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.

GunShow1

“Shall NOT be infringed!”

Since: Apr 13

San Jose, CA.

#108050 May 24, 2013
barefoot2626 wrote:
<quoted text>
{click}
Not part of the US Constitution, GayDavy.
If you don't like the Second Amendment the way it is, GayDavy, why don't you try to change it to your version?
“The importance of this article will scarcely be doubted by any persons, who have duly reflected upon the subject. The militia is the natural defence of a free country against sudden foreign invasions, domestic insurrections, and domestic usurpations of power by rulers. It is against sound policy for a free people to keep up large military establishments and standing armies in time of peace, both from the enormous expenses, with which they are attended, and the facile means, which they afford to ambitious and unprincipled rulers, to subvert the government, or trample upon the rights of the people. The right of the citizens to keep and bear arms has justly been considered, as the palladium of the liberties of a republic; since it offers a strong moral check against the usurpation and arbitrary power of rulers; and will generally, even if these are successful in the first instance, enable the people to resist and triumph over them.”--Joseph Story, U.S. Supreme Court Justice and Constitutional scholar,[Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States (1833; Book III at 746,§ 1890)]

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#108051 May 24, 2013
GunShow1 wrote:
<quoted text>
"...Jack was the property of the plaintiff
Jack, human, was a slave.

Do you read any of your copy & pastes?

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#108052 May 24, 2013
GunShow1 wrote:
In United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542 (1875),
JusticeScalia wrote:
Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.
Justice Scalia
Writing for the majority of the real Supreme Court
Based on the real US Constitution
This century
[United States v.] Heller... 2008

[United States v.] Heller... 2008

[United States v.] Heller... 2008

[United States v.] Heller... 2008

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#108053 May 24, 2013
{click}

Not part of the US Constitution, GayDavy.

If you don't like the Second Amendment the way it is, GayDavy, why don't you try to change it to your version?

GunShow1

“Shall NOT be infringed!”

Since: Apr 13

San Jose, CA.

#108054 May 24, 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
[United States v.] Heller... 2008
[United States v.] Heller... 2008
[United States v.] Heller... 2008
In United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542 (1875), the court ruled the following:

"The second amendment declares that it shall not be infringed, but this, as has been seen, means no more than that it shall not be infringed by Congress. This is one of the amendments that has no other effect than to restrict the powers of the national government, leaving the people to look for their protection against any violation by their fellow citizens of the rights it recognizes, to what is called, in The City of New York v. Miln, 11 Pet. 139, the "powers which relate to merely municipal legislation, or what was, perhaps, more properly called internal police," "not surrendered or restrained" by the Constitution of the United States."

And, although many parts of Cruikshank have been overturned by later decisions, it is still relied upon with some authority in portions. Cruikshank was also reaffirmed in Presser v. Illinois in 1886.

That being the case concerning the view of the court concerning the second amendment at that time. And for more than 100 years thereafter. Then how can the court reconcile the following?:

1934 National Firearms Act

1938 Federal Firearms Act

1968 Gun Control Act

1972 Bureau of Alcohol Tobacco and Firearms created

1986 Law Enforcement Officers Protection Act

1990 Crime Control Act

1994 Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act

Did not the federal government totally disregard the ruling of the court? Not to mention the express prohibition found within the “Restrictive clause” of the Second Article of Amendment to the United State Constitution itself:

“the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.”

I contend it can be firmly held that the federal government has indeed disregarded the prior ruling of the court. In addition to the clear restriction found within the second amendment itself.

Why? Has the court joined in a long running conspiracy with the other branches of the federal government. And this in order to deprive part or all of We The People of our preexisting Constitutionally secured right? It certainly appears that way, does it not? Especially after considering that the right to keep and bear arms was intended as the final checkpoint in our system of checks and balances.

What has happened to our intended system of “checks and balances”?

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#108055 May 24, 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
[United States v.] Heller... 2008
[United States v.] Heller... 2008
[United States v.] Heller... 2008
Justice Scalia
Siding with the Majority of the real Supreme Court
Based on the real US Constitution
This century
[McDonald v.] Chicago... 2010
[McDonald v.] Chicago... 2010
[McDonald v.] Chicago... 2010
[McDonald v.] Chicago... 2010

McDonald v. Chicago

The Court held that the right of an individual to "keep and bear arms" protected by the Second Amendment is incorporated by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and applies to the states. The decision cleared up the uncertainty left in the wake of District of Columbia v. Heller as to the scope of gun rights in regard to the states.

I repeat the 2010 McDonald v. Chicago SCOTUS decision cleared up the uncertainty left in the wake of District of Columbia v. Heller as to the scope of gun rights in regard to the states.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McDonald_v._Chic...

GunShow1

“Shall NOT be infringed!”

Since: Apr 13

San Jose, CA.

#108056 May 24, 2013
barefoot2626 wrote:
{click}
Not part of the US Constitution, GayDavy.
If you don't like the Second Amendment the way it is, GayDavy, why don't you try to change it to your version?
United States Constitution: Second Article of Amendment; Restrictive Clause;

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

United States Constitution:

Article. IV.

Section. 1.

Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State. And the Congress may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts, Records and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof.

Section. 2.

The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States.

Article. VI.: 2nd and 3rd clauses;

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law 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.

The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.
President Barack Obama

Englewood, CO

#108057 May 24, 2013
Uh............... I think that guns should be banned because they cause mass killings. Uh............... thenk you uh........... bye
President Barack Obama

Englewood, CO

#108058 May 24, 2013
Sorry I............ spell thank wrong. Uh............. Sorry.
spocko

Oakland, CA

#108060 May 24, 2013
Teaman wrote:
<quoted text>
These decisions upheld the state's right to limit or regulate firearms indicating the bill of rights pertained to the federal government. The first amendment starts with,[Congress] shall make no law....
The decision pertaining to the constitution not granting 2nd amendment rights upholds the principle the rights are preexisting and not "granted". The government can't take away a preexisting right.
Incorporation of rights to the states began with civil rights or equal protection when some states denied blacks gun ownership. That's how the federal government became involved with the [people] having the right to keep and bear arms.
Duh!
President Barack Obama

Englewood, CO

#108061 May 24, 2013
spocko wrote:
<quoted text>
Duh!
Uh........ Shut up Or........ Uh I........ fine you.
Teaman

Abingdon, VA

#108062 May 24, 2013
spocko wrote:
<quoted text>
Duh!
Hey, you were the one that said 224 years of decisions were overturned. Not many of them had anything to do with guns, but the federal government's jurisdiction. If you're saying the federal government is over reaching with their latest [activist] decision, I might agree with you.
what the hell

United States

#108063 May 24, 2013
Ahomana wrote:
<quoted text>
I know that the Chicagoans get their guns outside their borders silly noong, that was my point, but you might tell Indy that, he seems somewhat lagging behind in that logical assumption.
They buy their gun on chicago streets from criminals, within the borders of chicago city limits. You dont know shit.
spocko

Oakland, CA

#108064 May 24, 2013
Teaman wrote:
<quoted text>
Hey, you were the one that said 224 years of decisions were overturned. Not many of them had anything to do with guns, but the federal government's jurisdiction. If you're saying the federal government is over reaching with their latest [activist] decision, I might agree with you.
You obviously don't have a friggen clue what I posted just like the rest of you gunloons! The reason every Supreme Court in 224 years ruled that the second amendment had nothing to do with an individual right to own a gun, is because there is absolute proof beyond the slightest doubt, that the purpose of the second amendment, the intent of those who created it, its very reason for existence, had nothing to do with someone's right to own a gun. And the true meanings of the words in the second amendment, for those who understand the words, reflect that.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_of_Col...
Teaman

Abingdon, VA

#108065 May 24, 2013
President Barack Obama wrote:
<quoted text>
Uh........ Shut up Or........ Uh I........ fine you.
Yea, that weed is legal out there.
what the hell

United States

#108067 May 24, 2013
spocko wrote:
<quoted text>
You obviously don't have a friggen clue what I posted just like the rest of you gunloons! The reason every Supreme Court in 224 years ruled that the second amendment had nothing to do with an individual right to own a gun, is because there is absolute proof beyond the slightest doubt, that the purpose of the second amendment, the intent of those who created it, its very reason for existence, had nothing to do with someone's right to own a gun. And the true meanings of the words in the second amendment, for those who understand the words, reflect that.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_of_Col...
you're smoking too much. put down the weed,for a little while, give your brain a rest
spocko

Oakland, CA

#108068 May 24, 2013
what the hell wrote:
<quoted text>you're smoking too much. put down the weed,for a little while, give your brain a rest
The gunloon’s claim that every proposed regulation of firearms implicates the Second Amendment is patently false, yet here you idots are, making this claim over and over even in the face of absolute proof beyond the slightest doubt. The gun lobby has successfully spun a mythical broad individual right to bear arms for all legal private purposes. Yet the courts have consistently found that the Second Amendment guarantees a right to bear arms only for those individuals who are part of the "well regulated Militia" (¾ of today's stateside National Guard). Despite widespread belief to the contrary, the courts have clearly held that there is no right to bear arms for self-defense, hunting, or shooting competitions, much less arsenal-building in preparation for resistance of potential domestic tyranny. A constitutional false consciousness has perpetuated a system that provides notoriously easy access to all types of high-powered weapons. As a result, America has become the runaway world leader in gun violence.

GunShow1

“Shall NOT be infringed!”

Since: Apr 13

San Jose, CA.

#108070 May 24, 2013
President Barack Obama wrote:
Uh.......... I think that guns should be banned because they cause mass killings. Uh.......... thenk you uh.......... bye
"Affray....

"5. Nor unless such wearing be accompanied with such circumstances as are apt to terrify the people; consequently the wearing of common weapons, or having the usual number of attendants, merely for ornament or defense, where it is customary to make use of them, will not subject a person to the penalties of this act. Ibid. s. 9.[Pg. 50]

"Act of 1805, 2 Rev. Code, ch. 83, p. 108.

"Sect. 1. No free negro or mulatto shall keep or carry a fire-lock of any kind, or military weapon, or powder, or lead, without a licence from the court of the county or corporation; which licence may, at any time, be withdrawn. Arms, &c. so kept, shall be forfeited to the informer...."

"(A) A Certificate of the seizure of a gun, &c. on sect. 8, of 1 Rev, Code, p 187.

"county, to wit.

"Whereas AJ, of the county aforesaid, labourer, hath this day brought before me, JP, a justice of the peace for the said county, one gun, with powder and shot, by him found and seized in the bands and possession of a certain free mulatto man, known by the name of (or negro man slave belonging to as the case may be) who is not by law qualified to keep the same; and the said AJ having also, before me, made due proof of such seizure as aforesaid. By virtue of an act of the general assembly in that case made and provided, I do hereby order and direct, that the said AJ shall and may retain the said gun, powder and shot, to his own use; and that the said mulatto man shall receive thirty lashes upon his bare back, well laid on, which last sentence AC, a constable in this county, is ordered ta exetute. Given under my hand and seal, &c.
[Pg. 554]

SLAVES.

(B) Licence to keep arms and ammunition.

[This can only be granted by the court. See 2 Rev. Code, ch. 83, p 108.][Pg. 555]

-[The New Virginia Justice, Comprising the Office and Authority of a Justice of the Peace, in the Commonwealth of Virginia. TOGETHER WITH A VARIETY OF USEFUL PRECEDENTS, ADAPTED TO THE LAWS NOW IN FORCE. TO WHICH IS ADDED AN APPENDIX, CONTAINING ALL THE MOST APPROVED FORMS IN CONVEYANCING: SUCH AS DEEDS OF BARGAIN AND SALE, OF LEASE AND RELEASE; OF TRUST, MORTGAGES, BILLS OF SALE, &c. ALSO, THE DUTIES OF A JUSTICE OF THE PEACE, ARISING UNDER THE LAWS OF THE UNITED STATES. By William Waller Hening, Attorney At Law. The Second Edition, Revised, Corrected, Greatly Enlarged, and Brought Down to the Present Time. By the Author. RICHMOND: PUBLISHED BY JOHNSON & WARNER. 1810.]

"Licensing" was intended for "SLAVES", and NOT free people.

“Si vis pacem, para bellum !!”

Since: Dec 07

Southeast Virginia

#108071 May 24, 2013
I really hate to break it to you, Spocko (not really), but the Founders did NOT agree with your interpretation.

"I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials."
— George Mason, in Debates in Virginia Convention on Ratification of the Constitution, Elliot, Vol. 3, June 16, 1788

"Whereas civil-rulers, not having their duty to the people duly before them, may attempt to tyrannize, and as military forces, which must be occasionally raised to defend our country, might pervert their power to the injury of their fellow citizens, the people are confirmed by the article in their right to keep and bear their private arms."
-- Tench Coxe, in Remarks on the First Part of the Amendments to the Federal Constitution

"The best we can hope for concerning the people at large is that they be properly armed."
-- Alexander Hamilton, The Federalist Papers at 184-188

"If the representatives of the people betray their constituents, there is then no recourse left but in the exertion of that original right of self-defense which is paramount to all positive forms of government, and which against the usurpations of the national rulers may be exerted with infinitely better prospect of success than against those of the rulers of an individual State. In a single State, if the persons entrusted with supreme power become usurpers, the different parcels, subdivisions, or districts of which it consists, having no distinct government in each, can take no regular measures for defense. The citizens must rush tumultuously to arms, without concert, without system, without resource; except in their courage and despair."
-- Alexander Hamilton, Federalist No. 28

"That the said Constitution shall never be construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the press or the rights of conscience; or to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms ... "
-- Samuel Adams, Debates and Proceedings in the Convention of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, at 86-87 (Pierce & Hale, eds., Boston, 1850)

"[The Constitution preserves] the advantage of being armed which Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation...(where) the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms."
--James Madison, The Federalist Papers, No. 46
Teaman

Abingdon, VA

#108072 May 24, 2013
spocko wrote:
<quoted text>
The gunloon’s claim that every proposed regulation of firearms implicates the Second Amendment is patently false, yet here you idots are, making this claim over and over even in the face of absolute proof beyond the slightest doubt. The gun lobby has successfully spun a mythical broad individual right to bear arms for all legal private purposes. Yet the courts have consistently found that the Second Amendment guarantees a right to bear arms only for those individuals who are part of the "well regulated Militia" (¾ of today's stateside National Guard). Despite widespread belief to the contrary, the courts have clearly held that there is no right to bear arms for self-defense, hunting, or shooting competitions, much less arsenal-building in preparation for resistance of potential domestic tyranny. A constitutional false consciousness has perpetuated a system that provides notoriously easy access to all types of high-powered weapons. As a result, America has become the runaway world leader in gun violence.
I believe the court decision I think you're referring to, as you didn't provide any links to the decision, refers to the state's ability to regulate arms. The Militia is the state's concern. Those decisions restricted the federal government.

Having said that, you must have missed the comma in the two part sentence in the second amendment that mentions both militia and the people.

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 McRgo E'News: National Reciprocity & December C... Dec 15 Jim Wildrick Jr 1
News Pelosi's claim the House GOP is 'inviting' viol... Dec 14 Say What 8
News Florida: Another Mass Murder Stopped by Armed C... Dec 12 im not a doctor 9
News Lancaster County's congressmen vote opposite wa... Dec 11 jimwildrickjr 1
News Supreme Court turns away challenge to Md. assau... Dec 6 im not a doctor 6
News Florida Church Warns Visitors That Members Are ... Dec 5 im not a doctor 2
A Breakdown of Reloading at Home Nov 27 SummerBB8 1
More from around the web