What is Digg?Sponsored by Amazon.com
Kindle(TM) - Give the Ultimate Last Minute gift view!
amazon.com - Order Kindle now and receive it in time for Christmas. Free Expedited shipping. Click to learn more.
153 Comments
- knucklebusted, on 10/12/2007, -5/+54The Second Amendment guarantees the others. All the amendments are directed at the individual. Why would anyone think that the Second does not?
- shmuu102, on 10/12/2007, -5/+47As much as i hate guns....... the 2nd amendment might be the most important right of citizenship .
- theblooms, on 10/12/2007, -6/+47No, jivatmanx, you would be branded a reactionary racist fringe group and the BATFE, FBI, DEA, Secret Service and any number of other redundant alphabet agencies would immediately sent out to murder you and your family.
The asshats in DC think that the militia ONLY refers to the National Guard. Of course, they are so stupid that they forget the National Guard was established in 1903, 114 years AFTER the 2nd Amendment was adopted. And of course they have no response to that little fact at all.
All you need to know about DC city politics and the absolute "brilliant" minds that run the city government there can be summed up in two words: Marion Barry. - jivatmanx, on 10/12/2007, -4/+43From what I get from it, DC is trying to say that it was intended as only allowing militias to be armed?
How ludicrous is this? If I get all of my neighbors and friends together, get them weapons, and call ourselves The Militia of Town X, we can have guns, but otherwise not?
(BTW, I'm sure the feds would just LOVE me doing that...) - Renork, on 10/12/2007, -2/+31The biggest mistake of the constitution was making the second amendment second and not first. This power alone(to bear arms) is what guarantees the other rights of the people.
"What country can preserve its liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance. Let them take arms." Thomas Jefferson - L0t3k, on 10/12/2007, -3/+28
I think it would be helpful to put this into context. There's renewed discussion by people in Washington who are interested in rewriting the 2nd Amendment. Quick note: it made /. today. - d00ley, on 10/12/2007, -2/+26I love the fact that weapons are banned in DC, but it has the most active and violent weapons black market in the country.
- diggduggjoe, on 10/12/2007, -1/+24I fully agree. It is clear that most Americans have no understanding where our founding fathers were coming from. They had very much the same problems we had and wanted to have as much liberty as possible to solve their problems themselves.
Now, we need the government to wipe our butts for us! - MyNameIsSIMPSON, on 10/12/2007, -1/+24"I love the fact that weapons are banned in DC, but it has the most active and violent weapons black market in the country"
Such is the case when you ban things. - Muyoso, on 10/12/2007, -2/+24Yes, but YOUR handgun ban has been a total failure. Washington DC still has some of the highest murder rates involving handguns of any city in the USA.
Banning things isnt effective. You ban firearms, so all law abiding citizens cannot purchase them. Those who will use handguns in a crime, will get a handgun if they want, without regard to the law. Thus, all law abiding citizens have no protection, and criminals are given the upper hand. It is not a smart law. If congress was to take away your ban, it would be in your best interest. Cities in America aren't allowed to intentionally endanger their populace because of an irrational fear for something. - Urusai, on 10/12/2007, -1/+23Thus the term "people" in the 10th Amendment obviously refers to Martian robots.
"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved for the States respectively, or to the people."
The 9th and 10th Amendments are the cornerstone of the Bill of Rights, yet have been tossed aside so trivially. - marmaduke, on 10/12/2007, -3/+24I am pretty liberal, and I think that there are definetly problems in inner city areas with gun violence. But I think that owning weapons is a natural thing. Everyone needs to be able to defend their interests and well being when the government can not or refuses to. I also seem to remember the quote from some power in WW2 that the United States is unconquerable, because there would be a gun behind every blade of grass, and I like that idea.
- thcobbs, on 10/12/2007, -1/+17Well, lets see....
People who don't care about laws are going to ignore them and do what they want. Look at the "War on Drugs". People who want them will do what the have to in order to acquire them. Those laws don't stop them from obtaining the drugs, it's just that the majority of the populace doesn't have drugs.
Therefore, if a criminal is very sure that the average person won't have a gun, they are much more bold in their crimes since they definitely have the upper hand.
Where I grew up, there were several house break-ins in the area. Amazingly, those break ins drastically decreased once we had a shooting sports team(rifle, shotgun, muzzleloaders, and archery) formed in the area, and only 2 of the homes had no weapons. That's one hell of a coincidence.
[sarcasm] Of course, we should look at DC proper and how their murder rate is 0 since they banned all firearms [/sarcasm] - theblooms, on 10/12/2007, -0/+14Well Washington, DC isn't YOUR city alone, it is the entire nation's city. It's your city. It's my city. It is the city established for each and every single citizen in the USA. I desperately want to be able to take my kids there one day to see the Smithsonian and all the other wonderful thing that DC has to offer its citizens. However, the amount of crime that the city experiences is reprehensible. Yes, there has even been a rash of muggings on the Mall.
Surely you must see that 30 years of draconian gun laws has done absolutely NOTHING to curb crime. You should really look at what a Shall Issue law means. In all 38 states that a Shall Issue law has passed, crime has either remained stagnant or has decreased, sometimes decreasing substantially. Maybe, just maybe, it is time that we try it in DC. It can't hurt. That has been proven time and again, and it just may HELP our desperate situation. - cawpin, on 10/12/2007, -0/+12@AmishRefugee - NOW we must arm ourselves? Are you that ignorant? This country was founded by arming ourselves. It was our last resort, as a firearm should be. But I want to have that last resort, just in case I need it.
- hackwrench, on 10/12/2007, -5/+17No animal shall sleep in a bed... with sheets.
- blahblah, on 10/12/2007, -9/+21You don't hate guns, in other words.
- L0t3k, on 10/12/2007, -2/+14For a little perspective...
From "Freakonomics - A Rouge Economist Explores the Hidden Side of Everything":
"If you both own a gun and have a swimming pool in the backyard, the swimming pool is about 100 times more likely to kill a child than the gun is."
"Consider the parents of an eight-year-old girl named, say, Molly. Her two best friends, Amy and Imani, each live nearby. Molly's parents know that Amy's parents keep a gun in their house, so they have forbidden Molly to play there. Instead, Molly spends a lot of time at Imani's house, which has a swimming pool in the backyard. Molly's parents feel good about having made such a smart choice to protect their daughter.
But according to the data, their choice isn't smart at all. In a given year, there is one drowning of a child for every 11,000 residential pools in the United States. (In a country with 6 million pools, this means that roughly 550 children under the age of ten drown each year.) Meanwhile, there is 1 child killed by a gun for every 1 million-plus guns. (In a country with an estimated 200 million guns, this means that roughly 175 children under ten die each year from guns.) The likelihood of death by pool (1 in 11,000) versus death by gun (1 in 1 million-plus) isn't even close: Molly is roughly 100 times more likely to die in a swimming accident at Imani's house than in gunplay at Amy's." (Levitt, Dubner; Freakonomics; p. 149)
But that's just the conclusion of one of the most brilliant economists in the world, not some politically motivated organization. - schroduggity, on 10/12/2007, -0/+11if anything Alaska is going the other way with this and teaching kids in HS gun safety to prevent accidental deaths. Up here guns are ubiquitous. there's no way this would fly federal level, LOL Alaska would probibly elect a seperatests party, or enlist everyone in the state in a milita.
http://digg.com/politics/In_Alaska_Gun_Control_is_using_both_hands - thcobbs, on 10/12/2007, -3/+14I'll say this again.
No right guaranteed by the Constitution is any greater than another. They are all equally deserving, and the order in which they appear should bear no meaning on their importance. - d00ley, on 10/12/2007, -0/+11Also, explain why Canada, which has a higher guns per capita ratio than the US, has much lower per capita gun violence. Obviously, the availability of guns is not the determining factor. Something else is.
- typo180, on 10/12/2007, -0/+11I don't like the idea of guns either, but at some point (probably when I'm out of school) I'm going to learn how to use a gun and buy my own (to be kept locked away safely) because I feel it's my duty as a citizen. One of the first steps to robbing your citizens of their freedom is to take away their guns (or others ways of defending themselves).
- Gryffydd, on 10/12/2007, -2/+12@optimuscrime
I've seen cars take lives. I still think they can be for fun. Same with guns. Just because they're misused by some doesn't mean others can't use them for 'fun' whether it's target practice, competition, or hunting. - NapoleonGold, on 10/12/2007, -2/+12Thankfully we can still have this debate with the help of the right to free speech.
- Corrosionx, on 10/12/2007, -0/+9Wrong, it's lose all the way.
People lose their right to protect themselves, the government gets unlimited powers, there's more police officers but they don't produce anything: they cost something so it's more government spending, the ban will be as uninforceable as the ban on drugs (prohibition = high prices = more crime), the criminals will keep their guns and they will know noone else has any, the people who work for arms manufacturers will lose their jobs, some will turn to criminality, some to welfare, they will know how to get a gun, and they will know you don't have one, and they'll take it out on you.
Realize that armed law-abiding citizens protect you, and honor their right to defend themselves, and everything will be fine.
Gun possession is not the root of the crime problem. Look harder. - theblooms, on 10/12/2007, -1/+10I believe in freedom of the press and support the 1st Amendment, but to preserve press rights in the future, we need to find other arguments to support continued private ownership of the press in contemporary society apart from the traditions of our founding fathers. I do not think our nation's founders could ever envision a time when our nation would be in such a condition as it is now, with such a large percentage of criminality, several sub-cultures that support the violent, offensive use of the press, and the ease of availability to the press such elements have through current market saturation. While these circumstances may be part of such argument for legal private press ownership, I think we have as great a need to keep the press out of the hands of criminals, change the societal acceptance of "putting caps in each other's a####", and changing the environment resulting in criminality as we do keeping the press in the hands of lawful owners.
See how that equally applies to the 1st as the second? People yell for freedom of the Internet which the Founding Fathers could have never imagined, but are against gun ownership. You simply CANNOT pick and choose which parts of the COTUS you want to support. - Renork, on 10/12/2007, -0/+8I disagree, these quotes mean a TON in the debate about what was intended by the second amendment. It clearly shows how they felt and what they intended. To say that Jefferson's interpretation of the second amendment was that only the government can have guns is nearing insanity.
- daldredge, on 10/12/2007, -5/+13You keep electing people like Marion Barry, you can't be trusted with a vote in the house or senate.
- musicmantrs, on 10/12/2007, -1/+9This has ABSOULTELY nothing to do with the President so don't try to bash him just because you don't like the guy. This is attorneys in D.C. trying to argue that private gun ownership is illegal, it is a court issue not what you wish it was.
- diggduggjoe, on 10/12/2007, -2/+10"because there would be a gun behind every blade of grass, and I like that idea."
I like that idea, too. That is why we have not had a coup d'état in the US. If, you think Baghdad is nasty, imagine guerrilla warfare within the US. Our army knows it would be a nightmare. Few military generals would risk alienating the population. There is a lot of firepower already deployed in the US. That is exactly what our founding fathers wanted.
If, you want to reduce gun violence, then legalize drugs and make it easier for the poor to start businesses. A great example is how hair dressers have to be licensed. Doing a simple task like corn-row or extensions cannot be done legally without a license which entails going to school and learning many things that have nothing to do with the previously mentioned tasks. Add in all the rules and such and poverty becomes entrenched. In order to move up, you must be able to sell whatever skill you have to get the capital to invest in yourself. Our society loves to have hurdles to keep others from entering some protected fields, like plumbing, electrical, medicine and others. It keeps prices high and keeps the poor from having an entry point. - Corrosionx, on 10/12/2007, -0/+8@Kolar: Sorry, but government is forced upon people. It's not a voluntary association of consenting individuals. It is your duty to be fearful of it and keep it in check.
If there are evil people in the world, you can be sure they will get in government where they can make maximum damage with the less possible retribution.
If the U.S. Military can crush any rebellion, what are they waiting for in Iraq? Simple fact is a government army stands no chance against a private army or loosely organized militias.
From Thomas Jefferson: "And what country can preserve its liberties, if it's rulers are not warned from time to time, that this people preserve the spirit of resistance?...The remedy is to set them right as to the facts, pardon and pacify them. What signify a few lives lost in a century or two? The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time, with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is its natural manure" - washingtonydc, on 10/12/2007, -0/+8thcobbs, I do have to say that Katrina totally changed my mind on me personally owning a gun. Seeing how quickly civilization and order broke down in that city did more to promote gun ownership to me than any NRA ad.
- Raesear, on 10/12/2007, -1/+9 "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed."
"...the right of the PEOPLE to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed."
We're no longer discussing the militia. We're talking about the people. Remember, the founding fathers had just fought a war against a state militia. They wanted the PEOPLE to be able to protect their freedoms. The second amendment is our method to insure the integrity of our other rights.
The government should be afraid of its people, not the other way around. That was the point.
Now, gun violence is a problem that needs a remedy. However, gun control laws will not provide that remedy. Laws only affect those who follow them. A criminal is a criminal because he breaks the law, and if he has no qualms about killing me and robbing me, then I'm sure he won't have any issues with owning an illegal firearm. We need to find another solution.
The other issue is accidental shootings, usually involving children. This is unfortunate; it is a truly saddening occurrence . However, the answer is not less guns, but better parenting and gun safety.
As little credit as I place in anecdotal testimony, I'm now going to offer some. I was raised on a farm in south Texas. As one might imagine, we had many firearms. I had access to at least 10 guns at any given time, but I never played with them. There's a reason for that. I was informed what guns did as soon as I could understand. My father illustrated this very nicely when I was 4 years of age. He took me down the road to hunt some white-tail dove. When we got there he pulled some shotguns out of the truck. All small bird guns except for one. He decided to bring along his 8-gauge. He told me to try and hit a dove, made sure I was holding it as tight as possible against my shoulder, and moved the hell out of the way. I lined up a dove and pulled the trigger. Just before I went tumbling back down the hill I was on, I was able to see the dove dissolve into red mist and white feathers. I went home with a large welt on my shoulder and a new respect for firearms.
Now, the point of that rather boring story was to illustrate how simple knowledge of the workings and effects of firearms goes a long way to prevent accidental shootings. Sometimes though, that isn't enough. This is why guns should be stored in places inaccessible to children. Buy a gun safe, put the guns in, and lock it. I still advocate teaching children how to shoot and teaching them proper gun safety. A combination of information and common sense will prevent many accidental deaths, and good, aware parenting will prevent even more. - Xevec, on 10/12/2007, -0/+8People...if one reads the original draft of the second amendment...written by james madison:
"The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; a well armed and well regulated militia being best security of a free country."
Also people.."well-regulated" DOES NOT refer to government regulations. Alexander Hamilton....in the federalist #29, said a militia acquired "the degree of perfection which would entitle them to the character of a well-regulated militia." by going "through military exercises and evoltuions, as often as might be necessary."
The second amendment's purpose was to ensure that people were armed against the government...in case the government tries to take away our liberties. Unfortunately..in this day and age...people have accepted their liberties taken away in order to feel safe and secure under the government.
When the government fears the people, there is liberty. When the people fear the government, there is tyranny. - theblooms, on 10/12/2007, -0/+8Sure, one person can be thrown in jail for trying to overthrow the government, but 100,000,000 cannot. That is 1/3rd of the US population, about the same population percentage that fought in the Revolutionary War against the British. And don't forget that in the 18th and 19th Century, Britian was far and away the World's most powerful Super Power. But a whole bunch of seriously motivated hick farmers with rifles kicked their asses anyway.
And yes it is true that the French, Spanish and Dutch did declare war on England and help us fight, they only did so after we scored some major victories (Saratoga) and proved that we had a legitimate shot at winning on our own anyway.
The Signers knew that what they did on 7/4/1776 was high treason and that they were signing their own death certificate if they failed, but they had the balls to do what was right by fighting the very same corruption you mentioned. - rworne, on 10/12/2007, -1/+9@theblooms
I thought the two words you had in mind were:
"crack pipe"
(and it's not too far off from "Marion Barry" either) - thcobbs, on 10/12/2007, -1/+9Well when the time comes that you NEED to use a gun against your government, most of the people who do will use that gun know its will full knowledge of impending death. And it's sad to say this, but they will be putting their lives on the line for you and your right not to lift a finger.
Yes, the 2nd may be barbaric, but it's the only thing that stands between you and your government taking ALL of your rights. - PhantomBantam, on 10/12/2007, -0/+7We all know how much of a hell hole switzerland is (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics_in_Switzerland)
- thcobbs, on 10/12/2007, -1/+8As D.C. is purely a construct of the federal government(land given from Maryland and Virginia) and it was constructed SPECIFICALLY to have neutral ground when meeting on matters of the federal government, I don't see how your argument has merit.
Please, enlighten me.
Also, Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't impossible for a private person to own land inside the D.C. limits?
@daldredge
Just because you don't like how someone votes, it doesn't mean you can disregard the opinion. - lilrabbit129, on 10/12/2007, -0/+7"Even that wasn't really the idea. NRA types tend to forget the qualifying phrase before the right to bear arms part of the sentence: "a well-regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state." If you got your own militia together, it wouldn't be very regular, nor would it necessarily be helpful to the state's security. You already aren't allowed to own some arms in the name of state security (e.g. radioactive ones). So a strict interpretation that reads into the 2nd Amendment an unlimited right to bear arms is outdated, not the amendment itself. Other cherished amendments have limits too, like speech (no libel, slander, fighting words, etc.)."
How would you define "regular"? Better question, WHO gets to decide what "regular" means? I believe the whole point of the amendments were to give the people the rights and tools to protect themselves and their country from enemies, foreign and domestic. Meaning that if the government were suddenly no longer serving the people, then it is the right, and duty of the people to rise up and remind the government why they're there in the first place. - Raesear, on 10/12/2007, -0/+7How do you try without guns?
The usage of said guns is not the most important part of the amendment. The possession is. Our possession of firearms gives us leverage over the government. In short, the government works for us because we can force it to if need be.
If they start behaving tyrannically, we can rise and march and take back our rights. - thcobbs, on 10/12/2007, -1/+8So, you've hopped in a time machine and asked them? Or are you just applying your frame of reference to what you THINK they thought.
And a single-shot rifle is still quite useful in defending the country. Especially when used en masse. - krinthekuz, on 09/16/2008, -1/+8also you forgot to compare how many more stabbings per capita there are in the UK than there are in the US. i can't find the stat offhand but it makes it look like we as americans are gun toting fools but brits are all armed and stabhappy.
- d00ley, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6@tech42er -- I don't think anybody has proposed anarchy or that everybody in government (or even the gov't itself) is evil. The main point is that the people should have absolute authority over the government. And, when this authority slips, the people need to (and have the ability to) re-assert that absolute authority of their government. Very simple.
- jimmarch1, on 10/12/2007, -1/+7Now as to "the founders didn't understand how potent private weapons would get", let's put THAT to bed, shall we?
Anybody familiar with this bit of the core Constitution (not an amendment!) under "Section 8 - Powers of Congress":
To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;
There was a separate clause involving a navy:
To provide and maintain a Navy;
Do y'all understand what a "letter of Marque and Reprisal" is? It's a document accrediting PRIVATELY owned ships as part of a war effort, allowing them (so long as they fly the proper flag) to capture or destroy enemy shipping, merchant or warship.
Such a privately owned *battleship* is called a "Privateer" and is not a pirate nor can they be treated as same if captured.
A battleship was THE single most valuable military asset of the times, and this is direct support for private ownership of the same.
You think the guys that wrote THAT would freak out over an AK47 with a bananna mag?
Hell no. They'd be more likely to find out where to score some good weed...we'll talk about George Washington's letters to Jefferson I think it was, about "improving his hemp seed" later :).
Jim March - ejan, on 10/12/2007, -4/+10The problem isn't the possession of guns, the problem is the illegal possession of guns being sold on the streets. Guns that are legally purchased cause much less problems.
- urbancommando, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6Notice how those statistics/studies are limited to firearm related deaths.
So they died by knives. Just because the guns are reduced doesn't mean people aren't still killed. - implementor, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6Actually, it was at a time when privately-owned cannons, and even privately-owned ships with many cannons (essentially mobile weapons platforms) were considered "arms" to be protected by the 2nd Amendment. When those were considered protected, and you think that somehow ownership of a semi or even fully automatic rifle isn't, then forgive me if I laugh at you.
There is also the very present argument that if you think that technology has outstripped the 2nd Amendment because the founding fathers could never have imagined the present technology, then how can you say that the same thing hasn't happened to the 1st Amendment? - voidptr, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6You're wrong. There's been at least one Supreme Court case regarding the 2nd amendment.
The only reason it doesn't absolutely affirm a stronger interpertation is because by the time the the court heard it the US attorney lied about the military utility of the weapons in question, claiming there was no military value to a sawed-off shotgun while the US Army was issuing them to troops, and the fact that the secondary plantiff had pled out, and the primary plantiff had been killed before the case was heard.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Miller - jimmarch1, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6Here's a 1795 court case about Privateering, proving that they actually existed.
http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0003_0133_ZS.html
You can kick a LOT more butt with 40 cannons than you can with an AR15.
Waaaaay more.
Jim March -
Show 51 - 100 of 153 discussions
