It's the Guns, Stupid

It's the Guns, Stupid

There are 103311 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

#90503 Dec 26, 2012
Ahomana wrote:
<quoted text>
YOU ARE A LIAR AND AN IDIOT! and this post proves it absolutely! No gun was ever designed to kill...not I see them loaded in peoples gardens proping up their rose beds! ROTFLMFAO. Do you actually believe the crap that oozes from every pore of your body...Everyone list what a loaded gun can be used for other than it's intended purpose......I will go first....tent peg? next!
Art.

Take a look dear.

You ever seen a picture drawn with bullets being fired at a tin sheet?

http://manmadediy.com/users/chris/posts/773-s...

You are a supporter and a patron of the arts are you not?

“Evolved hunter/gatherer”

Since: Jan 08

Location hidden

#90504 Dec 26, 2012
Dr Freud wrote:
<quoted text>
"The problem is not the criminals or crime it is law abiding citizens"
Classic! ABSOLUTELY CLASSIC dreck!!
So why not imprison ALL 'law abiding' citizens?
And since YOU mention that, shall I consider that YOU cannot be counted amongst the 'law abiding?'
YOU by your very words, have defined YOURSELF as a VIOLENT CRIMINAL!
SEND IN THE COPS!!!
Uh oh Spell check:

The word "CORONER" is not spelled C O P S

Just sayin'

“We don't have to take it”

Since: Jun 08

WhereTFamI?

#90505 Dec 26, 2012
Empathica wrote:
<quoted text>
I have to say this... and I do mean this with all sincerity.
After reading various viewpoints upon this thread and truly trying to understand those of people who have views vastly different than mine... I've come to a conclusion.
There is a totality equal to zero, that assault weapons of any kind can remain in public hands. Their days are numbered.
I'm the grandfather of eight and after this last tragedy... I'll do everything in my humble power to see it happens.
--AND
I'll be damned if I allow any of you to militarize the public schools that my grandchildren attend.
I sincerely hope you are right. I never had to worry about any of my family getting shot at school. The most concern for harm here was paedophiles.

Then 'society' changed, and there's some concern now with knives and drugs in schools... what's the next step, guns?

I could never understand why schools had to be so regimented and protected over there, I thought they sounded a bit like mini prisons - but I understand now... but I still can't imagine the fear which goes with educating your children.

And how about girls wanting an education in the Middle East? They get killed or maimed for their participation and schools get blown up. Now some schools have to have guards there too.

America is smarter than that, I'm waiting to see some evidence of that intelligence and rationality in this War of/on Rights.

Since: Dec 10

Cannington, Australia

#90506 Dec 26, 2012
Teaman wrote:
<quoted text>
You can't tinker with the bill of rights. Once that is done, none of them would be worth anything. A right to a speedy trial by jury, a right against self incrimination, a right to a attorney, free speech, protection against a state established religion, protection against cruel and unusual punishment, and a menu of other rights would be in jeopardy.
The states have the ability to regulate the use of guns. It seems like every one of these psychopaths that go around shooting people are taking some sort of psychotic drug. I would like to see that area addressed.
To change a law that is no longer applicable in it's full sense...ei the right to bear arms meant a muskat or some such basic gun...to stopping people from using semi's and auto's would be both applicable and logical.....where as the others unless they no longer apply in the true sense should be change..so why on gods earth not!...Don't make the mistake of using your fear of change from effecting change where it is necessary for a society to funtion in it's best interest....

Since: Dec 10

Cannington, Australia

#90507 Dec 26, 2012
Aquarius-WY wrote:
<quoted text>
Art.
Take a look dear.
You ever seen a picture drawn with bullets being fired at a tin sheet?
http://manmadediy.com/users/chris/posts/773-s...
You are a supporter and a patron of the arts are you not?
Yes Sandy Hook just recently had such an arts festival...it was very moving....only the target wasn't a tin sheet, was it!

“Evolved hunter/gatherer”

Since: Jan 08

Location hidden

#90508 Dec 26, 2012
Empathica wrote:
<quoted text>
Tell ya what...
I'll make it so easy, even a ninny such as yourself can understand.
Is it a child's "RIGHT" to return home from school alive?
YES?
--OR--
NO?
Asked and answered on each and every occasion.

It is ONLY a reasonable expectation.

NOW,

YOU answer this question that I have asked YOU several times.

What is a "right"?

Since: Dec 10

Cannington, Australia

#90509 Dec 26, 2012
Aquarius-WY wrote:
<quoted text>
Law abiding citizens do NOT commit crimes you half wit.
God and good Lord woman, have you complete jumped the trolley?
Oh, and I have no idea what else you said. I never got past that crap in your first sentence.
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!

“Evolved hunter/gatherer”

Since: Jan 08

Location hidden

#90510 Dec 26, 2012
Empathica wrote:
<quoted text>
Thank you Aquarius,
Really?
Are you sure?
--SO
You have an inalienable "right" as a "free man" to your bang bangs.
--BUT a child doesn't have the same luxury of "right" to their life.
Have I understood this correctly?
Was Mr. Jefferson wrong?
Well, for one thing it was Dr. Freud that posted that reply, and not me.

Secondly, any human has a right to their own life. A child is generally incapable of defending their own life successfully against untoward acts committed by an adult. That is why we parents, PROTECT them with our lives if neccessary, until such time as they are physically and mentally capable of defending their own rights.

Thirdly, in the final analysis, any right, and esecially inalienable rights, is only as good as the ability of the individual to physically enforce it, or use a tool to aid in that defense if their physical stature is such that they are weaker than the attacker.

Fourthly, I have asked >YOU< on many occasions to post EXACTLY what you wish to know about If Jefferson was wrong.
Wrong about what EXACTLY?

Since: Dec 10

Cannington, Australia

#90511 Dec 26, 2012
Teaman wrote:
<quoted text>
Human nature hasn't changed in thousands of years. These rights are supposed to protect us from the nature of man who find themselves in powerful positions. The bill of rights can't be changed.
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.
Teaman

Abingdon, VA

#90512 Dec 26, 2012
Ahomana wrote:
<quoted text>
To change a law that is no longer applicable in it's full sense...ei the right to bear arms meant a muskat or some such basic gun...to stopping people from using semi's and auto's would be both applicable and logical.....where as the others unless they no longer apply in the true sense should be change..so why on gods earth not!...Don't make the mistake of using your fear of change from effecting change where it is necessary for a society to funtion in it's best interest....
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.

“Evolved hunter/gatherer”

Since: Jan 08

Location hidden

#90514 Dec 26, 2012
Dr Freud wrote:
<quoted text>
Inalienable rights are those with which one is born.
A right to life, DOES NOT mean that that life cannot be taken.
A right to life means that one has EVERY RIGHT to DEFEND that life against others who would remove it.
IF YOU cannot defend that which you deem to be yours, then YOU DO NOT own that.
If the Chinese invade Australia tomorrow, and you cannot defend that place, then you never owned it to begin with, no matter how loudly you might protest otherwise.
Therefore, the RIGHT to something of necessity connotes the idea that in order to maintain that right, YOU MUST be prepared to FIGHT in order to KEEP it.
So say we all since Cicero.

"He only employs his passion who can make no use of his reason."
Cicero

“Evolved hunter/gatherer”

Since: Jan 08

Location hidden

#90515 Dec 26, 2012
Ahomana wrote:
<quoted text>
No....I reveal my revulsion of the DUMB GUN OWNING Americans and those that make a profit from your stupidity....the SAVVY Americans know they are not included in my passionate rants and it they dont then they are one of the stupids...and why a dummy like you wouldn't understand that!
Here's yourt problem > "passionate rants".

"Men decide far more problems by hate, love, lust, rage, sorrow, joy, hope, fear, illusion, or some other inward emotion, than by reality, authority, any legal standard, judicial precedent, or statute."
Cicero

Your stance reeks with your passion. Passion is a good thing providing that you can direct it with reason and congruent thought aimed at your goal.
You have no reason or logic in your argument, so therefore, your passion, although commendable, is also your hinderance. Your argument has no weight. It lacks substance and congruency. It is wrought from your passion, and reeks of irrationality.

“We don't have to take it”

Since: Jun 08

WhereTFamI?

#90516 Dec 26, 2012
Teaman wrote:
<quoted text>
Human nature hasn't changed in thousands of years. These rights are supposed to protect us from the nature of man who find themselves in powerful positions. The bill of rights can't be changed.
I rarely if ever disagree with you, but this time I emphatically do.

Human nature has so changed, for the worse... because of illegal drugs, prescription drugs, alcohol, slack rules not keeping the herd in check etc... and people do have to be kept in check, if you had everyone running around doing as they damn well pleased it would be total chaos and you wouldn't have a society.

People walk around saying "I know my rights", "I have rights you know", don't realise those rights are governed by the rules of society and controlled by the government.

Our Constitution has been 'changed' so many times I've lost count, and changed illegally by NOT holding a referendum of the people.

The gov gets away with it because, 1. Most people don't know. 2. Most people don't care. 3. Most people still have blind faith in the government to do the right thing.

'Most' people used to be smarted than that - we used to have riots and strikes when we didn't agree with what the gov was doing... and we'd hold out until IT came to our party.

Not anymore, the sheep get shorn and not enough care. We've become dumbed down and apathetic and we've even got a liar and a thief as a prime minster, with a corrupt following of "faceless men" who control the government.

And what do we do about that? FA yer honour. Some people still protest, but to do that you now have to apply for a Permit to Protest... and many times that Permit is refused... and we're not "allowed" to protest about that Protest Permit being refused. lol

And to make matters worse, the sheep are now being controlled by goats.

“Evolved hunter/gatherer”

Since: Jan 08

Location hidden

#90517 Dec 26, 2012
Ahomana wrote:
<quoted text>
The main problem as I see it...is that most Americans are not interpretting it corectly ...and as long as the government allows you the right to carry they should be able to legally challenge the law on what gun is appropriate for the safety of the community....
Not interpreting what correctly?

Do you think that the second amendment grants the right to keep and bear arms?
Is that it?

“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

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 Despite her many roles, Hillary Clinton still h... 3 min Nopal 60
News Dutch Anti-Islam Politician Geert Wilders Prais... 3 min Lawrence Wolf 9
News Evolution vs. Creation (Jul '11) 7 min One way or another 200,982
News Trump Isn't Bluffing, He'll Deport 11 Million P... 7 min Le Jimbo 5,224
News BARACK OBAMA BIRTH CERTIFICATE: Suit contesting... (Jan '09) 8 min Dr Guru 219,178
News Barack Obama, our next President (Nov '08) 9 min Realtime 1,402,892
News Hillary Clinton picks Tim Kaine as vice preside... 10 min Nopal 74
Election 'Fox News Sunday' to Host Kentucky Senate Debate (Oct '10) 16 min HILLARY 2016 232,690
News Ted Cruz quickly becomes news at GOP confab 1 hr serfs up 161
News The President has failed us (Jun '12) 1 hr Agents of Corruption 390,964
More from around the web