It's the Guns, Stupid

It's the Guns, Stupid

There are 103326 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: Aug 11

Location hidden

#110069 Aug 3, 2013
Goat Milk Australia wrote:
<quoted text>Why not? We have lots of camels in central Australia, they exist wild there, but if you truck them to NSW and fatten them up on a nice country farm, they will produce great milk. They are traditionally a good dairy animal producing large amounts of very nourishing milk, why not take advantage of not even having to import them. We could have them in all parts of the country to produce fresh milk as well as chocolate, ice cream, yogurts and even cheese is possible thanks to some Danish scientists.

Camel milk is a staple beverage in many parts of the world. Surely you are aware of this.
I watched it on dirty jobs once, you have to get a baby to suckle before milking so its not as easy as cows. And we already have cows milk so why bother?
StudMuffin

UK

#110073 Aug 10, 2013
So, who is Peter Garrett?
spocko

Oakland, CA

#110074 Aug 10, 2013
Useless American gun laws that actually help criminals instead of finding them. For example, federal law bars the government from maintaining a searchable digital database of gun purchases. The National Rifle Association’s buddies in Congress feel that would be too big an intrusion on “gun rights.” So ATF clerks have to begin by telephoning the manufacturer to learn the name of the wholesaler. They then phone the wholesaler to learn the name of the retailer. If the retailer is still in business, it is supposed to have on hand what is known as a Form 4473, recording the name of the purchaser. Retailers that go out of business ship these forms to the tracing center, a total of more than 10 million records a year that must be searched by hand. If a gun is stolen, the owner has no legal obligation to report it. Even if a gun, used in a criminal act, is traced to its original owner there is no way to know thru how many hands the gun passed on its way to a criminal act.
In glaring contrast, anyone buying a vehicle, used or new, is required to register it. You’d also be required to maintain liability insurance or suffer the revocation of that registration and the suspension of your driver's license. If you subsequently sold the car, you almost certainly would have notified the appropriate authorities to stop paying insurance with no legal repercussions, and so there would be no question about who was legally responsible if it was involved in an accident. If your car is stolen, you undoubtedly would alert the authorities for the same reasons. For some mysterious reasons when it comes to guns common sense and/or logic no longer apply – why?
The simplest way to get useful insight into firearms control is to think of it as a public health issue, along the lines of Typhoid Mary. For those who don't know, she was a cook who was killing people by spreading disease. It is abundantly clear that the NRA (as illustrated by their supporters) have gone completely scrambledeggedy: They FIGHT folks who just want to get the data – nothing more. Why? Because it might actually solve the problem!
And what's really troubling, of course, is that the NRA is a con game. The right of a well regulated militia to keep and bear arms is constitutionally protected -- but NOT the right of a politically active, intensely negative industry to market its unsafe products in a way that causes the death of 15,000 Americans a year and the injury of another 18,000 at a huge cost to the taxpayer.
smurf

Sunnyvale, CA

#110075 Aug 10, 2013
Why do you f*cking retarded losers keep coming back to this 4 year old thread.

You just post the same shit over and over again.

You all must be the worlds most pathetic people ever.

They will do a tv special on you one day, worlds most pathetic losers with no life.

If more guns means more chance of losers like you being killed then there should be 10 times the amount of guns.

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#110076 Aug 10, 2013
smurf wrote:
Why do you f*cking retarded losers keep coming back to this 4 year old thread.

You just post the same shit over and over again.

You all must be the worlds most pathetic people ever.

They will do a tv special on you one day, worlds most pathetic losers with no life.

If more guns means more chance of losers like you being killed then there should be 10 times the amount of guns.
But it's the guns!
Teaman

Abingdon, VA

#110077 Aug 10, 2013
smurf wrote:
Why do you f*cking retarded losers keep coming back to this 4 year old thread.
You just post the same shit over and over again.
You all must be the worlds most pathetic people ever.
They will do a tv special on you one day, worlds most pathetic losers with no life.
If more guns means more chance of losers like you being killed then there should be 10 times the amount of guns.
Why does it concern you?
Teaman

Abingdon, VA

#110078 Aug 10, 2013
spocko wrote:
Useless American gun laws that actually help criminals instead of finding them. For example, federal law bars the government from maintaining a searchable digital database of gun purchases. The National Rifle Association’s buddies in Congress feel that would be too big an intrusion on “gun rights.” So ATF clerks have to begin by telephoning the manufacturer to learn the name of the wholesaler. They then phone the wholesaler to learn the name of the retailer. If the retailer is still in business, it is supposed to have on hand what is known as a Form 4473, recording the name of the purchaser. Retailers that go out of business ship these forms to the tracing center, a total of more than 10 million records a year that must be searched by hand. If a gun is stolen, the owner has no legal obligation to report it. Even if a gun, used in a criminal act, is traced to its original owner there is no way to know thru how many hands the gun passed on its way to a criminal act.
In glaring contrast, anyone buying a vehicle, used or new, is required to register it. You’d also be required to maintain liability insurance or suffer the revocation of that registration and the suspension of your driver's license. If you subsequently sold the car, you almost certainly would have notified the appropriate authorities to stop paying insurance with no legal repercussions, and so there would be no question about who was legally responsible if it was involved in an accident. If your car is stolen, you undoubtedly would alert the authorities for the same reasons. For some mysterious reasons when it comes to guns common sense and/or logic no longer apply – why?
The simplest way to get useful insight into firearms control is to think of it as a public health issue, along the lines of Typhoid Mary. For those who don't know, she was a cook who was killing people by spreading disease. It is abundantly clear that the NRA (as illustrated by their supporters) have gone completely scrambledeggedy: They FIGHT folks who just want to get the data – nothing more. Why? Because it might actually solve the problem!
And what's really troubling, of course, is that the NRA is a con game. The right of a well regulated militia to keep and bear arms is constitutionally protected -- but NOT the right of a politically active, intensely negative industry to market its unsafe products in a way that causes the death of 15,000 Americans a year and the injury of another 18,000 at a huge cost to the taxpayer.
There is no federal registration of motor vehicles, nor are there any federal insurance laws.

States have electronic data bases, at least mine does. This information is often shared with other states along with drivers records. The states had formed reciprocal agreements along these lines.
StudMuffin

UK

#110079 Aug 10, 2013
spocko wrote:
Useless American gun laws ...
THERE! YOU SEE? YOU'VE SAID IT ALL IN A MERE FEW WORDS:
"Useless American gun laws ..."

That's correct, sweet cheeks: USELESS LAWS.

Name =JUST ONE= Man-made law which has STOPPED =ANYTHING= from happening, dead in its tracks!

JUST ONE.

GOT A LAW?!?!?!?

No,=>YOU<= DO NOT!!!!

NO Man-made law has =EVER= stopped =ANYTHING= from happening.

So, the ~very best~=>YOU<= might do, is to punish the ill acts of the actors to a crime, and LEAVE EVERYBODY ELSE ALONE!
StudMuffin

UK

#110080 Aug 10, 2013
smurf wrote:
Why do you f*cking retarded losers keep coming back to this 4 year old thread.
You just post the same shit over and over again.
You all must be the worlds most pathetic people ever.
They will do a tv special on you one day, worlds most pathetic losers with no life.
If more guns means more chance of losers like you being killed then there should be 10 times the amount of guns.
But then? But then =>YOU<= have EXPOSED YOURSELF!!!
:-))
spocko

Oakland, CA

#110081 Aug 11, 2013
Teaman wrote:
<quoted text>
There is no federal registration of motor vehicles, nor are there any federal insurance laws.
States have electronic data bases, at least mine does. This information is often shared with other states along with drivers records. The states had formed reciprocal agreements along these lines.
Your post simply confirms and highlights my point of the ignorant gunloons making up their own facts as they need them. State DMVs are connected thru the National Driver Register (NDR)! The NDR database keeps information on drivers, whose license has been revoked, suspended, canceled or denied or have been convicted of serious traffic related offenses and this information is provided by all 51 US jurisdictions. If you have a hold on your license in one state it will show up on the NDR when any other state checks it. Besides, why would a gun registry be such a bad idea? By requiring all guns to be registered, then individuals might realize they have some responsibility to secure those guns to prevent children form accessing them and thieves from stealing them. Having a gun registered isn't going to encroach upon the rights of individuals to own and possess them, if they are legally permitted to do so.
Teaman

Abingdon, VA

#110082 Aug 11, 2013
spocko wrote:
<quoted text>
Your post simply confirms and highlights my point of the ignorant gunloons making up their own facts as they need them. State DMVs are connected thru the National Driver Register (NDR)! The NDR database keeps information on drivers, whose license has been revoked, suspended, canceled or denied or have been convicted of serious traffic related offenses and this information is provided by all 51 US jurisdictions. If you have a hold on your license in one state it will show up on the NDR when any other state checks it. Besides, why would a gun registry be such a bad idea? By requiring all guns to be registered, then individuals might realize they have some responsibility to secure those guns to prevent children form accessing them and thieves from stealing them. Having a gun registered isn't going to encroach upon the rights of individuals to own and possess them, if they are legally permitted to do so.
I have to say, the NDR is a new one on me. Having said that, it only lists people of serious driving convictions. I'll say again, convictions. Not every registered owner of a vehicle. We already have that with criminal background checks or the NCIC, or whatever they call it now, database. Both systems rely on the states to send in the data.

The bill of rights were required by the states to protect them FROM the federal government or a central ruling power before they would ratify the constitution. National registration leads to national confiscation. It is incumbent on the states to regulate the [use] of firearms as not every state has the same needs.

How is that requirement to keep firearms secured in a locked cabinet working out in California? The criminals are abiding by the law, right?

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#110083 Aug 11, 2013
Teaman wrote:
<quoted text>
There is no federal registration of motor vehicles, nor are there any federal insurance laws.
States have electronic data bases, at least mine does. This information is often shared with other states along with drivers records. The states had formed reciprocal agreements along these lines.
The reason there is no Federal Insurance laws is because of the FDR & his Pseudo Liberal Democrats from the 1940's after the SCOTUS ruled in United States v. South-Eastern Underwriters Association which stated that the US Federal Government could regulate insurance companies under the authority of the Commerce Clause in the U.S. Constitution. So the Democrats in Congress passed and FDR Signed into Law the McCarran–Ferguson Act which provides that federal anti-trust laws will not apply to the "business of insurance" as long as the state regulates in that area, but federal anti-trust laws will apply in cases of boycott, coercion, and intimidation. By contrast, most other federal laws will not apply to insurance whether the states regulate in that area or not.

and now the Pseudo Liberal Democrats in Washington want control and Obamacare is proof of that

Reid says Obamacare just a step toward eventual single-payer system

http://www.lasvegassun.com/news/2013/aug/10/r...

McCarran–Ferguson Act

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McCarran%E2%80%9...

United States v. South-Eastern Underwriters Association

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v....
Teaman

Abingdon, VA

#110084 Aug 11, 2013
Anonymous of Indy wrote:
<quoted text>The reason there is no Federal Insurance laws is because of the FDR & his Pseudo Liberal Democrats from the 1940's after the SCOTUS ruled in United States v. South-Eastern Underwriters Association which stated that the US Federal Government could regulate insurance companies under the authority of the Commerce Clause in the U.S. Constitution. So the Democrats in Congress passed and FDR Signed into Law the McCarran–Ferguson Act which provides that federal anti-trust laws will not apply to the "business of insurance" as long as the state regulates in that area, but federal anti-trust laws will apply in cases of boycott, coercion, and intimidation. By contrast, most other federal laws will not apply to insurance whether the states regulate in that area or not.
and now the Pseudo Liberal Democrats in Washington want control and Obamacare is proof of that
Reid says Obamacare just a step toward eventual single-payer system
http://www.lasvegassun.com/news/2013/aug/10/r...
McCarran–Ferguson Act
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McCarran%E2%80%9...
United States v. South-Eastern Underwriters Association
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v....
I don't know what your point is, Indy. I really don't have a problem with the federal government being limited to interstate regulation. Large companies are still subject to regulations of each state they do business in. Some states are no fault and others aren't. I wouldn't want the fed imposing a socialistic car insurance law on all of the states, like Obamacare.

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#110085 Aug 11, 2013
Teaman wrote:
<quoted text>
I don't know what your point is, Indy. I really don't have a problem with the federal government being limited to interstate regulation. Large companies are still subject to regulations of each state they do business in. Some states are no fault and others aren't. I wouldn't want the fed imposing a socialistic car insurance law on all of the states, like Obamacare.
The Federal Government is involved is the point because if it wasn't for the Federal Government restricting me as an individual I could by cheaper Health Insurance across state lines in another state which it is cheaper in other states than here in Indiana and as of right now I can't because of the Federal Government's McCarran–Ferguson Act created by the Pseudo Liberal Democrats in the 1940's which has given the insurance industry monoply powers in each state they operate.

McCarran–Ferguson Act

The McCarran–Ferguson Act, 15 U.S.C.§§ 1011-1015, also known as Public Law 15, is a United States federal law that exempts the business of insurance from most federal regulation, including federal antitrust laws to a limited extent. The McCarran–Ferguson Act was passed by the 79th Congress in 1945 after the Supreme Court ruled in United States v. South-Eastern Underwriters Association that the federal government could regulate insurance companies under the authority of the Commerce Clause in the U.S. Constitution.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McCarran%E2%80%9...
Teaman

Abingdon, VA

#110086 Aug 11, 2013
Anonymous of Indy wrote:
<quoted text>The Federal Government is involved is the point because if it wasn't for the Federal Government restricting me as an individual I could by cheaper Health Insurance across state lines in another state which it is cheaper in other states than here in Indiana and as of right now I can't because of the Federal Government's McCarran–Ferguson Act created by the Pseudo Liberal Democrats in the 1940's which has given the insurance industry monoply powers in each state they operate.
McCarran–Ferguson Act
The McCarran–Ferguson Act, 15 U.S.C.§§ 1011-1015, also known as Public Law 15, is a United States federal law that exempts the business of insurance from most federal regulation, including federal antitrust laws to a limited extent. The McCarran–Ferguson Act was passed by the 79th Congress in 1945 after the Supreme Court ruled in United States v. South-Eastern Underwriters Association that the federal government could regulate insurance companies under the authority of the Commerce Clause in the U.S. Constitution.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McCarran%E2%80%9...
Ah, I see. I'm not sure if it is the federal government restricting you as much as it is the state. If you mean the federal government isn't promoting an open and free market between the states, I would agree.

I once bought an out of state car insurance policy that was much cheaper than NJ due to the socialistic no fault laws here. It was the state that forced that insurance company to raise the premium to NJ levels. I had no problem buying across state lines, it was the state that added the tariffs that raised the premium up to local costs. How could the federal government fix that?

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#110087 Aug 11, 2013
Teaman wrote:
<quoted text>
Ah, I see. I'm not sure if it is the federal government restricting you as much as it is the state. If you mean the federal government isn't promoting an open and free market between the states, I would agree.
I once bought an out of state car insurance policy that was much cheaper than NJ due to the socialistic no fault laws here. It was the state that forced that insurance company to raise the premium to NJ levels. I had no problem buying across state lines, it was the state that added the tariffs that raised the premium up to local costs. How could the federal government fix that?
that is why the Democrats won't repeal McCarran–Ferguson Act because they know indvidual's could by insurance acrossed state lines alot Cheaper and is why there is such a price difference from State to State and why people were advocating that congress repeal the McCarran-Ferguson Act.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McCarran%E2%80%9...
Primeval Predator

Brisbane, Australia

#110088 Aug 12, 2013
I'm 12 and i say hoot em...
truth

Westminster, Australia

#110089 Aug 12, 2013
everything is as gun.every symbol on this planet earth
every river mountains lake buildings and so on..everything..

'kad se zemlja bude tresti
djecu cete svoju jesti'

asked yourself
why others planet been destroy..they qwill tell you don't asked..

are you happy..

me not never will be

evil is evil
truth

Westminster, Australia

#110090 Aug 13, 2013
gun with bless salt
and
bless water
yeppppppppppppppppppppp
truth

Westminster, Australia

#110091 Aug 13, 2013
do you liked table graveyards
yeeeeeeeeeee
then
look
g building on evil satanic way
yep

liarssssssssssssssssssssssssss ssssssss

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 Facebook Spends $16 Million on Armed Guards for... 1 hr Justice Leaguer 2
News It's just a bill 1 hr Justice Leaguer 2
News Federal Judge Strikes Down DC Concealed Carry Law 1 hr Justice Leaguer 3
News Why assault rifle sales are booming (Jun '15) May 23 Three Days 251
News Assault weapon bans should stand May 15 Sheriff Joe 529 882
News No wedding for Bristol Palin (May '15) May 6 Teenage Dutch Virgin 48
News Hillary to Voter Calling for More Second Amendm... Apr '16 GoForTheBandit 1
More from around the web