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 4,824)

Showing posts 96,461 - 96,480 of103,227
|
Go to last page| Jump to page:
Teaman

Mount Holly, NJ

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#103027
Mar 24, 2013
 
just an allusion wrote:
<quoted text>
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!
I still don't get your point. Would you feel better if they all had just one round in each child?

Since: Oct 11

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#103028
Mar 24, 2013
 
Teaman wrote:
<quoted text>
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.
And now we're getting the full battery of a deflection effort in the form of unwanted pregnancies, alcohol, and drugs, none of which are the actual topic of this conversation.

Why can't you pro-gunners stay on topic I wonder?

Since: Oct 11

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#103029
Mar 24, 2013
 
Anonymous of Indy wrote:
<quoted text>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/...
If you think you've got a case for your claims that hold any merit and would stand up in court, why don't you file?

Hell, why do you think that the person who posted that little blurb haven't filed themselves?

Think about it.
Teaman

Mount Holly, NJ

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#103030
Mar 24, 2013
 
just an allusion wrote:
<quoted text>
And now we're getting the full battery of a deflection effort in the form of unwanted pregnancies, alcohol, and drugs, none of which are the actual topic of this conversation.
Why can't you pro-gunners stay on topic I wonder?
An attempt at providing a different perspective you may understand. Banning abortions would make them go away, right? Like banning guns would do the same thing.

The banning of guns is the topic.
Teaman

Mount Holly, NJ

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#103031
Mar 24, 2013
 
P.S.

It's pro constitution.

Since: Oct 11

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#103032
Mar 24, 2013
 
Teaman wrote:
<quoted text>
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.
And now you're introducing Slavery in order to deflect the conversation from the actual subject at hand?!?
Teaman wrote:
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.
Inasmuch as states cannot impose laws that violate Federal authority/mandate/the U.S. Constitution, just how far do you think Oklahoma and Texas are going to get with that?

Paying lip service to some wishful thinking does not make it actionable and/or valid law.

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#103033
Mar 24, 2013
 
just an allusion wrote:
<quoted text>
If you think you've got a case for your claims that hold any merit and would stand up in court, why don't you file?
Hell, why do you think that the person who posted that little blurb haven't filed themselves?
Think about it.
here is the proof & link again with the SCOTUS Cases where the SCOTUS incorporated the Bill of Rights which you keep over looking and the link that has been posted several times and the reason you keep overlooking the link is because it does not fit your agenda just like the ruling in McDonald v. Chicago in 2010 does not fit Dianne Feinstein's agenda either.

Specific amendments

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...

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#103034
Mar 24, 2013
 
just an allusion wrote:
<quoted text>
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!
Assault Rifle not used in Sandy Hook Shooting

http://americanlivewire.com/assault-rifle-not...

Coroner Confirms: No Assault Weapon Used in Sandy Hook Shooting

http://conservativebyte.com/2013/01/coroner-c...

Police Find Long Gun In Trunk Of Car In Sandy Hook Parking Lot: Newtown Connecticut School Shooting

http://www.youtube.com/watch...

Sandy Hook bushmaster found in trunk was not found and he explains why.

http://www.youtube.com/watch...

Since: Oct 11

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#103035
Mar 24, 2013
 
Teaman wrote:
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.
Then explain the Thirteenth(13th) Amendment, a clear cut case of the federal government superseding the will/wants/desires of some states for the betterment of its people/the Nation as a whole.

Since: Oct 11

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#103036
Mar 24, 2013
 
Teaman wrote:
I still don't get your point. Would you feel better if they all had just one round in each child?
I would feel better if they had no bullets in them and were still alive to live their lives, enjoy their childhoods, grow to become the people they would be and live their lives as they chose, much the same as each and every one of us are and have been able to do, an inherent right of every person which was taken away from the children and their teachers by that murderer.
Teaman wrote:
I still don't get your point.


The point is that the killer wouldn't have been able to murder so many children and people had they not had a high round capacity weapon.

Since: Oct 11

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#103037
Mar 24, 2013
 
Teaman wrote:
<quoted text>
An attempt at providing a different perspective you may understand. Banning abortions would make them go away, right? Like banning guns would do the same thing.
The banning of guns is the topic.
Only CERTAIN guns, NOT all of them, sheesh!

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#103038
Mar 24, 2013
 
just an allusion wrote:
<quoted text>
And now you're introducing Slavery in order to deflect the conversation from the actual subject at hand?!?
<quoted text>
Inasmuch as states cannot impose laws that violate Federal authority/mandate/the U.S. Constitution, just how far do you think Oklahoma and Texas are going to get with that?
Paying lip service to some wishful thinking does not make it actionable and/or valid law.
you don't know Sen. Dianne Feinstein then which is what she basically told Sen. Ted Cruz which is legislate a law that is unconstitutional like her Assault Weapons Ban and let the Federal Court System hammer it out and make the ruling which like Ted Cruz told her that her Assault Weapons Ban violated the US Constitution to begin with and he was Right but her excuse was she isn't a lawyer like Sen. Ted Cruz.

Since: Oct 11

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#103039
Mar 24, 2013
 
Anonymous of Indy wrote:
<quoted text>here is the proof & link again with the SCOTUS Cases where the SCOTUS incorporated the Bill of Rights which you keep over looking and the link that has been posted several times and the reason you keep overlooking the link is because it does not fit your agenda just like the ruling in McDonald v. Chicago in 2010 does not fit Dianne Feinstein's agenda either.
Specific amendments
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...
Again, if there were any REAL actionable cause there, then why haven't they pursued it in the courts?

Since: Oct 11

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#103040
Mar 24, 2013
 
Anonymous of Indy wrote:
<quoted text>Assault Rifle not used in Sandy Hook Shooting
http://americanlivewire.com/assault-rifle-not...
Coroner Confirms: No Assault Weapon Used in Sandy Hook Shooting
http://conservativebyte.com/2013/01/coroner-c...
Police Find Long Gun In Trunk Of Car In Sandy Hook Parking Lot: Newtown Connecticut School Shooting
http://www.youtube.com/watch...
Sandy Hook bushmaster found in trunk was not found and he explains why.
http://www.youtube.com/watch...
All of this BS you posted has already been addressed and dispelled in the news, the court and via law enforcement spokespersons.

Since: Oct 11

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#103042
Mar 24, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

2

Anonymous of Indy wrote:
<quoted text>you don't know Sen. Dianne Feinstein then which is what she basically told Sen. Ted Cruz which is legislate a law that is unconstitutional like her Assault Weapons Ban and let the Federal Court System hammer it out and make the ruling which like Ted Cruz told her that her Assault Weapons Ban violated the US Constitution to begin with and he was Right but her excuse was she isn't a lawyer like Sen. Ted Cruz.
You do understand/are aware that state Senators and Representatives are Federal employees...Right?

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#103043
Mar 24, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

just an allusion wrote:
<quoted text>
Again, if there were any REAL actionable cause there, then why haven't they pursued it in the courts?
cases already have and been pursued which now all the Bill of Rights( the 1st 10 amendments of the US Constitution) have been Incorporated down to the State Level by the SCOTUS over the years and 2nd amendment was the last one in 2010.

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#103044
Mar 24, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

just an allusion wrote:
<quoted text>
You do understand/are aware that state Senators and Representatives are Federal employees...Right?
no there is a difference between State & Federal elected officials.

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#103045
Mar 24, 2013
 
just an allusion wrote:
<quoted text>
All of this BS you posted has already been addressed and dispelled in the news, the court and via law enforcement spokespersons.
not BS at all only from the people that know no difference believe that.

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#103046
Mar 24, 2013
 
just an allusion wrote:
<quoted text>
All of this BS you posted has already been addressed and dispelled in the news, the court and via law enforcement spokespersons.
NBC Admitted: No 'Assault Rifle' Used in Newtown Shooting

http://www.ijreview.com/2013/01/30208-nbc-adm...
Tray

Saltillo, MS

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#103047
Mar 25, 2013
 

Judged:

3

2

2

just an allusion wrote:
<quoted text>
And now you're introducing Slavery in order to deflect the conversation from the actual subject at hand?!?
<quoted text>
Inasmuch as states cannot impose laws that violate Federal authority/mandate/the U.S. Constitution, just how far do you think Oklahoma and Texas are going to get with that?
Paying lip service to some wishful thinking does not make it actionable and/or valid law.
Just as passing laws that violate the Constitutional protected rights are not valid. Gun control laws violate the Constitution there fore are invalid so yes states can ignore them.

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

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

Showing posts 96,461 - 96,480 of103,227
|
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.

•••
•••
•••
•••