It's the Guns, Stupid

It's the Guns, Stupid

There are 103293 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.

armed resident

San Jose, CA

#106715 May 5, 2013
Ahomana wrote:
<quoted text>
Dumb arse troll alert...got anything of note to say or just the normal yada, yada, yak, yak, that is what you sound like...
ps to the brits /australians keep your limey mouths shut. you know nothing and are too arrogant to learn anything, you cant&#65279; even take care of your teeth.
Teaman

Abingdon, VA

#106716 May 5, 2013
Ahomana wrote:
<quoted text>
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.
As Aquarius indicated earlier, we would cease to be a republic of states and their people. We would become a centralized democracy where the many overpower the few resulting in the loss of individual inalienable rights. I'm not thinking for today. I'm thinking generations ahead.

A problem exists when a federal central power imposes that on a nation. What Alaska loses is even more ability to be autonomous. Granted, the states have been losing that since the progressive movement of the early 20th century and the 17th amendment and other states selling their souls out for highway funds, but this is seen as more centralized power and less power to the states and their people.

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#106717 May 5, 2013
GunShow1 wrote:
<quoted text>
The clause was used in McDonald, O' despiser of the truth.
http://www.scotusblog.com/2010/06/mcdonald-th...
Now you are referring to the 14th amendment's Privileges or Immunities Clause mixed up with Article 4,s Privileges and Immunities Clause which are 2 different things and the 14th Amendment's Privileges and Immunities Clause was used in McDonald v Chicago in 2010 which forced the 2nd amendment down to the state level which Illinois never had until 2010.

The Privileges or Immunities Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution is unique among constitutional provisions in that some scholars believe it was substantially read out of the Constitution in a 5-4 decision of the Supreme Court in the Slaughter-House Cases of 1873. The Clause has remained virtually dormant since, but in 2010 this clause was the basis for the fifth and deciding vote in the case of McDonald v. Chicago, regarding application of the Second Amendment of the United States Constitution to the states.

here is the proof you are confusing the two

The Privileges or Immunities Clause is Amendment XIV, Section 1, Clause 2

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

Privileges and Immunities of Article Four of the United States Constitution Clause One of Section 2

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

GunShow1

“Shall NOT be infringed!”

Since: Apr 13

San Jose, CA.

#106718 May 5, 2013
Anonymous of Indy wrote:
<quoted text>Now you are referring to the 14th amendment's Privileges or Immunities Clause mixed up with Article 4,s Privileges and Immunities Clause which are 2 different things and the 14th Amendment's Privileges and Immunities Clause was used in McDonald v Chicago in 2010 which forced the 2nd amendment down to the state level which Illinois never had until 2010.
The Privileges or Immunities Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution is unique among constitutional provisions in that some scholars believe it was substantially read out of the Constitution in a 5-4 decision of the Supreme Court in the Slaughter-House Cases of 1873. The Clause has remained virtually dormant since, but in 2010 this clause was the basis for the fifth and deciding vote in the case of McDonald v. Chicago, regarding application of the Second Amendment of the United States Constitution to the states.
here is the proof you are confusing the two
The Privileges or Immunities Clause is Amendment XIV, Section 1, Clause 2
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Privileges_or_Im...
Privileges and Immunities of Article Four of the United States Constitution Clause One of Section 2
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article_Four_of_...
"The most interesting aspect of the decision is Justice Thomas' concurrence, which rejects the plurality's reliance on the judicial fiction of substantive due process. Thomas relies instead on the >>>>>>> >>>original meaning of the Privileges or Immunities Clause<<<<<< <<<<. His opinion is scholarly and judicious, and it cements his standing as the only Justice who is more than a half-hearted originalist. Thomas confines himself to the issue presented, which involves only the right to keep and bear arms, and explains why stare decisis should not foreclose an originalist approach in this case. With appropriate judicial restraint, he declines to decide in advance exactly what implications his analysis may carry with respect to substantive due process precedents involving other provisions of the Bill of Rights."
http://www.scotusblog.com/2010/06/mcdonald-th...

Are you DELIBERATELY being IGNORANT? Or, do you NOT know how to admit THAT YOU HAVE NO IDEA WHAT YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT? Take a friggin' hike.
GoGoBar

Thailand

#106719 May 5, 2013
In the final countdown to to the 100K mark, the weakling wants to try and pretend he has somehow proved that it is not the guns, by spamming old bullshit.
What makes this dog bark so much.
Earning nothing matters or it might have joined the subsidised workforce instead of losing its young life.
Too harsh in looking at it.?
No , being a constant bad loser does not make it a winner.
Young people beware! There is no money in lies.
Only titbits.

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#106720 May 5, 2013
GunShow1 wrote:
<quoted text>
"The most interesting aspect of the decision is Justice Thomas' concurrence, which rejects the plurality's reliance on the judicial fiction of substantive due process. Thomas relies instead on the >>>>>>> >>>original meaning of the Privileges or Immunities Clause<<<<<< <<<<. His opinion is scholarly and judicious, and it cements his standing as the only Justice who is more than a half-hearted originalist. Thomas confines himself to the issue presented, which involves only the right to keep and bear arms, and explains why stare decisis should not foreclose an originalist approach in this case. With appropriate judicial restraint, he declines to decide in advance exactly what implications his analysis may carry with respect to substantive due process precedents involving other provisions of the Bill of Rights."
http://www.scotusblog.com/2010/06/mcdonald-th...
Are you DELIBERATELY being IGNORANT? Or, do you NOT know how to admit THAT YOU HAVE NO IDEA WHAT YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT? Take a friggin' hike.
you are being DELIBERATELY being IGNORANT with the US Constitution & its Amendments which is there purpose to amend the US constitution to make changes which is what the 14th amendment did dealing with the Privileges or Immunities Clause and the links above proved it.
GoGoBar

Thailand

#106721 May 5, 2013
LOL Somehow this loser thinkls he can atone for his previous losses by appealing to the US market on some subliminal level.
Being a bad loser never makes you a winner!

Face the fact. Shootimg massacres are caused by Rapid Fire guns in the hands of idiots that are4 unregulated.

Adam Lanza wa NRA Certified,

The only gun revolution in the history of the US was the Southern Slave States against the Federal Govt.

It was won by the winners of the 2nd revolution. The first revolution had failed.

Spam on boy.

GunShow1

“Shall NOT be infringed!”

Since: Apr 13

San Jose, CA.

#106722 May 5, 2013
Anonymous of Indy wrote:
<quoted text>you are being DELIBERATELY being IGNORANT with the US Constitution & its Amendments which is there purpose to amend the US constitution to make changes which is what the 14th amendment did dealing with the Privileges or Immunities Clause and the links above proved it.
It did NO such thing. It merely expanded the definition of "citizen" to include the African Americans formerly enslaved.

Don't know what your trip is. But if you want to be made out a fool. Then I'll be more than happy to oblige.

GunShow1

“Shall NOT be infringed!”

Since: Apr 13

San Jose, CA.

#106723 May 5, 2013
Section IV.-- The Right To Keep And Bear Arms

The Constitution.--By the Second Amendment to the Constitution it is declared that "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."

"The amendment, like most other provisions in the Constitution, has a history. It was adopted with some modification and enlargement from the English Bill of Rights of 1688, where it stood as a protest against arbitrary action of the overturned dynasty in disarming the people, and as a pledge of the new rulers that this tyrannical action should cease. The right declared was meant to be a strong moral check against the usurpation and arbitrary power of rulers, and as a necessary and efficient means of regaining rights when temporarily overturned by usurpation.[1 ]
"The Right is General.--It may be supposed from the phraseology of this provision that the right to keep and bear arms was only guaranteed to the militia; but this would be an interpretation not warranted by the intent. The militia, as has been elsewhere explained, consists of those persons who, under the law are liable to the performance of military duty, and are officered and enrolled for service when called upon. But the law may make provision for the enrolment of all who are fit to perform military duty, or of a small number only, or it may wholly omit to make any provision at all; and if the right were limited to those enrolled the purpose of this guaranty might be defeated altogether by the action or neglect to act of the government it was meant to hold in check. The meaning of the provision undoubtedly is that the people from whom the militia must be taken, shall have the right to keep and bear arms, and they need no permission or regulation of law for the purpose. But this enables the government to have a well regulated militia; for to bear arms implies something more than the mere keeping; it implies the learning to handle and use them in a way that makes those who keep them ready for their efficient use; in other words, it implies the right to meet for voluntary discipline in arms, observing in doing so the laws of public order."

[1] Tuck. Bl. Com. App. 300.

- Thomas McIntyre Cooley, The General Principles of Constitutional Law in the United States of America, Third Edition. 1898.(Thomas McIntyre Cooley, LL.D., was the 25th Justice and a Chief Justice of the Michigan Supreme Court, and Dean of the University of Michigan's Law School, and a nationally recognized scholar).
Tray

Etta, MS

#106724 May 5, 2013
Larry wrote:
<quoted text> your talking bloody nonsense mate, pure shit. At least ban automatic weapons and have strict background checks, you are doing the right thing.and of good character, not a problem. You need to start somewhere. Nobody needs an automatic weapon.
What is good character? Politicians, police, members of the military, religious clergy, mothers, fathers, are found guilty of crimes all the time. Start somewhere? Another term for "I have no idea what I'm talking about but I open my big mouth anyway". How do you know what kind of weapon I need? Do you know where I live? Do you know me personally? Can you see the future and KNOW for a fact no one will ever need an automatic weapon? Those who wrote our Constitution had first hand experience with tyrants ruling over the people and had first hand knowledge of how hard it is to free the people from a tyrant. You on the other hand want to debate that. OK just what are your credentials making you an expert over those who created the most powerful superpower the world has ever known? Those who set the standard for others around the world to throw off royalty and create free societies. Have you freed a nation? Have you created the most advanced nation the world has ever known? When you achieve that then maybe you will qualify to give your opinion.
Tray

Etta, MS

#106725 May 5, 2013
GoGoBar wrote:
LOL Somehow this loser thinkls he can atone for his previous losses by appealing to the US market on some subliminal level.
Being a bad loser never makes you a winner!
Face the fact. Shootimg massacres are caused by Rapid Fire guns in the hands of idiots that are4 unregulated.
Adam Lanza wa NRA Certified,
The only gun revolution in the history of the US was the Southern Slave States against the Federal Govt.
It was won by the winners of the 2nd revolution. The first revolution had failed.
Spam on boy.
After months of constant posting on here you have convinced no one of your opinion. You have been shown a liar and fool on a daily bases. You repeat over and over the media hype, nothing new or of your own logic just a repeat of lies. We all see the media daily so we don't need you to repeat it again. Do you have ANY insight to the conversation or not? Do you personally have any real world experience to bring to those on here? I make my choices based on my personal experience in life. Do you or not have anything that could change my mind? Can you show any personal knowledge that you can share that might make a real difference? As far as our history, there are plenty who lived it, passed on their experience so we don't need your opinion. If I want to know what happened and what they meant then I will read their words. You weren't there and are not qualified to say what they meant or did. Please now tell us why anyone should listen to you over the real experts?

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#106726 May 5, 2013
GunShow1 wrote:
Section IV.
Waitress: Well, there's egg and bacon; egg sausage and bacon; egg and spam; egg bacon and spam; egg bacon sausage and spam; spam bacon sausage and spam; spam egg spam spam bacon and spam; spam sausage spam spam bacon spam tomato and spam...

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#106727 May 5, 2013
GunShow1 wrote:
<quoted text>
It did NO such thing.
You don't know the words to the shortest amendment in the US Constitution, GayDavy.

Imagine thinking you could understand something that had TWO sentences?
Teaman

Abingdon, VA

#106728 May 5, 2013
Anonymous of Indy wrote:
<quoted text>Now you are referring to the 14th amendment's Privileges or Immunities Clause mixed up with Article 4,s Privileges and Immunities Clause which are 2 different things and the 14th Amendment's Privileges and Immunities Clause was used in McDonald v Chicago in 2010 which forced the 2nd amendment down to the state level which Illinois never had until 2010.
The Privileges or Immunities Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution is unique among constitutional provisions in that some scholars believe it was substantially read out of the Constitution in a 5-4 decision of the Supreme Court in the Slaughter-House Cases of 1873. The Clause has remained virtually dormant since, but in 2010 this clause was the basis for the fifth and deciding vote in the case of McDonald v. Chicago, regarding application of the Second Amendment of the United States Constitution to the states.
here is the proof you are confusing the two
The Privileges or Immunities Clause is Amendment XIV, Section 1, Clause 2
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Privileges_or_Im...
Privileges and Immunities of Article Four of the United States Constitution Clause One of Section 2
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article_Four_of_...
Article IV, section 1 deals with extradition from one state to another, doesn't it, Indy?

Since: Dec 10

Glandore, Australia

#106729 May 5, 2013
armed resident wrote:
<quoted text>
ps to the brits /australians keep your limey mouths shut. you know nothing and are too arrogant to learn anything, you cant&#65279; even take care of your teeth.
I learn lots of stuff because I can and because I have higher IQ than the most of the retards in your part of the world, dumb troll!

GunShow1

“Shall NOT be infringed!”

Since: Apr 13

San Jose, CA.

#106730 May 5, 2013
barefoot2626 wrote:
<quoted text>
Imagine thinking ....
Don't believe you are capable of even that.

Section IV.-- The Right To Keep And Bear Arms

The Constitution.--By the Second Amendment to the Constitution it is declared that "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."

"The amendment, like most other provisions in the Constitution, has a history. It was adopted with some modification and enlargement from the English Bill of Rights of 1688, where it stood as a protest against arbitrary action of the overturned dynasty in disarming the people, and as a pledge of the new rulers that this tyrannical action should cease. The right declared was meant to be a strong moral check against the usurpation and arbitrary power of rulers, and as a necessary and efficient means of regaining rights when temporarily overturned by usurpation.[1 ]
"The Right is General.--It may be supposed from the phraseology of this provision that the right to keep and bear arms was only guaranteed to the militia; but this would be an interpretation not warranted by the intent. The militia, as has been elsewhere explained, consists of those persons who, under the law are liable to the performance of military duty, and are officered and enrolled for service when called upon. But the law may make provision for the enrolment of all who are fit to perform military duty, or of a small number only, or it may wholly omit to make any provision at all; and if the right were limited to those enrolled the purpose of this guaranty might be defeated altogether by the action or neglect to act of the government it was meant to hold in check. The meaning of the provision undoubtedly is that the people from whom the militia must be taken, shall have the right to keep and bear arms, and they need no permission or regulation of law for the purpose. But this enables the government to have a well regulated militia; for to bear arms implies something more than the mere keeping; it implies the learning to handle and use them in a way that makes those who keep them ready for their efficient use; in other words, it implies the right to meet for voluntary discipline in arms, observing in doing so the laws of public order."

[1] Tuck. Bl. Com. App. 300.

- Thomas McIntyre Cooley, The General Principles of Constitutional Law in the United States of America, Third Edition. 1898.(Thomas McIntyre Cooley, LL.D., was the 25th Justice and a Chief Justice of the Michigan Supreme Court, between 1864 and 1885).

GunShow1

“Shall NOT be infringed!”

Since: Apr 13

San Jose, CA.

#106731 May 5, 2013
Ahomana wrote:
<quoted text>
I learn lots of stuff because I can and because I have higher IQ than the most of the retards in your part of the world, dumb troll!
Oh yeah, you're a real legend alright, in your own mind....

Since: Dec 10

Glandore, Australia

#106732 May 5, 2013
Teaman wrote:
<quoted text>
As Aquarius indicated earlier, we would cease to be a republic of states and their people. We would become a centralized democracy where the many overpower the few resulting in the loss of individual inalienable rights. I'm not thinking for today. I'm thinking generations ahead.
A problem exists when a federal central power imposes that on a nation. What Alaska loses is even more ability to be autonomous. Granted, the states have been losing that since the progressive movement of the early 20th century and the 17th amendment and other states selling their souls out for highway funds, but this is seen as more centralized power and less power to the states and their people.
We also have states that govern individually from the federal government and often go to verbal war with each other over difference of opinions, but there are times when the state and federal governments must pull together for the greater good...gun control was and issue that although some states are more reliant on guns than others rationalised that they would still get to keep their guns just not ones needed in war zones. Now whether they were "encouraged" by the government or willingly concurred the end result was a resounding success in as much as we have reduced both our suicide by gun and homicides by gun. I agree that governments are a threat if given too much power as any business or man in general, but nothing is ever black or white and there are times when the states and government can come together for the betterment of all society, when there is a dire national need, and most would agree that the American government are doing this for the people else they would just keep the massive profits from the gun manufacturers and retailers and shut their pie holes it it was their interest they were about eh?

Since: Dec 10

Glandore, Australia

#106733 May 5, 2013
GunShow1 wrote:
<quoted text>
Oh yeah, you're a real legend alright, in your own mind....
I really don't think you would know who is or isn't a legend LOL....Now get back and supervise that storeroom, lackey...

GunShow1

“Shall NOT be infringed!”

Since: Apr 13

San Jose, CA.

#106734 May 5, 2013
Ahomana wrote:
<quoted text>
I really don't think you would know who is or isn't a legend LOL....Now get back and supervise that storeroom, lackey...
Speaking of lackeys, how's your masters treating you knave? Are they providing enough defense for you? Because from what I hear, they are NOT:

Australia's Gun Ban - America's Warning from Abroad
http://dotsub.com/view/3fe2d2bf-cab6-4126-8dd...

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 Should they teach this in schools? Aug 14 okimar 3
News FPC Vows Legal Action on Approved California As... Aug 4 jimwildrickjr 1
News WVa AG: Manchin Should Resign Dem Leadership Role Aug 4 JohnInLa 3
News The NRA And The Worst Ad You May Ever See Jul 31 Red Crosse 185
History of the .233 Remington Jul 31 SummerBB8 1
News Heidi Harris: CCW's On The Rise Jul 29 Get Out 2
News Country singer Scotty McCreery cited for Jul 25 Been There Done That 4
More from around the web