What is Digg?Sponsored by Dragon Age: Origins
See the new YouTube feature trailer for Dragon Age: Origins view!
youtube.com/DragonAge - EA presents BioWare's new dark fantasy epic Dragon Age: Origins. '9/10' from Game Informer.
255 Comments
- ileftfark, on 02/04/2009, -4/+115I do not own a gun.
That said, the crux of issue of gun control is the interpretation of the 2nd Amendment, specifically in regards to whether or not our forefathers intended for arms to be freely owned by *people* or by *militias*. There's been much discussion on the interpretation, including some rather engaging dissent from Supreme Court justices. I hate people that simply copy and paste ***** into Digg comments, but in this particular case, I think it will demonstrate this country's founders and Delegates of the Philadelphia conventions' collective opinion on the matter:
Benjamin Franklin: Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary
safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety." (Nov 11 1755, from the Pennsylvania Assembly's reply to
the Governor of Pennsylvania.)
Thomas Jefferson: "Laws that forbid the carrying of arms...disarm only those who are neither
inclined or determined to commit crimes. Such laws only make things worse for the assaulted and
better for the assassins; they serve to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man
may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man." (1764 Letter and speech from T.
Jefferson quoting with approval an essay by Cesare Beccari)
John Adams: "Arms in the hands of citizens may be used at individual discretion in private self
defense." (A defense of the Constitution of the US)
George Washington: "Firearms stand next in importance to the Constitution itself. They are the
people's liberty teeth (and) keystone... the rifle and the pistol are equally indispensable... more than
99% of them [guns] by their silence indicate that they are in safe and sane hands. The very
atmosphere of firearms everywhere restrains evil interference [crime]. When firearms go, all goes,
we need them every hour." (Address to 1st session of Congress)
George Mason: "To disarm the people is the most effectual way to enslave them." (3 Elliot,
Debates at 380)
Noah Webster: "Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed, as they are in
almost every country in Europe." (1787, Pamphlets on the Constitution of the US)
George Washington: "A free people ought to be armed." (Jan 14 1790, Boston Independent
Chronicle.)
Thomas Jefferson: "No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." (T. Jefferson papers,
334, C.J. Boyd, Ed. 1950)
James Madison: "Americans have the right and advantage of being armed, unlike the people of
other countries, whose people are afraid to trust them with arms." (Federalist Paper #46) - RuffRidr, on 02/03/2009, -10/+103The Brady Campaign always does selective editing and choosing of statistics that they present in news articles. It's getting to the point where they have zero credibility and anything they say can be discounted right off.
- Spuy767, on 02/03/2009, -15/+91Maybe he's working the Hitleresque angle whereby if he repeas the same version of the 2nd ammendment over and over again, people will forget the original.
- abenton, on 02/03/2009, -17/+80Only the Brady Campaign and the ACLU can count to 10 by skipping 2.
- Zervaman, on 02/04/2009, -4/+64***** illogical gun control. Hey, I'm all for background checks and whatnot, but the reason they're called "criminals" is because they don't give a ***** about the law. So trying to make guns illegal doesn't really do *****. Criminals will get guns one way or the other.
- California gun owner (yeah, don't even get me started on CA gun laws) - crispy, on 02/03/2009, -10/+69Is that what you call an "Inconvenient Truth"?
- inactive, on 02/03/2009, -11/+60The Brady Campaign should be investigated for conspiracy to deprive Americans of their Constitutional Rights.
If I made an organization devoted to limiting expression of 1st, or 14th, Amendment Rights, everyone would go nuts. But the 2nd Amendment is just for rednecks and Klansmen, so it's OK to undermine (/SPLC-ADL-APAIC) - 45superman, on 02/03/2009, -13/+62Speaking of "Inconvenient Truths," I figure it's only a matter of time before the Brady Campaign or some of their even loonier pals start blaming guns for global warming.
- 45superman, on 02/04/2009, -1/+44As you have proven rather nicely, one does not need to own a gun to understand why the Founding Fathers thought the people's possession of them deserved Constitutional protection.
Thanks for the quotes. - JCPahl, on 02/04/2009, -2/+44Yes, they should be legal. The Second Amendment is not about hunting or self-defense; it is about giving the people the power to overthrow the government if they need to. Military-grade arms are the arms the Founders were talking about.
- PeppermintPig, on 02/04/2009, -4/+41It's amazing how arbitrary the ACLU can be on the 2nd Amendment given the generally favorable pro-liberty action they take in other cases. They're just confused.
- Zervaman, on 02/04/2009, -4/+40Show me one murder in the US that was perpetrated with a .50 cal. Seriously, try.
- rabidrabit, on 02/04/2009, -3/+37Awww come on!... Look how well drug prohibition works! Clearly banning guns from possession of non criminals will make the problem go away.
- ileftfark, on 02/04/2009, -3/+36Two things about the Brady Bill and its proponents:
- They were instrumental in keeping the unconstitutional handgun ban in DC in effect for as long as they could.
- They've already started a slippery slope by defining guns 'with no sporting purpose'. If I ever do buy a gun, it will not be for 'sport'. It will be used as a last line of defense that I would hope to never have to actually use to protect my life and the life of my loved ones. My only option for home defense shouldn't be a hunting rifle.
If you're looking to ban something, try drugs or prostitution. I heard it works really well. - Akairenn, on 02/04/2009, -2/+34Yes. Why shouldn't they be?
There exist no small arms which should be 'out of bounds' for private ownership. - inactive, on 02/04/2009, -3/+32"As a slave owned by the Queen of a Royal Family, I find Americans' preservation of the machinery of freedom terribly confusing..."
- Mothrog, on 02/04/2009, -0/+29No, unfortunately the ACLU does not stay out of the 2nd amendment debate. They explicitly state that they believe the collective rights interpretation, despite all evidence to the contrary, including US v. Miller, should you get past the first paragraph.
http://www.aclu.org/crimjustice/gen/35904res200203 ...
"Given the reference to "a well regulated Militia" and "the security of a free State," the ACLU has long taken the position that the Second Amendment protects a collective right rather than an individual right. For seven decades, the Supreme Court's 1939 decision in United States v. Miller was widely understood to have endorsed that view.
The Supreme Court has now ruled otherwise. In striking down Washington D.C.'s handgun ban by a 5-4 vote, the Supreme Court's 2008 decision in D.C. v. Heller held for the first time that the Second Amendment protects an individual's right to keep and bear arms, whether or not associated with a state militia.
The ACLU disagrees with the Supreme Court's conclusion about the nature of the right protected by the Second Amendment. We do not, however, take a position on gun control itself. In our view, neither the possession of guns nor the regulation of guns raises a civil liberties issue." - tgc1, on 02/04/2009, -3/+31The Constitution states you can own a gun. End of story. It doesn't say you need a background check, it doesn't say you need to have ownership approved by the state or by the feds. Its says you have the right to bear arms. Period.
If they want to add in all kinds of provisions to gun ownership. Then create an amendment and have it ratified. Until then, the original document stands as the supreme law of the land. - GalacticXenu, on 02/04/2009, -4/+32It's because the ACLU really is a liberal organization. While liberals in many ways are more tolerant of individual rights in the areas of free speech (which, I imagine, is most of what the ACLU deals with) and due process they look the other way on guns and affirmative action. The ACLU as a defender of the constitition? That's more of a constructed image than reality--although, the ACLU does more good than harm.
- ousthouse, on 02/04/2009, -1/+28Congrats to Spuy767 for doubling processor speed.
- MalumProhibitum, on 02/04/2009, -3/+30we are students of history. Its only 60 years ago that people were slaughtered by the millions by their own governments. Dont pretend it cant happen again.
- oldhick, on 02/03/2009, -5/+31Awesome... Then I need to stock up on carbon credits because I spent the weekend burning through some ammo (and my wallet)! ;)
- djdingo, on 02/04/2009, -6/+32DRM is to music as gun laws are to law abiding citizens.
- toxicshok, on 02/04/2009, -0/+25then change the constitution don't' try and interpret it out of existence.
- Mothrog, on 02/04/2009, -1/+26Considering that the Second Amendment exists so that the people have the option to revolt, I think owning military firearms is the exact reason that amendment is there. You can already legally own machine guns and .50 caliber rifles. Only one legal machine gun has ever been involved in a crime, a crime that was committed by a police officer of all people. I don't believe a .50 caliber has ever actually been used in a crime. Not really surprising when you consider that such rifles are enormous in size and often exceed 40 lbs in weight.
- inactive, on 02/04/2009, -5/+28After seeing how well prohibition has worked with drugs, how can you possibly be against it when it comes to guns. Prohibition will guarantee that all guns are off the streets, and especially out of the hands of dangerous criminals.
- falstaff, on 02/04/2009, -2/+23Every amendment in the Bill of Rights is about protecting INDIVIDUAL rights against the excesses of state involvement. Why would the 2nd be about protecting the rights of the state to create militias? Protecting it from whom? The WHOLE POINT of the Bill of Rights was to limit the power of government. The only way it makes sense to read it any other way is to completely ignore the entire rest of the Constitution and be willfully ignorant of the history of the document.
- RaverGeek, on 02/04/2009, -2/+22The issue isn't necessarily about whether or not background checks should be required or not, but that an individual must *pay* for the right to purchase and possess a firearm. It is unconstitutional to require an individual to pay and become licensed before they are granted the ability to exercise a constitutional right.
If people wish to minimize or eliminate crimes within their community and country we should switch to the polar opposite of what the democrats want. We should become a must-carry country and require guns and gun education in every home. All members of society should arm themselves both inside and outside of their home. A criminal will think twice before robbing a bank or mugging somebody knowing that everybody they come into contact with has a gun and justification to use it.
"An armed society is a polite society" - inactive, on 02/04/2009, -5/+25Putting guns into categories is the oldest trick in the book by the anti-gun nuts. Now its "assault weapons" they want banned because they are black and scary but they want to let us keep the "sporting rifles" which are basically the same. The next step is to start calling the sport/hunting rifles "sniper rifles" and they can then demonize them to merit a ban. Chances are we might soon find out why they are trying so hard to strip us of our constitutional rights with such silly laws and most of us will be glad we already own an "assault rifle".........especially once they start knocking on doors.
- inactive, on 02/04/2009, -0/+19"You can request to have your Digg account closed by contacting support@digg.com. Please keep in mind that you'll need to email us from the email address associated with your Digg account. If your email address has changed since you created your Digg account, you can change it in the Email Preferences settings in your Profile."
http://digg.com/faq
Dumbass - rangerjoe8999, on 02/04/2009, -0/+18@charredo: Wrong, according to http://johnrlott.tripod.com/2005_05_01_johnrlott_a ... (3rd item down) he didn't kill anyone with the Grizzly .50
- zephc, on 02/03/2009, -4/+22At which point this will become a popular hobby: http://www.expertvillage.com/video-series/500_bull ...
The gov't needs to stop coddling people as if they were children. - 45superman, on 02/03/2009, -5/+22Prohibitive taxes on ammunition would constitute, in effect, a an attack on the Constitutionally guaranteed, fundamental human right of the individual to keep and bear arms.
In short, it made a funny routine for Mr. Rock, but the actual implementation would be met with a fury no one wants to see. - Mothrog, on 02/04/2009, -2/+19"I don't want to be walking to the shops in fear that granny is packing."
And what precisely do you have to fear from granny packing? Do you think that the instant someone starts carrying a firearm they become a ranting, raving, murderous maniac? On the other hand, someone willing to commit the crime of murder probably isn't going to worry a whole lot about getting charged for an illegal gun, so any idiotic gun bans aren't going to do anything to stop them. - active1x0, on 02/04/2009, -2/+18Here, Olbermann's interpretation is my most favorite:
http://youtube.com/watch?v=STwsbUwcO4U
Oops, did I say most favorite? I meant most retarded. - HunterGathers, on 02/04/2009, -2/+17@StormyAaron
And the NAACP is not a strong arm for Afican Americans and NOW isn't astrong arm for womens' rights? - deity, on 02/04/2009, -2/+16I hate every loss of liberty. You don't need background checks before you have the right to free speech. Criminals can get guns, background checks only deter the honest.
When I was young you could order guns from a catalog and have them shipped directly to your home. Society functioned just fine then and it would today without the stupid limits on my freedoms. - jjohnstn, on 02/04/2009, -1/+15Keep and Bear arms. Not only the right to own, but the right to carry.
- thatguy331, on 02/04/2009, -0/+14The round that has killed the most people (outside of war) is the lowly .22LR... why? Because they're super cheap and almost everyone has a .22LR rifle. The round itself is almostthe smallest you can buy, but because its so common, more people are killed by that caliber.
Using the Brady Bunch's logic, we should ban the lowly .22LR! - 570001, on 02/04/2009, -3/+16Without those inconvenient words, the Brady Campaign doesn't have to twist itself into logical loops trying to explain how exactly 'the people' referred to in the Second amendment are different from 'the people' named in the First and others.
- wishninja, on 02/03/2009, -5/+18lol Everyone needs a crisis to forward their agenda you know.
- emailowndme, on 02/04/2009, -2/+15it's godwins law nub!
- sjl127, on 02/04/2009, -1/+14If you tell a lie long enough, it becomes the truth, that's of any politician.
- xixphz, on 02/04/2009, -7/+20But think of the children...
/s - inactive, on 02/04/2009, -0/+13I second this quote from the comments and feel like millions of others will feel the same. This is when the war will start for many.
"In 1776 we, the PEOPLE, took arms to defend our freedom from the STATE sponsored militia. My great grand father's rifle was taken by communists in 1932, after Ukraine "joined" USSR. Then, he was called a traitor of the people for his unwillingness to surrender his horse and a goat and sent to the work camps. I am an American Combat Vet. I swear - the day they will pass a law which will make me a criminal for owning a gun, I will down my BDU's and disappear in Sierra Nevada" - Jelga, on 02/04/2009, -0/+13Yes, some people are really obsessed with clinging to their guns, but it's about our right, as the people of the United States to have own these guns. I'm not a fan of guns, but I'm against banning them in any way, shape, or form.
Dunno if that clears up anything, but whatever. - Pixelante, on 02/04/2009, -0/+13No. Violence is the only way to reform a government when all else has failed. If they decide they want to stay in power and that you have no say in the matter, the ballot box won't work anymore.
- Gryffydd, on 02/04/2009, -4/+16I just want to send up a big "thank you" to the Bush administration for waking up liberals and reminding them of the true purpose of the 2nd Amendment.
- 0ceanic, on 02/04/2009, -0/+12As an american, I really like to eat canadian bacon.
- inactive, on 02/04/2009, -2/+14The word "regulate" meant something a bit different back then.
-
Show 51 - 100 of 258 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is