What is Digg?Sponsored by Sony Pictures
Watch a scene from 2012, in theaters November 13 view!
whowillsurvive2012.com - Get ready for the biggest event in history - the end of time. How will you survive? 2012- opening 11/13
219 Comments
- Kosh, on 02/18/2009, -6/+42This is misleading. Gun ownership isn't a personal right (as in a right to life) it's also a property right (as in a right to own a gun). Your property rights end where theirs begin. Simple as that. You can own and carry guns subject to background checks and stuff, but a bar still has the right to say "Fine, but don't bring a gun here." I don't see where this gets so complicated.
- TheManikin, on 02/18/2009, -8/+37"While workplace violence is a very real issue, treating every gun owner as a potential mass murderer makes no more sense than treating everyone who has a prescription as a drug abuser."
Couldn't have said it better myself. - darkhand, on 02/18/2009, -4/+29Even though I hate the terms, I think that from the majority of my posts I would be considered a 'loony lefty' by most folks on the 'right' of Digg, but I agree completely with the article. It has one sentence that sums everything up:
"treating every gun owner as a potential mass murderer makes no more sense than treating everyone who has a prescription as a drug abuser."
I don't understand where the whole 'fear of responsible firearms use' comes from when it comes to folks who agree with almost everything else I agree with politically, and would seriously like to know where it comes from (keeping in mind the realities of the world and that yes it would be better if all firearms ceased to exist, but that the world will always be full of guns, that it's literally impossible to stop their flow). - slvrbullet87, on 02/18/2009, -10/+30When you hear the click click of the shotgun and the guy says get off my lawn, his property rights win
- krellor, on 02/18/2009, -8/+19The owner of private land should absolutely be able to say no guns allowed on their property. I don't think it is a good idea to disarm your employees, but it is their right. I can't believe that the far right are not willing to sacrifice the so far sacrosanct property rights for personal rights. And seriously, enough with the gun rights articles on digg. I've seen so many in the past week it is getting annoying.
Look at it this way. Lets say I carry a sword for protection. Should I be allowed wherever with my sword because it is for protection and protecting my "right to life"? No, a property owner should be able to say GTFO with that sword. - Yez70, on 02/18/2009, -1/+12Gun ownership is a liberal value that has been abandoned by SOME OF the left.
There fixed that for you. Not every liberal left-ist is anti-gun. - Dre_the_Geek, on 02/18/2009, -3/+13Do like in AZ for stores and bars. You simply put in a closet much like a coat check room and people have to check their fire-arms at the door if you do not want them inside the building. No fuss, no muss and the weapon will definitely safer in the building that sitting in a car as well.
- jayselle, on 02/18/2009, -2/+12You obviously didn't read the article. It has to do with employers restricting employees from keeping firearms in the vehicles.
- davebg8r, on 02/18/2009, -2/+12While the employer/whoever can say you cannot bring your gun to work, I do not think they can tell you what you can keep in your car. I also dont know how they would know you have it in your car. They are not allowed to search your car. And you always have the right to refuse and not go there.
- Grym11, on 02/18/2009, -1/+10@dandonia
Every law or policy has unintended/negative consequences. Good laws attempt to best balance the potential benefits of a given policy with the potential negative side effects.
The problem with policies advocating the ban of civilian firearms (Constitutionality aside) is that they do not consider or acknowledge the negative consequences inherent. Some examples:
-The impact to the rights of women or the disabled to realistically defend themselves
-The loss of a deterrent effect of things like concealed carry permits or widespread gun ownership
-The rise of black market salesmen who won't do background checks or psychological screening.
-The loss of empowered individualism that being secure of your person provides
-The decrease in military/police small arms proficiency (most good shots are made as civilians)
-The lost value of seized or confiscated gun collections of law-abiding citizens.
-The greater ease of establishing martial law or a totalitarian state.
-The potential widespread abuse or deaths of minority populations at the hands of the majority.
-The economic impact of the entire domestic firearm sector collapsing.
-The likelihood of the military needing to buy firearms and ammunition from foreign manufacturers
-The increased cost of police protection and surveillance to protect the, now-unarmed public
-The cultural impact of the citizenry being entirely dependent upon the state
The list could go on and on... There are so many issues that emotional-"think of the children!" anti-gun arguments completely fail to address. Besides, isn't considering the rights of law-abiding adults, in a way, thinking of the children too? - oboshoe, on 02/18/2009, -0/+8@yez70
Good point. - krellor, on 02/18/2009, -0/+8Actually the only thing in the air is the smell of right wing *****. I am a gun owner, and no I don't have any fear that my rights are going to be infringed upon in the next 4 years. This is because I like to wait for someone to try to infringe on them before playing chicken little. If Obama tries to ban guns, then I'll complain. Until someone actually does something though, I'm going to go on with my life.
- shredswithpiks, on 02/18/2009, -0/+7That's actually a hard question to answer - whether you can have a firearm in your car at work or not.
In my state (Colorado) your vehicle is recognized as an extension of your home, and you can carry concealed in your car without a permit.
I would say this suggests that your car is your property no matter where it is, and your work can't tell you what you can and cannot have in it even if it's in their parking lot.
However, Colorado is an "at-will" work state, so when you work for a company they set the rules and you agree to them even if those rules take control of your property rights. If you don't like the rules find another job. - Rahbobo, on 02/18/2009, -3/+10The analogy isn't about using pills as weapons, it's about how you treat the person carrying pills/guns.
"Would you bring a pill to a gunfight?"
That is possibly the worst attempt at making a point on Digg i have ever seen. Look at the ***** analogy. - Grym11, on 02/19/2009, -1/+8@dandonia
I think you need to brush up on your reading comprehension then. I made a list of negative effects that a law against guns would entail. I don't know how you could have missed it.
"Should I be free to kill someone? Should I be free to rape someone?"
Should you be free to murder or rape someone? Of course not. Clearly, any consideration of rights when forming a just policy or law would also extend to your potential victims. What exactly is your point here?
"It's all about drawing a line. More people die from guns than are saved by them. More citizans commit crimes with guns than citizans prevent crime with guns. Guns have a sole purpose, to hurt people."
You make these statements as if they are accepted facts, but the truth of the matter is there's no way to know how many people are "saved by guns" or how many crimes are stopped or deterred by guns. Your last statement is absurd when you consider the fact that many firearms are used for hunting or protecting livestock and fields from destructive or dangerous animals.
"If they had banned guns in the 19th centuary, guns would not be a problem today. Instead it is a massive problem for our generation. Not acting now will make it worse down the line."
Let's look at the 19th century. Specifically, let's consider the War of 1812. If the founders of the United States had not included the 2nd Amendment to the Bill of Rights and had further banned personal firearm ownership like you suggested, we probably would have been conquered by the British... I guess you need to brush up on your history too.
P.S. I just want to add that it's in poor taste to bury those you disagree with out of frustration. I didn't do it to you. If you think I'm wrong, reply and show us all exactly how. - inactive, on 02/18/2009, -17/+23Why all this examiner spam lately?
- chiefquanah, on 02/18/2009, -0/+6@dzhastin
Yes it is easier to obtain a firearm than the drugs but those firearms typically obtained legally are very rarely used in a crime and the drugs are regularly used to manufacture illegal substances.
As for not knowing anyone in gov't who has suggested treating gun owner as potential mass muderers you are right but many have suggested treating us as criminals who have no right to own a gun, not only to defend ourselves from criminals but also from tyranny... and when you get down to it that is what this battle over gun ownership is all about. The gov't usurping the rights of the people to defend themselves from IT. - oboshoe, on 02/18/2009, -1/+7Its really nothing about left or right.
There are progun Democrats and Republicans. There are anti Democrats and republicans.
A simple viewing of Obama's Record on gun control is the telling factor. Not his party. Obama's horrid record on guns notwithstanding, there IS alot of activity in the left wing press rambling about how gun rights are limited lately.
Btw, The most anti-gun people always immediately claim they are a gun owner or that they support the 2nd amendment. RIght before they start talking about "reasonable restrictions". There isn't a single lawmaker in Washington that will claim to be against the 2nd amendment. - swizzcheez, on 02/18/2009, -0/+6Let's replace 2nd ammendment with 1st ammendment and see how the hypothetical goes...
You have the right to speech. I own property. Does your right to speak trump my rights as a property owner when it comes to my property? Do I not have the right to throw you out (insist you are trespassing) if I don't like the way in which you are applying your freedoms?
BTW, I am Republican and even I think this one might be pretty straightforward. The article makes some interesting points but in the end I do have the right to limit others' exercise of freedoms on my property within the limits of law -- especially when I do not require them to enter or impede them from leaving. - moothemagiccow, on 02/18/2009, -15/+21What is with the ***** of gun posts, specifically from examiner.com, in the past two days?
No one's promoting any federal gun control legislation right now. If you want, I can call my congressman and get him on it. Only thing worse than gun nuts is PARANOID gun nuts. Jesus. - jayselle, on 02/18/2009, -1/+7@spyd3rweb: There have been cases here where employers have searched an employees vehicles for firearms. If they found one they were terminated on the spot. If the employee refused a search they were terminated.
- inactive, on 02/18/2009, -8/+13Cars are not allowed inside the mall either. they could kill someone.
btw go away expaminer. - Kosh, on 02/18/2009, -0/+5My point is owning a gun is not a strict matter of right to life. It's a question of how far the right to private property extends (can you own a car? How about an atomic bomb?). As such I would not say the right to own a gun is necessarily unalienable, but in this society at least it is one that we agree upon. As such, setting up the matter as right to property vs right to life dilemma is misleading, since it is really just two "rights to property" colliding.
Here is my question for you: If you think that the right to own a gun extends everywhere, what is the reasoning behind it? Is it the rationale that you can, within limits, do what you choose with your own property? If so, cannot the owners of bars and such also do what they choose with their property by denying people the right to carry guns into the establishment? If the rationale is because right to life implies right to defend yourself, I would point out that while a gun is a superb tool for self-defense, it is not, strictly speaking, a necessary one.
In case you misunderstand my intent, I am very much against gun control laws. I just also think that business should be able to regulate who brings what onto their property. - krellor, on 02/18/2009, -2/+7I don't agree with you, but I can sympathize with the sentiment. I am still uncomfortable being around people with guns in general unless I know them well. Too many people are careless with their firearms. I was backpacking during turkey hunting season one time and a group of drunk hunters were up late drinking and shooting at trees. One of their bullets strayed off and shot a hole in my tent. I had the sheriff down their in no time and he arrested them. Still though, after that I've been nervous around people handling guns that I don't trust, even owning them myself.
- induren, on 02/18/2009, -2/+6I agree, it's spam.
- Cloned, on 02/18/2009, -1/+6I'm glad someone shares my views. I consider myself to be pretty liberal except when it comes to gun control, and don't understand when my fellow liberals yell at me for owning a gun.
A lot of my friends get confused when they see the bumper sticker on my car that says "Gun Toting Liberal". - kasjogren, on 02/18/2009, -3/+8Good job not answering the question.
- jayselle, on 02/18/2009, -0/+5@fury420 Mr 420, how about a history lesson. The Declaration of Independence.
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."
If one has the right to life don't they also have the right to protect their life. This is discussed many times through history and by our founding fathers. Perhaps that's why the 2nd amendment is number two behind free speech. - FenrisWolf, on 02/18/2009, -6/+11And why is that? Afraid the guns will jump out of the holsters and take a shot at you?
- Logrusmage, on 02/19/2009, -1/+5By this logic, we should ban cars, as we should be assuming everyone behind the wheel is a drunken, coked out male teenager with a rebellious streak and nothing to lose.
- nybble41, on 02/18/2009, -0/+4Strictly speaking, they don't have the right to search your car without your permission. However, they can demand that permission in exchange for allowing you into their parking lot. The same would apply to your driveway.
- Taiyoryu, on 02/19/2009, -0/+4Right to life supersedes any property right (right to liberty). That's why it comes first. Therefore in the case of trespassing, you cannot fatally shoot the trespasser unless your life is threatened. Just because a trespasser violated your right to liberty does not give you the right to violate the trespasser's right to life. "Make my day" laws irk me in that respect. Now, should a trespasser threaten you or someone else, then you're within your rights, in fact, it's your responsibility to protect yours or someone else's life. If possible, do it non-fatally. Taking a life is not a trivial matter. To do so over material possessions is sad. In defense of one's life or another is nobler. To resolve conflict without violence or a fatality is best.
- davebg8r, on 02/18/2009, -2/+6Im not so sure they have the right to search your car. If a guest comes to my house and parks in my drive way that does not give me the right to search their car.
- kratsnitram, on 02/18/2009, -2/+6what the hell! 17 comments and front page? examiner spam....
- Kosh, on 02/18/2009, -1/+5I've seen it. The Bill of Rights is different from the "unalienable rights" referenced in the Declaration. The latter is rights intrinsic to the human person, the former, I would deem, are more rights that should be granted and agreed upon in any society that hopes to be successful.
But let me ask you this: If you hold that the right to bear arms means that you can carry guns anywhere, do you not believe that an owner has some kind of right to say who or what gets on his property? And if you do, how do YOU reconcile the two? - bobt39, on 02/18/2009, -1/+5this is dumb. anyone who wants to shoot people isnt going to think "oh darn we're not allowed to have guns here. oh well." In the event of someone wanting to shoot up the place, the only thing that will happen is that rule-abiding people will have nothing to defend themselves with
- tgc1, on 02/18/2009, -1/+5Buried for being stupid.
- methylamine, on 02/19/2009, -1/+4maybe the right is out in force, but have you considered that there's a large percentage of closeted or open libertarians on the interwebz? The right to own weapons is a huge issue for libertarians.
I suspect that if many Digg users took the Nolan Quiz (http://www.nolanchart.com/survey.php), they'd discover that *despite their previous conviction of being left/right*, they would actually tend toward libertarian.
Think about it...there's really no party but libertarian that represents us, the educated 20-40 year olds; we tend to be fiscally conservative and socially liberal. (loosely, the lines are blurred now): Republican == fiscal cons., social cons.; Democrat == fisc. lib., social lib.;
What about ME? I don't want my money taken by coercion to fund someone's utopian fantasy, nor do I want my bedroom invaded to satisfy some wacko neo-puritan's ideal of moral righteousness.
Guns? Same thing. Most people are not criminals. Ergo, most people can own guns safely. The few who are criminal--including 99% of Congress--will be greatly deterred by the majority of sane people who do own guns. - philodygmn, on 02/18/2009, -1/+4This article is insidious for pretending like if employers did take responsibility for protecting their employees on company property then it would be OK for their employees' right to defend themselves to be taken away!
- MicroGlyphics, on 02/18/2009, -0/+3Lame: "Don't you get it man you can't fight a tyrannical government without guns." We just ended 8 years of a tyrannical government. All the guns did not good.
- krellor, on 02/18/2009, -0/+3@chief - In that case the business owner and property owner need to come to an agreement in the contract of their lease.
- BlacklabelSAR, on 02/19/2009, -1/+4"We the people of the United States of America have an inherent obligation that has been passed down for over two decades now"...
Two decades? News flash: People in Texas are retarded. - krellor, on 02/18/2009, -1/+4Did you read the article? It was dealing with whether you should be allowed to carry on private property where the owner has posted signs saying no guns allowed.
- kasjogren, on 02/18/2009, -2/+5You should see these jokers on the Star Tribune article comments. They floor from Powerline, Town Hall, and Examiner any time ANY thing political is posted on the paper's website.
- Cloned, on 02/18/2009, -0/+3How the law currently works (at least here) is that a business can tell you to leave for carrying a gun. They don't have to have any signs or anything posted. If you don't leave, you can be charged with trespassing. It's not illegal to bring a gun into a store that says no guns, it's only illegal to refuse to leave after being told to do so.
- Bookant, on 02/18/2009, -1/+3So I assume the Examiner and this author also support the rights of cashiers, waitstaff and service employees everywhere to say, "***** you, *****," to every customer at will without repurcussion? You know, because personal rights like the right to bear arms and free speech should trump property rights, right? No? Didn't think so.
- jayselle, on 02/18/2009, -0/+3@Kosh: It's a complex issue and I'm on the fence about. Half of me agrees that the property owners has full control of their property and the other half thinks that one's life is more important.
Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness our the unalienable rights. If we have a "right" to life then we also have a right to protect it. Obviously there needs to be some restriction on what weapons one can posses. A handgun is an equalizer for many people (i.e. your wife is attacked by three thugs; a handgun can put her on a level playing field with a small amount of training vs hand to hand combat training at SEAL school.)
I feel that in this case one should be able to keep a firearm in their private vehicle (even if the vehicle is on the company parking lot). The employer can restrict firearms in their place of business. We have a law in Oklahoma that states employers cannot restrict their employees from firearms in their vehicles. This law is currently being challenge in court by Conoco Phillips. - thentro, on 02/18/2009, -8/+11examiner attack!
- mousky, on 02/19/2009, -0/+3Not necessarily. Depends on the wording in the lease agreement.
- Kosh, on 02/18/2009, -0/+2Come now, the idea that people should be able to carry weapons doesn't meant that just everyone should be able to have a gun. The main argument against gun control laws is that all the criminals (who disobey laws) will have them anyway and that gun controls just prevent lawful citizens from getting their hands on them.
But from how you are talking you might as well let anyone buy a gun! I don't think it takes a genius to understand why letting a convicted murderer or rapist by a gun is not so great an idea. -
Show 51 - 100 of 224 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is