It's the Guns, Stupid

It's the Guns, Stupid

There are 103340 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: Oct 11

Location hidden

#110368 Sep 9, 2013
Fling wrote:
<quoted text>
'Hope' in one hand, and SHI T in the other, and tell me which hand fills first!
The fact of the matter is just this: YOU —amongst others— happen to 'think' that a law is going to STOP something from happening.
Yeah, just as =>YOUR<= idiot allopathic DORK doctors seemingly think that a drug is going to stop a medical problem from recurring.
YOU really have NOT thought out this matter, have you?
Just enact another law, and the problem will go away, right?
RIGHT?
WHEN —YOU BITCH— WHEN was the last time a law of man STOPPED =ANYTHING= from happening?
So far, YOU have NOT replied to my question, and I expect that you won't because =>YOU<= KNOW that you cannot, with =ANY= degree of honesty.
Instead, all you'll continue to do is obfuscate, dissemble, and prevaricate, endlessly as always.
Yet I have replied to your question, it just wasn't what you wanted/was expecting to hear, which goes back to what I said about our inability to control peoples' minds.

All we can really do is appeal to their humanity and hope that they are as interested in furthering the mutual conscience and pursuit of the moral ascension of all Humanity as we are as it is not for us to dictate the behavior or regulate the minds of sentient beings as sentience comes with the inherent entitlement to freedom of thought and action, that is, as long as it does not harm or is the cause of harm to another as that would circumvent the underlying intent of the Life that has been bestowed upon us all.

We live, we learn and with the accretion of knowledge, hopefully, we grow towards further ethical enrichment and fulfillment as the people we were meant to be.

Since: Oct 11

Location hidden

#110369 Sep 9, 2013
Fling wrote:
<quoted text>
WHEN —YES, WHEN— was the last time that a LAW protected =ANYONE= from an ill act?
WHEN!?!?!?!?
When the morally minded chose to abide by them/it.

“Si vis pacem, para bellum !!”

Since: Dec 07

Southeast Virginia

#110370 Sep 9, 2013
Snow Bunny_ wrote:
<quoted text>
3. There is a gun show loophole...and you know it! There are LAWS that require background checks....gun shows do not have to comply wiht that law...HENCE: The loop hole. Quit playing semantics :)
Use of the "Gun Show Loophole" has been advocated by terrorists you fool!!!!!
In the summer of 2011, Adam Gadahn declared that "America is absolutely awash with easily obtainable firearms." He also claimed that, "You can go down to a gun show at the local convention center and come away with a fully automatic assault rifle, without a background check, and most likely without having to show an identification card," Gadahn urged Western extremists to follow this path.
There is no transaction that takes place at a gunshow that can't take place anywhere else. Federally licensed gun dealers BY LAW must conduct backgraound checks just like they are selling a firearm at their own store. Period. And it veries by state, but in most, private citizens selling their own privately owned guns do not have to conduct a background check. Same as if they were selling a gun to a neighbor or whoever from there home or out of the trunk of their car. Some states do require private owners to conduct background checks at gun shows.

And I hate to break it to you (not really), but Adam Gadahn is completely full of shit. As far as full-auto weapons go....NO ONE is allowed to own one or buy one without passing a background check and paying an additional $200 tax, and in some states, notifying the state and local police of your ownership of a full-auto weapon.

So since there is no transaction at a gun show that can't happen anywhere else, there is NO GUNSHOW LOOPHOLE.
Ding

UK

#110371 Sep 9, 2013
just an allusion wrote:
<quoted text>
When the morally minded chose to abide by them/it.
Oh, as in NAZI Germany, when all the 'law-abiding' surrendered their guns?

And in the old Soviet Union too?

Oh, and China too, right along with Cambodia ...

Yeah, THEY surrendered ~their~ guns, and guess what happened right afterwards?

When —ahem—'morally-minded' people fall for a corrupt political premise, guess what happens?

HINT: MASS MURDER ON A GRAND SCALE!!!!!!!!

Your last name wouldn't happen to be 'Sunstein,' would it?
Ding

UK

#110372 Sep 9, 2013
just an allusion wrote:
<quoted text>
Yet I have replied to your question, it just wasn't what you wanted/was expecting to hear, which goes back to what I said about our inability to control peoples' minds.
All we can really do is appeal to their humanity and hope that they are as interested in furthering the mutual conscience and pursuit of the moral ascension of all Humanity as we are as it is not for us to dictate the behavior or regulate the minds of sentient beings as sentience comes with the inherent entitlement to freedom of thought and action, that is, as long as it does not harm or is the cause of harm to another as that would circumvent the underlying intent of the Life that has been bestowed upon us all.
We live, we learn and with the accretion of knowledge, hopefully, we grow towards further ethical enrichment and fulfillment as the people we were meant to be.
'Hope' in one hand, and SHI T in the other, and tell me which hand fills first!
The fact of the matter is just this: YOU —amongst others— happen to 'think' that a law is going to STOP something from happening.
Yeah, just as =>YOUR<= idiot allopathic DORK doctors seemingly think that a drug is going to stop a medical problem from recurring.
YOU really have NOT thought out this matter, have you?
Just enact another law, and the problem will go away, right?
RIGHT?
WHEN —YOU BITCH— WHEN was the last time a law of man STOPPED =ANYTHING= from happening?
So far, YOU have NOT replied to my question, and I expect that you won't because =>YOU<= KNOW that you cannot, with =ANY= degree of honesty.
Instead, all you'll continue to do is obfuscate, dissemble, and prevaricate, endlessly as always.
Adam Gadahn

UK

#110373 Sep 9, 2013
Armed Veteran wrote:
<quoted text>
There is no transaction that takes place at a gunshow that can't take place anywhere else. Federally licensed gun dealers BY LAW must conduct backgraound checks just like they are selling a firearm at their own store. Period. And it veries by state, but in most, private citizens selling their own privately owned guns do not have to conduct a background check. Same as if they were selling a gun to a neighbor or whoever from there home or out of the trunk of their car. Some states do require private owners to conduct background checks at gun shows.
And I hate to break it to you (not really), but Adam Gadahn is completely full of shit. As far as full-auto weapons go....NO ONE is allowed to own one or buy one without passing a background check and paying an additional $200 tax, and in some states, notifying the state and local police of your ownership of a full-auto weapon.
So since there is no transaction at a gun show that can't happen anywhere else, there is NO GUNSHOW LOOPHOLE.
I am a ZIONAZI Jew.

How DARE you make fun of me!

I shall now dispatch Gog, and Magag to rend you!!
Boy 2

Australia

#110374 Sep 9, 2013
Hi I am 21 tex me 0408135364
spider

Brandon, UK

#110375 Sep 9, 2013
just an allusion wrote:
<quoted text>
When the morally minded chose to abide by them/it.
In my expierience, morally minded people don't need laws,, it's the immoral who chose not to abide by them.
Zipper

UK

#110376 Sep 9, 2013
spider wrote:
<quoted text>
In my expierience, morally minded people don't need laws,, it's the immoral who chose not to abide by them.
But, you see? YOU are attempting to 'reason' with a fool.

Fools will ~always~ be foolish, and as such, will ~always~ attempt the foolish.

Case closed!

Since: Oct 11

Location hidden

#110377 Sep 9, 2013
Ding wrote:
<quoted text>
Oh, as in NAZI Germany, when all the 'law-abiding' surrendered their guns?
And in the old Soviet Union too?
Oh, and China too, right along with Cambodia ...
Yeah, THEY surrendered ~their~ guns, and guess what happened right afterwards?
When —ahem—'morally-minded' people fall for a corrupt political premise, guess what happens?
HINT: MASS MURDER ON A GRAND SCALE!!!!!!!!
Your last name wouldn't happen to be 'Sunstein,' would it?
Yet no one is even suggesting that anyone "surrender" their guns!

All that anyone is doing is proposing more stringent gun laws that will serve to further insure that firearms do not fall into the hands of the criminally minded or the mentally imbalanced,,nothing more.

I don't know where you're getting your intel from, or if you're merely deluded, but I suggest that you revisit the media and reassess your perception of what is actually being suggested.

Since: Oct 11

Location hidden

#110378 Sep 9, 2013
Ding wrote:
<quoted text>
'Hope' in one hand, and SHI T in the other, and tell me which hand fills first!
The fact of the matter is just this: YOU —amongst others— happen to 'think' that a law is going to STOP something from happening.
Yeah, just as =>YOUR<= idiot allopathic DORK doctors seemingly think that a drug is going to stop a medical problem from recurring.
YOU really have NOT thought out this matter, have you?
Just enact another law, and the problem will go away, right?
RIGHT?
WHEN —YOU BITCH— WHEN was the last time a law of man STOPPED =ANYTHING= from happening?
So far, YOU have NOT replied to my question, and I expect that you won't because =>YOU<= KNOW that you cannot, with =ANY= degree of honesty.
Instead, all you'll continue to do is obfuscate, dissemble, and prevaricate, endlessly as always.
Alright, now you're repeating yourself...Perhaps you should step away from the 'puter for a bit, catch a nap or grab a bite to eat, you know, to replenish your constitution because, well, you're slacking.

Since: Oct 11

Location hidden

#110379 Sep 9, 2013
spider wrote:
<quoted text>
In my expierience, morally minded people don't need laws,, it's the immoral who chose not to abide by them.
Yes, but it's hard to separate the one from the other from mere appearance alone until they do, so the laws are needed to separate the chaff from the wheat, so to speak.

Since: Oct 11

Location hidden

#110380 Sep 9, 2013
Zipper wrote:
<quoted text>
But, you see? YOU are attempting to 'reason' with a fool.
Fools will ~always~ be foolish, and as such, will ~always~ attempt the foolish.
Case closed!
What makes me the "fool" because I merely want for a world devoid of the wanton and malicious slaughter of children and innocents?

Tell me what is so unreasonable about such desire?!
Marauder

Valdez, AK

#110381 Sep 9, 2013
just an allusion wrote:
<quoted text>
I'll answer your questions with an question and answer:
Q: How many of those 1.8 million people stopped a law-abiding citizens from legally purchasing a firearm?
A: NONE!
So what's your point? Inasmuch as the legal measures prevented firearms from falling into the hands of those miscreants, yet didn't prevent you or myself from purchasing them, what does it matter?
The harder that we can make it for criminals to engage in criminality, the better off we all are for it! And that's an empirically documented fact!!
"Q: How many of those 1.8 million people stopped a law-abiding citizens from legally purchasing a firearm?
A: NONE!"

How do you know...? How many of those 1.8 million went out and stole a firearm the same day they were denied...? How many bought a gun from the gangbangers on the street corner...? How many of those 1.8 million went on to rob, steal or murder innocent people...?

All you're doing is defending the illegal activities of criminals...you're a pathetic hypocrite.
Marauder

Valdez, AK

#110382 Sep 9, 2013
just an allusion wrote:
<quoted text>
They "failed" because the regulations weren't as stringent as the new provisions would make them, thereby demonstrating the need for more stringent guidelines in firearm purchases that would serve to seal those 'cracks'.
Thanks for helping me to make my point!
BS! A judge sent Cho to "outpatient care" when if he had sent him to "inpatient care" he would have made the list. When Laughner's actions came to the attention of the university, they failed to contact the authorities that could have made a difference.

Those people in positions of authority that had the ability to take action failed and it cost people's lives.

"They "failed" because the regulations weren't as stringent as the new provisions would make them..."

The regulations were already there and available...they just didn't want to bother.

"Thanks for helping me to make my point!"

You're welcome...and the point is that you're an ignorant hypocrite.
Marauder

Valdez, AK

#110383 Sep 9, 2013
just an allusion wrote:
<quoted text>
Yet they WERE prevented the legal purchase of a firearm, forcing them to pursue alternative means of acquisition which, in case you're unaware, the increase in difficulty resulting from the new provisions would serve to make it even harder still, perhaps even altogether impossible, for the criminally minded/mentally unbalanced to obtain firearms.
The "benefit" being that we've served to keep just that many more firearms out of the hands of criminals, and even more still once the new provisions are enacted, while any honest, upstanding citizen is still able to legally purchase their forearms.
And here you are defending the criminal activities of criminals. Rather then charging them with a felony...10 years imprisonment...or $250,000 fines...YOU want to just let them go on their merry way to commit more crimes against the people.

How very noble of you.

“Imaginez tous les gens”

Since: Sep 09

Sunbury, OH

#110384 Sep 9, 2013
Marauder wrote:
<quoted text>
"It is not illegal to try and buy a firearm legally. You simply get denied. A lot of people don't even realize they can't buy a gun, and they find out when they're denied. It's not illegal to TRY to buy a gun. It IS illegal to ACTUALLY buy it when denied."
WRONG...it is illegal...that's why it's called a felony. Why are you defending the criminal acts of criminals...?
You even contradict yourself with this reference;
"In the past, Justice Department officials have also said that these crimes are inherently difficult to prosecute, because it’s tough to prove that someone was knowingly and deliberately lying on his or her form."
NOTE...they even said it is a "crime"...duh...all you and they are doing is making excuses for not complying with the law and allowing criminals to get away to get a gun elsewhere.
1. Perhaps you can't read?. It's only a felony if they KNOWINGLY try to buy a firearm. There is no way to prove the person actually KNEW they couldn't buy one....hence: why there are VERY little prosecutions :D

2. I didn't contradict ANYTHING......if they do not know it's a CRIME, then they don't have the proof to prosecute a CRIME!
DUH..it's really not that hard to understand.

3. Why do you keep deflecting from the IMPORTANT POINT>thousands of criminals are stopped from legally buying a firearm every year!
That's a good thing...yes or no?

“Imaginez tous les gens”

Since: Sep 09

Sunbury, OH

#110385 Sep 9, 2013
Marauder wrote:
<quoted text>
1. Excusing criminal behavior...why are you defending criminal activity...? Ignorance of the law is no excuse...is it...?
2. "Even republican senators agree...it's not just Biden you fool!"
I don't give a rat's arse who agrees...it's illegal and should be prosecuted...otherwise, why have the penelty...?...why have any laws unless they get enforced...? Talk about a hypocrite.
3. "There is a gun show loophole...and you know it!"
No such thing. The law requires Federal Licensed Dealers to conduct the background checks for handgun sales...PERIOD. A "loophole" would be where a licensed dealer could legally sell a handgun without having to do a background check.
"There are LAWS that require background checks..."...FOR FFL DEALERS.
"Quit playing semantics..."
It's NOT semantics...it's the law...I just won't allow you or anyone else get away with attempting to redefine "loophole" to fit your agenda. The "gun show loophole" doesn't exist.
Okay, I'll play along with you deflecting from the background checks stopping thousands of criminals a year.

1. YOU ARE RIGHT! Each and every person that tries to buy a firearm, and is denied due to criminal background should be prosecuted to the FULLEST!
...even if they are NOT aware they can't legally buy a gun!
I agree, prosecute the losers......BUT....but but but....that doesn't take away the fact that almost 80,000 criminals a YEAR are stopped from buying guns legally!
Them not being prosecuted doesn't effect the fact that 80,000 are stopped yearly...that is a good thing, right?

2. I agree...prosecute the losers! Go for it!
BUT......that doesn't change the fact that the background check itself has prevented thousands of criminals from getting guns every year!

3. There is a gun show loophole....it's the very reason you avoided the terrorists comments regarding the loophole :) You are merely playing word games...and you know it. I call it gun show loophole, you call it???? Either way, that's how a lot of terrorists get their guns.

4. Word games.....it doesn't change the facts.
Marauder

Valdez, AK

#110386 Sep 9, 2013
Snow Bunny_ wrote:
<quoted text>
1. Perhaps you can't read?. It's only a felony if they KNOWINGLY try to buy a firearm. There is no way to prove the person actually KNEW they couldn't buy one....hence: why there are VERY little prosecutions :D
2. I didn't contradict ANYTHING......if they do not know it's a CRIME, then they don't have the proof to prosecute a CRIME!
DUH..it's really not that hard to understand.
3. Why do you keep deflecting from the IMPORTANT POINT>thousands of criminals are stopped from legally buying a firearm every year!
That's a good thing...yes or no?
"It's only a felony if they KNOWINGLY try to buy a firearm."

Gee...so why do you think they are getting a background check...? You believe they are getting a job in a daycare...?

"I didn't contradict ANYTHING......if they do not know it's a CRIME, then they don't have the proof to prosecute a CRIME!"

Let me get this straight...they can't prosecute someone if they didn't know it was a crime...?...got it...I can just hear that argument in court...lol

"Why do you keep deflecting from the IMPORTANT POINT>thousands of criminals are stopped from legally buying a firearm every year!"

Not deflecting at all...YOU are. So, are you saying that all of these 1.8 million criminals that attempted to get a gun and were denied, never got a gun somewhere else...?

“Imaginez tous les gens”

Since: Sep 09

Sunbury, OH

#110387 Sep 9, 2013
Marauder wrote:
<quoted text>
Quit defending the criminal acts of criminals!!!
Quit deflecting from the fact that those background checks have stopped almost 80,000 criminals a year!
AND
Quit defending criminals and trying to make it easier for them to get guns.

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
Truth About Reloading 2 hr payme 50
News Treating Firearms Like We Do Cars? Yeaha Lets D... (Feb '12) Thu Here Is One 19
News St. Louis Zoo Court Order against the Exercise ... Thu True facts 8
News Why assault rifle sales are booming Thu okimar 102
News Why are assault weapon sales jumping? Because t... Thu Here Is One 47
This is the NRA’s worst nightmare: Thu Here Is One 18
News No wedding for Bristol Palin Jun 30 General 39
More from around the web