What is Digg?319 Comments
- gorkha, on 11/15/2008, -6/+92Ok ok ok people. Its easy.
Economy in toilet = people scared *****.
people scared ***** = ***** everyone. Where is my gun.
Goes and buys gun.
Simple. - pintomp3, on 11/15/2008, -16/+78the NRA cares about the 2nd amendment about as much as the RIAA cares about music. both organizations represent lawyers and distributors, not the people.
- spaceman84, on 11/15/2008, -19/+69It's a conspiracy now? Democrats have been pro-"gun control" for a long time. Just because Obama didn't address the issue (because he wanted to win swing states), doesn't mean that Democrats won't try to push anti-gun laws through Congress. It's a valid concern.
- samimnot, on 11/15/2008, -27/+72Hate Blogs, Rage Radio, TV Evangelist, FOX News all make $$$$$ from Fear Mongering. Why shouldn't the NRA bleed these people, also? Sounds like easy money, to me...
- EatingPie, on 11/16/2008, -12/+56I have absolutely no problem with this, as countless membership organizations do *exactly* the same.
I receive the Auto Club of Southern California magazine. Every election, they provide a voter guide with recommendations on issues pertaining to cars, roads, emissions, gasoline, etc. They make voter recommendations, including for President.
The Sierra Club does exactly the same in terms of environmental issues. They too include "propaganda" articles that speculate on potential legislation from each candidate. (They're pretty much the opposite of the Auto Club on every issue!)
These organizations have obvious agendas that (presumably) their members agree with -- why else would they be members?. These organizations accept it as their *duty* to make recommendations and speculation about consequences. This is how they inform their membership about relevant issues.
So why is the NRA singled out and vilified? It's common and typical, and arguably one of the responsibilities of such organizations. And in the end, it's still up to you to decide for yourself!
-Pie - Dimensio, on 11/15/2008, -11/+54"Who really needs an AR-15 assault rifle? "
Need is irrelevant.
"The only thing that weapon is good for is spraying A LOT of bullets into A LOT of unintended targets."
Your statement is demonstrably false. The AR-15 is one of the most popular centerfire recreational target rifles in the country. It has a reputation for accuracy, meaning that it is very unlikely to "spray" bullets into "unintended targets". It is also often used as a small vermin and game hunting rifle. Your statement suggests that you have no understanding regarding firearms and, as such, you are not credible when speaking on the subject. - avengingturnip, on 11/16/2008, -18/+53"My first priority will be to reinstate the assault weapons ban as soon as I take office. Within 90 days, we will go back after kitchen table dealers, and work to end the gun show and internet sales loopholes. In the first year, I intend to work with Congress on a national no carry law, 1 gun a month purchase limits, and bans on all semi-automatic guns."
--Barack Obama, VPC Fund Raiser, 2007
Buried as inaccurate. - spaceman84, on 11/15/2008, -20/+55Hey retard, the AR-15 is NOT an assault rifle and it is NOT an automatic weapon. You can't spray "A LOT of bullets into A LOT of unintended targets" any more effectively with an AR-15 than you can with any other semi-automatic gun. By your moronic standard, anything that isn't bolt action or muzzle loaded is capable of "spraying A LOT of bullets".
And the AR-15 is also a ***** expensive gun. I guarantee you they are not "flying currently off the shelves". Pull your head out of your ass and return to reality from your bizarro fantasy world before you post next time. Jackass. - inactive, on 11/16/2008, -4/+34http://www.ontheissues.org/domestic/Barack_Obama_G ...
"Ban semi-automatics, and more possession restrictions
* Principles that Obama supports on gun issues:Ban the sale or transfer of all forms of semi-automatic weapons.
* Increase state restrictions on the purchase and possession of firearms.
* Require manufacturers to provide child-safety locks with firearms." - kelmaster1, on 11/16/2008, -4/+33I hunt, own 3 rifles and a pistol and I hate the NRA. The candidates they endorse are terrible, they don't do ***** for conservation and are more likely to hurt hunters. Rednecks just have it in their head that the NRA represents gun owners, which they don't. The NRA lobbies for gun manufacturers.
- Dimensio, on 11/16/2008, -3/+31" He *explicitly stated* that he believes in the Second Amendment right to own guns and will not anyone's guns away."
Why, then, does President-Elect Obama advocate reinstatement of the unreasonable and irrational "assault weapons ban"? - stockgotti, on 11/16/2008, -7/+34Possibly gun sales skyrocketed because the country's new President-elect has been on an all out assault on the second amendment since his first day as a state senator. Now don't go burying my comment, Obama supporters. You like the guy. You voted for the guy. I assume you agree with his positions. You cannot honestly tell me that the guy doesn't match the definition of "gun grabber" to a tee.
- personalj, on 11/16/2008, -2/+25The NRA's list is correct if you look at Obama's voting record in the state senate. The hunting ammunition ban, tax, and "scary black semi-automatic" firearm ban are things Obama has supported in the past.
- dieboldcracy, on 11/16/2008, -3/+26He also said he was strongly against the Patriot Act and would vote against it when it came up for renewal after it was first passed.................... then he voted for it. whoops. credibility GONE
Look at his Chief of Staff......INSANELY anti-2nd amendment, anti-Iran. We're going to war folks
Please understand there is no left right. Only those in power and those that aren't. He is not making the decisions. The Federal Reserve/Central Bankers/CFR(Rockefeller)/New World Order are making the decisions. You know...the ones meeting in Dubai right now to discuss the new global financial order....the meeting Obama is staying away from. I guess that there is only one way to find out where this country is headed. It will be a short honeymoon - Dimensio, on 11/16/2008, -11/+32" By that I mean that in places like NYC and LA it should be significantly harder to purchase assault rifles and other high power weapons (like it currently is) that will be used to hurt undeserving people 95% of the time."
Are you suggesting that the Second Amendment does not apply in certain cities within the United States of America? Additionally, why do you refer to "assault rifle" as "high power weapons" when in fact assault rifles -- which have been tightly restricted by Federal law since 1934 -- are typically "low-powered" firearms when considering classifications of rifles?
" So pretty much continuing the current regulations and precautions."
Why, then, does President-Elect Obama advocate reinstituting the irrational and unreasonable "assault weapons ban"? - avengingturnip, on 11/16/2008, -5/+25Those Korean shopkeepers sure should not have had the weapons to protect themselves during the Rodney King riots. Good thing that was fixed.
- chimx, on 11/16/2008, -3/+21People are buying guns because of fears that this is there last chance before new legislation under Obama that would ban things like AK47s, M16s, etc. If you remember back when Clinton was in office, you could purchase semi-automatic rifles, but only if you could prove that they were purchased before the Clinton ban. Equally so people want to obtain a pre-Obama ban gun.
I would add, I believe Biden is a gun owner. - Pixelante, on 11/16/2008, -6/+24You know absolutely nothing about firearms, and you're not smart. You're only trying to justify yourself with groundless arguments. Leading a "clean life" does not stop the occasional yahoo (or band of yahoos) from making a house call.
You think you'd rather be a victim, fine. It's your life. I'm lucky not to be a member of your family, because your unwillingness to defend it shows how low you are. Bullets do not tear right through walls - if you choose the right bullet. Load a shotgun with defense (rubber pellets) rounds, they do not overpenetrate and they won't even kill an intruder, so your conscience is fine.
Your aim is poor? Then train, dammit. Training and drilling removes a lot of the fear factor due to automating reactions, and that's a reason firearms alone are useless. You need good, thorough training until you can load, reload and clear a jam without even thinking of it. Defence situations are usually resolved at 5 meters range or even less, so you need to learn to aim through the front sight only, you're not going to sniper school. Choose a shotgun over a pistol, it will keep steadier and you can use it as a melee weapon if the need arises, moreover you'll have a good choice of less-than-lethal rounds. Fine if you don't want to kill anybody, finer when you have to answer to the police.
And get a good layered security system: door and windows alarms, motion sensors, reinforced doors. Have a cellphone always charged and predialed with 911 or whatever it is where you live. The firearm is the last possible solution and every gun owner with a microgram of sense knows that.
But why am I answering. You're probably a troll and I fed you. Choke on it. - gwolf, on 11/16/2008, -3/+20A gun is a harmless mechanism until you put it in the hands of an irresponsible person. No legislation will keep any sort of weapon out of the hands of someone who's a criminal and determined to get one. The whole campaign to paint Obama as radically anti gun is just a marketing ploy.
The right wing could have done away with the Brady legislation when they controlled congress and the white house but they didn't, the best they could do was to in a very cowardly fashion, let it expire.
Upper level law enforcement doesn't really care for guns in civilian hands. Police chiefs worry about their own liability more than public safety; besides it's job security. Sure you have a regular stream of people being raped, murdered, beaten and afraid to say anything when they witness these acts, but that goes back to the job security thing.
The Brady bill like a lot of gun legislation in recent years is based on ignorance and aesthetics that have nothing to do with the functionality an capability s of particular firearms. Brown wood rifles are just as dangerous as black semi automatic rifles. Trivial stuff like pistol grips, folding stocks and magazine capacity have no bearing on it's suitability for crime. I suppose it's asking a lot to ask for Emo free rational laws on this subject, but I continue to hope. - avengingturnip, on 11/16/2008, -7/+24Most diggers were not alive the last time the Democratic party was in power and started enacting gun control laws willy-nilly. It was not a campaign centerpiece for Bill Clinton either.
- kelmaster1, on 11/16/2008, -9/+26the NRA does not represent gun owners.. *****! I'm so tired of their marketing tactics. They can swing elections is red states very easily (also because people are stupid).
- kolobcreek, on 11/16/2008, -4/+21Ok ***** no crime here..
Its not a crime to promote legal gun sales. - buddyw, on 11/16/2008, -3/+18People are afraid that with Democrats in control they will pass another Brady bill. (The set of laws that prevents law abiding citizens from acquiring types of guns that are rarely used in crimes...but they look scary.)
- rickrwh, on 11/16/2008, -1/+15The 2nd amendment was intended for one thing...to protect us (the PEOPLE) from them (the GOVERNMENT). It's the reset button on the constitution. Some people are more willing to put up with crap than others.
Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security. — Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. - divinediva, on 11/15/2008, -6/+20It appears some are doing quite well despite an economy where consumer spending is in the toilet.
- inactive, on 11/16/2008, -3/+17If the NRA is all the news media tells you they are, then how come JPFO & GOA & Brassroots & about half a dozen others (which are all, coincidentally, outside the DC Beltway) exist?? The truth is, the news media are not only bigoted against guns & gun owners, they're lazy. They want one stop inside the beltway shopping for opinions, rather than the diversity they CLAIM to want, and it's always been that way.
- nullcodes, on 11/16/2008, -1/+15How about citing some of the "facts" and the things that convinced you?
- shig, on 11/16/2008, -1/+14Sources?
1.90% of violent crimes in the USA do not involve firearms of any type - BATF, 1998
2.Less than 1% of firearms will ever be used in the commission of a crime - FBI Uniform Crime Statistics, 1994
3.Even in crimes where the offender possessed a gun during the commission of the crime, 83% did not use or threaten to use the gun. - National Crime Victimization Survey, 1994, Bureau of Justice Statistics
4.Two-thirds of the people who die each year from gunfire are criminals being shot by other
criminals. - FBI Uniform Crime Statistics, 1994
5. Only 0.7% of of those convicted of crimes involving guns bought their firearms at gun shows. 39.2% obtained them from illegal street dealers. - Bureau of Justice Statistics, “Firearm Use by Offenders”, February 2002
If you think you can debunk those facts, try these;
6.Every day, 550 rapes, 1,100 murders, and 5,200 other violent crimes are prevented just by showing a gun. In less than 0.9% of these instances is the gun ever actually fired. - National Crime Victimization Survey, 2000, Bureau of Justice Statistics
7. Washington D.C. has essentially banned gun ownership since 1976 and has a murder rate of 56.9 per 100,000. Across the river in Arlington, Virginia, gun ownership is less restricted. There, the murder rate is just 1.6 per 100,000, less than three percent of the Washington, D.C. rate. - FBI, “Crime in the United States”, 1998
And about your precious ban
8.“ ... we cannot clearly credit the ban with any of the nation’s recent drop in gun violence.” - “An Updated assessment of the Federal Assault Weapons Ban: Impacts on Gun Markets and Gun Violence, 1994-2003”, National Institute of Justice, June 2004
9.Even banning guns does not slow down criminals. In the U.K., where private ownership of firearms is practically forbidden, criminals have and use guns regularly, and even build their own. One enterprising fellow converted 170 starter pistols to functioning firearms and sold them to gangs. Hundreds of such underground gun factories have been established, contributing to a 35% jump in gun violence. - “Gun crime spreads 'like a cancer' across Britain”, The Guardian, Oct 5, 2003
The coup de grasse
10.Guns prevent an estimated 2.5 million crimes a year, or 6,849 every day. Often the gun is never fired and no blood (including the criminal’s) is shed. - “Targeting Guns”, Dr. Gary Kleck, Criminologist, Florida State University, 1997
"There is a direct correlation between the amount of guns in a country and the murder/death rates."
Conclusion, even if that were true, surely you must agree that self-defense is the cause of some firearm related deaths, and that they are justified? Again, I'll ask for your sources on that one. - oldgraygeek, on 11/16/2008, -7/+20Bottom line: Obama will leave gun regulations to the state. He has no desire to watch the Democrats start losing elections again. I expect no new Federal gun laws, at least not before January 2013.
He may even partner with the NRA to do what they're always crying for: "enforce the laws that are already on the books." One way to do this would be demanding (and funding) Federal prosecution for gun crimes. - Dimensio, on 11/16/2008, -7/+20"Bottom line: Obama will leave gun regulations to the state."
Why, then, does President-Elect Obama advocate reinstating the unreasonable and irrational "assault weapons ban"? - shaelen, on 11/16/2008, -0/+13I don't understand your thinking. So, if someone busts into your house with a gun, they have complete control over you if you don't have a gun yourself. This means he might suddenly realize he can rape your wife and kids because you aren't "Rambo." So what now? You just have to sit back and watch? Maybe it would be better that you have a chance to end that rapists' life than to have to sit back and watch it because you are a pussy.
Cowardice is no excuse for not owning a gun. - dagnome1984, on 11/16/2008, -0/+12well regulated = well prepared. It does not mean government regulation. The last thing on their minds in 1783 was government regulation.
- t3hmyth, on 11/16/2008, -0/+12There's also the element of personal protection in play here: the concealed weapon is "dangerously concealable" only to the attacker.
- stockgotti, on 11/16/2008, -0/+12Good point. When the 2nd amendment speaks about "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state,..." it gives us advice about what we need to do in order to remain free. However when it says "...the right of the people to keep and bear arms SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED.", it is making clear that the federal government has zero authority to enact any form of gun control whatsoever.
We may have allowed ourselves to become overly domesticated, thus suffering the consequences of not having enough "well regulated militias" in the country. However, we still have the right to own guns and we must fight with every breath in our bodies against anyone in government who suggests otherwise. Tragically that has included our last several Presidents as well as our next one. - Acqua206, on 11/16/2008, -1/+13That is the wackiest reasoning I've come across in a long while. I would argue that the right to bear arms would be more relevant for people in big cities to defend themselves. The Korean shopkeepers during the LA riots as avengingturnip mentioned and also the folks who kept the marauding thugs at bay during the Katrina aftermath. It is the two legged predators you should be more worried about in the event of a natural disaster or social upheaval.
- stockgotti, on 11/16/2008, -2/+13I agree with your comment on the fact that "well regulated" means that someone needs to know what the hell they're doing. But it does not give the federal government the power of instituting that regulation. It also says "...the right of the people to keep an bear arms shall not be infringed." That speaks very clearly as to how much authority the Constitution grants the federal government in regulating who can and cannot possess a firearm. None whatsoever.
- avengingturnip, on 11/16/2008, -5/+16You just identified yourself as someone who knows nothing about the AR-15. It cannot spray bullets and it is also a very accurate gas operated rifle. You must have been thinking of a submachine gun or some other weapon that is already heavily restricted.
- chmstar, on 11/16/2008, -1/+12So are morons with a voter card.
- Pixelante, on 11/16/2008, -1/+12Everybody is against criminals having automatic weapons. Hell, I think everybody is against criminals, pure and simple. The little problem is that criminals do not care. They do not care about the laws, they do not care about restrictions, they do not care about public opinion. They want automatic weapons? They'll find someone willing to export them from Kosovo or somewhere else. That's why you can have all the drug laws you want, and you still have pushers *****.
- 13B1303, on 11/15/2008, -10/+21you have never fired an AR-15 have you? What exactly makes a gun irresponsible?
"We should outlaw handguns as dangerously concealable"
completely contradicts
"-the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
Dangerously concealable is necessary. - shig, on 11/16/2008, -3/+14"Obama will leave gun regulations to the state."
"One way to do this would be demanding (and funding) Federal prosecution for gun crimes."
Do those two sentences make sense together? - thomleidner, on 11/16/2008, -1/+12exacty! How dare people think for themselves. My wife and I don't vote the same, yet I love her. I'm a member of the NRA and the CRPA yet I don't vote always what they say. I give then $ to represent my feelings in a face to face manner in DC yet I vote through my own brain.
- slezzzter, on 11/16/2008, -0/+10Timothy McVeigh utilized fertilizer for his bombs. I think fertilizer is still available and yet we haven't had more bombings. Strange.
- rickrwh, on 11/16/2008, -2/+12The gullible sheep are the unarmed who think the government is going to do everything for them.
- avengingturnip, on 11/16/2008, -17/+27The gullible sheep are the millions who voted for Obama. Hope...and change...and something...and something.
- maximilen, on 11/16/2008, -1/+10Switzerland has one of the highest gun-ownership rates of any country but at the same time also has the lowest gun-related crime.. (Every household owns 1 gun on average, but the Swiss don't have a bunch of drugged-out, mindless, yahoo criminal ***** like we do here in the States -- that's why you never hear of people getting gunned down in Geneva or Lucerne like in L.A. or NYC.)
People kill people, not guns. Your argument is officially over and your facts are objectivly false. Your "essay" is meaningless as are your opinions in this community. Get your ***** straight and your head out of your ass before you post on here again. - btschul, on 11/16/2008, -4/+13The 2nd amendment uses the words "well regulated" in regards to a militia, not the right of the people to own guns.
- BabyWookie, on 11/16/2008, -0/+9He is right about one thing. They are "flying off the shelves", at least where I live. All the local shops are sold out of theirAR-15s and most AKs.
- MarkusX, on 11/16/2008, -9/+18"[..] what happens if, after an Obama term or two, it all turns out to be a false alarm and people are still in possession of their Second Amendment rights?"
Nothing will happen!
The NRA will simply change their tune and say, that it was the NRA's great effort and fabulous work that spoiled the current administration's plan to ban guns. If somebody complains then, they'll simply tell him:
"Because of the NRA you still have your guns - now ***** off and pay your dues! Oh, and pick up a 'Rifleman' on your way out!" - andergriff, on 11/16/2008, -1/+9This is a story? I have five or six guns myself. And I was thinking of getting an M14. Great looking weapon. Maybe now is a good time. What difference could it possibly make to anyone else? Should I register my new coffee grinder with the government, too?
-
Show 51 - 100 of 323 discussions
Browsing Digg on your phone just got easier with our enhancements to the 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is