What is Digg?Sponsored by Dragon Age: Origins
Can't get enough Dragon Age: Origins? Play the flash game. view!
DragonAgeJourneys.com - Play the free companion flash game to Dragon Age: Origins.
564 Comments
- stvidguy, on 01/15/2009, -28/+225I believe all US Citizens should have the right to own a firearm for home protection, and I seriously doubt Obama is going to anything to stop that. I'm fairly liberal about most things, but I believe the founding fathers intended all US Citizens to be able to defend themselves with guns. If you have a problem with that then you can get out. The criminals will always have guns.
- alanocu, on 01/15/2009, -15/+119I agree. Guns kill people the way spoons make Michael Moore fat.
- Oatlord, on 01/16/2009, -25/+105Don't be fooled into thinking Obama and his party of fanatics aren't going to go after your 2nd amendment rights. They've already started: Look up HR 45 that was recently introduced. Look at Eric Holder's statements on how he thinks the Heller decision limits government’s ability to regulate gun ownership.
You people that are so adamant about legalizing drugs in this country and abortion should be just as fervent about protecting 2nd amendment rights. It isn't an issue of being able to protect your home from criminals or a government gone mad, it's about protecting personal individual liberties and limiting the power someone has over what you say, do, own, or put in your body.
"Any society willing to give up a little liberty for a little security will deserve neither and lose both."
-- Benjamin Franklin - ldiamond, on 01/16/2009, -12/+77Laws don't apply to criminals. Therefore, passing any anti-gun law by definition would not stop a crime.
On another note, the number of people that have died or were injured in the last year as a result of alcohol, legal drugs and car accidents each individually dwarfs the number of innocent people that have died or were injured from gun shot wounds. - inactive, on 01/15/2009, -19/+83Scenario C - You are naive and stupid to think that a criminal is going to take pity on you because you don't have a gun. He shoots you in the face because you are an unarmed dumbass Euro-***** and steals your ***** while he screws your wife and daughter.
- normlsparky, on 01/16/2009, -7/+64I frequently hear conservatives complain about Digg being a liberal website. However, in the last year that i have been on Digg, I have never seen a discussion where the gun control supporters come out on top. This would lead me to believe that Digg is not a liberal website, but a pro-liberty/anti-prohibition website.
Typical subjects that support this theory:
marijuana: pro-legalization/anti-prohibition usually wins out. (Libertarian platform)
abortion: freedom of reproductive choice usually comes out on top. (Libertarian and Democrat platform)
2nd Amendment: right to bear arms usually wins. (Libertarian and Republican platform)
homosexuality: equal rights for gays regarding marriage, adoption and other rights wins. (Libertarian and Democrat platform)
I would say that Digg is Libertarian in nature, but their economic policies don't always come out on top. - vtbarrera, on 02/03/2009, -2/+57I agree. Spoons make Michael Moore fat the way bongs get people high.
- raggsat98, on 01/15/2009, -9/+62Consider this:
Someone comes to break into your house.
See NRA sticker on your door.
Goes on to find easier victim. - inactive, on 01/15/2009, -4/+55Bongs make people high the way I kill hookers with my car.
Err...wait. - billizm, on 01/16/2009, -9/+56I think Obama wants to spoon Michael Moore.
- jpop, on 01/16/2009, -4/+39Although Brian Doherty may believe that Obama will do little to nothing to enforce stricter anti-gun laws, the sales numbers over the last month or so indicate that many people believe otherwise...
- normlsparky, on 01/16/2009, -10/+44I'm hoping that the Dems have a good enough memory to recall the political losses they suffered after the assault weapon ban. I don't think that they are eager to give up their recent gains just yet.
- theskillwithin, on 01/16/2009, -6/+38GUNS are so we can protect ourselves from POLITICIANS and JUDGES.
thats WHY its in the constitution. Home protection is just a side point. - michaelpinto, on 01/15/2009, -17/+49The Democrats stopped caring about gun control with Howard Dean in 2004 - but it's an issue that still helps the base of the Republican party which is now limited to the South...
- inactive, on 01/16/2009, -9/+39Which Obama are we going to get, the Obama that said the D.C. gun ban had legal merit, or the Obama who said he agreed with the Supreme Court in striking it down?
Dude is so used to having it both ways, I really don't know where he stands on any of the issues. - thatguy331, on 01/16/2009, -8/+37My old high school friend was home invaded by 3 gang members.
They beat him unconscious.
They raped his wife.
2 years later and they haven't been caught.
That is the reason I have guns, carry concealed, and keep a loaded pistol on my nightstand.
I will not be a victim. - kavutu, on 01/16/2009, -20/+49They will pry my guns from my dead cold hands if they come after mine! Guns do not kill people, people kill people.
- Dimensio, on 01/16/2009, -0/+26http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Athens_(194 ...
- chrisgnv, on 01/16/2009, -7/+33Um, I think it's more cowardly to let some guy trespass into YOUR house that you worked to pay for and steal the ***** you worked to pay in hopes they will not kill you or harm your family than it is to practice adequate self-defense.
- andrewbash, on 06/11/2009, -4/+29Except in areas where guns are banned, in those cases, people with bats, crowbars, rocks, bows & arrows, etc... kill people.
- bumb1ebee, on 01/16/2009, -5/+29Yeah the Assault Weapons Ban was just a figment of our imaginations. I guess banning guns in cities like Washington DC and Chicago never really happened, did it?
- Pinkertinkle, on 01/16/2009, -2/+26To properly defend against a modern army citizens should be allowed to purchase automatic assault rifles. Every 5th citizen should be allowed designated marksman rifle, every 10th citizen should be allowed an anti tank guided missile, every 20th allowed a MANPADS.
- manzplan, on 01/16/2009, -3/+27I dont own a gun.. I am in Canada.. A gun would be handy because we have coyotes, I am not afraid of criminals..
its becuase my wife is a bit nuts certain times - that is why we dont have a gun (and she agrees too LOL) - the2989, on 01/16/2009, -1/+25No, people with guns kill tasty animals. Idiots with guns kill people.
- m0nkeybl1tz, on 01/15/2009, -8/+32Ironically enough, I believe Obama is attempting to ban spoons.
- borninda818, on 01/16/2009, -3/+26There are a lot of things the founding fathers intended, but are not being followed through with today. I cry for the constitution.
- inactive, on 01/16/2009, -12/+35A Cop cannot arrive the split second you are in need of one.
The Government cannot keep you safe every second of every hour of the day.
Criminals will always be able to get a firearm no matter how controlled they ever will be.
Guns don't kill people - Gun Controls kills people. - andrewbash, on 06/11/2009, -2/+24How else does one stop a tyrannical government?
- Oatlord, on 01/16/2009, -2/+24Gavinhudson: I agree with you TOTALLY!!! I mean seriously, does anyone still believe people should be able to say whatever they want? I mean seriously, does anyone believe the press should have freedom to print what they want? Seriously, do people REALLY need the right to plead the fifth and protect themselves from incrimination?
AND COME ON, blacks and women don't really need to be voting, I think we can all agree... - haikuFU, on 01/16/2009, -7/+29After reading the comments here and watching the vid, I just signed up for a 2 year membership with the NRA:
http://www.nra.com
Yes, some of them are nuts. But, a good portion of your money goes to the gun lobby which influences legislation. I've never been a member before, but if you value your gun rights then you need to support people like the NRA.
I've owned guns for 26 years. And I have carried a handgun occasionally for self protection for the past 2 years. I WILL NOT give up my right to protect myself and my family. - greenblob, on 01/16/2009, -1/+22I agree. How else are you supposed to prepare for the imminent zombie apocalypse?
- grungegbunny, on 01/16/2009, -1/+22Note to self: buy NRA sticker.
- Dimensio, on 01/16/2009, -3/+24"wtf, a response like that gets dugg up? wow, is this what most people think of countries without guns?"
Suggesting that criminals have an inherent right to invade the dwelling of another unmolested, and to commit acts of theft and burglary without risk of death, is inherently unreasonable and irrational.
It is impossible for a home occupant to accurately predict the motives, methods and intentions of an intruder. As the intruder has demonstrated neither respect nor concern for the home occupant's privacy and for the home occupant's property, it is not unreasonable to conclude that the intruder would also have neither respect nor concern for the home occupant's personal safety. It is therefore reasonable for a home occupant to assume that any intruder has invaded with entirely malicious intent, and thus justifiable for a home occupant to use deadly force against that intruder.
Suggesting that individuals must be legally compelled to allow criminals to victimize them while offering no defense is wholly unethical. - swift535, on 01/16/2009, -9/+30@ Nick111: Take off your blinders. I guess its not convenient in this thread to talk about how much trouble our government has had in Iraq because of armed citizens fighting back in an urban environment huh?
Hey I've got an idea. How about you stay wherever the hell you are, and worry about your own laws? I don't understand why foreigners from across the pond think so highly of themselves as to tell us how to run our country. You know, the one that we founded on the backs of armed citizens, and have developed into a world power in very short time frame (relatively speaking).
I can safely say on behalf of a lot of Americans, that we are all getting tired of being criticized from dawn until dusk until someone needs military help or money, and then we're supposed to run to the rescue. We get it, you don't agree with the way we do things. But its worked pretty well for us so far, and its allowed us to save all of your asses time & again, so give it a rest. - korvan504521, on 01/16/2009, -2/+22Gun registration only effects people who obey the law.
People who obey the law aren't the ***** problem. - HAL90000, on 01/16/2009, -7/+27Let me put it this way, is a crazed gunman more likely to bust into an NRA meeting, or a "Fathers Against Guns" meeting?
Criminals will always be able to get guns, so all anti-gun laws do is disarm law abiding peoples who would never use their weapon for anything other than self-defense/recreation/hunting. Banning ***** NEVER works, case in point, the drug war. All that will happen is the mafia and other criminal organizations will profit from selling weapons underground, and it will become harder to track weapons, and therefore more difficult to solve murders. Prohibition doesn't work, because it can't work, and it's dangerous. - swift535, on 01/16/2009, -0/+20Yeah, nothing old is important. Wise men should only be listened to for 3-5 years tops, then you should just hope something else comes along.
- sturmgiest, on 01/16/2009, -1/+21nor the criminals who still havent surrendered their drugs after a 30 year ban.
- GiggleStick, on 01/16/2009, -0/+20@dandonia
It has been rewritten and can be rewritten still, in the form of amendments. That being said, the meat of the document is still very much relevant to today. Do you want to throw out the whole bill of rights then? Freedom of speech? Think about it. Why does this one amendment bother those in power so much? - normlsparky, on 01/16/2009, -3/+22The Dems probably learned their lesson before that. They lost about 20 seats in congress after the '94 elections due to the assault weapon ban that was passed earlier that year. I'm sure it cost them many elections after that as well, considering they were in the minority until 2006. I personally hope they have good memories and don't repeat their mistakes of the past.
- inactive, on 01/16/2009, -3/+22@nick111: You are more likely to slip and kill yourself in the tub than you are accidently shooting anyone... Should we ban tubs.
- normlsparky, on 01/16/2009, -3/+22@skywake
The concept of oppression is alive and well. People with guns will oppress people without guns. Until that changes, the 2nd Amendment is still relevant. - Dimensio, on 01/16/2009, -1/+19"It's called the National Guard, moran."
The "National Guard" cannot be the "milita" referenced in the Second Amendment, as the National Guard did not exist until 1903. - inactive, on 01/16/2009, -3/+21People always say it can't happen to them, that statistics are in their favor etc...
I've experience one home invasion, and two car jackings in the last 15 years... As cliche as it sounds, having a gun diffused all three situations... I live in a very good neighborhood five houses from our police station... I was in a very well lit area both times for the attempted car jackings.... Thankfully, in all three instances I never had to fire a shot.
I know three people who have been struck by lightning..... They say that the chance of it happening is a million to one etc... I KNOW THREE PEOPLE... - chrisgnv, on 01/16/2009, -5/+23Also Murdats, does that mean i can have your 360 since your insurance will cover it? I'll come and get it.
- Grond, on 01/16/2009, -6/+24emecks, you're empowering criminals by encouraging non-resistance. Do you feel that is the right thing to do?
Look at it from a criminal's point of view. Generally, criminals are self-serving which equates to a primary motivation of self-preservation.
Since self-preservation is a primary motivation for that type, which are they likely to be more aggressive against: those willing to submit to whatever actions the criminal wishes, or those that defend themselves, their property, and their family.
To criminals, unarmed citizens are low-hanging fruit. Showing the willingness to not submit to their control by arming yourself and being willing to use it endangers the criminal. The large majority of the time the criminal will flee rather than endanger themselves.
Why do criminals have a weapon? Whether it's a knife, gun, baseball bat, or a frozen turkey it's to establish a position of control. If you are unable to resist, they are in control of the situation and can do whatever they want.
The right to bear arms directly affects the safety of my family. Taking away my right to defend me and mine is wrong. - Optiks, on 01/16/2009, -4/+22@murdats- apparently the concept of private property is something completely foreign to you. I can assure you, it's a principle we hold very dear here in the United States. Though you may think it "quaint", I earned everything I own - paid for it even! - I can share it with whomever I want. And If I don't want to share it with anyone, then I don't ***** have to.
If I don't know you and you step onto my property uninvited, then sure, I'll warn you off. But if I catch you in my home looking for free *****, then you'd better start runnin' into the next *****' time zone. - Richandler, on 01/16/2009, -5/+22Laws are like cobwebs which may catch small flies, but let wasps and hornets break through.
-Johnathan Swift, "A Critical Essay upon the Faculties of the Mind," 1709 - GiggleStick, on 01/16/2009, -3/+20Because the Constitution says the congress shall make *NO* law infringing the right to keep and bear arms. Not only small laws, NO LAWS. That's why.
Very small rocks don't float, and slightly infringing laws still infringe. -
Show 51 - 100 of 574 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is