It's the Guns, Stupid

There are 20 comments on the Apr 20, 2007, Truthdig story 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.

“ WOOF ! ”

Since: Nov 12

Coolidge, AZ

#104709 Apr 16, 2013
Observer wrote:
The Bath School disaster is the historical name of the violent attacks perpetrated by Andrew Kehoe on May 18, 1927 in Bath Township, Michigan that killed 38 elementary school children and 6 adults, and injured at least 58 other people.[Note 1] Kehoe first killed his wife, fire-bombed his farm and set off a major explosion in the Bath Consolidated School, before committing suicide by detonating a final explosion in his truck. It is the deadliest mass murder in a school in United States history.
Afterwards, dynamite was outlawed for casual purchase by consumers. Think about dynamite for a second, like, what if you could but cases of it at Wal-Mart? Would crazies and nut jobs use it to blow up schools, rather than shoot them up? Maybe we ought to legalize dynamite again, sell it at Wal-Mart and Kroger and even local convenience stores. You never know when you might need to remove an old stump from your yard, and nothing is better than dynamite for ease and quick results!
You don't need dynamite. A few large containers of gasoline (which is HIGHLY EXPLOSIVE in it's vaporized form), and is readily available, can cause just as much carnage.

Also, dynamite is not outlawed to the average American, as anyone in heavy construction, i.e. digging foundations, building tunnels, bridges, etc. use it on a regular basis. In fact our modern world, would NOT be possible without dynamite. It isn't THAT hard to get.

Also, anyone with a degree in chemistry can cook up nitroglycerin or any other number of explosive substances.

Chlorine tablets for swimming pools are comonly vailable in 100# drums ( when I was a kid in Commack we had a 40 feet by 20 feet by 10 feet deep swimming pool, and my dad bought the chlorine tablets locally in 100# drums). The Oklahoma City Bombers used fertilizer as an explosive. Mix a fertilizer explosive device, such as the size that Timothy McVeigh made, mix it with chlorine swimming pool tablets, and you can create a very sizable weapon. I am NOT ADVOCATING DOING SO.

My point is tht anyone with a little bit of knowledge and skill, and a determination, can create a sizable dangerous weapon from perfectly legal, and easily available substances.

Take a 55 gallon drum (easily commercialy available), pour in 50 pounds of swimming pool chlorine tablets, top off with 35 gallons of gasoline, seal it and attach a celfoe detonator, which can be activated from half-way aroud the world, by simply calling that particular phone number, and you cn cause quite a lot of deaths.

I have heard on the news today that the bombs in Boston may have been activated with celfone detonators, and may have been detonated from outside the U.S.

I AM NOT ADVOCATING THAT ONE CONSTRUCT SUCH A DEVICE. I am just pointing out how easy it is to do so.

And I pray for the victims of this dastardly and deadly terrorist attack in Boston.:(
boredguy

Camperdown, Australia

#104710 Apr 16, 2013
DavidQ762 wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes, it most certainly does:
Psychiatric Drugs and Mass Shootings (VIDEO)
http://theanti-media.org/2013/04/09/psychiatr...
Thanks, I'll watch this tonight when I have a bit more time.

Since: Dec 10

Perth, Australia

#104711 Apr 16, 2013
boredguy wrote:
<quoted text>
If you don't want people to know about your personal life, don't post personal info on a public forum.
I don't need to 'prove' anything to you or anyone else. Go away.
it is not personal information it is you member info like the date, avatar, name and place we have the irrelevant stuff like your avatar name and place...now lets have the date you started posting on topics it's not spy stuff no one is going to take that infor and use it for themselves...what I am going to do with it is prove what a lying POS you are.....but you will never do it because you don't have it...... I am that damn sure you are a blow in for Topix. Prove me wrong eh?
Constitutionalis t

Albuquerque, NM

#104712 Apr 16, 2013
amazed wrote:
Some idiotic nra member said it wouldnt have happened if all the students had guns. Try tell me that aint brainless.
And whats your solution? More gun laws? Tell me the last time criminals obeyed laws.
Sir Bucking Fastard

UK

#104713 Apr 16, 2013
Fa-Foxy wrote:
<quoted text>
I agree.
As a contrast, in Mexico, many mass murders are for CRIMINAL and\or terrorist reasons, i.e. connected with the drug trade or for political means. The people who commit these mass murders are not insane.
But in the U.S., these mass murders seem to be commited only by insane people. Which makes them far more difficult, or actually impossible to prevent. If these people didn't use guns, they would use a knife, or knives, as one recent lunatic did, or IED's mae from commonly available household chemicals, and shrapnel bought at the local Home Depot.
And if someone REALLY wnats to kill a particular person, you really cannot do anything at all to stop it.
My you live in interesting times.
It is ABSOLUTELY imperative you understand that the people taking anti-depressants and/or SSRI drugs weren't 'insane' to begin with.

It is a KNOWN in the medical, and pharmaceutical industry that those drugs have dangerous side effects, among them being suicidal thoughts, and inducing the thoughts of harming others.

Go here, and learn all about those matters:
http://ssristories.com

Since: Dec 10

Perth, Australia

#104714 Apr 16, 2013
boredguy wrote:
<quoted text>
Thanks, I'll watch this tonight when I have a bit more time.
What's it like talking to yourself to make both persona's more believable....you are so full of it.
boredguy

Camperdown, Australia

#104715 Apr 16, 2013
Ahomana wrote:
<quoted text>
it is not personal information it is you member info like the date, avatar, name and place we have the irrelevant stuff like your avatar name and place...now lets have the date you started posting on topics it's not spy stuff no one is going to take that infor and use it for themselves...what I am going to do with it is prove what a lying POS you are.....but you will never do it because you don't have it...... I am that damn sure you are a blow in for Topix. Prove me wrong eh?
Let me put this in point form so that you understand.

1. I am not not a registered Topix poster, therefore I don't have an avatar or date that I started posting on Topix.

2. I have no intention of registering to satisfy you.

3. Maybe you remember the thread from a couple of years ago about banning smoking in public places. You do? I read your posts on that thread and they were fully as abusive and irrational as your posts on this forum and the majority of your posts since that time (or those I bothered to read when I started reading Topix again). You put a lot of personal info on that thread and I have a very good memory.

So have you proven what a lying POS I am?- go away nutter, stop wasting my time. The only thing you've proven is what a spinner you are.
Sir Bucking Fastard

UK

#104716 Apr 16, 2013
Fa-Foxy wrote:
<quoted text>
You will not find ANYONE who is a STRONGER supporter of teh Second Amendment, and an armed citizenry than myself.
I beleive MOST Americans mistakenly believe that the Founding Fathers wrote the Second Amendment as a means for citizens to protect themselves against CRIMINALS.
This is WHOLLY UNTRUE. The PRIMARY reson for the Second Amendment is to allow the average Americna to protect themselves FROM THE GOVERNMENT.
"Also, the conditions and circumstances of the period require a finding that while the stated purpose of the right to arms was to secure a well-regulated militia, the right to self-defence was assumed by the framers."
Chief Justice John Marshall, U.S. Supreme Court [As quote in Nunn v State, 1 Ga. 243, 251 (1846); State v Dawson, 272 N.C. 535, 159 S.E.2d 1, 9 (1968).

It would be presumptuous in the extreme to say that the citizen's only purpose for keeping and bearing arms would be as a defense against government, and that violent criminals would be protected against reprisal by the citizen under attack.

Certainly if government —being being far more powerful— acts as a murderous thug, then it coequally follows that ALL thugs are thugs, regardless.
Fa-Foxy wrote:
How many Americnas are aware that SCOTUS ruled long ago, that a citizen has the RIGHT to shoot a police officer if that officer is attempting an ILLEGAL arrest ? THAT is the reason for teh Second Amednment.
Having said that, the Second Amendment has limits, and I do not believe that one has the RIGHT to possess weapons such as nuclear weapons, weaponized chemical agents (as many household chemicals such as cleaners can be used to make chemical weapons), biological weapons, cruise missiles, and a number of other weapons, which admittedly may be placed arbitrarily on a list of banned weapons.
All the more the reason that government should not possess those items either.

"The problem in defense is how far can you go [in military spending] without destroying from within what you are trying to defend from without."
President Dwight D. Eisenhower, Jan.18, 1953
Sir Bucking Fastard

UK

#104717 Apr 16, 2013
Fa-Foxy wrote:
<quoted text>
There are a lot of military weapons that can be legally owned and fired, although I think many people think that these are not allowed to be owned by te ordinary citizen.
One can own tanks, artillery,.50 caliber machine guns, and the like. I draw the line at landmines, underwater mines, and other such things. I recognize that many items that are, or should be on a "banned list for the average citizen" is arbitrary, but many things in life are aarbtrary. That's just part of LIFE 101.
But you contradict yourself severally.

You say you don't the average citizen to possess certain items, but then you say you would trust people in government to possess those very same things.

Well, I must ask just this: How is it that someone being an average citizen is disallowed, yet if he finds employment in government, how does he suddenly become allowed?

If one person is seen as not being trustworthy, then how is it that ten such people are now seen as trustworthy?
boredguy

Camperdown, Australia

#104718 Apr 16, 2013
Ahomana wrote:
<quoted text>
What's it like talking to yourself to make both persona's more believable....you are so full of it.
lol, you think I'm "DavidQ762"? For someone who didn't want to talk to me, you sure have a lot to say.

I almost feel sorry for you. Almost. Please go away and stop making a total bloody idiot of yourself..
Sir Bucking Fastard

UK

#104719 Apr 16, 2013
Ahomana wrote:
<quoted text>
What's it like talking to yourself to make both persona's more believable....you are so full of it.
Says the entirely INVIDIOUS BLOATED WARTHOG QUEEN OF STINK!
:-))

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#104720 Apr 16, 2013
boredguy wrote:
<quoted text>
Chicago has strict gun control laws (ban on handguns?) and one of the highest crime rates in the US. I know that - but gun violence seems to be out of control in some parts of the US (yes, I know which parts).
I don't see how disarming American citizens could be logically carried out without altering the Constitution which I don't believe would ever happen. So how do they propose to do it? Reduce manufacture of ammo? Restrict ammo to police and military?
FDR did it through Taxation and in 1993 Modern Pseudo Liberal Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan(D-NY) suggested taxing ammunition so high that no one could afford to by gun ammunition but prior to 2010 individuals had no 2nd amendment right since the 2nd amendment didn't pertain to the states because of 14th amendment and it was entirely dependent on each state to have their own in their state constitutions until SCOTUS used the incorporation clause of the 14th down to state level which the Modern Pseudo Liberals have rejected ever since.

Moynihan Asks Big Tax Increase On Ammunition

"Guns don't kill people; bullets do," he told the Senate as he introduced his legislation today. "It is time the Federal Government began taxing handgun ammunition used in crime out of existence."

http://www.nytimes.com/1993/11/04/us/moynihan...

Incorporation of the Bill of Rights

Amendment II

Right to keep and bear arms

This right has been incorporated against the states. See McDonald v. Chicago (2010).

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

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#104721 Apr 16, 2013
Ahomana wrote:
<quoted text>
The problem in your country is that it can't be done state by state it must be done across the board else what stops someone from the next state taking guns in to those places with strong gun control laws, not a thing and that is what you use to convince yourself that gun control doesn't work...we have proved when gun control is implemented across the entire country it works...we know, we have the proof because we have done it right.....
Remember prior to 2010 here in the US the 2nd amendment was not a guaranteed right no more and did not pertain to the states because of the flaw in the 14th amendment and to have a 2nd amendment right or equivalent the states had to have their own 2nd amendment in their state constitutions or similar and if the state didn't you didn't have a guaranteed 2nd amendment right like Illinois because of flaw in the 14th amendment which striped individuals of their guaranteed Bill of Rights under the US Constitution and the only reason we have all of our US Bill of Rights under the US Constitution now is because of SCOTUS using the Incorporation Clause of the 14th amendment over the years in their SCOTUS rulings when the issued them and in 2010 145 years later is when the 2nd amendment and the last one of the US Bill of Rights under the US constitution to be guaranteed was forced down to the state level by incorporation clause of the 14th amendment which before states could restrict 2nd amendment rights which Illinois did and was the reason behind SCOTUS case of McDonald v Chicago in 2010.

McDonald v. Chicago

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McDonald_v._Chic...

Amendment II

Right to keep and bear arms

This right has been incorporated against the states. See McDonald v. Chicago (2010).

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

The Fourteenth Amendment: The Framing of America's Second Constitution

Feb. 15, 2008 &#8213; The 14th Amendment is not only the most important amendment to the United States Constitution, according to constitutional scholar Garrett Epps ’91, it also effectively sets out all of the constitutional principles we live under today.

“None of the guarantees in the Bill of Rights applied against state government. States were free to restrict freedom of the press, freedom of assembly, and freedom of religion, and many of them did.

http://law.duke.edu/news/1730/

Since: Feb 11

Cambridge, UK

#104722 Apr 16, 2013
Ahomana wrote:
<quoted text>
Not at all I am the one that is showing you that you can have it both ways if you have the ability to see reason and show restraint ....If I was telling you how to live I would be encouraging the government to give you gun owning, NRA supporting nutters Labotomies instead of a background check.:D
What are you talking about.? The people of my country do not have it both ways,,the right to self defence against both the average thug in the street, or indeed government has been eroded over a great many years, in a sly and methodical manner. Now the average citizen finds that the so called laws that he was fool enough to believe would protect him do nothing of the sort. If for instance the average person survives a home invasion or attack eleswhere, they find themselves in trouble if the thug is injured or killed. Whist I believe a full investigation must allways be carried out to determine the facts, and therefore the truth,,I am totally against any law that punishes people for defending themselves or their famalies.
You may not be aware of it, but I have mentioned it in a past post that the private ownership of firearms here has never been a popular pastime, those that did own them have had them removed under law, those that still own them are a selected few and of course the criminals who strangely enough don't wish to abide by any laws. The unlawfull ownership of guns by criminals is on the increase inspite of the goverments attitude, HOW STRANGE.
We have more armed police units now than ever before, HOW STRANGE.
Alot of people are now waking up to the fact that they THREW the right to self defence away.

Oh and by the way,,,you are not telling me what to do,,you are trying to tell the people of the US what to do, their internall affairs are none of your dam buissines Pet.
Lastly, I have never been a member of the NRA,,,where did you get that idea ?
Sir Bucking Fastard

UK

#104723 Apr 16, 2013
Anonymous of Indy wrote:
<quoted text>FDR did it through Taxation and in 1993 Modern Pseudo Liberal Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan(D-NY) suggested taxing ammunition so high that no one could afford to by gun ammunition but prior to 2010 individuals had no 2nd amendment right since the 2nd amendment didn't pertain to the states because of 14th amendment and it was entirely dependent on each state to have their own in their state constitutions until SCOTUS used the incorporation clause of the 14th down to state level which the Modern Pseudo Liberals have rejected ever since.
Moynihan Asks Big Tax Increase On Ammunition
"Guns don't kill people; bullets do," he told the Senate as he introduced his legislation today. "It is time the Federal Government began taxing handgun ammunition used in crime out of existence."
http://www.nytimes.com/1993/11/04/us/moynihan...
Incorporation of the Bill of Rights
Amendment II
Right to keep and bear arms
This right has been incorporated against the states. See McDonald v. Chicago (2010).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incorporation_of...
Any proper reading of the U.S. Constitution clearly states in no uncertain terms that it is the 'law of the land'(Article VI, paragraph 2).

Since the Bill of Rights happened subsequently, and there is nothing in any part of those first ten amendments which states in any way that they apply to only the United States, then those amending articles affect the whole document, and by extension apply to all of the states, and territories of the United States.

It would be supremely ludicrous to say that the United States couldn't infringe upon your rights, but that the individual states may do so at will, and without repercussion!

The incorporation doctrine was a defunct, and totally erroneous assertion made by the Supreme Court as a means preventing blacks from recognized as people, and citizens.

The Fourteenth Amendment undeniably corrected that situation by directly stating the fact of the Bill of Rights applies everywhere in the U.S.

There's a most excellent book you might seek out which explains all of that in detail:
Freedmen, The Fourteenth Amendment, And The Right To Bear Arms, 1866-1876, by Stephen P. Halbrook, Praeger publishing.

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#104725 Apr 16, 2013
Sir Bucking Fastard wrote:
<quoted text>
Any proper reading of the U.S. Constitution clearly states in no uncertain terms that it is the 'law of the land'(Article VI, paragraph 2).
Since the Bill of Rights happened subsequently, and there is nothing in any part of those first ten amendments which states in any way that they apply to only the United States, then those amending articles affect the whole document, and by extension apply to all of the states, and territories of the United States.
It would be supremely ludicrous to say that the United States couldn't infringe upon your rights, but that the individual states may do so at will, and without repercussion!
The incorporation doctrine was a defunct, and totally erroneous assertion made by the Supreme Court as a means preventing blacks from recognized as people, and citizens.
The Fourteenth Amendment undeniably corrected that situation by directly stating the fact of the Bill of Rights applies everywhere in the U.S.
There's a most excellent book you might seek out which explains all of that in detail:
Freedmen, The Fourteenth Amendment, And The Right To Bear Arms, 1866-1876, by Stephen P. Halbrook, Praeger publishing.
if that was the case there would have been need for the Supreme Court of United States to intervene throughout the years and why the 14th amendment is flawed.

Incorporation of the Bill of Rights

Many of the provisions of the First Amendment were applied to the States in the 1930s and 1940s, but most of the procedural protections provided to criminal defendants were not enforced against the States until the Warren Court of the 1960s, famous for its concern for the rights of those accused of crimes, brought state standards in line with federal requirements. The following list enumerates, by amendment and individual clause, the Supreme Court cases that have incorporated the rights contained in the Bill of Rights.(The Ninth Amendment is not listed; its wording indicates that it "is not a source of rights as such; it is simply a rule about how to read the Constitution." The Tenth Amendment is also not listed; by its wording, it is a reservation of powers to the states and to the people.)

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

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/...

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#104726 Apr 16, 2013
if that was the case there would have been no need for the Supreme Court of United States to intervene throughout the years and why the 14th amendment is flawed.

Since: Feb 11

Cambridge, UK

#104727 Apr 16, 2013
Anonymous of Indy wrote:
if that was the case there would have been no need for the Supreme Court of United States to intervene throughout the years and why the 14th amendment is flawed.
Amazing how important ONE word can be.
get it

Anonymous Proxy

#104728 Apr 16, 2013
Ahomana wrote:
<quoted text>
If what you say is true and you have been here for three years or there abouts...easy enough to prove unblock your info...as I have mine and we will see who is telling the truth...my bet is you wont....because you are a fecking paid troll....from god knows where.
Firearms played an important part in the colonization of America. In the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, European colonists relied heavily on firearms to take land away from Native Americans and repel attacks by Native Americans and Europeans. Around the time of the Revolutionary War, male citizens were required to own firearms for fighting against the British forces. Firearms were also used in hunting.
get it

Anonymous Proxy

#104729 Apr 16, 2013
Ahomana wrote:
<quoted text>
it is not personal information it is you member info like the date, avatar, name and place we have the irrelevant stuff like your avatar name and place...now lets have the date you started posting on topics it's not spy stuff no one is going to take that infor and use it for themselves...what I am going to do with it is prove what a lying POS you are.....but you will never do it because you don't have it...... I am that damn sure you are a blow in for Topix. Prove me wrong eh?
the Revolutionary War against british was fought by ordinary male citizens not professional soldiers

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
Loan offer: (Jun '13) 4 hr Mr Beastly 9
Bali 9 duo given 72 hours notice 5 hr Indian gutter rat 1
News Why should Australians fear from Muslims? (Dec '07) 6 hr Serpent 46,827
why are Australian men so hot (Nov '08) 18 hr WantsanAussieman 139
I found some muslim piece of shit and bashed him 22 hr Wsaste muslim f_u... 1
Is it wrong to eat Turkish Pizza on 25/4? Fri EZ Rider 5
News Wilson Storage Opens Third Self-Storage Facilit... Fri Arbin Larfin 2
More from around the web