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.

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#103017 Mar 24, 2013
just an allusion wrote:
<quoted text>
Here, since you're so Wiki-happy:
http://wiki.answers.com/Q/When_state_and_fede...
The proper relationship between states and the national government has been one of the most hotly contested debates throughout American history. While the drafters of the Constitution reached several compromises and left some areas intentionally vague, they made clear that federal law should supersede state law through a piece of wording known today as the "Supremacy Clause".
What this all means is that states cannot impose laws that circumvent federal mandates, period!
Did the 14th Amendment really incorporate the Bill of Rights?

The Truth

It is only possible to make the case that the 14th Amendment extended the Bill of Rights down to the State and local level if you distort the plain meaning of the amendment as understood by those that wrote it and ratified it. This distortion must be so great that it violates many of the fundamental philosophies the Constitutional was based on . The Supreme Court has been engaging in exactly this level and type of distortion ever since the 1940s when it began implementing the doctrine of incorporation. Through this doctrine of incorporation the nine unelected justices that make up the Supreme Court have completely re-written the Constitution and Bill of Rights. They have done this by distorting the meaning of these documents so much they now mean nearly the opposite now than they did when written and ratified.

http://constitutionmythbuster.com/2011/07/28/...
Teaman

Abingdon, VA

#103018 Mar 24, 2013
just an allusion wrote:
<quoted text>
Here, since you're so Wiki-happy:
http://wiki.answers.com/Q/When_state_and_fede...
The proper relationship between states and the national government has been one of the most hotly contested debates throughout American history. While the drafters of the Constitution reached several compromises and left some areas intentionally vague, they made clear that federal law should supersede state law through a piece of wording known today as the "Supremacy Clause".
What this all means is that states cannot impose laws that circumvent federal mandates, period!
Federal law is bound by the constitution also. "Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof."

A state is able to not enforce a federal law based on constitutional grounds as with the Virginia Kentucky resolutions when they didn't enforce the Alien and Sedition Act. Some states didn't return slaves to their owners as per federal law before the Civil War.

Oklahoma and Texas have passed laws declaring themselves sovereign states.

http://www.snopes.com/inboxer/pending/oklahom...

The federal government depends on the states for the information they need for the universal background checks they want. I can see a problem there with states not providing the information.

The left will continue to impose one size fits all laws until we break apart.

Sir Bucking Fastard

UK

#103019 Mar 24, 2013
Ahomana wrote:
<quoted text>
Then who are you to decide what everyone wants????....see noong, it works both ways, you gotta' love democracy.
Dotard!

The U.S. IS NOT a 'democracy.' It is a REPUBLIC.

In fact, you WILL NOT find the word, or the term 'democratic' in any place of the Declaration of Independence, the U.S. Constitution, or in ANY of the amending articles.

But, you WILL find the term 'republican' in the U.S. Constitution, Article IV, Section 4.

So, once again, QUEEN OF STINK, WHO THE HELL ARE YOU to tell anyone what his rights are?

YOU don't even reside in the U.S.!

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#103020 Mar 24, 2013
just an allusion wrote:
<quoted text>
Here, since you're so Wiki-happy:
http://wiki.answers.com/Q/When_state_and_fede...
The proper relationship between states and the national government has been one of the most hotly contested debates throughout American history. While the drafters of the Constitution reached several compromises and left some areas intentionally vague, they made clear that federal law should supersede state law through a piece of wording known today as the "Supremacy Clause".
What this all means is that states cannot impose laws that circumvent federal mandates, period!
What does the Supremacy Clause mean?

The Truth

According to Article 6 Section 2 of the Constitution, the US Constitution is the absolute supreme law of the land. Federal laws are also the supreme law of the land if they do not violate the Constitution. If federal laws violate the Constitution they are null and void and can be disregarded. The Supreme Court plays a role in this process but so do the States. Ultimately we the people are the final judges in all questions of Constitutionality.

Treaties cannot violate the US constitution. If they do they are not valid treaties. Treaties cannot violate federal laws but federal laws can be modified by the treaties.

State legislatures and State courts are bound by the US Constitution, federal laws, and federal treaties. State constitutions cannot violate the US Constitutions. State laws cannot conflict or overrule federal laws but they can supplement them.

http://constitutionmythbuster.com/2011/06/18/...
Indians Poo on the street

Chisinau, Moldova

#103021 Mar 24, 2013
Sir Bucking Fastard wrote:
<quoted text>
Dotard!
The U.S. IS NOT a 'democracy.' It is a REPUBLIC.
In fact, you WILL NOT find the word, or the term 'democratic' in any place of the Declaration of Independence, the U.S. Constitution, or in ANY of the amending articles.
But, you WILL find the term 'republican' in the U.S. Constitution, Article IV, Section 4.
So, once again, QUEEN OF STINK, WHO THE HELL ARE YOU to tell anyone what his rights are?
YOU don't even reside in the U.S.!
I'm glad the fat obnoxious bitch spends all her welfare sponging time in your forums and not ours, nobody on the Australian forums can stand her either.

Since: Oct 11

Location hidden

#103022 Mar 24, 2013
Teaman wrote:
<quoted text>
Again, you're focused on the object and not the principle. Should the government be able to determine what your needs are?
Governments have often found themselves in the position of determining the needs of its people, not merely individuals or a select few, but ALL of its people...Ours is no different from any other in this regard, afterall, they've got all the cool labs and brainy scientists and engineers and what not.

Since: Oct 11

Location hidden

#103024 Mar 24, 2013
Teaman wrote:
<quoted text>
So, what's your point?
The actual destructiveness/lethality of semi-automatic weapons, the AR-15 for example, that and to dispel the all of the disinformation about their being capable of firing only one(1) round per trigger pull.

All of the Sandy Hook 5 and 6 year old children had upwards to at least 11 rounds in their bodies...each...you cannot accomplish that degree of destruction with a single fire weapon in the short amount of time the murderer was in the school.

FACT!
Teaman

Abingdon, VA

#103025 Mar 24, 2013
just an allusion wrote:
<quoted text>
Governments have often found themselves in the position of determining the needs of its people, not merely individuals or a select few, but ALL of its people...Ours is no different from any other in this regard, afterall, they've got all the cool labs and brainy scientists and engineers and what not.
The constitution leaves social issues to the states or the people as per the 9th and 10th amendments. It didn't leave the federal government that responsibility. The supremacy clause comes into play when there are corrupt state governments, interstate commerce/transportation, port duties, etc. The powers of congress are enumerated in Article I.

The welfare clause had been wrongly used. Its meaning has been changed using extortion as well as the 14th amendment. The supreme court has been using "selective incorporation" in the 14th, a rule the courts fabricated, to impose itself and the federal government erroneously on the states for years.

The government has all of the cool labs? Really?

Since: Oct 11

Location hidden

#103026 Mar 24, 2013
Sir Bucking Fastard wrote:
But, YOU dissemble!
The VERY same threats as those which existed then, ALSO exist in the present sense, and in fact they exist even more so.
Your argument then is totally fallacious.
Prove it! Provide some evidence that supports your claim(s).
Sir Bucking Fastard wrote:
NO, it is about gratuitous violence...
"Gratuitous violence", like the sort which can be exacted with an AR-15, is EXACTLY what I am out to prevent/squash.
Sir Bucking Fastard wrote:
the very same as which existed between 1919, and 1933 in YOUR nation as a result of Prohibition.
Is history yet another of YOUR WEAK points?
This is 2013, and we're not talking about alcohol, we're talking about gun control and the prevention of the sort of wanton violence that can be had with certain types of firearms.

Your efforts at deflecting the conversation to the issue of drugs, alcohol, or even other eras from our countries' history, are all only representative of just how desperate you've become because you subconsciously know that you are futilely fighting a battle you've already lost.
Sir Bucking Fastard wrote:
No, it is YOURSELF who is AFRAID to address the REAL causes of what you pretend has no dimension.
Case in point: Prior to 1968, just anyone in the U.S. could purchase a gun from anyone, anywhere, at any time, which included through the U.S. Mails, and from foreign sources.
And yes: That included both ex-felons, and your 'favorite' bogey men, the 'crazy people.'
Prior to that time, there were hardly ANY violent crimes committed with guns. THEN, with the advent of psychotropic drugs, that's when the mass shootings began to take place.
WHY won't YOU address THAT FACT?
Could it be, would it be, that YOU are afraid that THE FACTS will COMPLETELY, and UTTERLY SMASH your 'gun' arguments?
Yes.
Perhaps it is you who've failed to face the facts which you appear to be already aware of inasmuch as you've just mentioned that it was the lax/nonexistent gun laws prior to the late 60's that has led to the wide disbursement of militaristic firearms and other such armament and paraphernalia, some of which, if recent events are any indicator, have found themselves on the open market and into the hands of more than a few anarchistic and mentally impaired individuals.

Really just more of an indicator of just how necessary increased regulations are needed.
Teaman

Abingdon, VA

#103027 Mar 24, 2013
just an allusion wrote:
<quoted text>
The actual destructiveness/lethality of semi-automatic weapons, the AR-15 for example, that and to dispel the all of the disinformation about their being capable of firing only one(1) round per trigger pull.
All of the Sandy Hook 5 and 6 year old children had upwards to at least 11 rounds in their bodies...each...you cannot accomplish that degree of destruction with a single fire weapon in the short amount of time the murderer was in the school.
FACT!
I still don't get your point. Would you feel better if they all had just one round in each child?

Since: Oct 11

Location hidden

#103028 Mar 24, 2013
Teaman wrote:
<quoted text>
So, with that logic, if abortions were made illegal, no one would go to a back alley doctor.
Prohibition created a crime syndicate like no other.
The war on drugs did nothing but create another government department.
And now we're getting the full battery of a deflection effort in the form of unwanted pregnancies, alcohol, and drugs, none of which are the actual topic of this conversation.

Why can't you pro-gunners stay on topic I wonder?

Since: Oct 11

Location hidden

#103029 Mar 24, 2013
Anonymous of Indy wrote:
<quoted text>Did the 14th Amendment really incorporate the Bill of Rights?
The Truth
It is only possible to make the case that the 14th Amendment extended the Bill of Rights down to the State and local level if you distort the plain meaning of the amendment as understood by those that wrote it and ratified it. This distortion must be so great that it violates many of the fundamental philosophies the Constitutional was based on . The Supreme Court has been engaging in exactly this level and type of distortion ever since the 1940s when it began implementing the doctrine of incorporation. Through this doctrine of incorporation the nine unelected justices that make up the Supreme Court have completely re-written the Constitution and Bill of Rights. They have done this by distorting the meaning of these documents so much they now mean nearly the opposite now than they did when written and ratified.
http://constitutionmythbuster.com/2011/07/28/...
If you think you've got a case for your claims that hold any merit and would stand up in court, why don't you file?

Hell, why do you think that the person who posted that little blurb haven't filed themselves?

Think about it.
Teaman

Abingdon, VA

#103030 Mar 24, 2013
just an allusion wrote:
<quoted text>
And now we're getting the full battery of a deflection effort in the form of unwanted pregnancies, alcohol, and drugs, none of which are the actual topic of this conversation.
Why can't you pro-gunners stay on topic I wonder?
An attempt at providing a different perspective you may understand. Banning abortions would make them go away, right? Like banning guns would do the same thing.

The banning of guns is the topic.
Teaman

Abingdon, VA

#103031 Mar 24, 2013
P.S.

It's pro constitution.

Since: Oct 11

Location hidden

#103032 Mar 24, 2013
Teaman wrote:
<quoted text>
Federal law is bound by the constitution also. "Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof."
A state is able to not enforce a federal law based on constitutional grounds as with the Virginia Kentucky resolutions when they didn't enforce the Alien and Sedition Act. Some states didn't return slaves to their owners as per federal law before the Civil War.
And now you're introducing Slavery in order to deflect the conversation from the actual subject at hand?!?
Teaman wrote:
Oklahoma and Texas have passed laws declaring themselves sovereign states.
http://www.snopes.com/inboxer/pending/oklahom...
The federal government depends on the states for the information they need for the universal background checks they want. I can see a problem there with states not providing the information.
The left will continue to impose one size fits all laws until we break apart.
Inasmuch as states cannot impose laws that violate Federal authority/mandate/the U.S. Constitution, just how far do you think Oklahoma and Texas are going to get with that?

Paying lip service to some wishful thinking does not make it actionable and/or valid law.

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#103033 Mar 24, 2013
just an allusion wrote:
<quoted text>
If you think you've got a case for your claims that hold any merit and would stand up in court, why don't you file?
Hell, why do you think that the person who posted that little blurb haven't filed themselves?
Think about it.
here is the proof & link again with the SCOTUS Cases where the SCOTUS incorporated the Bill of Rights which you keep over looking and the link that has been posted several times and the reason you keep overlooking the link is because it does not fit your agenda just like the ruling in McDonald v. Chicago in 2010 does not fit Dianne Feinstein's agenda either.

Specific amendments

Many of the provisions of the First Amendment were applied to the States in the 1930s and 1940s, but most of the procedural protections provided to criminal defendants were not enforced against the States until the Warren Court of the 1960s, famous for its concern for the rights of those accused of crimes, brought state standards in line with federal requirements. The following list enumerates, by amendment and individual clause, the Supreme Court cases that have incorporated the rights contained in the Bill of Rights.(The Ninth Amendment is not listed; its wording indicates that it "is not a source of rights as such; it is simply a rule about how to read the Constitution." The Tenth Amendment is also not listed; by its wording, it is a reservation of powers to the states and to the people.)

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

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#103034 Mar 24, 2013
just an allusion wrote:
<quoted text>
The actual destructiveness/lethality of semi-automatic weapons, the AR-15 for example, that and to dispel the all of the disinformation about their being capable of firing only one(1) round per trigger pull.
All of the Sandy Hook 5 and 6 year old children had upwards to at least 11 rounds in their bodies...each...you cannot accomplish that degree of destruction with a single fire weapon in the short amount of time the murderer was in the school.
FACT!
Assault Rifle not used in Sandy Hook Shooting

http://americanlivewire.com/assault-rifle-not...

Coroner Confirms: No Assault Weapon Used in Sandy Hook Shooting

http://conservativebyte.com/2013/01/coroner-c...

Police Find Long Gun In Trunk Of Car In Sandy Hook Parking Lot: Newtown Connecticut School Shooting



Sandy Hook bushmaster found in trunk was not found and he explains why.

http://www.youtube.com/watch...

Since: Oct 11

Location hidden

#103035 Mar 24, 2013
Teaman wrote:
The constitution leaves social issues to the states or the people as per the 9th and 10th amendments. It didn't leave the federal government that responsibility.
Then explain the Thirteenth(13th) Amendment, a clear cut case of the federal government superseding the will/wants/desires of some states for the betterment of its people/the Nation as a whole.

Since: Oct 11

Location hidden

#103036 Mar 24, 2013
Teaman wrote:
I still don't get your point. Would you feel better if they all had just one round in each child?
I would feel better if they had no bullets in them and were still alive to live their lives, enjoy their childhoods, grow to become the people they would be and live their lives as they chose, much the same as each and every one of us are and have been able to do, an inherent right of every person which was taken away from the children and their teachers by that murderer.
Teaman wrote:
I still don't get your point.


The point is that the killer wouldn't have been able to murder so many children and people had they not had a high round capacity weapon.

Since: Oct 11

Location hidden

#103037 Mar 24, 2013
Teaman wrote:
<quoted text>
An attempt at providing a different perspective you may understand. Banning abortions would make them go away, right? Like banning guns would do the same thing.
The banning of guns is the topic.
Only CERTAIN guns, NOT all of them, sheesh!

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 Barack Obama, our next President (Nov '08) 2 min SOS 1,419,173
News Global warming 'undeniable,' scientists say (Jul '10) 2 min Actual Science 35,576
News Republicans need to shut down Trump's election ... 2 min Le Jimbo 60
Election 'Fox News Sunday' to Host Kentucky Senate Debate (Oct '10) 4 min Uncle Tab 239,483
News 'Free Kim Davis': This is just what gay rights ... (Sep '15) 5 min lides 15,971
News News 14 Mins Ago Trump rebukes racism claims as... 8 min Le Jimbo 70
News BARACK OBAMA BIRTH CERTIFICATE: Suit contesting... (Jan '09) 11 min Coffee Party 222,524
News The President has failed us (Jun '12) 13 min Cheech the Conser... 393,281
News Trump Isn't Bluffing, He'll Deport 11 Million P... 52 min HaleyWay 7,788
More from around the web