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.

#108073 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.
"ss 5. That the said volunteers may, at their option, be armed and equipped by the United States, or at their own expense; and in case they arm and equip themselves, to the of the president of the United States, they shall each be entitled to receive six and one quarter cents per day, while in actual service, for the use and risk of such arms and equipments: Provided, That the compensation thus allowed shall not in any case exceed twenty four dollars: And provided also, That no rifle be received into the service of the United States, whose shall be formed to carry a ball of a smaller size than at the of seventy balls to a pound weight.{Side Note: The volunteers may equip themselves, or be equipped, &c. and in case, &c. Proviso; compensation, &c. Proviso; rifle to carry a ball of net lees than 70 to a pound.}" [Pg. 1487]

[Pg. 1330] "ss 21. That each of the said collectors, or his deputies shall, within ten days after receiving his collection list, advertise, one newspaper printed in his collection district, if any there be, and by notifications to be posted up in at least four public places in his collection district, that the said tax has become due and payable, and state the times and places at which he or they will attend to receive the same, which shall be within twenty days after such notification; and with respect to persons who shall not attend, according to such notifications, it shall be the duty of each collector, in person, or by deputy, to apply once at their respective dwellings, within such district, and there demand the taxes payable by such persons; which application shall be made within sixty days after the receipt of collection lists by the collectors; and if the said taxes shall not be then paid, or within twenty days thereafter, it shall be lawful for such collector and his deputies to proceed to collect the said taxes by distress and sale of the goods, chattels, or effects, of the per-[Pg. 1331] sons delinquent as aforesaid, with a commission of eight per centum upon the said taxes, to and for the use of such collector: Provided, That it shall not be lawful to make distress of the tools or implements of a trade or profession, beasts of the plough necessary for the cultivation of improved lands, >>>>>arms< <<<<, or house-hold furniture or apparel necessary for a family."

- THE PUBLIC AND GENERAL STATUTES PASSED BY THE CONGRESS OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. FROM 1789 TO 1836 INCLUSIVE, WHETHER Expired, Repealed, or in Force; ARRANGED IN CHRONOLOGICAL ORDER WITH MARGINAL REFERENCES. AND A COPIOUS INDEX. TO WHICH IB ADDED The Constitution of the United States. AND AN APPENDIX. FROM 1789 TO 1827, PUBLISHED UNDER THE INSPECTION OF JOSEPH STORY, ONE OF THE JUSTICES OF THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES. SECOND EDITION. EDITED BY GEORGE SHARSWOOD. Philadelphia: T. AND J.W. JOHNSON, LAW BOOKSELLERS. SUCCESSORS TO NICKLIN AND JOHNSON, No. 5, Minor Street. 1839.

Since: Dec 10

Perth, Australia

#108074 May 24, 2013
Anonymous of Indy wrote:
<quoted text>you mean the Chicagoan Criminals get their guns outside their borders not law abiding citizens and I like how you place the law abiding citizens and criminals in the same group but according to NY times of the 50,000 stolen guns recovered 22,051 or 44% of the stolen guns recovered were from Illinois and just think in 30 years Australia is going to look just like modern day gang land Chicago on a National level.
Where 50,000 Guns Recovered in Chicago Came From
http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2013/01/29...
Firstly, how are so many guns stolen, if the people who have them, are responsible and law abiding?..there must be a stack of idiots with guns in America? Secondly, Chicago are getting their guns through these thefts and also (it is believed by your graph) from rellies that have migrated from Missisipi etc...so again law abiders are giving crims their guns?
Now FYI we have had a mafia styled underworld in Australia since your god was a boy and we weren't able to reign them in when we had easy access to guns, so gun control has had no affect on that. The problem with the underbelly in this, like all countries is that their feelers are far reaching. The underbelly have corrupted all walks of life from street gangs, law enforcement, postal workers to the judiciary, guns will not stop this and hasn't. In order to stop this type of crime ring you have to clean up and clear out the corrupt filth from all of the areas from which they derive their power, be that the cops, lawyers, judges, MPs etc, A huge undertaking in places like Sydney and Melbourne where they virtually run everything from the markets to parliament.

Since: Dec 10

Perth, Australia

#108075 May 24, 2013
what the hell wrote:
<quoted text>They buy their gun on chicago streets from criminals, within the borders of chicago city limits. You dont know shit.
But where and how do the sellers get them you feckin' ijit? NOT in Chicago...no apparently from Indies link they get them from law abiding Americans who are lapse with their gun security and law abiding American relatives and friends from states outside the Chicago state line...the guns are proving to be legally bought so you law abiding dick heads are letting them be stolen or claiming their stolen and just letting them have them...what a bunch of dumb ignorant gun owners you are eh!

“Tu ne cede malis”

Since: Dec 06

Lots of different places

#108076 May 24, 2013
Ahomana wrote:
<quoted text>
But where and how do the sellers get them you feckin' ijit? NOT in Chicago...no apparently from Indies link they get them from law abiding Americans who are lapse with their gun security and law abiding American relatives and friends from states outside the Chicago state line...the guns are proving to be legally bought so you law abiding dick heads are letting them be stolen or claiming their stolen and just letting them have them...what a bunch of dumb ignorant gun owners you are eh!
Once again: Why the hell do =>YOU<= care?

You don't live in the U.S.

How many Americans —or anyone else for that matter— are digging into what happens in Australia?

As I see things, the ONLY reason you're posting here is because you are a paid instigator who's actually an American, and who's posting from an Australian proxy.

Either way, that make =>YOU<= out to be disingenuous.
GoGoBar

Thailand

#108077 May 24, 2013
The Second Amendment was Ratified to Preserve Slavery

The real reason the Second Amendment was ratified, and why it says "State" instead of "Country" (the Framers knew the difference - see the 10th Amendment), was to preserve the slave patrol militias in the southern states, which was necessary to get Virginia's vote. Founders Patrick Henry, George Mason, and James Madison were totally clear on that ... and we all should be too.

In the beginning, there were the militias. In the South, they were also called the "slave patrols," and they were regulated by the states.

In Georgia, for example, a generation before the American Revolution, laws were passed in 1755 and 1757 that required all plantation owners or their male white employees to be members of the Georgia Militia, and for those armed militia members to make monthly inspections of the quarters of all slaves in the state. The law defined which counties had which armed militias and even required armed militia members to keep a keen eye out for slaves who may be planning uprisings.

http://truth-out.org/news/item/13890-the-seco...

Very interesting articles with historical documentation to affirm.
The Second has never been tested in an historical sense.

The original draft referred to "Country" and not "State."
GoGoBar

Thailand

#108078 May 24, 2013
The Second Amendment was part of a compromise, an unholy deal, that allowed slaveholders to maintain their system of slave patrols and terror. In many sections of the South, Africans far outnumbered whites, and the only defense slaveholders had against slave insurrections was an armed militia that was under the state's control, not the control of the federal government. Hence this right to bear arms was not an expression of liberty, it was an inherent expression of the worst kind of oppression, the enslavement and exploitation of millions of black men, women and children

Read more: http://www.ctpost.com/news/article/The-dark-h...

Since: Feb 13

United States

#108079 May 24, 2013
Highlander wrote:
<quoted text>
Once again: Why the hell do =>YOU<= care?
You don't live in the U.S.
How many Americans —or anyone else for that matter— are digging into what happens in Australia?
As I see things, the ONLY reason you're posting here is because you are a paid instigator who's actually an American, and who's posting from an Australian proxy.
Either way, that make =>YOU<= out to be disingenuous.
She is not american. She is australian. And she has just as much right to talk about what is happening in america as you or I have to talk about what happens in australia. She and I are on total ends of the gun debate, but as I said, she has a right to voice her opinion. And for your info the last time I checked it says ' australian forum ', so what makes you any different? You and I both are americans on an australian forum, are we not? The only difference is that I believe in freedom of speech, whereas, apparently, you dont.
GoGoBar

Thailand

#108080 May 24, 2013
"To bear arms was a term that meant participating in military affairs, not merely carrying a weapon" and with the southern states concerned about the future of slavery, that well-regulated militia was not a right, it was a means of survival.

Then, there is the more succinct observation by contemporary historian Gary Wills:

"One does not bear arms against a rabbit."

Since: Feb 13

United States

#108081 May 24, 2013
During the founding of america the southern states, alabama, mississippi, etc; were not a part of the usa. They were the wilderness occupied by native americans. There were only 13 colonies you know. And yes, the right to bear arms means exactly what it says, and tht was the intent of our founding fathers.
Slaverly exzisted in all 13 colonies at first. As a matter of fact, those slave states that were considered neuteral during the war between the states were the last to free their slaves. So, the right to bear arms, was set in motion over 100 years b4 the civil war.
spocko

Oakland, CA

#108082 May 24, 2013
Teaman wrote:
<quoted text>
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.
Come on man, we are talking about supreme court decisions - never mind me!

Since: Dec 10

Perth, Australia

#108083 May 24, 2013
Highlander wrote:
<quoted text>
Once again: Why the hell do =>YOU<= care?
You don't live in the U.S.
How many Americans —or anyone else for that matter— are digging into what happens in Australia?
As I see things, the ONLY reason you're posting here is because you are a paid instigator who's actually an American, and who's posting from an Australian proxy.
Either way, that make =>YOU<= out to be disingenuous.
You are the troll here, you appear from nowhere and then proceed to troll me on a continual basis obviously to get a name for yourself, I can understand the fascination.
"IF" you have a problem with my last post, dispute it? don't just go trolling to no end. I have had my fair share of you dicks but hey I am willing to test my theory that none of you have the intelligence of a gnat....If you're game?

Since: Dec 10

Perth, Australia

#108085 May 24, 2013
crawlfish wrote:
<quoted text>She is not american. She is australian. And she has just as much right to talk about what is happening in america as you or I have to talk about what happens in australia. She and I are on total ends of the gun debate, but as I said, she has a right to voice her opinion. And for your info the last time I checked it says ' australian forum ', so what makes you any different? You and I both are americans on an australian forum, are we not? The only difference is that I believe in freedom of speech, whereas, apparently, you dont.
Yes, we are on total opposites of this debate, so your comments and considerations are more appreciated because of that fact.:)
Cheers crawlfish.

Since: Dec 10

Perth, Australia

#108086 May 24, 2013
geej0n wrote:
<quoted text>
Sounds like lies to me!
Another troll appearing out of nowhere, just to troll.You are simply confirming my suspicions about trolls having the intelligence of gnats, yemoron.
Teaman

Abingdon, VA

#108088 May 24, 2013
spocko wrote:
<quoted text>
Come on man, we are talking about supreme court decisions - never mind me!
The court decisions you refer to were about state restrictions on firearms. It was the state laws that were contested. The supreme court had upheld the state's ability to restrict firearms indicating the bill of rights restricted the federal government. This latest decision incorporated the bill of rights into the states but it still enables the states to regulate them. I'm pretty sure Scalia's brief mentioned state analogues.
Teaman

Abingdon, VA

#108089 May 24, 2013
GoGoBar wrote:
The Second Amendment was Ratified to Preserve Slavery
The real reason the Second Amendment was ratified, and why it says "State" instead of "Country" (the Framers knew the difference - see the 10th Amendment), was to preserve the slave patrol militias in the southern states, which was necessary to get Virginia's vote. Founders Patrick Henry, George Mason, and James Madison were totally clear on that ... and we all should be too.
In the beginning, there were the militias. In the South, they were also called the "slave patrols," and they were regulated by the states.
In Georgia, for example, a generation before the American Revolution, laws were passed in 1755 and 1757 that required all plantation owners or their male white employees to be members of the Georgia Militia, and for those armed militia members to make monthly inspections of the quarters of all slaves in the state. The law defined which counties had which armed militias and even required armed militia members to keep a keen eye out for slaves who may be planning uprisings.
http://truth-out.org/news/item/13890-the-seco...
Very interesting articles with historical documentation to affirm.
The Second has never been tested in an historical sense.
The original draft referred to "Country" and not "State."
I would have trouble finding a site more left wing that that one.
GoGoBar

Thailand

#108091 May 24, 2013
Teaman wrote:
<quoted text>
I would have trouble finding a site more left wing that that one.
Still, it makes one wonder back in the 18th century America exactly what Free States were using armed people to Tyranise by well regulated miltias.

Just which Govts practised Tyranny.
Larry

Belmont, Australia

#108092 May 24, 2013
It's disappointing that the president was not supported with even background checks. I'd go as far as saying that it is a disgrace.

You need the whole lot of measures no hand guns, large capacity magazines, assault weapons auto weapons, background checks, cooling off periods etc.

Common sense.

But then again we are talking about folks blowing holes in the ice so their cattle can drink. Go figure.

Folks that think the only way to break up ice is to blow holes in it. These are the people that oppose good solid laws and regulations, people blowing holes in the ice!

Probably the same people that shoot signs and trees for kicks.
Teaman

Abingdon, VA

#108093 May 24, 2013
GoGoBar wrote:
<quoted text>
Still, it makes one wonder back in the 18th century America exactly what Free States were using armed people to Tyranise by well regulated miltias.
Just which Govts practised Tyranny.
Virginia and South Carolina were the only states that used militia as slave patrols.

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

The second amendment wasn't about slave patrols.

The compromise was making a slave 3 fifths of a person. The slave states were going to count their slaves as population to gain seats in the House of Representatives. The northern states needed the slaves states to become part of the union but wanted to limit slavery. A compromise was struck. Congress was always careful to keep the number of slave states equal to the free state numbers when new states joined the union so they couldn't gain an advantage in the Senate. The Missouri compromise was the result of that.

You can talk crap but in reality, efforts were made to keep slavery in check while keeping the slaves states in the union.
Teaman

Abingdon, VA

#108094 May 24, 2013
Larry wrote:
It's disappointing that the president was not supported with even background checks. I'd go as far as saying that it is a disgrace.
You need the whole lot of measures no hand guns, large capacity magazines, assault weapons auto weapons, background checks, cooling off periods etc.
Common sense.
But then again we are talking about folks blowing holes in the ice so their cattle can drink. Go figure.
Folks that think the only way to break up ice is to blow holes in it. These are the people that oppose good solid laws and regulations, people blowing holes in the ice!
Probably the same people that shoot signs and trees for kicks.
That might be because the president is the executive branch of the federal government. The fed is too big and powerful now. Before you know it, they'll be invading other countries with a congressional declaration of war. Oh! Wait a minute...

“Tu ne cede malis”

Since: Dec 06

Lots of different places

#108095 May 24, 2013
crawlfish wrote:
<quoted text>She is not american. She is australian. And she has just as much right to talk about what is happening in america as you or I have to talk about what happens in australia. She and I are on total ends of the gun debate, but as I said, she has a right to voice her opinion. And for your info the last time I checked it says ' australian forum ', so what makes you any different? You and I both are americans on an australian forum, are we not? The only difference is that I believe in freedom of speech, whereas, apparently, you dont.
So, you're an 'Australian crotch sucker' then?

Sure sounds that way to me!

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 Obey the police, who are almost always right; M... Tue youll shoot your ... 1
News Paxton's acceptance of shootings is unacceptable Nov 18 youll shoot your ... 1
Texas mass shooting Nov 11 Canlendyou 13
News Massachusetts 1st to ban bump stocks since Vega... Nov 11 Watchdog 3
News Existing laws should have stopped shooter Nov 10 payme 1
News Texas Attorney General: The way to stop mass sh... Nov 9 Brenda Lasley 16
30-06 (7.62X63) vs .308 (7.62X51) (Feb '11) Nov 7 Charlie 122
More from around the web