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 (Page 4,571)

Showing posts 91,401 - 91,420 of103,242
|
Go to last page| Jump to page:
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.'
Teaman

Mount Holly, NJ

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

North Port, FL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

Hatfield, UK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

Hatfield, UK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#97379
Jan 20, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

Hatfield, UK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

Staffordsville, KY

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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...
look

Staffordsville, KY

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#97386
Jan 20, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Dr Freud wrote:
<quoted text>
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...
Look at AGENDA 21, see what you think, it's all about CONTROL...
Dr Freud

Hatfield, UK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#97387
Jan 20, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

look wrote:
<quoted text> Look at AGENDA 21, see what you think, it's all about CONTROL...
Well, of course it is!
The effete elite hate everyone who's not at their economic level.
Of course, it should be said that to be at their level, one must of necessity have either inherited extreme wealth, or have employed underhanded tactics in order to have achieved that wealth.
The extremely wealthy, you see, don't pay taxes, inasmuch as it is THEY who make the laws, and therefore exempt themselves from those taxes.
Agenda 21 is all about us: How to both LIMIT us, as well as to GET RID of us.
Guppy

North Port, FL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#97388
Jan 20, 2013
 
look wrote:
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...
How do you know I am here every hour on the hour?

Thank you for your concern, but I'm fine. I can do as I please.
Guppy

North Port, FL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#97389
Jan 20, 2013
 

Judged:

1

Dr Freud wrote:
<quoted text>
And when the rest of us exclaim "DROP DEAD!", then YOU are supposed to enquire:'For how long?'
You are fixated on death, you old windbag.

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

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

Showing posts 91,401 - 91,420 of103,242
|
Go to last page| Jump to page:
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.

64 Users are viewing the US News Forum right now

Search the US News Forum:
Topic Updated Last By Comments
Demonizing Migrant Children Proves An Epic Fail... 3 min Amigo 1
Justices: Can't make employers cover contraception 3 min Bonsai 234
Chick-fil-A Vallejo Location Faces Opposition 3 min Christaliban 70
Barack Obama, our next President (Nov '08) 4 min THE DEVILS MENTALLY ILL 1,077,890
The President has failed us (Jun '12) 4 min American Lady 243,039
Who do you favor in the Kansas governor's race? 4 min The Kangaroo 126
Texas sending 1,000 National Guards on border t... 4 min Yep2 31
•••
•••