It's the Guns, Stupid

Apr 20, 2007 Full story: Truthdig 103,359

“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

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#103000 Mar 24, 2013
just an allusion wrote:
<quoted text>
I have been saying the same thing all along, albeit in various compositional constructs, but the same thing nonetheless.
It is only YOUR misconstruing/misunderstanding of the comments that have led to your confusion, but then, I am not the one responsible for you competence or lack thereof.
http://www.topix.com/forum/gun s/TIOOJ2V09UCFQ7AUF/p4826#c102 900

Since: Oct 11

Location hidden

#103001 Mar 24, 2013
Sir Bucking Fastard wrote:
<quoted text>
"Non one in a civilian setting NEEDS ..."
WHERE in the Second Amendment is that matter of 'need' addressed in even the most oblique way?
In that time period when the U.S. Bill of Rights was composed, the People had EVERY terrible implement of the soldier at their disposal óWITHOUT RESTRICTION.
So what's YOUR problem with that today? Feeling like wet panties time?
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.
Sir Bucking Fastard wrote:
And one other thing: YOU, right along with a whole slew of other inveterate bed wetters, VERY SERIOUSLY neglect to consider a WHOLE RANGE OF OTHER matters which aren't addressed, if only that they would COMPLETELY shutdown your piss-poor argument.
Are you ready?
1. The COMPLETELY IDIOTIC 'war on drugs.'
2. Psychotropic drugs
Without the first, and OUTLAWING the latter, virtually NONE of what this worlds suffers would be taking place.
Stop deflecting...This ISN'T a discussion about drugs, it IS a discussion about guns.

You must be getting pretty desperate to resort to venturing so far off of subject to introduce an entirely different one, SHEESH!

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#103002 Mar 24, 2013
just an allusion wrote:
<quoted text>
Uh, WHICH post? I have SEVERAL on that page.
Post 102900

Since: Oct 11

Location hidden

#103003 Mar 24, 2013
Anonymous of Indy wrote:
<quoted text>Right here is proof
http://www.topix.com/forum/guns/TIOOJ2V09UCFQ...
Do please inform us all how direct quotes from cited case law amounts to evidence that I am the one confused...?
MisterBlue

Alexandria, VA

#103004 Mar 24, 2013
Sir Bucking Fastard wrote:
<quoted text>
"Non one in a civilian setting NEEDS ..."
WHERE in the Second Amendment is that matter of 'need' addressed in even the most oblique way?
Are you friggin kidding me? The only weapons they had were muskets....they had no concept of life two hundred years in the future...or perhaps slavery would have been abolished from the get go?

Since: Dec 10

Perth, Australia

#103007 Mar 24, 2013
Sir Bucking Fastard wrote:
<quoted text>
Take YOUR own advice, oh QUEEN OF STINK!
Do the dogs still put runs in your nylons, whilst begging you to service them?
:-))
No prize for losers, you must really be desperate to enter a forum when you have nothing to say.....did your mummy leave you alone again to play with yourself? Yes, I think she did, and she forgot to password her computer too eh!....

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#103008 Mar 24, 2013
just an allusion wrote:
<quoted text>
Do please inform us all how direct quotes from cited case law amounts to evidence that I am the one confused...?
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

“I be me, and you are...”

Since: Dec 06

in a city...

#103009 Mar 24, 2013
I don't think the substance did much I kept my patience how much in men got lost through what does man think to be a tortureous what a lenghtly event is...

What an un patient man doesn't need is a weapon blow ups...Give em' a doll... ha ha
Sir Bucking Fastard

UK

#103010 Mar 24, 2013
just an allusion wrote:
<quoted text>
All of the cited case law states only one thing...A right to possess arms, period!
No where in the cited case law or the Constitution itself is there any stipulation/provision for unfettered access/right of ownership of ANY type of firearm.
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?
just an allusion wrote:
You (and others here) are simply reading FAR too much into the law that just isn't there.
Which law would that be,'that isn't there?'
just an allusion wrote:
You seem to be overlooking the FACT that I am NOT the one insisting that I need a weapon to protect myself...YOU are.
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?
Teaman

Mount Holly, NJ

#103011 Mar 24, 2013
just an allusion wrote:
<quoted text>
<quoted text>
Comparing apples to oranges is a long flawed tactic to employ in any debate.
Given the widespread commuter world in which we live, a car is a NECESSARY utility for anyone to have at their disposal to insure the day-to-day maintenance and upkeep of our lives, what with work requirements, school, shopping, medical appointments, visiting relatives, etc, etc.
However the same can neither be legitimately/honestly said, nor proven, in the case of a gun.
Again, you're focused on the object and not the principle. Should the government be able to determine what your needs are?
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.

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
New Born Baby 22 min jeremyhalifax88 1
Why should Australians fear from Muslims? (Dec '07) 49 min Facts are etc 46,611
What country will win Asian Cup 2015 54 min Grassclipper 111
white aussie girls love kinky sex 1 hr badoobi 25
Funniest scene from Schindler's List 1 hr Grassclipper 6
WHO can hook me up with weed in Sydney? (Jun '14) 1 hr isocortex 9
Australia needs to give aid to Indonesia...not ... (Nov '13) 1 hr Foo 54
"White Australians" learn your history 1 hr Foo 138
WAR India v Australia, who will win? (Jun '14) 2 hr INDIAN 10,323
Sally Field, actress getting married at age 68 6 hr mary 8
Gay Meet Ups in Melbourne (Oct '13) 8 hr silentguy93 821
More from around the web