It's the Guns, Stupid

It's the Guns, Stupid

There are 103297 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.

GunShow1

“Shall NOT be infringed!”

Since: Apr 13

San Jose, CA.

#107472 May 14, 2013
surprise wrote:
<quoted text>
surprise. teabagging gun nut is a bigot too
I'm definitely a "bigot", AGAINST LIE-BERAL SCUMBAGS.

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#107473 May 14, 2013
GunShow1 wrote:
<quoted text>
I'm definitely a "bigot", AGAINST LIE-BERAL SCUMBAGS.
Right the Bigots are the Modern Pseudo Liberals who parade around calling themselves Liberals and there is nothing Liberal about anything they advocate in the name of Liberalism in what it meant to be a Liberal if anything they should be calling themselves Leninist instead which a lot of them align with in Ideology.

Classical Liberalism as an Ideology

Classical liberalism was the political philosophy of the Founding Fathers. It permeates the Constitution, the Federalist Papers and many other documents produced by the people who created the American system of government. Many emancipationists who opposed slavery were essentially classical liberals, as were the suffragettes, who fought for equal rights for women.

Basically, classical liberalism is based on a belief in liberty. Even today, one of the clearest statements of this philosophy is found in the Declaration of Independence. In 1776, most people believed that rights came from government. People thought they had only such rights as government elected to give them. But following British philosopher John Locke, Jefferson argued that it’s the other way around. People have rights apart from government, as part of their nature. Further, people can both form governments and dissolve them. The only legitimate purpose of government is to protect these rights.

http://www.ncpa.org/pub/classical-liberalism-...
GoGoBar

Thailand

#107474 May 14, 2013
Anonymous of Indy wrote:
<quoted text>Right the Bigots are the Modern Pseudo Liberals who parade around calling themselves Liberals and there is nothing Liberal about anything they advocate in the name of Liberalism in what it meant to be a Liberal if anything they should be calling themselves Leninist instead which a lot of them align with in Ideology.
Classical Liberalism as an Ideology
Classical liberalism was the political philosophy of the Founding Fathers. It permeates the Constitution, the Federalist Papers and many other documents produced by the people who created the American system of government. Many emancipationists who opposed slavery were essentially classical liberals, as were the suffragettes, who fought for equal rights for women.
Basically, classical liberalism is based on a belief in liberty. Even today, one of the clearest statements of this philosophy is found in the Declaration of Independence. In 1776, most people believed that rights came from government. People thought they had only such rights as government elected to give them. But following British philosopher John Locke, Jefferson argued that it’s the other way around. People have rights apart from government, as part of their nature. Further, people can both form governments and dissolve them. The only legitimate purpose of government is to protect these rights.
http://www.ncpa.org/pub/classical-liberalism-...
Well, it must have been wonderful. Right up until the civil war.
Then the loss of the slave labour, the end of free land to Colonise and bingo. Right back to where Europe is. A socall market based economy with ever shrinking consumer choices between merged corporations.
Walmart just surpassed Exxon-Mobil in profits.

It is still hard to determine what exact rights the USA has over other Advanced Nations.

GunShow1

“Shall NOT be infringed!”

Since: Apr 13

San Jose, CA.

#107476 May 14, 2013
Anonymous of Indy wrote:
<quoted text>Right the Bigots are the Modern Pseudo Liberals who parade around calling themselves Liberals and there is nothing Liberal about anything they advocate in the name of Liberalism in what it meant to be a Liberal if anything they should be calling themselves Leninist instead which a lot of them align with in Ideology.
Classical Liberalism as an Ideology
Classical liberalism was the political philosophy of the Founding Fathers. It permeates the Constitution, the Federalist Papers and many other documents produced by the people who created the American system of government. Many emancipationists who opposed slavery were essentially classical liberals, as were the suffragettes, who fought for equal rights for women.
Basically, classical liberalism is based on a belief in liberty. Even today, one of the clearest statements of this philosophy is found in the Declaration of Independence. In 1776, most people believed that rights came from government. People thought they had only such rights as government elected to give them. But following British philosopher John Locke, Jefferson argued that it’s the other way around. People have rights apart from government, as part of their nature. Further, people can both form governments and dissolve them. The only legitimate purpose of government is to protect these rights.
http://www.ncpa.org/pub/classical-liberalism-...
"And can the liberties of a nation be thought secure when we have removed their only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are the gift of God?"--Thomas Jefferson

GunShow1

“Shall NOT be infringed!”

Since: Apr 13

San Jose, CA.

#107477 May 14, 2013
GoGoBar wrote:
<quoted text>
Well, it must have been wonderful. Right up until the civil war.
Then the loss of the slave labour, the end of free land to Colonise and bingo. Right back to where Europe is. A socall market based economy with ever shrinking consumer choices between merged corporations.
Walmart just surpassed Exxon-Mobil in profits.
It is still hard to determine what exact rights the USA has over other Advanced Nations.
Life, Liberty, Property.

Together with the right to support and DEFEND them in the best manner they can.

Those are the clear Natural and INALIENABLE rights of U.S. Citizens. The two that can be legally "alienated" through >due process of law<,(in the true Constitutional sense), is life and property. The right to Self-Defense NEVER ends.

Then there are the civil/political rights of course.

GunShow1

“Shall NOT be infringed!”

Since: Apr 13

San Jose, CA.

#107478 May 15, 2013
"We are mere agents for the exercise of limited and specific grants; and I thank God that it is so. I rejoice that freedom of speech and the right of self-defence cannot be curtailed; that all your enactments in relation to are void; that gentlemen cannot, if they would, have a legislative auto do fe, and burn every man for contempt who will not follow them or applaud their acts...."--Mr. John Francis Hamtramck Clairborne, U.S. Representative from Mississippi,[Pg. 1693]

"If the witness be sent before the committee, self-defence is the paramount law of our nature. Self-defence is one of the natural rights that all men in this country possess. Self-defence is one of the inalienable rights, dear to this witness, secured to all American citizens by the very nature of our free institutions; and if he goes, he must be permitted to go before the committee armed for his own protection; for he is apprized of the feelings of the honorable chairman of the committee towards him, by the expression of the honorable gentleman made on this floor. Sir, if we force the witness before the committee, and he goes there armed,(and I hold that we cannot think of forcing him there without the power to protect himself,) may not the result be such as we would regret, and would we not be responsible for the consequences? Let me ask, will not Whitney commit a greater contempt by going before the committee armed than he has done in refusing to go before the committee under the circumstances of this case? Then, sir, I believe Whitney, under the circumstances, is justified in refusing to appear before the committee. Then, if we order Whitney into custody, and to be brought to the bar of this House to answer, as a criminal, will we not do so in violation of all his rights as a citizen, and will we not establish a dangerous precedent?"--Mr. Samuel J. Gholson, U.S. Representative from Mississippi, Feb. 10, 1837.[DEBATES IN CONGRESS PART II. REGISTER OF DEBATES IN CONGRESS, COMPRISING THE LEADING DEBATES AND INCIDENTS OF THE SECOND SESSION OF THE TWENTY-FOURTH CONGRESS: TOGETHER WITH AN APPENDIX, CONTAINING IMPORTANT STATE PAPERS AND PUBLIC DOCUMENTS, AND THE LAWS, OF A PUBLIC NATURE, ENACTED DURING THE SESSION: WITH A COPIOUS INDEX TO THE WHOLE. VOLUME XIII. WASHINGTON: PRINTED AND PUBLISHED BY GALES AND SEATON 1837. Pg. 1701]
yep

Huntsville, AL

#107479 May 15, 2013
GunShow1 wrote:
<quoted text>
I'm definitely a "bigot".
we know
Teaman

Abingdon, VA

#107480 May 15, 2013
surprise wrote:
<quoted text>
surprise. teabagging gun nut is a bigot too
How would you get bigot out of that? BTW, I don't own a gun or belong to the NRA.
FYI

Denver, CO

#107481 May 15, 2013
yep wrote:
<quoted text>
we know
I guess I am too! Regards
GoGoBar

Thailand

#107482 May 15, 2013
Teaman wrote:
<quoted text>
How would you get bigot out of that? BTW, I don't own a gun or belong to the NRA.
Are you the figment of someone elses imagination? If not then you dont seem too engaged.
GoGoBar

Thailand

#107483 May 15, 2013
GunShow1 wrote:
"We are mere agents for the exercise of limited and specific grants; and I thank God that it is so. I rejoice that freedom of speech and the right of self-defence cannot be curtailed; that all your enactments in relation to are void; that gentlemen cannot, if they would, have a legislative auto do fe, and burn every man for contempt who will not follow them or applaud their acts...."--Mr. John Francis Hamtramck Clairborne, U.S. Representative from Mississippi,[Pg. 1693]
"If the witness be sent before the committee, self-defence is the paramount law of our nature. Self-defence is one of the natural rights that all men in this country possess. Self-defence is one of the inalienable rights, dear to this witness, secured to all American citizens by the very nature of our free institutions; and if he goes, he must be permitted to go before the committee armed for his own protection; for he is apprized of the feelings of the honorable chairman of the committee towards him, by the expression of the honorable gentleman made on this floor. Sir, if we force the witness before the committee, and he goes there armed,(and I hold that we cannot think of forcing him there without the power to protect himself,) may not the result be such as we would regret, and would we not be responsible for the consequences? Let me ask, will not Whitney commit a greater contempt by going before the committee armed than he has done in refusing to go before the committee under the circumstances of this case? Then, sir, I believe Whitney, under the circumstances, is justified in refusing to appear before the committee. Then, if we order Whitney into custody, and to be brought to the bar of this House to answer, as a criminal, will we not do so in violation of all his rights as a citizen, and will we not establish a dangerous precedent?"--Mr. Samuel J. Gholson, U.S. Representative from Mississippi, Feb. 10, 1837.[DEBATES IN CONGRESS PART II. REGISTER OF DEBATES IN CONGRESS, COMPRISING THE LEADING DEBATES AND INCIDENTS OF THE SECOND SESSION OF THE TWENTY-FOURTH CONGRESS: TOGETHER WITH AN APPENDIX, CONTAINING IMPORTANT STATE PAPERS AND PUBLIC DOCUMENTS, AND THE LAWS, OF A PUBLIC NATURE, ENACTED DURING THE SESSION: WITH A COPIOUS INDEX TO THE WHOLE. VOLUME XIII. WASHINGTON: PRINTED AND PUBLISHED BY GALES AND SEATON 1837. Pg. 1701]
Spaaaaam.

12996 Murders

225 Justifiable firearm self defense.

Even the NRA are calling for "Nanny State" armed guards in public and private spaces.

Like in Yemen.

“Si vis pacem, para bellum !!”

Since: Dec 07

Southeast Virginia

#107484 May 15, 2013
GoGoBar wrote:
<quoted text>
Spaaaaam.
12996 Murders
225 Justifiable firearm self defense.
Even the NRA are calling for "Nanny State" armed guards in public and private spaces.
Like in Yemen.
And how many self-defense uses with a firearm were there that DIDN'T result in a death???
GoGoBar

Thailand

#107485 May 15, 2013
Armed Veteran wrote:
<quoted text>
And how many self-defense uses with a firearm were there that DIDN'T result in a death???
None that saved a life obviosly/

12996 Murders

225 Self defence Homicides by firearm

350,000 firearm violent crimes.

All per year.

The highest imprisonment rate in the known world.

But it is not the violent guns?

HAHAHAHAHA
FormerParatroope r

United States

#107486 May 15, 2013
GoGoBar wrote:
<quoted text>
None that saved a life obviosly/
12996 Murders
225 Self defence Homicides by firearm
350,000 firearm violent crimes.
All per year.
The highest imprisonment rate in the known world.
But it is not the violent guns?
HAHAHAHAHA
Where do your numbers come from?

Prison rates, is there a breakdown by offense?

How is an inanimate object violent?

Banned

“This town is nuts...”

Since: Jul 09

Location hidden

#107488 May 15, 2013
When are you people going to figure out that gun control laws only effect legal and law biding gun owners and will do nothing to prevent criminals from using guns to commit crime? More importantly, when are you going to realize that you're not going to get our guns no matter how strongly you feel about the issue and start focusing your attention on finding realistic solutions to the problem you're trying to address? You should be pushing for legislation that will truly protect children while they are at school instead of trying to plow under our Constitutional right to own firearms. School shootings can be eliminated in this country while guns can not.
When

Huntsville, AL

#107489 May 15, 2013
Banned wrote:
.
are you going to quit posturing and support basic safety measures.

Banned

“This town is nuts...”

Since: Jul 09

Location hidden

#107490 May 15, 2013
When wrote:
<quoted text>are you going to quit posturing and support basic safety measures.
What safety measures do you hope to enforce on those who commit crimes with guns? What they are doing with that firearm is already illegal so do you really think that passing another law is going to stop them? You want to pass laws that will only impact my right to protect and defend myself and my family... What will that do to help anything?

“Si vis pacem, para bellum !!”

Since: Dec 07

Southeast Virginia

#107491 May 15, 2013
GoGoBar wrote:
<quoted text>
None that saved a life obviosly/
Right, because cops NEVER use theirs to apprehend armed criminals do they. Armed citizens NEVER use theirs to defend themselves where the perp is not shot do they?(end sarcasm)

What a f-ing idiot you are.

“Si vis pacem, para bellum !!”

Since: Dec 07

Southeast Virginia

#107492 May 15, 2013
"....not shot dead.."
spocko

Oakland, CA

#107493 May 15, 2013
Banned wrote:
<quoted text>
What safety measures do you hope to enforce on those who commit crimes with guns? What they are doing with that firearm is already illegal so do you really think that passing another law is going to stop them? You want to pass laws that will only impact my right to protect and defend myself and my family... What will that do to help anything?
Guns are almost always used as an offensive weapon and very rarely for defense!
The NRA has argued consistently that guns are vital for home defense. We keep hearing from the NRA and their ilk, the gunloons, about how a gun defends your home. Wayne LaPierre, the group’s executive liar in chief and an increasingly unhinged public face, has been out talking about how everyone needs guns to be prepared for a coming time of financial crisis and natural disaster – huh what? But, what about the broader implications, and added risks, of keeping guns in the house? It makes a domestic conflict far more likely to escalate and result in a murder (just ask Oscar Pistorius killing his girlfriend in a domestic dispute). Domestic violence and assaults involving a firearm are 23 times more likely to result in death than those involving other weapons or bodily force. When it comes to domestic disputes you are actually a lot less safe if there is a gun in the home. Without a gun in the house, many of these fatal assaults would have merely resulted in injuries or would not have escalated at all.

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 Comments 4 min Ms Sassy 44
News Wisconsin AG: Undercover campaign videos reveal... 4 min Fcvk tRump 1
News Hundreds Of Scientists Urge Trump To Pull Out O... 4 min B as in B S as in S 153
Election 'Fox News Sunday' to Host Kentucky Senate Debate (Oct '10) 5 min Pete 265,184
News Lawmakers revisiting requiring those on Medicai... 9 min Retribution 93
News BARACK OBAMA BIRTH CERTIFICATE: Suit contesting... (Jan '09) 13 min Justice Dale 240,346
News Barack Obama, our next President (Nov '08) 14 min Susanm 1,521,940
News Attorney General doesn't realize Hawaii is a state 15 min spocko 313
News Will Islam Inherit the Earth? 38 min Lawrence Wolf 179
News Obama meets with at-risk youth ahead of Chicago... 1 hr Retired SOF 63
News Racism motivated Trump voters more than authori... 2 hr Ronald 316
More from around the web