It's the Guns, Stupid

It's the Guns, Stupid

There are 103300 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: Jan 11

Abingdon, VA

#84529 Dec 12, 2012
Ahomana wrote:
<quoted text>
Well I find it works both ways as most Americans cant tell a liberal from a socialist in regards to Aus....but you are right your Democrats are our Liberals and your Republicans are our socialists....how am I doin':D
Our republicans are not socialists, but anti socialist. But, many republicans are like democrats, if that makes sense. They are commonly known as RINOs (pronounced rhino) in the tea party world.

Our liberals are like your labor and greens and belong to the democrat party. Liberal isn't a party here, but a socialist ideology.

Since: Dec 10

Perth, Australia

#84530 Dec 12, 2012
Dr Freud wrote:
<quoted text>
Well, you're not 'do'n'(<-- note the correct spelling) anywhere near as well as you think.
In the U.S., a classical liberal is someone who believes in MAXIMUM INDIVIDUAL LIBERTY, and ABSOLUTELY MINIMUM government.
Neither of the current major political parties, i.e., Republican, and Democrat, believe in maximum individual liberty.
Rather, both of them keep pushing for MAXIMUM GOVERNMENT POWER.
On the one hand, the Democrats are socialistic/communistic/Marxis tic, with a limp wrist.
On the other hand, the Republicans have become so milquetoast, and effeminate in dealing with the Democrats, that they are essentially the very same as the Democrats.
In fact, when evaluating all of the data insofar as who does what, then BOTH parties are the one and the same, and have been since well before the year 1900.
The ONLY differences amount to nothing other than 'window dressing.'
I suspect that, when matters in Australia are fully evaluated, that the VERY SAME situation exists there as well.
So, YOUR claim to some kind of 'distinction' is without basis, AT ALL. Your political system has been perverted for at least as long at the U.S. system, by the VERY SAME underhanded power mongers who also control the U.K.
It was a sweeping tongue in the cheek statement, made to someone who was doin' the same thing to me....but hey thanks for the imput.

Since: Jan 11

Abingdon, VA

#84531 Dec 12, 2012
Dr Freud wrote:
<quoted text>
Well, you're not 'do'n'(<-- note the correct spelling) anywhere near as well as you think.
In the U.S., a classical liberal is someone who believes in MAXIMUM INDIVIDUAL LIBERTY, and ABSOLUTELY MINIMUM government.
Neither of the current major political parties, i.e., Republican, and Democrat, believe in maximum individual liberty.
Rather, both of them keep pushing for MAXIMUM GOVERNMENT POWER.
On the one hand, the Democrats are socialistic/communistic/Marxis tic, with a limp wrist.
On the other hand, the Republicans have become so milquetoast, and effeminate in dealing with the Democrats, that they are essentially the very same as the Democrats.
In fact, when evaluating all of the data insofar as who does what, then BOTH parties are the one and the same, and have been since well before the year 1900.
The ONLY differences amount to nothing other than 'window dressing.'
I suspect that, when matters in Australia are fully evaluated, that the VERY SAME situation exists there as well.
So, YOUR claim to some kind of 'distinction' is without basis, AT ALL. Your political system has been perverted for at least as long at the U.S. system, by the VERY SAME underhanded power mongers who also control the U.K.
Your classical liberal would be a libertarian. Now, Aho is really confused.:-)

Since: Jan 11

Abingdon, VA

#84532 Dec 12, 2012
Guppy wrote:
<quoted text>
That is not the point.
The indians had better weapons than the soldiers.
That is the point.
Everyone THOUGHT they had all the answers. Guess not.
It was the only time they stopped killing each other and joined forces. But, the repeating rifles played a big part.:-)

Since: Jan 11

Abingdon, VA

#84533 Dec 12, 2012
Ahomana wrote:
<quoted text>
It was a sweeping tongue in the cheek statement, made to someone who was doin' the same thing to me....but hey thanks for the imput.
No ill will was intended. Sorry you took it that way.

Since: Dec 10

Perth, Australia

#84534 Dec 12, 2012
Teaman wrote:
<quoted text>
Our republicans are not socialists, but anti socialist. But, many republicans are like democrats, if that makes sense. They are commonly known as RINOs (pronounced rhino) in the tea party world.
Our liberals are like your labor and greens and belong to the democrat party. Liberal isn't a party here, but a socialist ideology.
Nope...don't get it.

Since: Jan 11

Abingdon, VA

#84536 Dec 12, 2012
Ahomana wrote:
<quoted text>
Nope...don't get it.
LOL, confusing, isn't it. Freud pretty much hit the basic premise. There isn't much difference between the two parties when it comes to expanding federal power. I would imagine there isn't much difference between Liberals and Labor in Australia when you get right down to it.
Dr Freud

Sandefjord, Norway

#84537 Dec 12, 2012
Teaman wrote:
<quoted text>
Your classical liberal would be a libertarian. Now, Aho is really confused.:-)
For her, that would be the 'deer in the headlight' look!
:-)

Since: Dec 10

Perth, Australia

#84538 Dec 12, 2012
Teaman wrote:
<quoted text>
LOL, confusing, isn't it. Freud pretty much hit the basic premise. There isn't much difference between the two parties when it comes to expanding federal power. I would imagine there isn't much difference between Liberals and Labor in Australia when you get right down to it.
You are right there because you could once tell them apart by what each one stood for....but now it is like it is one party just split down the middle.....
Dr Freud

Sandefjord, Norway

#84539 Dec 12, 2012
Ahomana wrote:
<quoted text>
You are right there because you could once tell them apart by what each one stood for....but now it is like it is one party just split down the middle.....
Once YOU understand that YOU have been USED, and ABUSED —ENDLESSLY— then YOU WAKE-UP to COMPREHEND what has been going on for OVER A CENTURY!
So, will you continue to 'swallow' the BIG lie, or steadfastly, stoutly, and robustly speak the truth?

Since: Jan 11

Abingdon, VA

#84540 Dec 12, 2012
Ahomana wrote:
<quoted text>
You are right there because you could once tell them apart by what each one stood for....but now it is like it is one party just split down the middle.....
Very basically:

Australian Labor Party = American Democrat Party

Australian Liberal Party = American Republican Party.

You're right. Neither really have any convictions. Both like the power.

The real danger here is the supreme court rarely comes to a court decision based on the original intent of the founders and tend to legislate from the bench.
OMG

Huntsville, AL

#84541 Dec 12, 2012
Teaman wrote:
<quoted text>
Our republicans are not socialists, but anti socialist. But, many republicans are like democrats, if that makes sense. They are commonly known as RINOs (pronounced rhino) in the tea party world.
Our liberals are like your labor and greens and belong to the democrat party. Liberal isn't a party here, but a socialist ideology.
what a nut!

Since: Dec 10

Perth, Australia

#84542 Dec 12, 2012
Dr Freud wrote:
<quoted text>
Once YOU understand that YOU have been USED, and ABUSED —ENDLESSLY— then YOU WAKE-UP to COMPREHEND what has been going on for OVER A CENTURY!
So, will you continue to 'swallow' the BIG lie, or steadfastly, stoutly, and robustly speak the truth?
'

What is this BIG lie I am supposed to be swallowing...I am a swing voter....I vote for who is best for ME.

Since: Dec 10

Perth, Australia

#84543 Dec 12, 2012
Teaman wrote:
<quoted text>
Very basically:
Australian Labor Party = American Democrat Party
Australian Liberal Party = American Republican Party.
You're right. Neither really have any convictions. Both like the power.
The real danger here is the supreme court rarely comes to a court decision based on the original intent of the founders and tend to legislate from the bench.
Then I had it right?
Tray

Pontotoc, MS

#84544 Dec 13, 2012
Guppy wrote:
<quoted text>
This might be a good time to admit you were wrong.
About what?
Tray

Pontotoc, MS

#84545 Dec 13, 2012
Guppy wrote:
<quoted text>
Oh Tracyvon.
I should tell you that the indians didn't own all the land in the US. That may come as a surprise to you.
The white americans were being quite generous with the taxpayers money.
Let's see. The indian lived here for thousands of years yet the white man shows up and claims the land and generously gives the indian a small piece of land as a gift.
Tray

Pontotoc, MS

#84546 Dec 13, 2012
Guppy wrote:
<quoted text>
Grasping at straws again. Not gonna help you tonight.
You made my point for me, thanks. See you are pro gun, you just don't like to admit it.
Tray

Pontotoc, MS

#84547 Dec 13, 2012
Guppy wrote:
<quoted text>
A lot, but it was better than them flying over a cliff.
I never said anything about a cliff. You brought up the bow and arrow thing. So how many arrows does it take to kill a buffalo and at what range?
Tray

Pontotoc, MS

#84548 Dec 13, 2012
Guppy wrote:
Well Tracyvon,
You get an A for effort. Didn't work though.
I would be glad to look things up for you when you are confused and just write anything that pops into your brain. It's always better to have the facts.
Don't you think?
Oh I am so glad you presented the facts. I really love the one about an unarmed people being invaded by a hostile group and later after millions have died found that guns would have protected them. I love it when liberals prove me points for me.
Tray

Pontotoc, MS

#84549 Dec 13, 2012
The Indian bow and arrow and tomahawk represented stone age technology, and were inferior to the European musket and sword, not to mention the cannon. True, arrows worked in wet weather when muskets did not, but they were designed to kill game, not humans (who learned to duck). Arrows lacked range and killing power, especially in the dense forest, or when the colonials wore thick leather jackets. (Armor was even better protection, but it was much too cumbersome.) In the frequent wars between Indian tribes, the primary killing devices were tomahawks and war clubs, but given the long-range of the firearms wielded by the whites, the Indians were forced to use their arrows. The various tribes differed greatly in the effectiveness of their bow and arrow equipment and tactics. The northeastern Indians tended to fire at long distance, which made their arrows easy to dodge and of little striking power when they landed. The Europeans had long before abandoned arrows, finding it was much easier to teach men to shoot muskets, and much easier to fire devastating volleys. Benjamin Franklin's suggestion, made during the American Revolution when gunpowder was in short supply, that bows and arrows be tried was politely ignored. The Indians quickly recognized muskets were a superior weapon, but were never able to make their own. The colonists imported their muskets and gunpowder from Europe, and cast their own lead bullets. The colonists traded muskets, powder and bullets to selected tribes, but never artillery. The Indians never used bayonets, were careless with their equipment, and rarely were able to repair their muskets by themselves. Colonists tried to keep Indians from learning gun-smithing and usually succeeded

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.

US News Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Barack Obama, our next President (Nov '08) 1 min moshx 1,434,026
News Huffpost Hill - Donald Trump Lowered His Body M... 3 min Sandy Feet 1
News Hillary Clinton Charges Racism 6 min Nonlib 735
News Evolution vs. Creation (Jul '11) 7 min It aint necessari... 210,158
News The Latest: Alabama chief justice blames a radi... 11 min Imprtnrd 4
Election 'Fox News Sunday' to Host Kentucky Senate Debate (Oct '10) 19 min Frankendrumpf 244,135
News Hillary Clinton, Donald Trump face off in first... 21 min Lanny 64
News Trump Isn't Bluffing, He'll Deport 11 Million P... 32 min renee 10,642
News The President has failed us (Jun '12) 1 hr An NFL Fan 396,068
News BARACK OBAMA BIRTH CERTIFICATE: Suit contesting... (Jan '09) 1 hr JRB 225,553
More from around the web