What is Digg?Sponsored by Best Buy
The camera starts rolling on Best Buy holiday campaign. view!
www.youtube.com/bestbuy - A behind the scenes look at one employee’s singing debut.
780 Comments
- bakedwaffle, on 02/17/2009, -51/+245The dangerous people that want guns will always be able to get guns.
I believe that if we all carried guns, there would be less crime. No one would want to mess with anyone else, because your broke ass'd get shot up. You feel? - 45superman, on 02/17/2009, -10/+164I think there's merit to that position, but frankly, I think this goes beyond crime. I believe people have a fundamental right to arm themselves for protection from not only street criminals, but from a tyrannical government, as well.
- dekuscrub, on 02/17/2009, -15/+109cuz the handgun ban in Washington DC has worked so well. really cleaned that place up and there is no crime anymore.
oh wait. - Ymeg, on 02/17/2009, -9/+88Self defense is a right.
- inactive, on 02/17/2009, -13/+83"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."
- xtmno3, on 02/17/2009, -13/+83@clvngodess:
1. Move. If you don't like where you live, move. In all seriousness, if your life and neighborhood is that bad, there has to be a way for you to get out if you actually wanted to.
2. Your observations about who gets hit with "stray bullets" etc are you looking for a pattern. Just like a person who wants to believe some race or sex is bad will look for and find evidence to support their opinion.
3. "Where gang members with automatic weapons..." Automatic weapons have been illegal to purchase in the US since May 19th, 1986. More laws won't change their ability to acquire said weapons.
Point 2 can be refuted with statistical data (which suggests that you are wrong). Studies show that more gun laws = more gun crime.
Point 3 is a common reason why gun laws are stupid. "When guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns."
Murder is illegal, yet still happens. If laws prevented actions there would be no issues. We could just make laws to make all "bad" things illegal like abusive government, theft, murder, etc, and we could all live in a utopia! - wafhacker, on 02/17/2009, -3/+59I suppose I'm a gun nut, since I support the 2nd Amendment. I am also a freedom of expression nut, a no illegal search and seizure nut, a right to vote nut, a trial by jury nut, a no slavery nut, a... err... what's with calling people who support the 2nd Amendment nuts?
- inactive, on 02/17/2009, -40/+94in israel almost everyone carry's a gun and they are not killing each other ....
- 45superman, on 02/17/2009, -13/+67"***** guns."
No thanks, clvngodess--I'm a huge believer in the Constitutionally guaranteed, fundamental human right of the individual to keep and bear arms, but even I'm not THAT into guns. - gijoeler, on 02/17/2009, -3/+42Penn and Teller say it nicely.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1GNu7ldL1LM
Basically, we need guns to overthrow a corrupt and tyrannical body of rulers. Look at our current system of government, the time for revolution may be sooner than people think. I'm tired of my tax money going to slaughter Palestinians in the occupied territories. I'm angry that my tax money bailed out all these greedy fools on wall street. I'm angry that my tax money enabled the ex-CEO of Meryl Lynch to purchase a 30 million dollar penthouse on Park Avenue post-bailout. I'm not going to go out and start shooting people, but I think the founders wanted to give us the right of rebellion in case our governing body became egregiously corrupt. - kemp34, on 02/17/2009, -9/+47Only fools or tyrants would attempt to infringe upon responsible individuals owning weapons of self defense.
- reuscel, on 02/17/2009, -7/+41"A well armed populace is the best defense against tyranny."
(I don't know who exactly to whom to attribute this quote, but I remember it from 'Waking Life') - akchrs, on 02/17/2009, -14/+48I'm buying an XD-M .40 after work today.
- illDecree, on 02/17/2009, -12/+42.....SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED.
- pintomp3, on 02/17/2009, -17/+46The wild west sure were safer times.
- thegrizz51, on 02/17/2009, -5/+32The worst part is that since Obama got elected, everyone has been buying guns and ammo like it's going out of style!! I can't get ammo anywhere these days!
- Kent4jmj, on 02/17/2009, -3/+29The question is not, do we have a well regulated militia, but do we have an armed citizenry that can fform a militia if needed?
- jcastillo81, on 02/17/2009, -4/+29Outlaw guns and only outlaws will have guns.
- RuffRidr, on 02/17/2009, -11/+36It's only a movie. Let's try and base US and state laws on actual facts instead of movies and TV shows, OK?
- 45superman, on 02/17/2009, -9/+33Vermont basically has no gun laws of its own, meaning that federal gun laws are the only ones in place there.
Not really much "like that movie, Tombstone," is it? - Rothbardosaurus, on 02/17/2009, -10/+33An armed society is a polite society!
- yngtimmy, on 02/17/2009, -8/+30Some people say its a right to own a gun. I like to think its a responsibility.
- ExSlashdotter, on 02/17/2009, -2/+241. there's no such thing as "designed to kill police officers". thats just the media talking.
2. no, a hunting rifle is not adequate at defending your home. in fact, its the LAST firearm you should use for defending your home (too high penetration, etc) - badfrog, on 02/17/2009, -7/+29Why do you think someone that likes guns is crazy?
- RudeTurnip, on 02/17/2009, -4/+26"The punk who just broke into your house to steal for drug money does not deserve to die,"
Yes he does. Can you tell the difference between someone breaking into your house to rape you or rob you...you don't know until after the fact.
"nor does the guy who uses a gun to hold up a liquor store, or the guy who mugs you on the street."
Yes, they do. They initiated an act of violence and in the liquor store case, he was ready to kill you if need be. - pilgrim3970, on 02/17/2009, -3/+24"I wish you guys lived where I've lived...And I've been shot at..."
I used to live in a neighborhood where I could lay there and listen to people shooting at each other. It got to be a game guessing what sort of fireame they were using. Further, I have also been shot at and have had the bullets come close enough that I not only heard them but felt the air pressure change as they went by (now THAT's too close for comfort). Nevertheless, I still support our fundametal right to keep and bear arms. Imagine what it would be like if the bad guys with guns knew they could break into houses with a reasonable assurance that the law abiding citizens inside dutifully turned theirs in? The problem is, even in the best of neighborhoods, the police will most likely NEVER be there when the bad guys start doing bad things. At that point, you are on your own and the best you can do is hold out until help does arrive. Personally, I am not willing to watch my family be brutalized or worse waiting for someone to come to my help when I should be taking care of business.
If you do not wish to exercise that right, you are free to do so. I understand where you are coming fom and you are entitled to your opinion, just don't presume to impose your aversion to firearms on everybody else.
The fact is, no amount of laws are capable of stopping gun violence. Trying to outlaw guns is really the lazy answer since the problem goes much deeper than one's capacity to inflict damage on another human being. - ayesee, on 02/17/2009, -4/+24There exists no such thing as a "reasonable" restriction in terms of civil liberties. Once we attempt to "bell the cat," so to speak, civil liberties take on a "comma but" form. I.E. we're allowed to say whatever we want comma but we can't criticize the government, we can worship anything we want comma but it must be a state approved religion, we as a populace can bear arms comma but we must allow government access to that weapon at any time, et cetera. Being "kinda" free to do something is the same as being "kinda" pregnant-- there is no middle ground.
Those who procure firearms to do crimes or commit murder are not going to CHOOSE to obey gun laws while breaking other laws. To believe such will be the case is naivete, and to disallow law abiding citizens from having any sort of firearm is making a rod for our own back and allowing those worth fearing to benefit from such. Aside from this, the idea that any but the most dedicated criminal would suddenly FIND ONESELF using a fully automatic firearm to commit a crime of passion or other unpremeditated murder or crime is laughable-- they're simply too bulky, expensive, cumbersome, and draw too much attention, and once premeditation enters the picture it's irrelevant what weapons are available because a dedicated person will attempt to murder someone no matter what's at hand. Again, all that's accomplished by disarming a populace of a certain weapon is to create a potential handicap on those whom wouldn't be using them to break the law.
Finally, there is the philosophical issue of guaranteeing that the populace, though ostensibly armed, lacks adequate firepower to combat tyrannical government at the local and state level. Before the opening shots of the American revolution it was unthinkable to most but a few patriots that America would actually revolt. Such is the case now; even the most fed up anarchist can't help but feel that a true revolt is almost impossible. However, this can't excuse the fact that, should the time come, the populace must, by necessity, have the firepower necessary to keep its government and extensions of that government (police, military, et cetera) in check should they overreach their bounds. This is the spirit of America and the principle upon which we were founded, and must never be assailed lest we give away the right which, at the end of the day, serves to protect all of our other rights. - badprogrammer, on 02/17/2009, -2/+22Every male between the ages of 17 and 45 is considered to be part of the 'unorganized militia'.
See: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/10/311.html - Dubbsacc, on 02/17/2009, -0/+20@SOS84
"The term militia is commonly used today to refer to a military force composed of ordinary citizens[1] to provide defense, emergency law enforcement, or paramilitary service, in times of emergency without being paid a regular salary or committed to a fixed term of service."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Militia
The last time I checked the National Guard had fixed terms of service and received pay from the Government. - acegi, on 02/17/2009, -13/+33yes, it must be said that israelis don't kill each other because they're too busy killing palestinians.
- Trekhawk, on 02/17/2009, -5/+24@ archiesteel:
I'm a criminal justice graduate student at a top 5 program so I feel I can speak on this topic. As to your point about Canada, had you considered that their society and demographics are markedly different from ours? It comparative criminal justice there aren't any solid comparison countries to the United States. Yes, we share similar law and governments with England, Canada, Australia, etc, but those countries are also far more homogeneous than us and have a far different history.
And to substantiate xtmno3's point, look to Chicago and Washington, D.C. who both instituted some of the most draconian gun laws in the country and had an increase in homicide. - skews13, on 02/17/2009, -6/+25the right of the people to keep arms, was the founders intent. there was never a question of them not allowing a man to keep a firearm for either self defense of his family, and property, nor for hunting food, as well as the ability to quickly gather a small army of community militias. that is the reason it is deemed an unalienable right. the submitter of the article is correct.
- inactive, on 02/17/2009, -0/+18AND THAT, sir, is the key and it is exactly what the fed government is afraid of.....
- Congzilla, on 02/17/2009, -7/+25"The punk who just broke into your house to steal for drug money does not deserve to die, nor does the guy who uses a gun to hold up a liquor store, or the guy who mugs you on the street."
Yes, actually they do. It is my god given right to protect my family my person and my possessions with deadly force. That is the chance they take when they break into my home, because I WILL NOT take the chance of them harming my family. - kronzdigg, on 02/17/2009, -7/+24you assume that those elected are competent. I would trust any random person on the street with a gun rather than trust someone in D.C. with anything.
- gizram84, on 05/30/2009, -3/+20same goes for england... now everyone just gets stabbed..
- aurorous, on 02/17/2009, -7/+24clvngodess what your describing is a situation where the bad guys have guns. This is the natural result of gun bans and as long as bad guys have all the guns you better get use to your neighborhood being a warzone. If you don't like it you have 3 choices:
1. Do nothing and keep living how your living
2. Move
3. Stand up to them.(either with or without guns of your own)
Cops will be of no help because they're not gonna risk there lives fighting a war... and anyway the rest of the neighborhood will condemn no matter what. So it's up to you and your neighbors to TAKE RESPONSIBILITY FOR YOURSELVES and go do something.about it. - C4Aries, on 02/17/2009, -3/+19Never knew that rights were based upon how competent you are.
- RaverGeek, on 02/17/2009, -3/+19Move Here: http://blogs.usatoday.com/ondeadline/2007/02/the_c ...
I fully support this and feel that it should be passed into law across the board. I'm less likely to rob a house knowing there is a 95% chance that there is a gun in the place (5% silly hippies that don't really understand guns)
And get a house ready for me as well. - Almightymole, on 02/17/2009, -1/+16Bah, these stabbings are but a flesh wound.
- badfrog, on 02/17/2009, -2/+17Top 10 countries, homicides per 100,000
Columbia 62
Jamaica 32
Russia 20
Mexico 13
Estonia 10
Latvia 10
Belarus 9
Papua New Guinea 8
Kyrgyzstan 8
*United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime, Centre for International Crime Prevention, Seventh United Nations Survey of Crime Trends and Operations of Criminal Justice Systems, covering the period 1998 – 2000. - SOS84, on 02/17/2009, -17/+32Funny how some people wills scream their rights are being abused by gun control laws but most of them seem to think that denying gays and other minorities the equal right the Constitution guarantees them is wrong.
- tombstoned, on 02/17/2009, -1/+16"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms. The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government"
-- Thomas Jefferson, 1 Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334 - Congzilla, on 02/17/2009, -1/+15Not to mention the official name is the US Army National Guard. It is a branch of the Army.
- kemp34, on 02/17/2009, -14/+28Are you THAT FREAKING IGNORANT OF HISTORY?
Please take some time to see the long list of MASS KILLINGS and ENSLAVEMENT that have occurred when the people have been systematically denied the means of defending themselves.
The only nuts are the ones who fail to take even a passing glance at all precedent. - Hetman, on 02/17/2009, -5/+19I personally do not own a gun. But I agree that people have the right to own a gun as long as they are a law abiding citizen. How come everyone is either a gun nut as you put it or complelty against guns. There are sane individuals who own guns. The whole crazy gun nut is over used.
- badfrog, on 02/17/2009, -2/+15@SOS84
DC vs. Heller invalidated that argument. Try again please. - jakster4u, on 02/17/2009, -8/+21A state can't infringe on the bill of rights, so I'm confused on where this is coming from?
- 45superman, on 02/17/2009, -1/+14That was actually written in the St. Louis Gun Rights Examiner, but when you open an article at Examiner.com, it defaults to the city nearest you that has an Examiner edition (I'm not really clear about why it does that).
- offrdbandit, on 02/17/2009, -10/+23I could be wrong, but I'd bet clvngodess is just a terrible shot.
-
Show 51 - 100 of 791 discussions
The Digg Toolbar for Firefox lets you Digg, submit content, and keep track of Digg even when you're not on the Digg site. Download the official 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is