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

#107409 May 13, 2013
R-12 Freon wrote:
<quoted text>
If the stryker streetsweeper (25 rd semi-auto shotgun)(class3) is considered a destructive device, I'm pretty sure a rocket launcher falls in there somewhere. Ahhh you are talking about a functional rocket launcher right?
Yes it is legal to own one that's "inert" and you go through a intensive background check to have that,,'privileged right'.
And You Should and Do and if you meet the criteria You Should.
LOL, you make it sound that anybody who wants one can get it and that's just dumb.
just apply and yes anyone can if you got the money to buy it and clear a background check and you just got make you own shell which you can buy the kits to make them one website I was reading.

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#107410 May 13, 2013
R-12 Freon wrote:
<quoted text>
LOL, yeah but it really wouldn't matter if they were legal or not, being The Government has all of them and you ain't gunna get(a real one)
Now it's become your 20rd autoloader, legal under the 2nd has a S.C.J hinting that Rocket Launchers Also fall under those same rules.
It's rediculous. Either the public support is so great that American Citizens want rocket launchers along with their rifles and pistols or there's a big enough problem with them that something needs to be done about it. Both answers would be no.
What other purpose would connecting the two have?
I can't think of 1 criminal act involving any gun that doesn't have a 'Law' prohibiting it. The law only applies to those who follow it.
The ruling should be enough laws already exist but have to be better enforced.
A good one to start with is Border Security, maybe the Supreme Court will rule on that, the same time they decide whether I can own a 20rd mag or not because I Don't have a criminal record.
go to ATF's website & look you will be amazed what people legal to own besides I had people on Topix here tell me you cant own a Machine Gun and I told them they were full of sh!t because my neighbor own and possess a full functional World War 2 water cooled Machine Gun and has all the Federal Paper from ATF to own & possess it.

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#107411 May 13, 2013
Good wrote:
<quoted text>
lord - what an idiot!
Scalia is not an Idiot at all and is right to say that.

Scalia:‘Handheld rocket launchers’ could be constitutional
Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia on Sunday said that even “handheld rocket launchers” could be considered legal under his interpretation of the Constitution’s Second Amendment.

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2012/07/29/scalia-...

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#107412 May 13, 2013
spocko wrote:
<quoted text>
You gunloons are doing your tiny base’s bidding, not America’s. No matter how many times, or how long you keep doing this, eventually you will have to accept that it is “your” reality – not the country’s!
you sound just like the Democrats in 1994 who lost their ass's in the Nov 1994 election because of the 1994 Federal Assault Weapons Ban and 2014 is going to be a repeat of the 1994 democrat losses besides today Harry Reid announced that the Leninist(Anti Gun)within the Democratic Party are going to have to settle for rules restricting the mentally ill and criminals from purchasing guns which is already covered in the Gun Control Act of 1968.

Following failed efforts to expand background checks for gun purchases, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., said Monday that advocates for stricter gun laws will "settle" for rules restricting the mentally ill and criminals from purchasing guns.

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-250_162-57584256/...
Naw

Huntsville, AL

#107413 May 13, 2013
Anonymous of Indy wrote:
<quoted text>Scalia is not an Idiot at all and is right to say that.
Scalia:‘Handheld rocket launchers’ could be constitutional
Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia on Sunday said that even “handheld rocket launchers” could be considered legal under his interpretation of the Constitution’s Second Amendment.
http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2012/07/29/scalia-...
he is making it up as he goes along.
FormerParatroope r

Chicago, IL

#107414 May 13, 2013
Ahomana wrote:
<quoted text>
That would be your lack of intelligence for opposing a law simply through the fear of losing your gun rights when you fail to realise they are not at risk, but your ignorance like many is stifling progress and makes you look staid, stale and backwood...when most other civilised countries are moving to use guns strictly for sport and hunting. It is like how a lot of third world countries appear on womens rights...and god know you have some areas to work on, even there.
You got me wrong. I know exactly what is going on.

To blame me and others like me for the violence of others is not only wrong, but ignorant. I have committed no crime, yet I am expected to be treated worse than a sex offender. It is moral to oppose any law that treats the innocent as if they are guilty.

Women's rights, no one gender has more rights than the other. In the US, rights seem subjective by what political party a women belongs too. Liberal women are treated well by most, and conservative or right leaning women are attacked by the left vehemently. Does that happen in Australia as well?

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#107415 May 13, 2013
Naw wrote:
<quoted text>
he is making it up as he goes along.
so is Dianne Feinstein and all the other Democrats that align with her Gun Control Ideology just like what Harry Reid announced today what Dianne Feinstein and the other Radicals are going to have to settle for what is already Federal Law to begin with.

Following failed efforts to expand background checks for gun purchases, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., said Monday that advocates for stricter gun laws will "settle" for rules restricting the mentally ill and criminals from purchasing guns.

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-250_162-57584256/...

Gun Control Act of 1968

Prohibited persons

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

Since: Dec 10

Perth, Australia

#107416 May 13, 2013
GunShow1 wrote:
<quoted text>
How many times did you practice that in the mirror?
Newsflash, traitor-troll. Our side,(REALITY), has been winning for over twelve years now. Your 'master' and his fellow minions. Know that the demonRats will be thrust out in the cold if they attempt more 'gun control'. Just like they did after the tyranny of billy-bob klintoon. Only this time, the demonRats might just freeze to death. And NEVER reenter into the warmth of the public spotlight.
When you dream, you dream big, eh traitor-troll? Now, WAKE UP!
How are you winning, you call another 19 people shot, winning....you are indeed a gun owning lunatic.....
spocko

Oakland, CA

#107417 May 13, 2013
Anonymous of Indy wrote:
<quoted text>you sound just like the Democrats in 1994 who lost their ass's in the Nov 1994 election because of the 1994 Federal Assault Weapons Ban and 2014 is going to be a repeat of the 1994 democrat losses besides today Harry Reid announced that the Leninist(Anti Gun)within the Democratic Party are going to have to settle for rules restricting the mentally ill and criminals from purchasing guns which is already covered in the Gun Control Act of 1968.
Following failed efforts to expand background checks for gun purchases, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., said Monday that advocates for stricter gun laws will "settle" for rules restricting the mentally ill and criminals from purchasing guns.
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-250_162-57584256/...
Oh really now, makes me wonder why law-enforcement leaders support strengthening gun purchase background checks and mental health systems? Although, sheriffs and police chiefs support the assault weapons ban, they understand the political reality in Congress that the ban is likely to have a hard time winning broad support. "We're very supportive of the assault weapons ban. A spokesman for the IACP said: "I think everybody understands that may be a real tough battle to win. And one of the things that we understand is that we can't look at it like we have to get all of these things or we haven't won."

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#107418 May 13, 2013
spocko wrote:
<quoted text>
Oh really now, makes me wonder why law-enforcement leaders support strengthening gun purchase background checks and mental health systems? Although, sheriffs and police chiefs support the assault weapons ban, they understand the political reality in Congress that the ban is likely to have a hard time winning broad support. "We're very supportive of the assault weapons ban. A spokesman for the IACP said: "I think everybody understands that may be a real tough battle to win. And one of the things that we understand is that we can't look at it like we have to get all of these things or we haven't won."
Gun Control Act of 1968

Prohibited persons

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

W.Va. sheriffs say they wouldn't enforce assault weapons ban

http://www.wvgazette.com/News/201301300155

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#107419 May 13, 2013
spocko wrote:
<quoted text>
Oh really now, makes me wonder why law-enforcement leaders support strengthening gun purchase background checks and mental health systems? Although, sheriffs and police chiefs support the assault weapons ban, they understand the political reality in Congress that the ban is likely to have a hard time winning broad support. "We're very supportive of the assault weapons ban. A spokesman for the IACP said: "I think everybody understands that may be a real tough battle to win. And one of the things that we understand is that we can't look at it like we have to get all of these things or we haven't won."
even Riverside County California Sheriff Stan Sniff is opposed to a federal ban on assault rifles because it would infringe on constitutional rights and do more harm than good.

He described the AR-15 rifle targeted by the ban as “a modern American ‘musket’” capable of multiple uses.

RIVERSIDE COUNTY: Sheriff opposes assault weapons ban

http://www.pe.com/local-news/politics/jeff-ho...

GunShow1

“Shall NOT be infringed!”

Since: Apr 13

San Jose, CA.

#107420 May 13, 2013
spocko wrote:
<quoted text>
Oh really now,
Yes, really:

"87. Right of Self-defence.(a)

"There are some injuries which, once committed, cannot be adequately redressed. The taking of life is an extreme case of this kind. Against the commission of such injuries, therefore, every person should not only have the protection of government, when practicable, but should also have a right to defend himself. The right of self-defence would of course exist in a state of nature, and the social compact does not take it away; but the right of avenging an injury already committed is taken away. This is a fundamental distinction. You may prevent an injury from being done, by all proper means; but when done, you may not take redress in your own hands. The social compact provides a tribunal to which you are bound to resort; and abundant provision is made for securing the redress to which you may be entitled. Thus the right of self-defence and the right of redress are two distinct things; but both are equally guaranteed by the constitution. We have already seen that "the enjoying and defending life and liberty," is declared to be an inalienable right. Also, "that the people have a right to bear arms for their defence and security." (b) In England, this right is qualified by the condition, that the arms must be suitable to the condition and degree of the bearer; but here, there is no qualification."

(a) See 2 Story, Const. 1896; 1 Black. Com. 148.[A party may use reasonable force to defend the possession of his property, but he cannot use force against the person in regaining or obtaining the possession of property to which he is entitled. 3 Black. Com. 4, 179; Sampson v. Henry, 11 Pick. 387; 1 Bishop, Crim. Law, 397; 1 Hilliard on Torts, ch. v. ss 12, pp 196, 197.]
(b)[This provision is not infringed by a statute prohibiting the carrying of concealed weapons. State v. Jumel, 13 La. An. 399.]

- Timothy Walker, LL.D,[INTRODUCTION TO AMERICAN LAW. DESIGNED AS A FIRST BOOK FOR STUDENTS. BY TIMOTHY WALKER LL.D. LATE PROFESSOR OF LAW IN THE CINCINATTI COLLEGE. FIFTH EDITION, REVISED BY J. BRYANT WALKER, OF THE CINCINNATI BAR. BOSTON: LITTLE, BROWN, AND COMPANY 1869.]

It is self-evident that the right to arms is corollary to the Right to Self-Defense. Which of course is a natural right that can NEVER be surrendered, even after entering into society. It is a retained right that NO person can be deprived of by ANY law of man. Thus making the RESTRICTIVE clause found in the 2nd amendment; "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall NOT be infringed" abundantly clear in meaning.
GoGoBar

Thailand

#107421 May 13, 2013
Anonymous of Indy wrote:
<quoted text>even Riverside County California Sheriff Stan Sniff is opposed to a federal ban on assault rifles because it would infringe on constitutional rights and do more harm than good.
He described the AR-15 rifle targeted by the ban as “a modern American ‘musket’” capable of multiple uses.
RIVERSIDE COUNTY: Sheriff opposes assault weapons ban
http://www.pe.com/local-news/politics/jeff-ho...
LOL. Arent Sherrifs elected in these backwaters by nbucktoothed backwoods creeps
EuroBoy

Germany

#107422 May 13, 2013
Similar to fat bucktoothed dirty ugly old Australians that live a sleazy life in Thailand molesting kids like you do.
Teaman

Abingdon, VA

#107423 May 13, 2013
GoGoBar wrote:
<quoted text>
LOL. Arent Sherrifs elected in these backwaters by nbucktoothed backwoods creeps
They are elected everywhere in the US.
spocko

Oakland, CA

#107424 May 13, 2013
GunShow1 wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes, really:
"87. Right of Self-defence.(a)
"There are some injuries which, once committed, cannot be adequately redressed. The taking of life is an extreme case of this kind. Against the commission of such injuries, therefore, every person should not only have the protection of government, when practicable, but should also have a right to defend himself. The right of self-defence would of course exist in a state of nature, and the social compact does not take it away; but the right of avenging an injury already committed is taken away. This is a fundamental distinction. You may prevent an injury from being done, by all proper means; but when done, you may not take redress in your own hands. The social compact provides a tribunal to which you are bound to resort; and abundant provision is made for securing the redress to which you may be entitled. Thus the right of self-defence and the right of redress are two distinct things; but both are equally guaranteed by the constitution. We have already seen that "the enjoying and defending life and liberty," is declared to be an inalienable right. Also, "that the people have a right to bear arms for their defence and security." (b) In England, this right is qualified by the condition, that the arms must be suitable to the condition and degree of the bearer; but here, there is no qualification."
(a) See 2 Story, Const. 1896; 1 Black. Com. 148.[A party may use reasonable force to defend the possession of his property, but he cannot use force against the person in regaining or obtaining the possession of property to which he is entitled. 3 Black. Com. 4, 179; Sampson v. Henry, 11 Pick. 387; 1 Bishop, Crim. Law, 397; 1 Hilliard on Torts, ch. v. ss 12, pp 196, 197.]
(b)[This provision is not infringed by a statute prohibiting the carrying of concealed weapons. State v. Jumel, 13 La. An. 399.]
- Timothy Walker, LL.D,[INTRODUCTION TO AMERICAN LAW. DESIGNED AS A FIRST BOOK FOR STUDENTS. BY TIMOTHY WALKER LL.D. LATE PROFESSOR OF LAW IN THE CINCINATTI COLLEGE. FIFTH EDITION, REVISED BY J. BRYANT WALKER, OF THE CINCINNATI BAR. BOSTON: LITTLE, BROWN, AND COMPANY 1869.]
It is self-evident that the right to arms is corollary to the Right to Self-Defense. Which of course is a natural right that can NEVER be surrendered, even after entering into society. It is a retained right that NO person can be deprived of by ANY law of man. Thus making the RESTRICTIVE clause found in the 2nd amendment; "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall NOT be infringed" abundantly clear in meaning.
Is there an echo in here?
Sir Bucking Fastard

UK

#107425 May 13, 2013
spocko wrote:
<quoted text>
Is there an echo in here?
Yeah, it's your head, the echo chamber.
I duly note that you took not a moment of time to contest the facts placed before you. Rather, all you did was piss your pants. Nothing new there for you.

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#107426 May 13, 2013
GoGoBar wrote:
<quoted text>
LOL. Arent Sherrifs elected in these backwaters by nbucktoothed backwoods creeps
Teaman wrote:
<quoted text>
They are elected everywhere in the US.
Teaman is right, Sheriffs are elected officials and to think a sheriff from California would say he’s opposed to a federal ban on assault rifles because it would infringe on constitutional rights and do more harm than good is amazing and brave to say that especially for a Sheriff who is outnumbered with those backwaters by nbucktoothed backwoods creeps in California if that is what you call those in California like Dianne Feinstein & Nancy Pelosi.
Sir Bucking Fastard

UK

#107427 May 13, 2013
Anonymous of Indy wrote:
<quoted text>
<quoted text>Teaman is right, Sheriffs are elected officials and to think a sheriff from California would say he’s opposed to a federal ban on assault rifles because it would infringe on constitutional rights and do more harm than good is amazing and brave to say that especially for a Sheriff who is outnumbered with those backwaters by nbucktoothed backwoods creeps in California if that is what you call those in California like Dianne Feinstein & Nancy Pelosi.
If I have read U.S. history correctly enough, California was a decent place to live until all those 'Noo Ingland Yanquis' decided to move away from there because they didn't like the oppressive governments they lived under. But as soon as they got to the U.S. west coastal areas, they proceeded to do the very same things to everyone else which they were complaining about to begin with!
Teaman

Abingdon, VA

#107428 May 13, 2013
Sir Bucking Fastard wrote:
<quoted text>
If I have read U.S. history correctly enough, California was a decent place to live until all those 'Noo Ingland Yanquis' decided to move away from there because they didn't like the oppressive governments they lived under. But as soon as they got to the U.S. west coastal areas, they proceeded to do the very same things to everyone else which they were complaining about to begin with!
Got to watch those Yankees, they'll change everything into what they left.:-)

I think the 1960's counter culture had more of an effect.

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 BIRTH CERTIFICATE: Suit contesting... (Jan '09) 5 min Dr Guru 222,928
News RICO Charges Against 'Climate Deniers': A Case ... 6 min Rev Cash Dollar 8
News In climate bid, Obama stares down melting Alask... (Sep '15) 7 min Earthling-1 1,567
Election 'Fox News Sunday' to Host Kentucky Senate Debate (Oct '10) 9 min Limbertwig 240,314
News Once slow-moving threat, global warming speeds ... (Dec '08) 9 min Earthling-1 61,113
News Hillary's Jet and Other Global Climate Phonies (Jul '15) 11 min Earthling-1 5
News Math Problem Worth $1M May Be Solved, but There... (Jan '14) 12 min John Metcalfe 2
News Trump Isn't Bluffing, He'll Deport 11 Million P... 14 min Quirky 8,198
News Barack Obama, our next President (Nov '08) 18 min Yeah 1,421,500
News The President has failed us (Jun '12) 1 hr Agents of Corruption 393,462
News Trump backer tweets cartoon of Clinton in black... 2 hr Rev Cash Dollar 108
More from around the web