It's the Guns, Stupid

It's the Guns, Stupid

There are 103311 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: Feb 11

Location hidden

#107363 May 12, 2013
GunShow1 wrote:
<quoted text>
CRIMINALS prefer unarmed victims.
Criminals embrace thew NRA: the NRA stands up for the criminal's rights and the NRA stand up for the unobstructed rights for gun owners who want to sell felons and wife beaters firearms.

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#107364 May 12, 2013
barefoot2626 wrote:
<quoted text>
<quoted text>
Justice Scalia
Writing for the majority of the real Supreme Court
Based on the real US Constitution
This century
[United States v. Heller... 2008
In McDonald v. Chicago Monday SCOTUS Associate Justice Alito explained that in the 20th Century, the Bill of Rights was extended to apply to states and cities. There is no reason to leave out the 2nd Amendment, he said. Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. and Justices Antonin Scalia, Anthony M. Kennedy and Clarence Thomas joined to form the majority.

Supreme Court extends 2nd Amendment protection to state, local levels

The court's 5-4 decision comes in a case involving Chicago's ban on handguns.

http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2010-06-29...
you guys

Huntsville, AL

#107365 May 12, 2013
Anonymous of Indy wrote:
<quoted text>True they are resisting SCOTUS ruling handed down
are all anarchists and make up your own interpretations. What's the problem?
GoGoBar

Thailand

#107366 May 12, 2013
Anonymous of Indy wrote:
<quoted text>In McDonald v. Chicago Monday SCOTUS Associate Justice Alito explained that in the 20th Century, the Bill of Rights was extended to apply to states and cities. There is no reason to leave out the 2nd Amendment, he said. Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. and Justices Antonin Scalia, Anthony M. Kennedy and Clarence Thomas joined to form the majority.
Supreme Court extends 2nd Amendment protection to state, local levels
The court's 5-4 decision comes in a case involving Chicago's ban on handguns.
http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2010-06-29...
New Orleans is the murder capital and has slack regulations.
Oh dear, they just had a drive by parade4.
It is strange how when local and State legislatures try to limit the violence then some NRA backed white man stops them with Federal Judges.
And wow. It is a 5-4 majority.
I wonder if demographics will change that or when the whites become a minority it will be a different matter. As soon as 2044.

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#107367 May 12, 2013
you guys wrote:
<quoted text>
are all anarchists and make up your own interpretations. What's the problem?
are all anarchists and make up your own interpretations. What's the problem?

7th Circuit Strikes Illinois Concealed-Carry Ban, Gives State 180 Days to Revise Gun Law

http://www.abajournal.com/news/article/7th_ci...
Teaman

Abingdon, VA

#107370 May 12, 2013
R-12 Freon wrote:
<quoted text>
LOL, your pretty stupid. The NRA stands up for the 2nd Amendment.
Plenty of laws on the books stopping criminals from buying, owning, using, possessing guns. Even stealing them.
Not to mention, a law against killing people.
GoGoBar

Thailand

#107371 May 12, 2013
barefoot2626 wrote:
<quoted text>
<quoted text>
Justice Scalia
Writing for the majority of the real Supreme Court
Based on the real US Constitution
This century
[United States v. Heller... 2008
Seeing that the premble to the second ammendment is archaic with the introduction of both state and federal miltary forces, it follows that the theory of unlimited arms is a joke and should be treated accordingly.

Scalia implies that the key words are "bear", "arms" and "infringed"

Well if all laws must be obeyed then infringed is no problem.
Arms refers to what was readily available to the people. A single shot muscut or pistol. Quid pro Quo.
Bear refers to what a person can carry effectively in civillian conflict.

The second ammendment has never been tested along these lines in it's historic context. Scalia says so.

If the letter of the law is hundreds of years old then the specifics of the Arms readily available to the people is also relevant.

-GoGoBar, 2013..all rights reserved and copyright shall not be infringed!
Teaman

Abingdon, VA

#107372 May 12, 2013
GoGoBar wrote:
<quoted text>
Seeing that the premble to the second ammendment is archaic with the introduction of both state and federal miltary forces, it follows that the theory of unlimited arms is a joke and should be treated accordingly.
Scalia implies that the key words are "bear", "arms" and "infringed"
Well if all laws must be obeyed then infringed is no problem.
Arms refers to what was readily available to the people. A single shot muscut or pistol. Quid pro Quo.
Bear refers to what a person can carry effectively in civillian conflict.
The second ammendment has never been tested along these lines in it's historic context. Scalia says so.
If the letter of the law is hundreds of years old then the specifics of the Arms readily available to the people is also relevant.
-GoGoBar, 2013..all rights reserved and copyright shall not be infringed!
"Bear refers to what a person can carry effectively in civillian conflict."

Oh good, now I can keep my shoulder fired anti tank rocket. Quid pro Quo.
GoGoBar

Thailand

#107373 May 12, 2013
Teaman wrote:
<quoted text>
"Bear refers to what a person can carry effectively in civillian conflict."
Oh good, now I can keep my shoulder fired anti tank rocket. Quid pro Quo.
At the time the legislation was enacted.
Now if someone wanted to quote the second ammendment in a rocket launcher scenario they would be shot down in flames immediately. Arms available under the second ammendment refer to arms available to the people at the time it was written.
This is why a bottom loading firearm is banned as a machine gun in some jurisdictions.
Now when the time is right politically, a crafty constitutional lawyer will be able to write a law for the limiting of types of firearms.

If you dont believe me then read Buck vs Bell that bwas nthe basis for Nazi sterilisation and highly quoted by Nazi law3makers at the Nuremberg trials.

The historical context of the second has never been tested. Words have a different context in law, as profoundly exhibitied by the "comma" in the second. The words have yet to be interpretted according to the time it was written.

It is a bit like the Obamacare law that attacked on several fronts and was found to be legal. 99% of commentaters expected it to be struck down.
Even Judges like to be remembered in the history books.

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#107374 May 12, 2013
GoGoBar wrote:
<quoted text>
At the time the legislation was enacted.
Now if someone wanted to quote the second ammendment in a rocket launcher scenario they would be shot down in flames immediately. Arms available under the second ammendment refer to arms available to the people at the time it was written.
This is why a bottom loading firearm is banned as a machine gun in some jurisdictions.
Now when the time is right politically, a crafty constitutional lawyer will be able to write a law for the limiting of types of firearms.
If you dont believe me then read Buck vs Bell that bwas nthe basis for Nazi sterilisation and highly quoted by Nazi law3makers at the Nuremberg trials.
The historical context of the second has never been tested. Words have a different context in law, as profoundly exhibitied by the "comma" in the second. The words have yet to be interpretted according to the time it was written.
It is a bit like the Obamacare law that attacked on several fronts and was found to be legal. 99% of commentaters expected it to be struck down.
Even Judges like to be remembered in the history books.
Scalia:‘Handheld rocket launchers’ could be constitutional

Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia on Sunday said that even “handheld rocket launchers” could be considered legal under his interpretation of the Constitution’s Second Amendment.

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2012/07/29/scalia-...

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#107375 May 12, 2013
GoGoBar wrote:
<quoted text>
At the time the legislation was enacted.
Now if someone wanted to quote the second ammendment in a rocket launcher scenario they would be shot down in flames immediately. Arms available under the second ammendment refer to arms available to the people at the time it was written.
This is why a bottom loading firearm is banned as a machine gun in some jurisdictions.
Now when the time is right politically, a crafty constitutional lawyer will be able to write a law for the limiting of types of firearms.
If you dont believe me then read Buck vs Bell that bwas nthe basis for Nazi sterilisation and highly quoted by Nazi law3makers at the Nuremberg trials.
The historical context of the second has never been tested. Words have a different context in law, as profoundly exhibitied by the "comma" in the second. The words have yet to be interpretted according to the time it was written.
It is a bit like the Obamacare law that attacked on several fronts and was found to be legal. 99% of commentaters expected it to be struck down.
Even Judges like to be remembered in the history books.
just looked on ATF's Website and legal to own and the Rate of Transfer Tax for a Rocket Launcher is $200.00 only and Rocket Launchers are classified as Title II weapons.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Title_II_weapons
GoGoBar

Thailand

#107376 May 12, 2013
Anonymous of Indy wrote:
<quoted text>
Scalia:‘Handheld rocket launchers’ could be constitutional
Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia on Sunday said that even “handheld rocket launchers” could be considered legal under his interpretation of the Constitution’s Second Amendment.
http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2012/07/29/scalia-...
You are funny.
Under what regulations?
Jeeze, all miltary, Federal, State and even local enforcement agencies require personal the be "rated" for use of ordinance.

Furthermore, any argument about equality under the law and the constitution requires that financial affordability be considered. I would argue this point in defense of "the people"
Are only wealthy people to be allowed these Arms?
It strikes at the basic values of equality for the American "People"
If Wall Street can afford missiles, then the boys in New Orleans living on the streets should be able to afford them.
Perhaps they could be subsidised or made tax exempt.

GunShow1

“Shall NOT be infringed!”

Since: Apr 13

San Jose, CA.

#107377 May 12, 2013
barefoot2626 wrote:
<quoted text>
<quoted text>
2008
U.S. Constitution - the SUPREME LAW OF THE LAND:

"The Right of the People to Keep and Bear Arms shall NOT be infringed".

"Also, the conditions and circumstances of the period require a finding that while the stated purpose of the right to arms was to secure a well-regulated militia, the right to self-defense was assumed by the Framers."--Chief Justice John Marshall, U.S. Supreme Court.[As quoted in Nunn v. State, 1 Ga. 243, 251 (1846); State v. Dawson, 272 N.C. 535, 159 S.E.2d 1, 9 (1968).]

"Those then who controvert the principle that the Constitution is to be considered, in court as a paramount law, are reduced to the necessity of maintaining that courts must close their eyes on the Constitution, and see only law.

"This doctrine would subvert the very foundation of all written Constitutions ... It would be giving to the legislature a practical and real omnipotence, with the same breath, which professes to restrict their powers within narrow limits. It is prescribing limits, and declaring that those limits may be passed at pleasure.

"That it thus reduces to nothing what we have deemed the greatest improvement on political institutions--a written Constitution--would of itself be sufficient, in America, where written Constitutions have been viewed with so much reverence, for rejecting the Constitution."

"All laws which are repugnant to the Constitution, are null and void."--Chief Justice Marshall, U.S. Supreme Court, Marbury v. Madison, 5, U.S.(Cranch) 137, 174,176.]

"The national government is one of enumerated powers, and a power enumerated and delegated by the Constitution to Congress is comprehensive and complete, without other limitations than those found in the Constitution itself...."

"...The Constitution is a written instrument, and, as such, its meaning does not alter. Its language, as a grant of power to the national government, is general and, as changes come in social and political life, it embraces all new conditions within the scope of the powers conferred.

"In interpreting the Constitution, recourse must be had to the common law and also to the position of the framers of the instrument and what they must have understood to be the meaning and scope of the grants of power contained therein must be considered...."---U.S. Supreme Court, South Carolina v. United States, 199 U.S. 437 (1905).

"Where rights secured by the Constitution are involved, there can be NO rule making or legislation which would abrogate them."--Miranda v Arizona, U.S. Supreme Court, 384 US 436, 491 (1966).

"When any court violates the clean and unambiguous language of the Constitution, a fraud is perpetrated and NO ONE is bound to obey it."--State v Sutton,[Source: 63 Minn 167, 65 NW 262, 30 LRA 630]

Why are you joined in the conspiracy to overthrow We The People's Constitution? And this by defending the tyrannical usurpations perpetrated by our perverse public servants in governments? In order to betray your fellow citizens into slavery? What was the price paid to you for your treachory? Was it more than the thirty pieces of silver paid to Judas?

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#107378 May 12, 2013
GoGoBar wrote:
<quoted text>
You are funny.
Under what regulations?
Jeeze, all miltary, Federal, State and even local enforcement agencies require personal the be "rated" for use of ordinance.
Furthermore, any argument about equality under the law and the constitution requires that financial affordability be considered. I would argue this point in defense of "the people"
Are only wealthy people to be allowed these Arms?
It strikes at the basic values of equality for the American "People"
If Wall Street can afford missiles, then the boys in New Orleans living on the streets should be able to afford them.
Perhaps they could be subsidised or made tax exempt.
Under the Pseudo Liberal Democrats National Firearms Act of 1934 permits it.

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

GunShow1

“Shall NOT be infringed!”

Since: Apr 13

San Jose, CA.

#107379 May 12, 2013
barefoot2626 wrote:
<quoted text>
Criminal
Explain THIS, traitor-troll:

Security Treaty Between the United States and Japan;

“September 8, 1951 (1)

“Japan has this day signed a Treaty of Peace with the Allied Powers.(2) On the coming into force of that Treaty, Japan will not have the effective means to exercise its inherent right of self-defense because it has been disarmed.

“There is danger to Japan in this situation because irresponsible militarism has not yet been driven from the world. Therefore Japan desires a Security Treaty with the United States of America to come into force simultaneously with the Treaty of Peace between the United States of America and Japan.

“The Treaty of Peace recognizes that Japan as a sovereign nation has the right to enter into collective security arrangements, and further, the Charter of the United Nations recognizes that all nations possess an inherent right of individual and collective self-defense.*

“In exercise of these rights, Japan desires, as a provisional arrangement for its defense, that the United States of America should maintain armed forces of its own in and about Japan so as to deter armed attack upon Japan.

“The United States of America, in the interest of peace and security, is presently willing to maintain certain of its armed forces in and about Japan, in the expectation, however, that Japan will itself increasingly assume responsibility for its own defense against direct and indirect aggression, always avoiding any armament which could be an offensive threat or serve other than to promote peace and security in accordance with the purposes and principles of the United Nations Charter.”

So, let me see if I understand this correctly. Our government signed a treaty with the Japan. Which had been guilty of GENOCIDE, and various other gross violations of civilized warfare. And then they acknowledge that our ENEMY had an inherent right to self-defense? And yet our same perversely HYPOCRITICAL government has been actively working to undermine our Second Amendment Right, enumerated in our OWN Constitution? Explain, please.....

Why are you joined in the conspiracy to overthrow We The People's Constitution? And this by defending the tyrannical usurpations perpetrated by our perverse public servants in governments? In order to betray your fellow citizens into slavery? What was the price paid to you for your treachory? Was it more than the thirty pieces of silver paid to Judas?
GoGoBar

Thailand

#107380 May 12, 2013
GunShow1 wrote:
<quoted text>
Explain THIS, traitor-troll:
Security Treaty Between the United States and Japan;
“September 8, 1951 (1)
“Japan has this day signed a Treaty of Peace with the Allied Powers.(2) On the coming into force of that Treaty, Japan will not have the effective means to exercise its inherent right of self-defense because it has been disarmed.
“There is danger to Japan in this situation because irresponsible militarism has not yet been driven from the world. Therefore Japan desires a Security Treaty with the United States of America to come into force simultaneously with the Treaty of Peace between the United States of America and Japan.
“The Treaty of Peace recognizes that Japan as a sovereign nation has the right to enter into collective security arrangements, and further, the Charter of the United Nations recognizes that all nations possess an inherent right of individual and collective self-defense.*
“In exercise of these rights, Japan desires, as a provisional arrangement for its defense, that the United States of America should maintain armed forces of its own in and about Japan so as to deter armed attack upon Japan.
“The United States of America, in the interest of peace and security, is presently willing to maintain certain of its armed forces in and about Japan, in the expectation, however, that Japan will itself increasingly assume responsibility for its own defense against direct and indirect aggression, always avoiding any armament which could be an offensive threat or serve other than to promote peace and security in accordance with the purposes and principles of the United Nations Charter.”
So, let me see if I understand this correctly. Our government signed a treaty with the Japan. Which had been guilty of GENOCIDE, and various other gross violations of civilized warfare. And then they acknowledge that our ENEMY had an inherent right to self-defense? And yet our same perversely HYPOCRITICAL government has been actively working to undermine our Second Amendment Right, enumerated in our OWN Constitution? Explain, please.....
Why are you joined in the conspiracy to overthrow We The People's Constitution? And this by defending the tyrannical usurpations perpetrated by our perverse public servants in governments? In order to betray your fellow citizens into slavery? What was the price paid to you for your treachory? Was it more than the thirty pieces of silver paid to Judas?
Not until 1939, however, did the United States begin to directly challenge continued Japanese aggression in China. That year the U.S. announced it was pulling out of the 1911 Treaty of Commerce and Navigation with Japan, signalling a coming end to trade with the empire. Japan continued its campaign through China, and in 1940 Roosevelt declared a partial embargo of U.S. shipments of oil, gasoline, and metals to Japan.

That move forced Japan to consider drastic options. It had no intention of ceasing its imperial conquests, and it was poised to move into French Indochina. With a total American resource embargo likely, Japanese militarists began looking at the oil fields of the Dutch East Indies as possible replacements for American oil. That presented a military challenge, though, because the American-controlled Philippines and the American Pacific Fleet -- based at Pearl Harbor, Hawaii,-- were between Japan and the Dutch possessions.

In July 1941, the United States completely embargoed resources to Japan, and it froze all Japanese assets in American entities. The American policies forced Japan to the wall. With the approval of Japanese Emperor Hirohito, the Japanese navy began planning to attack Pearl Harbor, the Philippines, and other bases in the Pacific in early December to open the route to the Dutch East Indies
GoGoBar

Thailand

#107382 May 12, 2013
Next it will be legal for 4 year old to own a lethal specialist rifle for children!
Anything could happen!
EuroBoy

Cambridge, MA

#107383 May 12, 2013
GoGoBar wrote:
Next it will be legal for 4 year old to own a lethal specialist rifle for children!
Anything could happen!
The topix pedophile makes yet another post about children...
The Fixers

Westerville, OH

#107384 May 13, 2013
EuroBoy wrote:
<quoted text>
The topix pedophile makes yet another post about children...
The Topix log accessing mimicking useless git makes yet another Good Aussie Bander twit comment.

GO AWAY.

Since: Feb 11

Cambridge, UK

#107386 May 13, 2013
Population 240.000.
Eight shootings since January.
12.2 violent crimes per 1000 population.
Luton, Bedfordshire, UK.

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 Clinton blames Republican leaders for a 'paraly... 1 hr swampmudd 1,440
News George Soros, Other Democratic Megadonors Plowi... Sun Heath Ledger Suic... 2
News New Dating Site Aims to Pair Concealed Carry Si... Sun RobertM 1
News Melania Trump will address immigration controve... Sun woodtick57 230
News Psychiatrists Reminded To Refrain From Armchair... Aug 20 lorr d 4
News In Several States, Trump's Poll Monitors May Be... Aug 17 Marauder 9
News Hillary Clinton wavers on Second Amendment righ... Aug 15 combat veteran 1,973
More from around the web