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.

“Evolved hunter/gatherer”

Since: Jan 08

Location hidden

#90518 Dec 26, 2012
Empathica wrote:
<quoted text>
Thank you
I haven't been as mild tempered tonight as I should be. I apologize.
The time has truly come in this country to stop jacking around the edges and nip this in the bud. It's not going to end over night but we've got to start somewhere.
There are people on this very thread that clearly shouldn't be trusted with a full roll of toilet paper to say nothing of assault weapons.
You would be wise indeed to keep that toilet paper on your paeson sir.
Should you attempt to take something from a free man, armed, and in possession of his natural born rights, you will need that toilet paper sir, immediatley after it becomes FINALLY apparent to you that you have made a serious error in judgement.

“Evolved hunter/gatherer”

Since: Jan 08

Location hidden

#90519 Dec 26, 2012
^person^
On your person, sir.

“Evolved hunter/gatherer”

Since: Jan 08

Location hidden

#90520 Dec 26, 2012
Gottaliv wrote:
<quoted text>
I suggest you brush up a little on you knowledge of Anatomy.
Point taken, but then you got mine too. Correct?
I would proceed to do that, but the smell of stale fish makes me gag.
<wink>

“Evolved hunter/gatherer”

Since: Jan 08

Location hidden

#90521 Dec 26, 2012
Ahomana wrote:
<quoted text>
I do appreciate what you are saying here Teaman, I do believe though given our intelligence, that their is a lawyer somewhere today that can find a loop hole in the second ammendment and bring the NRA to it's knees....after all it was written back in the day and I am sure in every written paper there is a loop hole....ie the right to bear arms did not say a semi automatic is to be used by it's citizens against their own to kill them en masse ie the children.... I have great faith in the ability that if they can get past what most people see as there rights, and use common sense there is a answer that can bring the use of such weapons (that have been used to devastate communities) to an end .
You obviously misunderstand where humans come to be in possession of their inalienable rights. You obviously make the mistake of thinking, as has been propagated by the media and certain government officials, that we derive inalienable rights from the second amendment.
You are incorrect.
Here's why.

In the preamble to the Declaration of Independence are hte words that spell out how we humans become inpossession of our natural rights. These rights are also known as "inalienable rights". That mean something. it means something BIG !!!

In the beginning of the formation of any group for any purpose, like in this case an assemblage of men to start a new country - it is customary to lay out a "mission statement". In those mission statements lie the intent and desires and the goal and purpose for the organization to exist in the first place.

Our Declaration of Independence is just such a statement of mission. The DOI (Declaration of Independence) spells out the mission - to break away from England and implement our own government and country.
In the DOI lie the words that spell out just why the "group" has come together.
It lays out the SPECIFIC charges they held against King George, in detail.
The DOI contains the reasoning that gave those men just cause to gather together and make their stand against King George. In that part of the preamble to the DOI, lies the reasoning and the authority that they cite as the authority for them to act upon their desires to become independant from the King's subjects and servants.

What they cite is known as "natural law".
This natural law is as old as human philosophy and Cicero is one that penned some of it's main ingredients. Cicero stated that all men have a natural born right to the defense of their own life. He pointed out that it is, in fact, a natural law, by pointing out that any and all of the creatures on Earth will vehemently defend their own life, and that of their young. Humans are mammals born of natural design on this Earth no matter how one views how it all came to be.

In the preamble to the DOI, we find the words that have been misunderstood and misconstrued, but are actually the words from which we gain our natural rights and how we come to possess them.
Those words are:

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness."

NOW,

Many have tried to take down that natural law authority by attacking the words "endowed by their Creator".

One must remember that they were deeply religous people for the most part, and that one of the biggest reasons many of them left England in the first place, was so that they could worship their God, other than how the King directed them to do.

That being said, does the fact that they held certain religous beliefs about the creation of the Earth, that may differ from yours negate the facts of natural laws?
Of course not. It simply means that they put that natural law into words that reflected their religous beliefs.

continued below

“Evolved hunter/gatherer”

Since: Jan 08

Location hidden

#90522 Dec 26, 2012
continued

The point of natural law contained in those words STILL hold true.

It is important that one does not get all caught up in the God -v- no God debate, as it is NOT the point and purpose of the second paragraph in the preamble to the DOI.

You can take out the words "their Creator" and insert any of the following:

big bang
comos
evolutionary creation
primordial soup
Buddah
Allah
Great Spirit
Mythos
Rubber Ducky
Flying Spagheti Monster
Lie in the Sky

and it STILL reads the same.

The point being of course, that we get inalienable and natural rights by virtue of simply being born.

Does anyone have to tell you to protect your child? NO!
Why not?
Because you WILL do it no matter what ... PERIOD !

Does anyone have to tell you to defend your self when under attack? Of course not.
Why?
Because you WILL do it as a matter of natural reaction to the threat ... PERIOD !

Now you know that your natural and instinctual actions in both of the above cases, comes from inside you, as a natural and normal and instinctual part of your very nature as a mammal on this planet. You also now know why it is called "natural law" or an "inalienable right".

An inalienable right is a thing that no man or words on paper gave you. You were born with them intact as part and parcel of your very being, and they are as much a part of you as is your heart. Inalienable means, "can not be removed or separated from".

NOW,

Since we have this natural born right to self defend, it naturally follows that we also have a right to defend our own lives and that of our loved ones with any and every tool that we can devise to do just that DEFEND YOUR LIFE !
That means that the right to keep and bear arms is ALSO an inalienable right that can not be removed.

So now, we come to the 2nd amendment.

There was debate amongst the founders in a much similar fashion as to what you misunderstand about natural law and rights, and what I expound here.
To address that and point out that the US government has NO right nor cause, nor just stand, nor not even any authority whatsoever - NONE - to infringe upon a natural law and right - they wrote the 2nd amendment.

They wrote that amendment to make it plain, and that it is a part of our constitution, and it is a restriction upon the government.
That is ALL it is.

There is NO right being granted in the words:

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

It is a directive that states the government has no authority to infringe upon the natural and inalienable right to keep and bear arms.

Men are totally incapable of granting natural/inalienable rights, therefore they also have no authority to deny them without due process of an individual, on an individual basis - not infringe upon them for the whole population.

The second amendment restricts THE GOVERNMENT

NOT

the people.

“shirley you cant be serious ”

Since: Oct 12

Location hidden

#90523 Dec 26, 2012
Aquarius-WY wrote:
<quoted text>
You would be wise indeed to keep that toilet paper on your paeson sir.
Should you attempt to take something from a free man, armed, and in possession of his natural born rights, you will need that toilet paper sir, immediatley after it becomes FINALLY apparent to you that you have made a serious error in judgement.
ha ha such mannered bogusness lol
guest

United States

#90524 Dec 26, 2012
if you live in a little town of 200 people including all the cows, dogs, and chickens then you really aren't qualified to say that a single woman in Memphis or Detroit doesn't need a gun for protection.Not paranoia, not being a weakling, we live in different worlds and your little mind can't seem to comprehend that your life experience is not the golden standard for 310 million other people.

If the crime in your town consists of little Johnny selling dime bags of weed then good for you, but for some people rape and murder are daily events. Too hard to comprehend?

Its pretty dumb to think, "I've never needed a gun therefore 311,000,000 people will never need one either"

“We don't have to take it”

Since: Jun 08

WhereTFamI?

#90525 Dec 26, 2012
Aquarius-WY wrote:
<quoted text>Point taken, but then you got mine too. Correct? I would proceed to do that, but the smell of stale fish makes me gag. <wink>
Then you need to move in more up-market circles where the fish are sweeter.

“Evolved hunter/gatherer”

Since: Jan 08

Location hidden

#90526 Dec 26, 2012
Gottaliv wrote:
<quoted text>
And that really is the bottom line. A 'clause' created in a different time and era, which no longer reflects the true demographics of society.
Aussies are great believers in "rights" even tho we don't have many of them left anymore - but Australia wasn't created by any war, we evolved very differently to America.
...
Define and point out the differences between the following two words:

PRINCIPLE
METHOD

Then answer this question.
Are Australians born in such a way as to be so much different than Americans in some way, that would preclude them from attaining natural rights?

“shirley you cant be serious ”

Since: Oct 12

Location hidden

#90527 Dec 26, 2012
Aquarius-WY wrote:
continued
The point of natural law contained in those words STILL hold true.
It is important that one does not get all caught up in the God -v- no God debate, as it is NOT the point and purpose of the second paragraph in the preamble to the DOI.
You can take out the words "their Creator" and insert any of the following:
big bang
comos
evolutionary creation
primordial soup
Buddah
Allah
Great Spirit
Mythos
Rubber Ducky
Flying Spagheti Monster
Lie in the Sky
and it STILL reads the same.
The point being of course, that we get inalienable and natural rights by virtue of simply being born.
Does anyone have to tell you to protect your child? NO!
Why not?
Because you WILL do it no matter what ... PERIOD !
Does anyone have to tell you to defend your self when under attack? Of course not.
Why?
Because you WILL do it as a matter of natural reaction to the threat ... PERIOD !
Now you know that your natural and instinctual actions in both of the above cases, comes from inside you, as a natural and normal and instinctual part of your very nature as a mammal on this planet. You also now know why it is called "natural law" or an "inalienable right".
An inalienable right is a thing that no man or words on paper gave you. You were born with them intact as part and parcel of your very being, and they are as much a part of you as is your heart. Inalienable means, "can not be removed or separated from".
NOW,
Since we have this natural born right to self defend, it naturally follows that we also have a right to defend our own lives and that of our loved ones with any and every tool that we can devise to do just that DEFEND YOUR LIFE !
That means that the right to keep and bear arms is ALSO an inalienable right that can not be removed.
So now, we come to the 2nd amendment.
There was debate amongst the founders in a much similar fashion as to what you misunderstand about natural law and rights, and what I expound here.
To address that and point out that the US government has NO right nor cause, nor just stand, nor not even any authority whatsoever - NONE - to infringe upon a natural law and right - they wrote the 2nd amendment.
They wrote that amendment to make it plain, and that it is a part of our constitution, and it is a restriction upon the government.
That is ALL it is.
There is NO right being granted in the words:
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
It is a directive that states the government has no authority to infringe upon the natural and inalienable right to keep and bear arms.
Men are totally incapable of granting natural/inalienable rights, therefore they also have no authority to deny them without due process of an individual, on an individual basis - not infringe upon them for the whole population.
The second amendment restricts THE GOVERNMENT
NOT
the people.
It does say "a well regulated militia ...." hmm "well regulated ... " - do you not see the import of their original intentions by commencing the Amendment with precisly that phrase ???
Gazza

Perth, Australia

#90528 Dec 26, 2012
The U.S. has more violence than other nations for reasons unrelated to its extraordinarily high gun ownership. Fixating on guns seems to be, for many people, a fetish which allows them to ignore the more intransigent causes of American violence, including its dying cities, inequality, deteriorating family structure, and the all- pervasive economic and social consequences of a history of slavery and racism. And just as gun control serves this purpose for liberals, equally useless "get tough" proposals, like longer prison terms, mandatory sentencing, and more use of the death penalty serve the purpose for conservatives. All parties to the crime debate would do well to give more concentrated attention to more difficult, but far more relevant, issues like how to generate more good-paying jobs for the underclass which is at the heart of the violence problem.

1991 22 years on, what has changed.
The Patriot

United States

#90529 Dec 26, 2012
Ahomana wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes, oh yes they bloody do, and have done, as every shooting masacre in you shit hole of a back wood thinking country can attest to.
I don't doubt that you never got past the first sentence as that would have required and intelligence level you gun owning tits in particular, don't possess!
if you commit murder youre not a law abiding citizen now are you dumb ass?

“Evolved hunter/gatherer”

Since: Jan 08

Location hidden

#90530 Dec 26, 2012
Ahomana wrote:
<quoted text>
Well see I believe that if you have a want all laws all bills all legal documents can be altered, after all the founding fathers are dead and usually if there is no copywrite it can be altered..
There's a problem with your premise.

We humans do NOT come to be in possession of our natural rights by any written text that exists anywhere in the universe, so therefore your claim that it can be altered by written words is invalid.

Since mankind comes into possession of their natural rights, which are also called inalienable rights, by virtue of their birth, there is no authority of man that can remove those inalienable rights with words.
In order to remove an inalienable right from a person, there are only two ways.

The first way is if a citizen commits an act that is unlawful, they forfeit their own natural rights if they kill, maim, or harm any other human. That means that the state, by consent and agreement of the populace, can remove that criminal from the population, and perhaps even execute them for their crime(s).

The second way is to outright kill the law respecting citizen.

Since the law respecting citizens have NOT committed any crimes against humanity, or the state that would forfeit their own natural rights through their own action(s), as described in the first case above, then any act to relieve or infringe upon the natural rights of the law respecting citizen, by the state or by another citizen or alien, is a direct attack upon the very person themselves.

Since all humans are endowed with natural rights that stem from their very nature and instincts, they will and are reacting to this nonsense of infringement upon their natural rights, as a physical attack upon their very persons.

To do that is to play head games with your own life - not the ones you attack. They are quite likely to kill you my friend.

“Evolved hunter/gatherer”

Since: Jan 08

Location hidden

#90531 Dec 26, 2012
tinydropthestickgooddog wrote:
<quoted text>
It does say "a well regulated militia ...." hmm "well regulated ... " - do you not see the import of their original intentions by commencing the Amendment with precisly that phrase ???
You yourself just pointed it out, but do not see it.

A well regulated militia.

It is the militia that is to be regulated, as in regulations for military acts. One can not have a well regulated militia without arms.

Since: Dec 10

Cannington, Australia

#90532 Dec 26, 2012
Teaman wrote:
<quoted text>
The bill of rights isn't a law. They are there to protect the people from oppressive laws.
The states can set conditions concerning the ownership of guns.
Then they should do that then?

“Evolved hunter/gatherer”

Since: Jan 08

Location hidden

#90533 Dec 26, 2012
Gottaliv wrote:
<quoted text>
Then you need to move in more up-market circles where the fish are sweeter.
<chuckle>

“Evolved hunter/gatherer”

Since: Jan 08

Location hidden

#90534 Dec 26, 2012
Ahomana wrote:
<quoted text>
It can be changed, it is just whether you can get over the hand on the heart brainwashing of the second ammendment, that would allow you to adjust it to meet the needs and necessities of the 21st century to prove any of you gun owning nuts had a heart.
The right to keep and bear arms is NOT granted by the 2nd amendment.

Since: Dec 12

Location hidden

#90535 Dec 26, 2012
Aquarius-WY wrote:
continued
The point of natural law contained in those words STILL hold true.
It is important that one does not get all caught up in the God -v- no God debate, as it is NOT the point and purpose of the second paragraph in the preamble to the DOI.
You can take out the words "their Creator" and insert any of the following:
big bang
comos
evolutionary creation
primordial soup
Buddah
Allah
Great Spirit
Mythos
Rubber Ducky
Flying Spagheti Monster
Lie in the Sky
and it STILL reads the same.
The point being of course, that we get inalienable and natural rights by virtue of simply being born.
Does anyone have to tell you to protect your child? NO!
Why not?
Because you WILL do it no matter what ... PERIOD !
Does anyone have to tell you to defend your self when under attack? Of course not.
Why?
Because you WILL do it as a matter of natural reaction to the threat ... PERIOD !
Now you know that your natural and instinctual actions in both of the above cases, comes from inside you, as a natural and normal and instinctual part of your very nature as a mammal on this planet. You also now know why it is called "natural law" or an "inalienable right".
An inalienable right is a thing that no man or words on paper gave you. You were born with them intact as part and parcel of your very being, and they are as much a part of you as is your heart. Inalienable means, "can not be removed or separated from".
NOW,
Since we have this natural born right to self defend, it naturally follows that we also have a right to defend our own lives and that of our loved ones with any and every tool that we can devise to do just that DEFEND YOUR LIFE !
That means that the right to keep and bear arms is ALSO an inalienable right that can not be removed.
So now, we come to the 2nd amendment.
There was debate amongst the founders in a much similar fashion as to what you misunderstand about natural law and rights, and what I expound here.
To address that and point out that the US government has NO right nor cause, nor just stand, nor not even any authority whatsoever - NONE - to infringe upon a natural law and right - they wrote the 2nd amendment.
They wrote that amendment to make it plain, and that it is a part of our constitution, and it is a restriction upon the government.
That is ALL it is.
There is NO right being granted in the words:
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
It is a directive that states the government has no authority to infringe upon the natural and inalienable right to keep and bear arms.
Men are totally incapable of granting natural/inalienable rights, therefore they also have no authority to deny them without due process of an individual, on an individual basis - not infringe upon them for the whole population.
The second amendment restricts THE GOVERNMENT
NOT
the people.
My kids will drop you dead with gunshot if you come into their space. They are no teens and were taught to handle a gun at 9 years old. They will kill you DEAD......all families in the country should be like my mine. ARMED!

Since: Dec 12

Location hidden

#90536 Dec 26, 2012
Aquarius-WY wrote:
<quoted text>
There's a problem with your premise.
We humans do NOT come to be in possession of our natural rights by any written text that exists anywhere in the universe, so therefore your claim that it can be altered by written words is invalid.
Since mankind comes into possession of their natural rights, which are also called inalienable rights, by virtue of their birth, there is no authority of man that can remove those inalienable rights with words.
In order to remove an inalienable right from a person, there are only two ways.
The first way is if a citizen commits an act that is unlawful, they forfeit their own natural rights if they kill, maim, or harm any other human. That means that the state, by consent and agreement of the populace, can remove that criminal from the population, and perhaps even execute them for their crime(s).
The second way is to outright kill the law respecting citizen.
Since the law respecting citizens have NOT committed any crimes against humanity, or the state that would forfeit their own natural rights through their own action(s), as described in the first case above, then any act to relieve or infringe upon the natural rights of the law respecting citizen, by the state or by another citizen or alien, is a direct attack upon the very person themselves.
Since all humans are endowed with natural rights that stem from their very nature and instincts, they will and are reacting to this nonsense of infringement upon their natural rights, as a physical attack upon their very persons.
To do that is to play head games with your own life - not the ones you attack. They are quite likely to kill you my friend.
FREAKCSCHOW...no on reads your pea soup. My kids will kill you with gunshot if you are a threat. OUR family is armed for protection, all 5 of us have guns.
Light Bearer

Perth, Australia

#90537 Dec 26, 2012
Makesure100 wrote:
<quoted text>
My kids will drop you dead with gunshot if you come into their space. They are no teens and were taught to handle a gun at 9 years old. They will kill you DEAD......all families in the country should be like my mine. ARMED!
What if they were like you and shot the wrong person?
Jumped the gun so to speak.

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 Trump's land of delusion 3 min Erl 953
News Congress doesn't want you to eat your dog or cat 3 min Aquarius-WY 730
News Melania Trump says US should govern - with hear... 5 min Say What 578
News The Latest: Pentagon seeking space for adult mi... 6 min fish and poi 23
News Mike Huckabee criticized for 'bigotry' over Nan... 8 min fish and poi 34
News Barack Obama, our next President (Nov '08) 8 min Waxman 1,784,371
News US top court rules for baker in gay wedding cak... 17 min fish and poi 804
News Trump urges Republican lawmakers to drop immigr... 25 min Heidi 60
News Plurality of Americans think Trump is failing (Mar '17) 31 min science is god 88,515