It's the Guns, Stupid

Apr 20, 2007 Full story: Truthdig 103,350

“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

Full Story
Dr Freud

UK

#97362 Jan 20, 2013
The ADELAIDEAN wrote:
<quoted text>
<quoted text>
At least he'd be in no danger of putting a bullet through his brain. Nobody could be that accurate.:)
Presuming of course that he even has two brain cells to rub together!

“Si vis pacem, para bellum !!”

Since: Dec 07

Southeast Virginia

#97364 Jan 20, 2013
Hey Guppy...here is something that I am sure will tan your hide. I am going to a gun show today to buy ANOTHER gun, and there isn't a damn thing you can do or say to change my mind, or stop it for that matter.

“REFUSE ALL IMITATIONS!!”

Since: Jan 11

Australia

#97365 Jan 20, 2013
Dr Freud wrote:
You simply cannot lay restrictions upon the exercise of rights, without sooner or later laying such egregious requirements upon the exercise as to make the right essentially null.
It is entirely incumbent upon the individual to seek out the necessary knowledge in whatever endeavor he engage.
I appreciate what you are explaining, but surely all American motorists are trained and tested before being allowed to drive. Has that led to egregious infringement of rights that may accompany motoring?

Likewise I'm not sure how my analogy of reasonable training in safe handling of firearms breaks down.
Teaman

Mount Holly, NJ

#97366 Jan 20, 2013
The ADELAIDEAN wrote:
<quoted text>
I appreciate what you are explaining, but surely all American motorists are trained and tested before being allowed to drive. Has that led to egregious infringement of rights that may accompany motoring?
Likewise I'm not sure how my analogy of reasonable training in safe handling of firearms breaks down.
Some states do require some gun training. Driving a car isn't considered a right, but a privilege and it is done on state property. No driving training is required on private property, such as a farm.

Like drivers training, gun regulation is a state matter. Someone in Suburban NJ wouldn't have the same needs as a rancher on the Mexican border.
Dr Freud

UK

#97368 Jan 20, 2013
The ADELAIDEAN wrote:
<quoted text>
I appreciate what you are explaining, but surely all American motorists are trained and tested before being allowed to drive. Has that led to egregious infringement of rights that may accompany motoring?
Likewise I'm not sure how my analogy of reasonable training in safe handling of firearms breaks down.
I will consider that Teaman pretty much answered that question.
But allow me a few further points.
Aside from the matter of driving on public thoroughfares, themselves which the state has undertaken to assume the responsibility for their construction and maintenance, and for insurance purposes, they get to set the minimum requirements regarding driver proficiency, and knowledge of the 'rules of the road.'
Considering the number of privately held firearms in the U.S., the number of associated injuries and death pales into insignificance when compared to automotive injuries and death.
Currently, in most locations of the U.S., a person does not have to undergo safety training to own a firearm.
Conversely, a person does have to go through a skills test to exhibit their competency, and knowledge before obtaining a driver's license. Other locations yet, mandate certified training to be undertaken through a state licensed instructor.
This is why in the year 2002, there was a horrific 800 (approximate) accidental deaths attributed to firearms, while a pitifully meager 40,000 (approximate) were attributed to automobile accidents.
That's a 50:1 ratio.
Looks like the mandatory training did a lot of good there!
www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr54/nvsr54_10.p...
You see? Mandatory training is shown to be quite useless for the following reasons:
A responsible person will seek out training on their own.
An irresponsible person will proceed to ignore any training they've been forced to undertake, once they have that license in their hot little hands.
Marauder

Fairbanks, AK

#97369 Jan 20, 2013
Guppy wrote:
<quoted text>
Who said?
I suppose you had the utmost respect for them?
The government had to do something! They deserved it.
When the government tells you to do something~you do it, or else you pay the consequences.
"When the government tells you to do something~you do it, or else you pay the consequences."

If...when...maybe...
Marauder

Fairbanks, AK

#97370 Jan 20, 2013
Teaman wrote:
<quoted text>
Some states do require some gun training. Driving a car isn't considered a right, but a privilege and it is done on state property. No driving training is required on private property, such as a farm.
Like drivers training, gun regulation is a state matter. Someone in Suburban NJ wouldn't have the same needs as a rancher on the Mexican border.
"gun regulation is a state matter. Someone in Suburban NJ wouldn't have the same needs as a rancher on the Mexican border."

May not have the same "needs", determined by the individual, but they have the same "rights". The States and local gov'ts are under the same restrictions as the federal gov't is under the 2nd Amendment.
Guppy

Englewood, FL

#97371 Jan 20, 2013
Armed Veteran wrote:
Hey Guppy...here is something that I am sure will tan your hide. I am going to a gun show today to buy ANOTHER gun, and there isn't a damn thing you can do or say to change my mind, or stop it for that matter.
Be my guest.

It's a dumb way to spend your money, but whatever turns you on...
Guppy

Englewood, FL

#97372 Jan 20, 2013
Armed Veteran wrote:
<quoted text>
Would you be happier if it had been WITH (not "by") a knife or some other object???
I never said I was happy. So, how could I be happier?

With? By? What difference does it make. You knew what I meant. I got my thought across to you.

You really get off on this don't you?
Guppy

Englewood, FL

#97373 Jan 20, 2013
Freud's sentences are too long, and he is full of hot air.
Guppy

Englewood, FL

#97374 Jan 20, 2013
Teaman wrote:
<quoted text>
"When the government tells you to do something~you do it, or else you pay the consequences."
Oh boy! I hope this isn't our future speaking here.
I hope it is, pertaining to guns.

Your tax money at work...
Dr Freud

UK

#97375 Jan 20, 2013
Marauder wrote:
<quoted text>
"gun regulation is a state matter. Someone in Suburban NJ wouldn't have the same needs as a rancher on the Mexican border."
May not have the same "needs", determined by the individual, but they have the same "rights". The States and local gov'ts are under the same restrictions as the federal gov't is under the 2nd Amendment.
"The States and local gov'ts are under the same restrictions as the federal gov't is under the 2nd Amendment."

The only thing stopping that from being fully enforced is that many people just give a damned about something which doesn't directly impact them.
They simply do not want to 'get involved.'
Teaman

Mount Holly, NJ

#97376 Jan 20, 2013
Marauder wrote:
<quoted text>
"gun regulation is a state matter. Someone in Suburban NJ wouldn't have the same needs as a rancher on the Mexican border."
May not have the same "needs", determined by the individual, but they have the same "rights". The States and local gov'ts are under the same restrictions as the federal gov't is under the 2nd Amendment.
That's right. The state can't deny the right to keep and bear arms.
They can regulate. If I fired a shot here and missed, the bullet could go through two other houses. You have different circumstances where you are.

Shotgun hunting only here. Bolt action rifle only in the state next door. The states or their people regulate. The right to keep and bear arms can't be denied.
Guppy

Englewood, FL

#97377 Jan 20, 2013
Marauder wrote:
<quoted text>
"When the government tells you to do something~you do it, or else you pay the consequences."
If...when...maybe...
When the government says to you, JUMP! You'll say, how high.
Dr Freud

UK

#97378 Jan 20, 2013
Teaman wrote:
<quoted text>
That's right. The state can't deny the right to keep and bear arms.
They can regulate. If I fired a shot here and missed, the bullet could go through two other houses. You have different circumstances where you are.
Shotgun hunting only here. Bolt action rifle only in the state next door. The states or their people regulate. The right to keep and bear arms can't be denied.
Allow me to say that what you're speaking of is that matter of 'ordnance,' wherein the right itself isn't being regulated, but in fact what is being regulated is the activity.
A good common sense ordinance would of necessity state that discharging a gun in a thickly settled area, without regard to the possible harm it might cause, is forbidden, unless the act is conducted in self-defense.
In that case, which I state above, the right isn't regulated in and of itself. The ordinance is a demand that right be exercised responsibly.
Dr Freud

UK

#97379 Jan 20, 2013
Guppy wrote:
<quoted text>
When the government says to you, JUMP! You'll say, how high.
And when the rest of us exclaim "DROP DEAD!", then YOU are supposed to enquire:'For how long?'
Teaman

Mount Holly, NJ

#97380 Jan 20, 2013
Dr Freud wrote:
<quoted text>
Allow me to say that what you're speaking of is that matter of 'ordnance,' wherein the right itself isn't being regulated, but in fact what is being regulated is the activity.
A good common sense ordinance would of necessity state that discharging a gun in a thickly settled area, without regard to the possible harm it might cause, is forbidden, unless the act is conducted in self-defense.
In that case, which I state above, the right isn't regulated in and of itself. The ordinance is a demand that right be exercised responsibly.
You said it better than me. The right to possess isn't regulated. The use is regulated by state law and local ordinance. I believe Marauder was eluding to the 14th amendment which is another discussion. The right to keep and bear arms was already a right in the state constitutions. Another discussion in an erroneous power grab by the supreme court.

Federal constitutional law is limited to regulation of commerce. There shouldn't be any federal laws pertaining to possession. Another court case down the road, I suppose.
Dr Freud

UK

#97381 Jan 20, 2013
Teaman wrote:
<quoted text>
You said it better than me. The right to possess isn't regulated. The use is regulated by state law and local ordinance. I believe Marauder was eluding to the 14th amendment which is another discussion. The right to keep and bear arms was already a right in the state constitutions. Another discussion in an erroneous power grab by the supreme court.
Federal constitutional law is limited to regulation of commerce. There shouldn't be any federal laws pertaining to possession. Another court case down the road, I suppose.
The United States Supreme Court has a very spotty history, predicated I will suppose, upon the variable nature of Man's honesty.
The 'commerce clause' was thought necessary by the Founders of the United States, because in that period leading up to the U.S. Constitution, many states engaged in restraint of trade practices, even going so far as to raise prohibitively high tariffs on other state's products upon crossing their own borders.
The whole idea behind that clause, when you read the debates of the Continental Congress while U.S. Constitution was being hammered out, was to ensure free trade amongst the states.
In no part of those discussions was any thought raised regarding 'controlling' what the states passed between each other.
That thought, the one about 'controlling,' was raised much later, in the Supreme Court, by men with an ulterior motive.
Since then, those rulings have had a most perverse affect, even going so far as to declare that the U.S. government has the authority to control what a farmer might grow on his own land, for his own consumption!
http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/histori...
That is so hideous as to fly directly into the face everything the U.S. Constitution was meant to protect.
See this too:
http://www.naturalnews.com/030799_food_freedo...

“shirley you cant be serious ”

Since: Oct 12

Location hidden

#97383 Jan 20, 2013
Ever notice how all these gunsuckers have got that Little Big Man syndrome - ha ha
its quite comic really . lol
look

Sitka, KY

#97384 Jan 20, 2013
Guppy you definately don't have a job, your on here every hr. on the hr., get a job and a life, and quit trying to control others like you control your cats,lol. It's a pathetic excuse for a life, don't you have friends??? Also your getting NO WHERE, your arguments have NO foundation, just like your existence here on earth, climb out of your fish bowl and get a life...

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
Barack Obama, our next President (Nov '08) 5 min Tony Rome 1,115,141
Thousands Protest Roe V. Wade Decision (Jan '08) 24 min Brian_G 305,850
Evolution vs. Creation (Jul '11) 26 min ChristineM 117,363
Who do you side with in Ferguson? 40 min Lisa 5,748
Historic Victory for Voting Rights in Ohio 57 min kuda 22
Global warming 'undeniable,' scientists say (Jul '10) 1 hr Earthling-1 32,789
Vaccines; Blessing or a Curse 1 hr woodtick57 5
The President has failed us (Jun '12) 1 hr woodtick57 265,597
'Fox News Sunday' to Host Kentucky Senate Debate (Oct '10) 2 hr Jay 155,437
Obama: US misjudged Iraqi army, militants' threat 3 hr Bama Yankee 35

US News People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE