It's the Guns, Stupid

It's the Guns, Stupid

There are 103293 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.

Sir Bucking Fastard

UK

#102991 Mar 24, 2013
just an allusion wrote:
<quoted text>
Non one in a civilian setting NEEDS a weapon of war to protect themselves or their home.
Commonsense > you!
"Non one in a civilian setting NEEDS ..."
WHERE in the Second Amendment is that matter of 'need' addressed in even the most oblique way?

In that time period when the U.S. Bill of Rights was composed, the People had EVERY terrible implement of the soldier at their disposal ¬óWITHOUT RESTRICTION.

So what's YOUR problem with that today? Feeling like wet panties time?

And one other thing: YOU, right along with a whole slew of other inveterate bed wetters, VERY SERIOUSLY neglect to consider a WHOLE RANGE OF OTHER matters which aren't addressed, if only that they would COMPLETELY shutdown your piss-poor argument.

Are you ready?
1. The COMPLETELY IDIOTIC 'war on drugs.'
2. Psychotropic drugs

Without the first, and OUTLAWING the latter, virtually NONE of what this worlds suffers would be taking place.

Since: Oct 11

Location hidden

#102992 Mar 24, 2013
Armed Veteran wrote:
<quoted text>
Do you have the foggiest clue as to what the word "infringe" means? You contradicted yourself in back to back sentences.
COMMON SENSE > you
Sir Bucking Fastard

UK

#102993 Mar 24, 2013
Ahomana wrote:
<quoted text>
Have you not thought of taking your own advice? Most of us here, would all love you to do that very thing, got any plans?
Take YOUR own advice, oh QUEEN OF STINK!
Do the dogs still put runs in your nylons, whilst begging you to service them?
:-))

Since: Oct 11

Location hidden

#102994 Mar 24, 2013
Teaman wrote:
<quoted text>
No, you're assuming a law abiding person will break the law and modify a gun or use it wrongfully and therefor that person should be denied that gun.
Teaman wrote:
It's something like being denied a car because you might make a race car out of it and break speeding laws.
Comparing apples to oranges is a long flawed tactic to employ in any debate.

Given the widespread commuter world in which we live, a car is a NECESSARY utility for anyone to have at their disposal to insure the day-to-day maintenance and upkeep of our lives, what with work requirements, school, shopping, medical appointments, visiting relatives, etc, etc.

However the same can neither be legitimately/honestly said, nor proven, in the case of a gun.

Since: Oct 11

Location hidden

#102995 Mar 24, 2013
Armed Veteran wrote:
<quoted text>
That is not an "irrefutable fact". Restricting the law-abiding citizens access to ANYTHING will not stop a criminal from getting whatever he wants. THAT is the cold hard FACT of the matter, no matter how much you want to deny it.
If the weapons were not available to ANYONE, then NO ONE could get their hands on them, be they honest citizens or criminals...PERIOD!

Since: Oct 11

Location hidden

#102996 Mar 24, 2013
Anonymous of Indy wrote:
<quoted text>you mean to clear up your confusion and lies.
I have been saying the same thing all along, albeit in various compositional constructs, but the same thing nonetheless.

It is only YOUR misconstruing/misunderstanding of the comments that have led to your confusion, but then, I am not the one responsible for you competence or lack thereof.

Since: Oct 11

Location hidden

#102997 Mar 24, 2013
Sir Bucking Fastard wrote:
<quoted text>
"The claim and exercise of a Constitutional Right cannot be converted into a crime."
Miller v U.S. 230 F 486, at 489
"No state shall convert a liberty into a privilege, license it, and attach a fee to it."
Miller v U.S., U.S. Supreme Court,[319 U.S. 105 (1943).
"If a state converts a liberty into a privilege the citizen can engage in the right with impunity."
Shuttlesworth v Birmingham, U.S. Supreme Court.[394 U.S. 147 (1969).]
"Constitutional rights cannot be denied simply because of hostility to their assertions and exercise; vindication of conceded Constitutional Rights cannot be made dependent upon any theory that it is less expensive to deny them than to afford them."
Watson v. Memphis, 181 N.C. 574, 107 S.E. 222, at 224 (1921),
"The maintenance of the right to bear arms is a most essential one to every free people and should not be whittled down by technical constructions."
Tiche v Osborne, 131 A. 60.
"The provision in the Constitution granting the right to all persons to bear arms is a limitation upon the power of the legislature to enact any law to the contrary. The exercise of a right guaranteed by the Constitution cannot be made subject to the will of the sheriff."
People v Zedillo,{219 Mich. 635, 189 N.W. 927, at 928 (1922).
"When any court violates the clean and unambiguous language of the Constitution, a fraud is perpetrated and NO ONE is bound to obey it."
State v Sutton,[Source: 63 Minn 167, 65 NW 262, 30 LRA 630]
"Where rights secured by the Constitution are involved, there can be NO rule making or legislation which would abrogate them."
Miranda v Arizona, U.S. Supreme Court, 384 US 436, 491 (1966).
"There can be no sanction or penalty imposed upon one because of this exercise of Constitutional rights."
Snerer v Cullen 481 F. 946.
"We find it intolerable that one Constitutional rights should have to be surrendered in order to assert another."
Simmons v U.S.,[390 US 389 (1968)].
So, you were saying? You might allude to whatever the HELL is is that you'd like, but at the end of the day, there is such a large body of 'settled law,' as to make any of your squeaks become TOTALLY irrelevant.

"Time men prefer the calm of despotism to the tempestuous sea of liberty."
Thomas Jefferson 1796
All of the cited case law states only one thing...A right to possess arms, period!

No where in the cited case law or the Constitution itself is there any stipulation/provision for unfettered access/right of ownership of ANY type of firearm.

You (and others here) are simply reading FAR too much into the law that just isn't there.
Sir Bucking Fastard wrote:
Now, go back to bed and pull those covers up over your pitiful, miserable little head, because YOU are TOO AWFULLY AFRAID to face life HEAD ON.
You seem to be overlooking the FACT that I am NOT the one insisting that I need a weapon to protect myself...YOU are.

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#102998 Mar 24, 2013
just an allusion wrote:
<quoted text>
I have been saying the same thing all along, albeit in various compositional constructs, but the same thing nonetheless.
It is only YOUR misconstruing/misunderstanding of the comments that have led to your confusion, but then, I am not the one responsible for you competence or lack thereof.
your confused and everyone knows it.

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#102999 Mar 24, 2013
just an allusion wrote:
<quoted text>
I have been saying the same thing all along, albeit in various compositional constructs, but the same thing nonetheless.
It is only YOUR misconstruing/misunderstanding of the comments that have led to your confusion, but then, I am not the one responsible for you competence or lack thereof.
Right here is proof

http://www.topix.com/forum/guns/TIOOJ2V09UCFQ...

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#103000 Mar 24, 2013
just an allusion wrote:
<quoted text>
I have been saying the same thing all along, albeit in various compositional constructs, but the same thing nonetheless.
It is only YOUR misconstruing/misunderstanding of the comments that have led to your confusion, but then, I am not the one responsible for you competence or lack thereof.
http://www.topix.com/forum/gun s/TIOOJ2V09UCFQ7AUF/p4826#c102 900

Since: Oct 11

Location hidden

#103001 Mar 24, 2013
Sir Bucking Fastard wrote:
<quoted text>
"Non one in a civilian setting NEEDS ..."
WHERE in the Second Amendment is that matter of 'need' addressed in even the most oblique way?
In that time period when the U.S. Bill of Rights was composed, the People had EVERY terrible implement of the soldier at their disposal ¬óWITHOUT RESTRICTION.
So what's YOUR problem with that today? Feeling like wet panties time?
That "time" was over 200 years ago and we, as a newly forming country, were faced with a great many threats to our formation, primarily from our mothering country, Great Britain.

Not NOW, but OVER 200 YEARS AGO...The social, political and cultural climate that brought about such adversity has long since shifted.
Sir Bucking Fastard wrote:
And one other thing: YOU, right along with a whole slew of other inveterate bed wetters, VERY SERIOUSLY neglect to consider a WHOLE RANGE OF OTHER matters which aren't addressed, if only that they would COMPLETELY shutdown your piss-poor argument.
Are you ready?
1. The COMPLETELY IDIOTIC 'war on drugs.'
2. Psychotropic drugs
Without the first, and OUTLAWING the latter, virtually NONE of what this worlds suffers would be taking place.
Stop deflecting...This ISN'T a discussion about drugs, it IS a discussion about guns.

You must be getting pretty desperate to resort to venturing so far off of subject to introduce an entirely different one, SHEESH!

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#103002 Mar 24, 2013
just an allusion wrote:
<quoted text>
Uh, WHICH post? I have SEVERAL on that page.
Post 102900

Since: Oct 11

Location hidden

#103003 Mar 24, 2013
Anonymous of Indy wrote:
<quoted text>Right here is proof
http://www.topix.com/forum/guns/TIOOJ2V09UCFQ...
Do please inform us all how direct quotes from cited case law amounts to evidence that I am the one confused...?
MisterBlue

Washington, DC

#103004 Mar 24, 2013
Sir Bucking Fastard wrote:
<quoted text>
"Non one in a civilian setting NEEDS ..."
WHERE in the Second Amendment is that matter of 'need' addressed in even the most oblique way?
Are you friggin kidding me? The only weapons they had were muskets....they had no concept of life two hundred years in the future...or perhaps slavery would have been abolished from the get go?

Since: Dec 10

Adelaide, Australia

#103007 Mar 24, 2013
Sir Bucking Fastard wrote:
<quoted text>
Take YOUR own advice, oh QUEEN OF STINK!
Do the dogs still put runs in your nylons, whilst begging you to service them?
:-))
No prize for losers, you must really be desperate to enter a forum when you have nothing to say.....did your mummy leave you alone again to play with yourself? Yes, I think she did, and she forgot to password her computer too eh!....

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#103008 Mar 24, 2013
just an allusion wrote:
<quoted text>
Do please inform us all how direct quotes from cited case law amounts to evidence that I am the one confused...?
for one you are confusing Federal Enclave Rights v. State Rights under the US Constitution which is why you and Dianne Feinstein keep referring to Washington DC v. Heller SCOTUS case of 2008 which don't mean squat to the States & State Rights under the US Constitution just Enclaves like Washington DC and is the reason why the SCOTUS agreed to hear the Case of McDonald v. Chicago in 2010 to begin with which now all of the Bill of Rights In the US Constitution have been Incorporated down to the state level through the incorporation clause of the 14th amendment and the 2nd amendment was incorporated in 2010 in McDonald v. Chicago not in Washington DC v. Heller in 2008.

Incorporation of the Bill of Rights

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incorporation_of...

Federal enclave

In United States law, a "federal enclave" is a parcel of federal property within a state that is under the "Special Maritime and Territorial Jurisdiction of the United States." As of 1960, the latest comprehensive inquiry, only seven percent of federal property had enclave status, of which four percent (almost all in Alaska and Hawaii) was under "concurrent" state jurisdiction. The remaining three percent, on which some State laws do not apply, is scattered almost at random throughout the United States. In 1960, there were about 5,000 enclaves, with about one million people living on them. These numbers would undoubtedly be lower today because many of these areas were military bases that have been closed and transferred out of federal ownership.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_enclave

“I am an ALIEN!!!”

Since: Dec 06

KREUZBERG...

#103009 Mar 24, 2013
I don't think the substance did much I kept my patience how much in men got lost through what does man think to be a tortureous what a lenghtly event is...

What an un patient man doesn't need is a weapon blow ups...Give em' a doll... ha ha
Sir Bucking Fastard

UK

#103010 Mar 24, 2013
just an allusion wrote:
<quoted text>
All of the cited case law states only one thing...A right to possess arms, period!
No where in the cited case law or the Constitution itself is there any stipulation/provision for unfettered access/right of ownership of ANY type of firearm.
Of course it does: The Second Amendment, i.e. the RIGHT of THE PEOPLE to keep and bear arms, SHALL NOT be infringed.

Is PLAIN ENGLISH a 'second language' for you?
just an allusion wrote:
You (and others here) are simply reading FAR too much into the law that just isn't there.
Which law would that be,'that isn't there?'
just an allusion wrote:
You seem to be overlooking the FACT that I am NOT the one insisting that I need a weapon to protect myself...YOU are.
And?

Just because YOU think you have no need, it does not begin to translate to others that they have no need either.

And, WHO ARE YOU to decide for others what THEIR needs are, or shall be?
Teaman

Abingdon, VA

#103011 Mar 24, 2013
just an allusion wrote:
<quoted text>
<quoted text>
Comparing apples to oranges is a long flawed tactic to employ in any debate.
Given the widespread commuter world in which we live, a car is a NECESSARY utility for anyone to have at their disposal to insure the day-to-day maintenance and upkeep of our lives, what with work requirements, school, shopping, medical appointments, visiting relatives, etc, etc.
However the same can neither be legitimately/honestly said, nor proven, in the case of a gun.
Again, you're focused on the object and not the principle. Should the government be able to determine what your needs are?
Teaman

Abingdon, VA

#103012 Mar 24, 2013
just an allusion wrote:
<quoted text>
No, that is my evidence for my assertion that an unmodified semi-automatic weapon CAN be triggered to fire like/similar to a fully automatic weapon.
Seriously, are you really unable to believe your own eyes? Do you need a live news report containing people demonstrating the technique or something?
So, what's your point?

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 Plurality of Americans think Trump is failing 2 min MAGA_ITN 25,438
News Barack Obama, our next President (Nov '08) 4 min Grey Ghost 1,580,606
Election 'Fox News Sunday' to Host Kentucky Senate Debate (Oct '10) 6 min Abe 286,758
News Mitch McConnell's secret fury over Charlottesvi... 7 min spud 45
News Dear Trump Voters: The 1950's Aren't Coming Back 11 min Katrina 1,243
News A Celebration in the Streets, Then Screams 16 min FormerParatrooper 335
News Rural America Braces for Labor Shortages After ... 18 min Katrina 27
News Under fire - from GOP - Trump digs in on Confed... 24 min Dissapointed in C... 41
More from around the web