It's the Guns, Stupid

Apr 20, 2007 | Posted by: roboblogger | Full story: Truthdig

“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

Comments
91,381 - 91,400 of 103,234 Comments Last updated Jun 22, 2014
Dr Freud

Hatfield, UK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#97353
Jan 20, 2013
 
Teaman wrote:
<quoted text>
My state subsidizes the development of smart guns. There already is a law in the books requiring smart guns be purchased whenever they're developed. One area they are looking at is one's unique hand grip characteristics. I feel these guns are well off into the future and would be very expensive once developed.
http://sciencenetlinks.com/science-news/scien...
I would be hilarious in the extreme, if at some future date one of those arms is ready for market, and the law is suddenly repealed, and no such requirement shall exist.
It would, for all intents and purposes be just comeuppance for any company making such a device to suffer massive market loss for pursuing such a path to begin with.

“REFUSE ALL IMITATIONS!!”

Since: Jan 11

Australia

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#97354
Jan 20, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

MalbarCACA Controller wrote:
And as for you IDIOTIC MALBARCACA FUCKTURD your nic had not better appear in any more posts else you'll get booted up your HINDUSTINK ARSE.
DO YOU UNDERSTAND?
Tray wrote:
<quoted text> Oh look what an angry person you are. Good thing you can't own a gun.
At least he'd be in no danger of putting a bullet through his brain. Nobody could be that accurate.:)
Teaman

Mount Holly, NJ

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#97355
Jan 20, 2013
 
Dr Freud wrote:
<quoted text>
I would be hilarious in the extreme, if at some future date one of those arms is ready for market, and the law is suddenly repealed, and no such requirement shall exist.
It would, for all intents and purposes be just comeuppance for any company making such a device to suffer massive market loss for pursuing such a path to begin with.
The research is usually government subsidized. No investor in his right mind would invest in it unless something very promising is developed.

That whole thing is another Spruce Goose to me.
MalbarCACA Controller

UK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#97356
Jan 20, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

The ADELAIDEAN wrote:
<quoted text>
NO ONE CARES ABOUT INSANE Sasquatch TOPIX PAID TROLLS, SPAMMERS, REAL AGITATORS and ANARCHISTs
GET LOST FUDDIHEAD LUNATIC MPOSTOR YOU ARE NOT WANTED HERE.

DO NOT EVER SHOW YOUR UGLY FILTHY DISGUSTING MalbarCACA IMPOSTOR MUG HERE AGAIN.

http://www.themelbourneclinic.com.au/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Embling_ ...
http://www.forensicare.vic.gov.au/default.asp ...
Dr Freud

Hatfield, UK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#97357
Jan 20, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

The ADELAIDEAN wrote:
<quoted text>
Serious malpractice. I've never heard of a shotgun zipped up in its case while loaded ... until now. Better training is crucial. It seems to me that it is possible for US citizens can buy guns without any training at all. That's asking for trouble. After all, people have to pass tests to gain a driver's license. It should be the same for firearms.
<quoted text>
They mostly are, probably, but there's always room for improvement.
While your heart is in the right place, I'll say differently about your thinking.
There is a reason that there are no training requirements in most U.S. states, and certainly the idea finds no basis to exist in the U.S. Constitution's second amendment.
In the very same way that U.S. citizens have the right to exercise their religion at will, to speak and write freely, without a license, or by demonstrating a certain proficiency in those areas, is because they are human RIGHTS.
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.
Long ago in the U.S., parents undertook to educate their offspring in all of the vagaries associated with firearms. Those children were taught from a very early age all about guns, how to handle them, when to use them, how to care for them, and certainly to NOT treat them as toys.
Any thought towards mandatory training, and proficiency testing is tantamount to restricting future ownership by way of tighter and tighter standards, such that only a very few will be able to have any gun at all.
Much has changed over the last century, what with the communists gaining ground in the political and educational spheres, where they have sought to demonize guns, and their owners.
But of late, there has been some really serious push-back as more, and more of the citizenry discover that there is a game afoot to first disarm them by degrees, and then totally disarm them. What is planned after the disarmament is too terrible to speak of. It will make all other pogroms pale by comparison.
So, the more the communists push to disarm the people, the more the people are waking up to THE REAL purpose, and are buying guns, literally in the millions.
What

Santa Fe, NM

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#97358
Jan 20, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Dr Freud wrote:
<quoted text>
It's quite obvious by your statement that you're as uninformed as can be.
Koresh had on several occasions invited the local ATF office to come by an do an inspection of all the weapons held. They declined.
The ATF said that they had a warrant out on Koresh. But since the man was KNOWN to be out jogging every day, on a circuit which took him some distance away from the B.D. campus, then the ATF had many than ample opportunities to arrest the man whenever he was out running. But they did not. Why? Because there WAS NO warrant.
One member of the B.D. group had an FFL license, which totally dismisses any idea of the group being in possession of illegally held arms.
At the time, the U.S. Congress was getting ready to defund the ATF because they were running roughshod over many innocent people's rights. Their thoroughly egregious acts were getting them in to legal hot water.
The leadership of the ATF NEEDED something to save their bacon, and so the Branch Davidians were in their sights. Instead of politely approaching the front door of the B.D. administration building, they came charging up with three large cattle cars loaded with agents, whereupon Koresh met them at the front door, and demanded to see the warrant, which they STILL did not have.
One of the agents got trigger happy and let off a burst from his machine gun, and that is what started the shooting.
The rest is history.
is obvious is that you are a gullible conspiracy consumer. You left off the part of the story where this nut had all those folks holed up for a month and a half, defying all attempts to deal rationally.
Teaman

Mount Holly, NJ

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#97359
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."

Oh boy! I hope this isn't our future speaking here.

“Si vis pacem, para bellum !!”

Since: Dec 07

Southeast Virginia

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#97363
Jan 20, 2013
 

Judged:

1

Guppy wrote:
Bulgarian opposition leader was almost killed yesterday, BY A GUN.
Guns are a menace to society.
Would you be happier if it had been WITH (not "by") a knife or some other object???
Dr Freud

Hatfield, UK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

Hatfield, UK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#97368
Jan 20, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

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

Anchorage, AK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#97369
Jan 20, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

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

Anchorage, AK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#97370
Jan 20, 2013
 

Judged:

1

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

North Port, FL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

North Port, FL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

North Port, FL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#97373
Jan 20, 2013
 
Freud's sentences are too long, and he is full of hot air.
Guppy

North Port, FL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#97374
Jan 20, 2013
 

Judged:

1

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

Hatfield, UK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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.'

Tell me when this thread is updated: (Registration is not required)

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

Type in your comments below
Name
(appears on your post)
Comments
Characters left: 4000
Type the numbers you see in the image on the right:

Please note by clicking on "Post Comment" 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.

•••
•••