It's the Guns, Stupid

Apr 20, 2007 Full story: Truthdig 103,362

“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
Teaman

Mount Holly, NJ

#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?

Since: Oct 11

Location hidden

#103013 Mar 24, 2013
Anonymous of Indy wrote:
<quoted text>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
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!

Since: Dec 10

Perth, Australia

#103014 Mar 24, 2013
Sir Bucking Fastard wrote:
<quoted text>
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?
<quoted text>
Which law would that be,'that isn't there?'
<quoted text>
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?
Then who are you to decide what everyone wants????....see noong, it works both ways, you gotta' love democracy.
Sir Bucking Fastard

UK

#103015 Mar 24, 2013
just an allusion wrote:
<quoted text>
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.
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.
just an allusion wrote:
Stop deflecting...This ISN'T a discussion about drugs, it IS a discussion about guns.
NO, it is about gratuitous violence, 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?
just an allusion wrote:
<You must be getting pretty desperate to resort to venturing so far off of subject to introduce an entirely different one, SHEESH!
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.
Teaman

Mount Holly, NJ

#103016 Mar 24, 2013
just an allusion wrote:
<quoted text>
If the weapons were not available to ANYONE, then NO ONE could get their hands on them, be they honest citizens or criminals...PERIOD!
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.

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

Mount Holly, NJ

#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

Mount Holly, NJ

#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

Mount Holly, NJ

#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

Mount Holly, NJ

#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

Mount Holly, NJ

#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.

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
Obama to broaden US effort to combat militants 4 min TEA 1,262
Obama wants an election about the economy, not him 4 min Here Is One 478
Walter Harold Marlin 4 President (Oct '08) 5 min Loop Fat poop 301
Minnesota becomes 12th state to OK gay marriage (May '13) 5 min cpeter1313 1,607
Texas law professor calls for repeal of Second ... (Nov '13) 9 min Here Is One 11,428
Hospital at center of Ebola drama apologizes 11 min OccupyThis 9
GOP types accused of 'thinly-veiled racism' for... 13 min barefoot2626 144
Barack Obama, our next President (Nov '08) 14 min John Galt 1,124,807
The President has failed us (Jun '12) 15 min X -Man- 269,549
Evolution vs. Creation (Jul '11) 33 min DanFromSmithville 120,720
Ebola commentary desperately needs clarification 58 min Even Steven 44
Justices allow Texas to enforce strict voter ID... 3 hr woodtick57 116

US News People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE