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.

Teaman

Abingdon, VA

#107339 May 11, 2013
Ahomana wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes but they managed to get rid of the Mafia, it took them four decades but it took that long to find an honest cop...if they could do that then they can get rid of the others...if they have a want to...they proved it. Just saying all things are possible.
Sometimes I miss the mafia. They didn't spray the whole street with gun fire with a drive by and shooting by standers and kids in the process.

I suppose there will always be a Mr Big as long as there is a drug appetite here. That was the mafia's downfall, by the way, moving drugs.
GoGoBar

Thailand

#107340 May 11, 2013
Teaman wrote:
<quoted text>
Eisenhower sounds like one of those radical tea partiers. You essentially said the same thing as Gun Show. Surely you're not comparing an armed citizenry with the military industrial complex.
Surely you are not suggesting that firearm manufacturers are not suppliers to the military as WELL as the domestic market and do not have unprecidented influence in the halls of Govt.

But my main point was Eisenhowers suggestion that only a well informed and vigilant citizenry can combat the abuse of power by the corruptors.
With regard to the gun debate it is strange that funding for research into the prevention of gun violence was prohibited if the results tended to show better gun control would help the problem.

The Presidents call for research to resume has what chance of getting the funding through Congress?

One would imagine that the Gun Lobby would welcome this opportunity for peer based research to vindicate their position.
Teaman

Abingdon, VA

#107341 May 11, 2013
GoGoBar wrote:
<quoted text>
Surely you are not suggesting that firearm manufacturers are not suppliers to the military as WELL as the domestic market and do not have unprecidented influence in the halls of Govt.
But my main point was Eisenhowers suggestion that only a well informed and vigilant citizenry can combat the abuse of power by the corruptors.
With regard to the gun debate it is strange that funding for research into the prevention of gun violence was prohibited if the results tended to show better gun control would help the problem.
The Presidents call for research to resume has what chance of getting the funding through Congress?
One would imagine that the Gun Lobby would welcome this opportunity for peer based research to vindicate their position.
Private ownership of a firearm is far different from government corporatism.

I doubt if one could get funding for anything unnecessary these days. We're broke. There has been plenty of research done already. I don't know what Obama's specific proposals are. That might be a problem.

GunShow1

“Shall NOT be infringed!”

Since: Apr 13

San Jose, CA.

#107342 May 11, 2013
Teaman wrote:
<quoted text>
Sometimes I miss the mafia. They didn't spray the whole street with gun fire with a drive by and shooting by standers and kids in the process.
I suppose there will always be a Mr Big as long as there is a drug appetite here. That was the mafia's downfall, by the way, moving drugs.
Actually, they never did fall. They moved into big business and government. The La Causa Nostra is now making BILLIONS as a result.

GunShow1

“Shall NOT be infringed!”

Since: Apr 13

San Jose, CA.

#107343 May 11, 2013
Teaman wrote:
<quoted text>
Private ownership of a firearm is far different from government corporatism.
I doubt if one could get funding for anything unnecessary these days. We're broke. There has been plenty of research done already. I don't know what Obama's specific proposals are. That might be a problem.
'obama' is just the current puppet on the puppeteers strings. This is, and always has been their "proposal":

New "Democratic" Doctrine.

Slavery not to be confined to the Negro race, but to be made the universal condition of the laboring classes of society.

The line of defense, however, is now changed. The South now maintains that Slavery is right, natural, and necessary, and does not depend upon difference of COMPLEXION. The laws of the Slave States justify the holding of WHITE MEN in bondage.

Another Buchanan paper, the leading one in South Carolina, says:

"Slavery is the natural and normal condition of the laboring man, whether WHITE or black.--The great evil of Northern frne Society is, that it is burdened with a servile class of MECHANICS and LABORERS, unfit for self-government, and yet clothed with the attributes and powers of citizens. Master and Slave, is a relation in Society as natural as that of parent and child; and the Northern States will yet have to introduce it. Their theory of free government is a delueion."

There's "Democratic" doctrine for you, with a vengeance; "our theory of free government a delusion,"--"laborin g men, whether white or black, to be slaves,"--Verily, matters are coming to a pretty pass with us.

The Richmond (Va.) Enquirer, Mr. Buchanan's confidential organ, and considered by the "Democratic" party as the ablest paper in the South, speaks as follows in a recent number:

"Repeatedly have we asked the North 'Has not the experiment of universal liberty, FAILED? Are not the evils of FREE SOCIETY INSUFFERABLE? And do not most thinking men among you propose to subvert and reconstruct it?' Still no answer. This gloomy silence is another conclusive proof, added to many other conclusive evidences we have furnished, that free society in the long run is an impracticable form of society; it is everywhere starving, demoralized and insurrectionary.

We repeat, then, that policy and humanity alike forbid the extension of the evils of free society to new people and coming generations.

Washington, 1850.
http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/h... :@[email protected]%28rbpe+ 20304000%29%29

“Si vis pacem, para bellum !!”

Since: Dec 07

Southeast Virginia

#107345 May 12, 2013
Ahomana wrote:
<quoted text>
Yeah it is not like that is held up as the poster child since the end of gun control in Aus by just about every gun owning dick on this thread...it is illogical to use this, because it is not to say we don't have shootings, we still have guns...we don't have a gun ban so that is the perfect reason there should be one!...It is not a massacre people, the crime sydicates have killed and injured more innocents in there gang related crimes here...there have been no massacres since gun control was introduced this is classed as a gun shooting not a massacre!!!
You can call it a ham sandwich for all we care. A crazy person got a gun and attempted to murder multiple people in a college classroom for whatever reason. Just because he wasn't successful at killing all of those he shot does NOT detract from the fact that this MASS SHOOTING took place AFTER your gun ban was put in place, totally debunking the claim made by the other poster that a mass shooting hasn't occurred since your gun ban was enacted.

“Si vis pacem, para bellum !!”

Since: Dec 07

Southeast Virginia

#107346 May 12, 2013
Ahomana wrote:
<quoted text>
You didn't have a problem because you were never told NO before...like all control freaks they have a problem with understanding what NO means...like NO! you have too many guns, NO! they need to be restricted because too many people are dying and NO, you don't need so many fast firing assault weapons in one home....NO! it doesn't interfere with your right to bear arms.
It doesn't matter whether I own one gun or one thousand guns. If NONE OF THEM are being used for criminal purposes, the general public is in NO DANGER from my weapons. And sorry, in a free country, you cannot limit a person's freedom for something that more than likely will NEVER HAPPEN just because some nutcase has other plans, and no law will ever stop.

I have a friend who owns over a dozen cars. Vehicle accidents kill more people every year than the 90+ million firearms in this country. Would you limit the number of cars a single person could own, too???
spocko

Oakland, CA

#107347 May 12, 2013
Teaman wrote:
<quoted text>
Eisenhower sounds like one of those radical tea partiers. You essentially said the same thing as Gun Show. Surely you're not comparing an armed citizenry with the military industrial complex.
Quite the contrary, it is simple and logical foresight as opposed to t-bag ideology which is illogical and shortsighted!!!!
Teaman

Abingdon, VA

#107348 May 12, 2013
spocko wrote:
<quoted text>
Quite the contrary, it is simple and logical foresight as opposed to t-bag ideology which is illogical and shortsighted!!!!
How so? You really have to stay away from George Soros funded sites.
spocko

Oakland, CA

#107349 May 12, 2013
Teaman wrote:
<quoted text>
How so? You really have to stay away from George Soros funded sites.
Huh?

GunShow1

“Shall NOT be infringed!”

Since: Apr 13

San Jose, CA.

#107350 May 12, 2013
spocko wrote:
<quoted text>
Huh?
CRIMINALS prefer unarmed victims. Both the CRIMINALS in our governments, as well as the criminals on our streets. WHICH ONE ARE YOU?
Teaman

Abingdon, VA

#107351 May 12, 2013
spocko wrote:
<quoted text>
Huh?
I thought so.

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#107352 May 12, 2013
GunShow1 wrote:
<quoted text>
CRIMINALS prefer unarmed victims. Both the CRIMINALS in our governments, as well as the criminals on our streets. WHICH ONE ARE YOU?
Exactly the modern pseudo liberals who ran Chicago sided with the Criminals for years and preferred a society of unarmed citizens that would benefit the criminals on the streets of Chicago until 2010 when the SCOTUS issued their ruling in McDonald v Chicago which both the Modern Pseudo Liberals and Criminals lost their case with the SCOTUS.

GunShow1

“Shall NOT be infringed!”

Since: Apr 13

San Jose, CA.

#107353 May 12, 2013
Anonymous of Indy wrote:
<quoted text>Exactly the modern pseudo liberals who ran Chicago sided with the Criminals for years and preferred a society of unarmed citizens that would benefit the criminals on the streets of Chicago until 2010 when the SCOTUS issued their ruling in McDonald v Chicago which both the Modern Pseudo Liberals and Criminals lost their case with the SCOTUS.
And neither Chicago or D.C. are complying with the ruling of the court. Thus PROVING their criminal status.

Since: Dec 10

Perth, Australia

#107354 May 12, 2013
GunShow1 wrote:
^Go put your head back in the toilet.^
Hey Yank, I am Australian, we can extrapolate.:)

Since: Dec 10

Perth, Australia

#107355 May 12, 2013
GunShow1 wrote:
<quoted text>
Get put your head back in the toilet.
When you learn what the word NO means, I will endeavor to do that very thing, we would have added then flush....get it right.

GunShow1

“Shall NOT be infringed!”

Since: Apr 13

San Jose, CA.

#107356 May 12, 2013
Ahomana wrote:
<quoted text>
When you learn what the word NO means, I will endeavor to do that very thing, we would have added then flush....get it right.
CRIMINALS prefer unarmed victims. Both the CRIMINALS in our governments. As well as the CRIMINALS on our streets. Cowards desire to have only their 'masters' in government to be armed. WHICH ONE ARE YOU?

Since: Dec 10

Perth, Australia

#107357 May 12, 2013
GunShow1 wrote:
<quoted text>
Not quite, troll:
"The Right of the People to Keep and Bear Arms shall NOT be infringed".
My perverse government is the one that doesn't understand no, or "NOT" as the case is.
You are quite a brainwashed little sausage...I bet you believe Washington was an honest child? NO....the government is trying to limit the damage caused by the law that state "The Right of the People to Keep and Bear Arms shall NOT be infringed". all things have their limitations even unlimited downloading...and you yanks were the ones who...knowing the word unlimited means just that, have managed to give it new meaning....yet here you are with a law written back in the time of olde....where you stick hard and fast to a nonsense ideal of what that meant....I am sure they never meant you can be pigs and just become irresponsible jerks that own arsenals for no avail...If that law was as YOU interpret it, it would mean that you obtain weapons you can actually fight the government with and guns are no longer useful in that pursuit...but they are good for killing each other..

Since: Dec 10

Perth, Australia

#107358 May 12, 2013
GunShow1 wrote:
<quoted text>
CRIMINALS prefer unarmed victims. Both the CRIMINALS in our governments. As well as the CRIMINALS on our streets. Cowards desire to have only their 'masters' in government to be armed. WHICH ONE ARE YOU?
That may be the case but there is always something at hand if you have survival skills...how about that girl who protected herself and the hot chilli,not a gun, now that was priceless....Another shooting this time at a Mother's Day parade in New Orleans about 12 people shot, wow...seems the when non criminal gun nutters go crazy they always have a gun at the ready..so good on you there.

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#107359 May 12, 2013
GunShow1 wrote:
<quoted text>
And neither Chicago or D.C. are complying with the ruling of the court. Thus PROVING their criminal status.
True they are resisting SCOTUS ruling handed down in both McDonald v Chicago & District of Columbia v Heller.

Alan Gura

On March 18, 2008, he represented Dick Heller in the United States Supreme Court in District of Columbia v. Heller. Mr. Gura successfully argued that portions of D.C.'s Firearms Control Regulations Act of 1975 violate the individual right to keep and bear arms protected by the Second Amendment.

Gura was lead counsel in McDonald v. Chicago, an United States Supreme Court decision released June 28, 2010 that incorporated the Second Amendment against state and local governments

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alan_Gura

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... 2 min southern at heart 1,056
News Clinton blames Republican leaders for a 'paraly... 2 hr Le Jimbo 1
News Obama to seek healing in Orlando even as politi... 11 hr OK Barry 61
Freestanding B-e-l-f-a-s-t Sink Unit Jun 23 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
More from around the web