It's the Guns, Stupid

It's the Guns, Stupid

There are 103326 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.

“Now thats a tin hat!”

Since: Oct 07

Blue Ridge Mountains

#84593 Dec 13, 2012
Ahomana wrote:
<quoted text>
We all have a tendency to violence some more so than others, mainly through a lack of control ....
Martin might have been a violent teen but he had no police record and that didn't give Zimmerman the right to shoot him.....Zimmerman on the other hand was a thug, which is proven by his past closed records....and I found this link very interesting as it apears he had a history of following people on the Estate.
http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2012/03/18/4...
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/03/30/tray...
Interesting links. I do like it when they include references. A couple of the references have been discredited (Z was bloody and beat the night of the shooting).

But that "testimony" from co workers is very interesting (jekyl and hyde).

I cannot wait to see what actual evidence makes it to court.
Tray

Tupelo, MS

#84594 Dec 13, 2012
Guppy wrote:
<quoted text>
IF the indians believed that no one owned the land, then they were not entitled to any of it. So, what are you talking about?
If it wasn't for the white man, you would be sitting in a small teepee around a fire and eating raw meat for dinner. Or, maybe lice.
It was a good thing white men claimed the land and ACTUALLY developed it rather than just killing people, killing buffalo and doing much of nothing.
Hmm they lived just fine like that for thousands of years. Then the white man came along and brought disease, hunger, slaughter, taxes, laws, prisons, drugs, booze, pollution, government corruption, welfare, ect. ect. Yes good thing we came along and rescued them from themselves. But hey now they have internet!
Dr Freud

Sandefjord, Norway

#84596 Dec 13, 2012
Tray wrote:
<quoted text> Let's see. The indian lived here for thousands of years yet the white man shows up and claims the land and generously gives the indian a small piece of land as a gift.
I really don't see how you can say all that with a straight face.
The Americas were raped by the invading Europeans who stole everything that wasn't nailed down, and claimed it for themselves.
And if you think that forcing what was essentially a nomadic people onto what is really a concentration camp/gulag, and making them live a life that essentially decimated their populations by way of starvation, while outlawing them teaching their children their way of life, forcing them to learn English and worshipping a god that was completely foreign to them is such a good thing, then I'd like to ask you how you'd like to be treated in that very same way?
Magnanimity was certainly NOT the European way.
Guppy

Bristol, PA

#84597 Dec 13, 2012
Tray wrote:
<quoted text> LIAR! I said "millions died" not killed. You twisting words again? Trying to get a job at NBC?
Gee Tracyvon -Take a chill pill.

I am a Liar? Guess I can't do anything right, on here.

Gee.
Dr Freud

Sandefjord, Norway

#84598 Dec 13, 2012
Ahomana wrote:
<quoted text>
'
What is this BIG lie I am supposed to be swallowing...I am a swing voter....I vote for who is best for ME.
"What is this BIG lie I am supposed to be swallowing"

That ANY kind of government is your friend.
And if voting was supposed to be as effectual as you think, then it would have been outlawed long ago.
Guppy

Bristol, PA

#84599 Dec 13, 2012
Tray wrote:
<quoted text> Hmm they lived just fine like that for thousands of years. Then the white man came along and brought disease, hunger, slaughter, taxes, laws, prisons, drugs, booze, pollution, government corruption, welfare, ect. ect. Yes good thing we came along and rescued them from themselves. But hey now they have internet!
See? The white did what was best for everyone.

The indians would slaughter each other.

Disease? We all pass on germs without knowing.

Taxes? Can't improve and run a country with it.

Laws? Can't run a country without them.

Prison? Needed for people who do bad things.

Drugs? Helped people in pain. Killed bacteria etc. Win-win.

Booze? Yum. Just because someone offers you a drink doesn't mean you have to become a full-blown alcoholic. A little restraint maybe?

Pollution? You know most of it can't be helped.

Corruption? They had it too. Don't kid yourself.

Welfare? Should be a stepping stone, but the indians gave it a whole new meaning.

They have the internet? God help us. Without the white man, they wouldn't have the internet. There you go...

Trayvon/Trayvon - what are we going to do with you?
Guppy

Bristol, PA

#84600 Dec 13, 2012
Tray wrote:
<quoted text> Why did they need money? They had lived just fine for thousands of years without money so why need it now? They also didn't have jails, gang violence, drug problems, unemployment, government corruption among other things the white man gave them.
Deer Tracyvon,

Yes, the Indians did have money. Do I have to look that up too? The indians had money and they used it too.

Jails - they dealt with their own people when they did something bad. You would be better off in a jail.

Gang violence? When they would get drunk - they shoot each other AND their own relatives.

Drug problem - they had their own drugs.

Unemployment? HaHa! They were all unemployed!

Again, corruption. They had it. Don't kid yourself.

Idealistic much?

PS. The parents were very lenient with the kids. Basically, they never got reprimanded.
Guppy

Bristol, PA

#84601 Dec 13, 2012
Teaman wrote:
<quoted text>
I thought Hillary was running Australia.:-)
I think you described our politicians also.
Huh?

Hillary is running Ozzieland? How?
Guppy

Bristol, PA

#84602 Dec 13, 2012
Tracyvon needs to ask for a few books on indians for christmas.

She would change her tune.

I could recommend a few, if you like.

Have you given your list to Santa yet?

“Now thats a tin hat!”

Since: Oct 07

Blue Ridge Mountains

#84603 Dec 13, 2012
Tray wrote:
The Indian bow and arrow and tomahawk represented stone age technology, and were inferior to the European musket and sword, not to mention the cannon. True, arrows worked in wet weather when muskets did not, but they were designed to kill game, not humans (who learned to duck). Arrows lacked range and killing power, especially in the dense forest, or when the colonials wore thick leather jackets.(Armor was even better protection, but it was much too cumbersome.) In the frequent wars between Indian tribes, the primary killing devices were tomahawks and war clubs, but given the long-range of the firearms wielded by the whites, the Indians were forced to use their arrows. The various tribes differed greatly in the effectiveness of their bow and arrow equipment and tactics. The northeastern Indians tended to fire at long distance, which made their arrows easy to dodge and of little striking power when they landed. The Europeans had long before abandoned arrows, finding it was much easier to teach men to shoot muskets, and much easier to fire devastating volleys. Benjamin Franklin's suggestion, made during the American Revolution when gunpowder was in short supply, that bows and arrows be tried was politely ignored. The Indians quickly recognized muskets were a superior weapon, but were never able to make their own. The colonists imported their muskets and gunpowder from Europe, and cast their own lead bullets. The colonists traded muskets, powder and bullets to selected tribes, but never artillery. The Indians never used bayonets, were careless with their equipment, and rarely were able to repair their muskets by themselves. Colonists tried to keep Indians from learning gun-smithing and usually succeeded
Techically, bows don't work when they are wet, either (but you still can poke someone with an arrow, like the old time pistols had a big hammer on the handle after you fired one shot).

With the advent of synthetic bow strings, wet was less of a problem.

“Now thats a tin hat!”

Since: Oct 07

Blue Ridge Mountains

#84604 Dec 13, 2012
Guppy wrote:
<quoted text>
IF the indians believed that no one owned the land, then they were not entitled to any of it. So, what are you talking about?
If it wasn't for the white man, you would be sitting in a small teepee around a fire and eating raw meat for dinner. Or, maybe lice.
It was a good thing white men claimed the land and ACTUALLY developed it rather than just killing people, killing buffalo and doing much of nothing.
Technically, the 1st People would fight over hunting grounds. "Owning" the land was useless to them. The critters on it, however, were worth fighting over.
PLus, they just liked to fight.

Made men out of them.

Since: Jan 11

Mount Holly, NJ

#84605 Dec 13, 2012
Guppy wrote:
<quoted text>
Huh?
Hillary is running Ozzieland? How?
Gillard and Hillary are two peas in a pod. They already have a Hillary.

Since: Feb 11

March, UK

#84606 Dec 13, 2012
Guppy wrote:
<quoted text>
It would take a lot of arrows to kill a buffalo.
What range? Don't know.
Two people said they flew over a cliff.
I told you about the cliff,,,I even told you where the most famous one is, Vore buffalo jump Wyoming. They didnt fly over the cliff, they were encouraged to stampede. Horses didnt appear untill the Spanish arrived, horses that had escaped and lived on the plains were trained by the Indians they were then able to follow the herds.
Prior to this they often starved, especially in the winter months.
Prir to hunting on horse back,methods employed were, Buffalo jump, Chaseing onto a frozen lake or into snow drifts were the animal would become fairly vunerable, and of course the bow and arrow, tomahawk, or spears. Hunting such an animal on foot is extremly dangerous, hence the alternative methods employed when possible.

“Now thats a tin hat!”

Since: Oct 07

Blue Ridge Mountains

#84607 Dec 13, 2012
Guppy wrote:
<quoted text>
Duh? I think the Spaniards? introduced the horse to America.
My ancestor's have been here for quite a while, but I don't think THAT long.
Ban gravity? How do you do that?
Just get Obama to inflict us with another of his 900 imperial decrees.

“Now thats a tin hat!”

Since: Oct 07

Blue Ridge Mountains

#84608 Dec 13, 2012
Guppy wrote:
<quoted text>
Ha! I bet if 50 warriors were riding towards you yelling and screaming, you wouldn't think they were so cool. Especially, when they cut your head off.
Not Cool/Not Cool.
Hmmm? Wouldn't that be interesting?
Not with my handy dandy BOOM STICK!!!!

They would think I was Thor.

And if 49 indians beat the crap out of me, I would be.
Dr Freud

Sandefjord, Norway

#84609 Dec 13, 2012
Teaman wrote:
<quoted text>
I thought Hillary was running Australia.:-)
I think you described our politicians also.
"I thought Hillary was running Australia.:-)"

That would more properly be spelled 'Hitlery.'
;-)
Dr Freud

Sandefjord, Norway

#84610 Dec 13, 2012
ZigmunnDroid wrote:
<quoted text>
Jane you ignorant putz.
"when" did the indians have horses to hunt with???
""when" did the indians have horses to hunt with???"

That would have happened within 100 years of the Spanish arrival to the Americas.
Guppy

Bristol, PA

#84611 Dec 13, 2012
spider1954 wrote:
<quoted text>
I told you about the cliff,,,I even told you where the most famous one is, Vore buffalo jump Wyoming. They didnt fly over the cliff, they were encouraged to stampede. Horses didnt appear untill the Spanish arrived, horses that had escaped and lived on the plains were trained by the Indians they were then able to follow the herds.
Prior to this they often starved, especially in the winter months.
Prir to hunting on horse back,methods employed were, Buffalo jump, Chaseing onto a frozen lake or into snow drifts were the animal would become fairly vunerable, and of course the bow and arrow, tomahawk, or spears. Hunting such an animal on foot is extremly dangerous, hence the alternative methods employed when possible.
Spider is back!

Yes, i remember you saying that and yes I believe you.

Some people on here just make up stuff to prove their point. I don't see you doing that.
Guppy

Bristol, PA

#84612 Dec 13, 2012
ZigmunnDroid wrote:
<quoted text>
Not with my handy dandy BOOM STICK!!!!
They would think I was Thor.
And if 49 indians beat the crap out of me, I would be.
They wouldn't beat the crap out of you. They would mutilate you ever so slowly and then laugh at you. They seemed to have a good sense of humor when it came to torturing the white man.

I guess in a way, women do that to men now. Ha!
Guppy

Bristol, PA

#84613 Dec 13, 2012
Dear Tracyvon,

You mentioned that indians did not have money.

Indian depredations had become so common in Texas that the San Antonio press was almost blase in reporting the Smith brothers capture. "We presume, as usual, these children will be offered for ransom by the savages, who have learned by experience, that a HUNDRED DOLLARS is the accredited value of stolen children."

Guess you were wrong again.

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.

Australia Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News How a sex worker helps my wife and I maintain g... Sat Whack Nice Chubbies 2
News Why Japan lost Aussie sub bid Fri Mfffk2 1
News Exclusive Pictures: Miley Cyrus and Elsa Pataky... Thu Billy Moore 1
News 'Black women are ugly' (May '11) Apr 28 Amber2001 273
Bhadreshkumar wanted by the FBI Apr 27 Helen 1
looking for wife from australia i am 32 from e... (Dec '08) Apr 27 Helen 33
News New mosque plan for Narre Warren green wedge at... Apr 27 TEXAN _ PATRIOT 9
More from around the web