546 (C.C.E.D. Pa. 1823), the federal circuit court held that privileges and immunities in respect of which discrimination is barred include
protection by the Government; the enjoyment of life and liberty ... the right of a citizen of one State to pass through, or to reside in any other State, for purposes of trade, agriculture, professional pursuits, or otherwise; to claim the benefits of the writ of habeas corpus; to institute and maintain actions of any kind in the courts of the State; to take, hold and dispose of property, either real or personal; and an exemption from higher taxes or impositions than are paid by the other citizens of the State.
Most other benefits were held not to be protected privileges and immunities. In Corfield the circuit court sustained a New Jersey law giving state residents the exclusive right to gather clams and oysters.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article_Four_of_...
The clause was used in McDonald, O' despiser of the truth.
http://www.scotusblog.com/2010/06/mcdonald-th...

GunShow1

“Shall NOT be infringed!”

Since: Apr 13

San Jose, CA.

#106702 May 5, 2013
Anonymous of Indy wrote:
<quoted text>13th amendment made changes to Article 4 too.
Article Four of the United States Constitution outlines the duties states have to each other, as well as those the federal government has to the states. Article Four also provides for the admission of new states and the changing of state boundaries. Additionally, it contains the Fugitive Slave Clause. The passage of the Thirteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, which forbids slavery, made the clause mostly moot.
Privileges and Immunities
Main article: Privileges and Immunities Clause
The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States.
Clause One of Section 2 requires interstate protection of "privileges and immunities". The seeming ambiguity of the clause has given rise to a number of different interpretations. Some contend that the clause requires Congress to treat all citizens equally. Others suggest that citizens of states carry the rights accorded by their home states while traveling in other states.
Neither of these theories has been endorsed by the Supreme Court, which has held that the clause means that a state may not discriminate against citizens of other states in favor of its own citizens. In Corfield v. Coryell, 6 F. Cas. 546 (C.C.E.D. Pa. 1823), the federal circuit court held that privileges and immunities in respect of which discrimination is barred include
protection by the Government; the enjoyment of life and liberty ... the right of a citizen of one State to pass through, or to reside in any other State, for purposes of trade, agriculture, professional pursuits, or otherwise; to claim the benefits of the writ of habeas corpus; to institute and maintain actions of any kind in the courts of the State; to take, hold and dispose of property, either real or personal; and an exemption from higher taxes or impositions than are paid by the other citizens of the State.
Most other benefits were held not to be protected privileges and immunities. In Corfield the circuit court sustained a New Jersey law giving state residents the exclusive right to gather clams and oysters.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article_Four_of_...
Privileges or Immunities Clause alive again

Randy Barnett is a professor at Georgetown Law Center, and filed an amicus brief in favor of the petitioner in McDonald v. Chicago.
http://www.scotusblog.com/2010/06/privileges-...

Would suggest that you quit while you can. Or I will SLAM you so hard with the FACTS. That you won't be able to get up again.
bantobacco

Torrance, CA

#106703 May 5, 2013
Ahomana wrote:
<quoted text>
Why because now someone is asking the questions that you should have asked and not blindly followed. Or because you don't know the answer so you don't want to have to face there could be a legitimate reason for background checks and gun controls and it has nothing to do with paranoia.
in the United States Tobacco kills more than 400,000 people annually – more than AIDS, alcohol, car accidents, illegal drugs, murders and suicides combined
bantobacco

Torrance, CA

#106704 May 5, 2013
Ahomana wrote:
<quoted text>
Well that was my point actually, glad you could come to the party...you have made them corrupt and now you whinge because you put them there....you have the government you deserve...cheers beetch...
America is founded upon gun's. America wouldn't be America without them. Why don't you take a trip down&#65279; to Africa where the people are so poor and can't even afford a gun and witness slow decapitations of women and children with a kitchen knife.

Since: Dec 10

Glandore, Australia

#106705 May 5, 2013
bantobacco wrote:
<quoted text>America is founded upon gun's. America wouldn't be America without them. Why don't you take a trip down&#65279; to Africa where the people are so poor and can't even afford a gun and witness slow decapitations of women and children with a kitchen knife.
Like you give a shit, you dumb troll you don't even care about the 26 kids killed in Sandy Hook enough to get rid of your guns....You care about the Africans?...since feckin' when?
bantobacco

San Jose, CA

#106706 May 5, 2013
Ahomana wrote:
<quoted text>
Ok lets do that then.... What will Alaska lose under the governments gun control laws?...
What guns do they predominantly use in Alaska?
Do they use assault rifle's?
What specifically are they used for?
Can Alaska do without any of the guns mentioned on the gun control list.
What are the other concerns Alaska has with the government removing assault weapons...
Can Alaska and the government compromise on any of the guns on the list?
Now do you have any more reasons why this can't be discussed in an adult manner to achieve the goals that the government is aiming for, and to allow Alaskan's to have what they require to be safe and maintain their way of life? Next roadblock...
Are Alaskan's in favor of the introduction of background checks to include all gun sales outside retail?
If not state why?...
Obesity kills more people than guns&#65279; each year nationwide. Ban spoons! you are leftist douche bag with his head so far up his ass, he can't see day light!
Larry

Australia

#106707 May 5, 2013
LBer wrote:
ww.theblaze.com/stories/2013/0 4/29/lesbian-activists-surpris ingly-candid-speech-gay-marria ge-fight-is-a-lie-to-destroy-m arriage/
A 2012 speech by Masha Gessen, an author and outspoken activist for the LGBT community, is just now going viral and it includes a theory that many supporters of traditional marriage have speculated about for years: The push for gay marriage has less to do with the right to marry – it is about diminishing and eventually destroying the institution of marriage and redefining the “traditional family.”
Lesbian Activist Admits Gay Marriage Is A Lie
Image: YouTube
The subject of gay marriage stirs powerful reactions on both sides of the argument. There are those who argue that legalizing it would diminish traditional marriage. And those advocating for gay marriage have long stated that the issue will not harm traditional marriage. Ms. Gessen’s comments on the subject seem to contradict the pro-gay-marriage party lines.
Gessen shared her views on the subject and very specifically stated;
“Gay marriage is a lie.”
“Fighting for gay marriage generally involves lying about what we’re going to do with marriage when we get there.”
“It’s a no-brainer that the institution of marriage should not exist.”(This statement is met with very loud applause.)
As mentioned above, Gessen also talked about redefining the traditional family. This may have something to do with the fact that she has “three children with five parents”:
“I don’t see why they (her children) shouldn’t have five parents legally. I don’t see why we should choose two of those parents and make them a sanctioned couple.”
I think we need to realise that children being raised in natural stable environments is priority number one. I dont care whats popular, a child can make decisions for itself, every opportunity should be made for a child to have a male and a female influence in their lives. that is what should always be number one priority. We have far more important things to worry about. Gays are not descriminated against in Australia, we are thinking long term where this same gender marriage is going. Why cant a gay couple just live happiy together like they currently do. This is like the Aborigiies always after more.

A child needs a mother and a father. Yes we have single parents and step.parents, but we need to always give the child the most natural stable environment. I strongly believe that, thats why I believe marriage is between a man and a women. Some things are good changes, some things are not. No bloody way.
Larry

Australia

#106708 May 5, 2013
Sorry, child can not think for itself.

no, child needs mother and father.

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... (Jun '16) 3 min WasteWater 2,478
My self defense method 11 min strollivarius 1
News St. Louis Alderwoman Introduces 'Assault Weapon... Nov 19 duzitreallymatter 1
News The power and glory of the comma Nov 15 Flintstonegeek 1
News President Obama Continues Early Release of Arme... Nov 13 tome 1
News How will President Trump shape crime and polici... Nov 13 Craig Apelbaum 6
News News Trump on unarmed Clinton guards: 'Let's se... Nov 8 FormerParatrooper 1,172
More from around the web