States with strict gun laws found to ...

States with strict gun laws found to have fewer shooting deaths

There are 5076 comments on the Reuters story from Mar 7, 2013, titled States with strict gun laws found to have fewer shooting deaths. In it, Reuters reports that:

States that have more laws restricting gun ownership have lower rates of death from shootings, both suicides and homicides, a study by researchers at Boston Children's Hospital and Harvard University found.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at Reuters.

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#4415 Apr 30, 2013
Socialism is for Sissies wrote:
<quoted text>I imagine you can read slow, so try it again:
When's messiah gonna close Gitmo? He's got a pen and love Executive Orders, right?
where are you going to put it, Darling?

Did the governor of your state volunteer to take them?

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#4416 Apr 30, 2013
Socialism is for Sissies wrote:
How about the Benghazi cover up?
Apparently pretty good because the only people still crying about it are the ones who lost the last election.

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#4417 Apr 30, 2013
GunShow1 wrote:
<quoted text>
Here's one JUST FOR >YOU< -
Circuit court of the United States fifth circuit
US Supreme Court outranks a 130 year old circuit court ruling, my off topic mine quoting troll.

Maybe you can start by learning all the words to the US Second Amendment.

Wipe your chin, GayDavy.

“Shall NOT be infringed!”

Since: Apr 13

San Jose, CA.

#4418 Apr 30, 2013
barefoot2626 wrote:
<quoted text>
Wipe your chin, my little troll.
Come back when you know all the words to the 2nd Amendment.
"...The right of peaceable assembly is one of the rights secured by the Constitution and laws of the United Stares. If citizens come together for a lawful and peaceable purpose, their assembling is within the meaning of the Constitution. The fact that they assemble with arms, provided these arms are to be used not for aggression but for their protection, does not make the assemblage any the less a peaceable one..."

"The right to bear arms is also a right protected by the Constitution and laws of the United States. Every citizen of the United States has the right to bear arms, provided it is done for a lawful purpose and in a lawful manner. A man who carries his arms openly, and for his own protection, or for any other lawful purpose, has as clear a right to do so as to carry his own watch or wear his own hat."

- Judge Woods,[later associate justice of the U.S. Supreme Court (188087)] Circuit court of the United States fifth circuit and district of Louisiana. The United States vs. William J Cruikshank et al.[United States v. Cruikshank, 25 F. Cas. 707 (1 Woods, 308)(C.C.D. La. 1874)(No. 14,897), aff'd, 92 U.S. 542 (1876).]

Away with you, loser.

“Shall NOT be infringed!”

Since: Apr 13

San Jose, CA.

#4419 Apr 30, 2013
barefoot2626 wrote:
<quoted text>
US Supreme Court outranks a 130 year old circuit court ruling, my off topic mine quoting troll.
Maybe you can start by learning all the words to the US Second Amendment.
Wipe your chin, GayDavy.
"...In addition to the original rights secured to him in the first article of amendments,[Fourteenth Amendment] he had secured the free exercise of his religious belief, and freedom of speech and the press. Then he had secured to him the right to keep and bear arms in his defense. Then, after that, his home was secured in time of peace from the presence of a soldier; and,still further, sir, his house, his papers, and his effects were protected against unreasonable seizure...."

"'Though originally the first ten Amendments were adopted as limitations on Federal power, yet in so far as they secure and recognize fundamental rights-common law rights-of the man, they make them privileges and immunities of the man as citizen of the United States, and cannot now be abridged by a State under the Fourteenth Amendment. In other words, while the ten Amendments, as limitations on power, only apply to the Federal government, and not to the States, yet in so far as they declare or recognize rights of persons, these rights are theirs, as citizens of the United States, and the Fourteenth Amendment as to such rights limits state power, as the ten Amendments had limited Federal power..."
- Adamson v. People Of State Of California, U.S. Supreme Court,(Justice Black, Douglas and Swayne in Dissent), June 23, 1947.

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#4420 Apr 30, 2013
GunShow1 wrote:
<quoted text>
Wasn't it a DEMOCRAT administration that INTERNED THOUSANDS of Americans of Japanese descent - UNCONSTITUTIONALLY? Gathered them up, and locked them in make shift camps around the country? Making them lose their jobs, houses, and everything else dear? And they had committed NO CRIME WHATSOEVER? Why YES, I do believe it was....
Executive Order 9066

United States Executive Order 9066 was a United States presidential executive order signed and issued during World War II by the United States President Franklin D. Roosevelt on February 19, 1942, authorizing the Secretary of War to prescribe certain areas as military zones. Eventually, EO 9066 cleared the way for the deportation of Japanese Americans to internment camps.

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

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#4421 Apr 30, 2013
tha Professor wrote:
<quoted text>
You're a god-damned liar.
I know you are and a proven fact.

“Shall NOT be infringed!”

Since: Apr 13

San Jose, CA.

#4422 Apr 30, 2013
Anonymous of Indy wrote:
<quoted text>Executive Order 9066
United States Executive Order 9066 was a United States presidential executive order signed and issued during World War II by the United States President Franklin D. Roosevelt on February 19, 1942, authorizing the Secretary of War to prescribe certain areas as military zones. Eventually, EO 9066 cleared the way for the deportation of Japanese Americans to internment camps.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Executive_Order_...
Good find.

Since: Oct 08

Location hidden

#4423 May 1, 2013
GunShow1 wrote:
<quoted text>
"...In addition to the original rights secured to him in the first article of amendments,[Fourteenth Amendment] he had secured the free exercise of his religious belief, and freedom of speech and the press. Then he had secured to him the right to keep and bear arms in his defense. Then, after that, his home was secured in time of peace from the presence of a soldier; and,still further, sir, his house, his papers, and his effects were protected against unreasonable seizure...."
"'Though originally the first ten Amendments were adopted as limitations on Federal power, yet in so far as they secure and recognize fundamental rights-common law rights-of the man, they make them privileges and immunities of the man as citizen of the United States, and cannot now be abridged by a State under the Fourteenth Amendment. In other words, while the ten Amendments, as limitations on power, only apply to the Federal government, and not to the States, yet in so far as they declare or recognize rights of persons, these rights are theirs, as citizens of the United States, and the Fourteenth Amendment as to such rights limits state power, as the ten Amendments had limited Federal power..."
- Adamson v. People Of State Of California, U.S. Supreme Court,(Justice Black, Douglas and Swayne in Dissent), June 23, 1947.
That explanation, with a court case should, shut her filthy mouth. I doubt it will do what is intended, because of her third grade understanding.

Since: Dec 12

Location hidden

#4424 May 1, 2013
GunShow1 wrote:
<quoted text>It is rather funny, isn't it?
To everyone but them.

Since: Dec 12

Location hidden

#4425 May 1, 2013
Wall Street Government wrote:
<quoted text>Only in the parallel, bizarrio, teabagger, universe.
I didn't realize you were a teenager. That explains so much!

Since: Dec 12

Location hidden

#4426 May 1, 2013
Wall Street Government wrote:
<quoted text>If teabaggers wanted to close gitmo, why don't they?

Seems they want to bitch about it instead.

Bitch and whine about their own policies.

To the opposing party!

It's rather funny.
I don't recall him saying he wanted gitmo closed. I recall him making fun of Obama wanting it closed and failing to do so.

“Sharia, NOT!”

Since: Jul 10

Chesapeake, VA

#4427 May 1, 2013
tha Professor wrote:
<quoted text>
What was "covered up" in Benghazi, please? Offer evidence to support your claim.
Like I said: "Iran-Contra". You'll see.
Getting close though because survivors have come out via lawyers that the WH has threatened them to keep quiet.
Quiet about what I wonder.

Perhaps it was the warehouse on embassy property that hid a weapons cache for Syria? Ooops, said too much. Heh-heh.

“Sharia, NOT!”

Since: Jul 10

Chesapeake, VA

#4428 May 1, 2013
Wall Street Government wrote:
<quoted text>
January 22, 2009
Promising to return America to the "moral high ground" in the war on terrorism, President Obama ISSUED THREE EXECUTIVE ORDERS Thursday to demonstrate a clean break from the Bush administration, INCLUDING ONE requiring that the Guantanamo Bay detention facility be CLOSED within a year.
Have the kids on the "short bus" explain it to you.
Then have them write a letter to your teabagger congressman.
Poor teabagger.
Today!!!!!!! What is he doing today? Are you really that stupid? Really? He is STILL President. Pick up a pen and issue the order!
Maybe he can't because he found out the numerous legal ramifications that folks like you are too stupid to understand.
It comes down to jurisdiction. GITMO is NOT US soil and as such can do as they damn well want to those "enemy combatants" that have been held for over 10 years without trial.
Where's your libby ranting about justice?
Your energy is better spent defending a community organizer and insulting folks that beat you at debating, right?

“Sharia, NOT!”

Since: Jul 10

Chesapeake, VA

#4429 May 1, 2013
Dr-Sniper wrote:
<quoted text>
I don't recall him saying he wanted gitmo closed. I recall him making fun of Obama wanting it closed and failing to do so.
As well as the point that messiah can't do anything he promised because he was a community organizer that is clueless about politics and laws. I'm pretty sure that behind closed doors someone pulled him by his dumbo ears and said "Look here, stupid. You just can't wave your hand and presto! There is more to all this than is revealed to the public and our relationship with other nations. And then there's that pesky Constitution that can fry us if we move in the wrong direction. We did not legally declare any wars and as such we use the term "enemy combatants" rather than prisoners of war which would allow tribunals to occur. We can't judge them in a Federal court because they have not committed tangible crimes on foriegn soil against US Citizens sufficient enough to be charged let alone jailed on US soil."
Emotions don't run a nation that is a nation of law.
Wall Street Government

Sebastian, FL

#4430 May 1, 2013
Dr-Sniper wrote:
<quoted text>
I didn't realize you were a teenager. That explains so much!
That even a teenager can prove you wrong and expose your lies.

Poor teabagger.

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#4431 May 1, 2013
GunShow1 wrote:
<quoted text>
"...The right of peaceable
Waitress: Well, there's egg and bacon; egg sausage and bacon; egg and spam; egg bacon and spam; egg bacon sausage and spam; spam bacon sausage and spam; spam egg spam spam bacon and spam; spam sausage spam spam bacon spam tomato and spam;
Vikings: Spam spam spam spam...
Waitress:...spam spam spam egg and spam; spam spam spam spam spam spam baked beans spam spam spam...
Vikings: Spam! Lovely spam! Lovely spam!

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#4432 May 1, 2013
GunShow1 wrote:
<quoted text>
"...In addition to the original rights
Waitress: Well, there's egg and bacon; egg sausage and bacon; egg and spam; egg bacon and spam; egg bacon sausage and spam; spam bacon sausage and spam; spam egg spam spam bacon and spam; spam sausage spam spam bacon spam tomato and spam;

Vikings:Spam spam spam spam...

Waitress:...spam spam spam egg and spam; spam spam spam spam spam spam baked beans spam spam spam...

Vikings: Spam! Lovely spam! Lovely spam!

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#4433 May 1, 2013
Anonymous of Indy wrote:
<quoted text>Executive Order 9066
So, AnalOriface?

“Shall NOT be infringed!”

Since: Apr 13

San Jose, CA.

#4434 May 1, 2013
Chicagoan by Birth wrote:
<quoted text>That explanation, with a court case should, shut her filthy mouth. I doubt it will do what is intended, because of her third grade understanding.
Well here's another one from one of the law makers:

"This is a most invaluable liberty guarantied to every American citizen. A people in the full enjoyment of the right of trial by jury, and all armed, are free, and cannot be reduced to slavery. In our country happily, the people are generally divided into opposing political parties of something like proximate numbers. All whether belonging to the party in power or the opposition, alike have the constitutional right to keep and bear arms. The free exercise of this right is indispensable to the safety of those in opposition, and it is equally necessary to the preservation of the liberties of all. It is impossible that half, or any great proportion of the people of a country, should be enslaved without that soon becoming the fate of the whole. That party which preserves its own liberties, necessarily achieves the same for the entire nation..."

"...A Just, patriotic, and constitutional administration of the Government would never attempt to subvert the right the opposition, of all the people, to keep and bear arms. It is a right formidable only to tyrants, usurpers, and oppressors."

- Senator Garrett Davis, Feb. 27, 1865,[THE CONGRESSIONAL GLOBE CONTAINING THE DEBATES AND PROCEEDINGS OF THE SECOND SESSION OF THE THIRTY EIGHTH CONGRESS ALSO OF THE SPECIAL SESSION OF THE SENATE,(Pages 1133-34).]

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) 7 min Jacques Ottawa 197,188
News Trump: 'I have to do right thing' 8 min Red 302
News Barack Obama, our next President (Nov '08) 9 min Nostrilis Waxman 1,278,849
News What rights do immigrants in the US have? 10 min DC heavies 124
News Mike Huckabee says Hillary Clinton should go to... 10 min JCK 57
Election 'Fox News Sunday' to Host Kentucky Senate Debate (Oct '10) 11 min Demonicrats 194,317
News Reports of the Russian Army in Syria: ISIS's Ch... 12 min Joe Balls 6
News The President has failed us (Jun '12) 21 min -Dont Panic- 341,565
News Judge jails Kentucky clerk for refusing marriag... 32 min Lawrence Wolf 72
News Judge jails Kentucky clerk for refusing marriag... 50 min Responsibility 254
More from around the web