It's the Guns, Stupid

Apr 20, 2007 | Posted by: roboblogger | Full story: Truthdig

“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

Comments (Page 4,823)

Showing posts 96,441 - 96,460 of103,233
|
Go to last page| Jump to page:
MisterBlue

Clinton, MD

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#103007
Mar 24, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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...

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#103009
Mar 24, 2013
 

Judged:

1

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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#103010
Mar 24, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

2

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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#103014
Mar 24, 2013
 

Judged:

1

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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#103015
Mar 24, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

2

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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#103017
Mar 24, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#103019
Mar 24, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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.

Since: Oct 11

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#103022
Mar 24, 2013
 
Teaman wrote:
<quoted text>
Again, you're focused on the object and not the principle. Should the government be able to determine what your needs are?
Governments have often found themselves in the position of determining the needs of its people, not merely individuals or a select few, but ALL of its people...Ours is no different from any other in this regard, afterall, they've got all the cool labs and brainy scientists and engineers and what not.

Since: Oct 11

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#103024
Mar 24, 2013
 
Teaman wrote:
<quoted text>
So, what's your point?
The actual destructiveness/lethality of semi-automatic weapons, the AR-15 for example, that and to dispel the all of the disinformation about their being capable of firing only one(1) round per trigger pull.

All of the Sandy Hook 5 and 6 year old children had upwards to at least 11 rounds in their bodies...each...you cannot accomplish that degree of destruction with a single fire weapon in the short amount of time the murderer was in the school.

FACT!
Teaman

Mount Holly, NJ

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#103025
Mar 24, 2013
 
just an allusion wrote:
<quoted text>
Governments have often found themselves in the position of determining the needs of its people, not merely individuals or a select few, but ALL of its people...Ours is no different from any other in this regard, afterall, they've got all the cool labs and brainy scientists and engineers and what not.
The constitution leaves social issues to the states or the people as per the 9th and 10th amendments. It didn't leave the federal government that responsibility. The supremacy clause comes into play when there are corrupt state governments, interstate commerce/transportation, port duties, etc. The powers of congress are enumerated in Article I.

The welfare clause had been wrongly used. Its meaning has been changed using extortion as well as the 14th amendment. The supreme court has been using "selective incorporation" in the 14th, a rule the courts fabricated, to impose itself and the federal government erroneously on the states for years.

The government has all of the cool labs? Really?

Since: Oct 11

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#103026
Mar 24, 2013
 
Sir Bucking Fastard wrote:
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.
Prove it! Provide some evidence that supports your claim(s).
Sir Bucking Fastard wrote:
NO, it is about gratuitous violence...
"Gratuitous violence", like the sort which can be exacted with an AR-15, is EXACTLY what I am out to prevent/squash.
Sir Bucking Fastard wrote:
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?
This is 2013, and we're not talking about alcohol, we're talking about gun control and the prevention of the sort of wanton violence that can be had with certain types of firearms.

Your efforts at deflecting the conversation to the issue of drugs, alcohol, or even other eras from our countries' history, are all only representative of just how desperate you've become because you subconsciously know that you are futilely fighting a battle you've already lost.
Sir Bucking Fastard wrote:
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.
Perhaps it is you who've failed to face the facts which you appear to be already aware of inasmuch as you've just mentioned that it was the lax/nonexistent gun laws prior to the late 60's that has led to the wide disbursement of militaristic firearms and other such armament and paraphernalia, some of which, if recent events are any indicator, have found themselves on the open market and into the hands of more than a few anarchistic and mentally impaired individuals.

Really just more of an indicator of just how necessary increased regulations are needed.

Tell me when this thread is updated: (Registration is not required)

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

Showing posts 96,441 - 96,460 of103,233
|
Go to last page| Jump to page:
Type in your comments below
Name
(appears on your post)
Comments
Characters left: 4000

Please note by clicking on "Post Comment" 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.

165 Users are viewing the Australia Forum right now

Search the Australia Forum:
Topic Updated Last By Comments
The ADELAIDEAN is the best poster by far 12 min The ADELAIDEAN 8
Lebanese have sex with dogs 14 min dromo 1
I have Too many Gf in US 14 min Anup 1
Indians are superior to whites 17 min dromo 1
We need to impose a petrol car tax 21 min zxzxzxzxzxzx 397
How Australia got the hump with 1 million feral... 48 min Stan Dandyliver 1
Why does my poo stick to the toilet? 49 min Stan Dandyliver 2
White People Are Obviously Superior 59 min Qwe 324
•••
•••
•••
•••