What is Digg?Sponsored by Newegg.com
$5,000 Newegg Eggstreme Challenge Video Contest Extended to 11/15 view!
newegg.com - Show them what YOU would do with the money you save by shopping at Newegg. Seriously, show them...
975 Comments
- inactive, on 02/09/2009, -24/+494Folks, I am no fan of guns, but my aversion to weapons is trumped by my love of the Bill of Rights. If I want to defend the 1st, 4th, 6th, 8th amendment, it would be hypocritical to not defend the 2nd.So count me as your ally on this issue. Keep the Bill of Rights intact, ALL of it!
Voted YES on the poll, and for the curious, I AM a pretty good shot with just about any kind of pistol, shotgun, or rifle. - SatoriSeeker, on 02/09/2009, -25/+410Yes. Yes it does.
- CaptainRant, on 02/10/2009, -18/+379Dumb question. The government doesn't give rights.
- kemp34, on 02/09/2009, -25/+368Like those results.
- slayermet420, on 02/10/2009, -14/+300"The results are startling!"? Bull-*****-*****. This is exactly how it should have looked.
- bonk2k, on 02/10/2009, -10/+274This isn't so much of a poll, as it is a quiz.
- Kent4jmj, on 02/09/2009, -16/+23897% Yes with over a million votes. Pretty impressive.
Rights are recognized in our Constitution not given to us. The Right to bear arms does not require the permission of the Federal or a State government.
The Founders wanted the citizens of this Nation to be armed! If a militia was called up one was expected to come with a gun! - ayeroxor, on 02/10/2009, -5/+178fah: Try to think like an individual and not like a piece in a machine.
The entire system of American government was set up as a series of checks and balances. What is the final check against an armed government? An armed citizenry.
Don't think that's blowing it out of proportion; rather, it is 100% clear that this is the intent of the amendment - it is a FACT that the people who were framing this constitution were the EXACT PEOPLE that had to rise up in arms against their government, and it was those EXACT PEOPLE who wanted to make sure that if neccesary, it could happen again. - Striker101, on 02/09/2009, -5/+143All I found there was this poll, no discussion or anything else. But 97% voted they believe the 2nd amendment gives the right to bear arms.
- sv650touring, on 02/10/2009, -6/+117You're right! The writers of the Constitution decided to put a *single* "right" of the National Guard in with a bunch of *individual rights*. They decided to use the term "people" to describe a part of the government, but only in the Second Amendment. It must have been very important to them that the government preserve its own "rights".
Also you're just trolling so I should settle down. - LastDitchHero, on 02/10/2009, -3/+99Why are so many people so scared of weapons? I don't get it. Bad people will always get weapons and the police are not required to protect you except in a very few limited circumstances. Even then the police do not have the resources to do so.
Now I will hear that someone will say must murders are by someone you know. I have a hint for you. They know you. If they know you they could easily kill in in 80 other ways that don't involve a gun.
You also think that people with guns are more likely to kill people. In Florida a person with a concealed carry permit it 800 times less likely to kill anyone that your average person.
One more jewel. You may talk about well only so many bad guys a year are killed by people legally defending themselves. Well that doesn't count bad guys who are injured, ran away, or detained by people with guns which is more often than not the case.
I grew up around guns and when I met people who were so terrified of them I couldn't believe it. It is a piece of metal, plastic and wood. Yes it is dangerous but so is your car, power tools, and kitchen knives. It is beyond me that we teach kids drivers ed and sex ed cause these kids will be getting behind a wheel and having sex yet don't teach them how to properly handle (not use, handle) a gun which they may run into even if their parents don't own - blqysmg, on 02/10/2009, -0/+91when the constitution was written, "militia" meant an armed populous that was available to be quickly called up to defend the land. These were NOT professional soldiers, but normal civilians. Read the "Federalist Papers."
- chanop, on 02/10/2009, -6/+972nd amendment is for civilian militia. National Guard is not civilian.
- Smaulz, on 02/10/2009, -7/+95Found this on another forum and thought it was applicable:
40 Reasons to Ban Guns (Read it before you respond)
1. Banning guns works, which is why New York, DC, Detroit & Chicago cops need guns.
2. Washington DC’s low murder rate of 69 per 100,000 is due to strict gun control, and Indianapolis’ high murder rate of 9 per 100,000 is due to the lack of gun control.
3. Statistics showing high murder rates justify gun control but statistics showing increasing murder rates after gun control are “just statistics.”
4. The Brady Bill and the Assault Weapons Ban, both of which went into effect in 1994 are responsible for the decrease in violent crime rates,which have been declining since 1991.
5. We must get rid of guns because a deranged lunatic may go on a shooting spree at any time and anyone who would own a gun out of fear of such a lunatic is paranoid.
6. The more helpless you are the safer you are from criminals.
7. An intruder will be incapacitated by tear gas or oven spray, but if shot with a .357 Magnum will get angry and kill you.
8. A woman raped and strangled is morally superior to a woman with a smoking gun and a dead rapist at her feet.
9. When confronted by violent criminals, you should “put up no defense - give them what they want, or run” (Handgun Control Inc. Chairman Pete Shields, Guns Don’t Die - People Do, 1981, p. 125).
10. The New England Journal of Medicine is filled with expert advice about guns; just like Guns & Ammo has some excellent treatises on heart surgery.
11. One should consult an automotive engineer for safer seat belts, a civil engineer for a better bridge, a surgeon for internal medicine, a computer programmer for hard drive problems, and Sarah Brady for firearms expertise.
12. The 2nd Amendment, ratified in 1787, refers to the National Guard, which was created 130 years later, in 1917.
13. The National Guard, federally funded, with bases on federal land, using federally-owned weapons, vehicles, buildings and uniforms, punishing trespassers under federal law, is a “state” militia.
14. These phrases: “right of the people peaceably to assemble,” “right of the people to be secure in their homes,” “enumerations herein of certain rights shall not be construed to disparage others retained by the people,” and “The powers not delegated herein are reserved to the states respectively, and to the people” all refer to individuals, but “the right of the people to keep and bear arms” refers to the state.
15. “The Constitution is strong and will never change.” But we should ban and seize all guns thereby violating the 2nd, 4th, and 5th Amendments to that Constitution.
16. Rifles and handguns aren’t necessary to national defense! Of course, the army has hundreds of thousands of them.
17. Private citizens shouldn’t have handguns, because they aren’t “military weapons”, but private citizens shouldn’t have “assault rifles”, because they are military weapons.
18. In spite of waiting periods, background checks, fingerprinting,government forms, etc., guns today are too readily available, which is responsible for recent school shootings. In the 1940’s, 1950’s and 1960’s,anyone could buy guns at hardware stores, army surplus stores, gas stations,variety stores, Sears mail order, no waiting, no background check, no fingerprints, no government forms and there were no school shootings.
19. The NRA’s attempt to run a “don’t touch” campaign about kids handling guns is propaganda, but the anti-gun lobby’s attempt to run a “don’t touch” campaign is responsible social activity.
20. Guns are so complex that special training is necessary to use them properly, and so simple to use that they make murder easy.
21. A handgun, with up to 4 controls, is far too complex for the typical adult to learn to use, as opposed to an automobile that only has 20.
22. Women are just as intelligent and capable as men but a woman with a gun is “an accident waiting to happen” and gun makers’ advertisements aimed at women are “preying on their fears.”
23. Ordinary people in the presence of guns turn into slaughtering butchers but revert to normal when the weapon is removed.
24. Guns cause violence, which is why there are so many mass killings at gun shows.
25. A majority of the population supports gun control, just like a majority of the population supported owning slaves.
26. Any self-loading small arm can legitimately be considered to be a “weapon of mass destruction” or an “assault weapon.”
27. Most people can’t be trusted, so we should have laws against guns, which most people will abide by because they can be trusted.
28. The right of Internet pornographers to exist cannot be questioned because it is constitutionally protected by the Bill of Rights, but the use of handguns for self defense is not really protected by the Bill of Rights.
29. Free speech entitles one to own newspapers, transmitters, computers, and typewriters, but self- defense only justifies bare hands.
30. The ACLU is good because it uncompromisingly defends certain parts of the Constitution, and the NRA is bad, because it defends other parts of the Constitution.
31. Charlton Heston, a movie actor as president of the NRA was a cheap lunatic who should be ignored, but Michael Douglas, a movie actor as a representative of Handgun Control, Inc. is an ambassador for peace who is entitled to an audience at the UN arms control summit.
32. Police operate with backup within groups, which is why they need larger capacity pistol magazines than do “civilians” who must face criminals alone and therefore need less ammunition.
33. We should ban “Saturday Night Specials” and other inexpensive guns because it’s not fair that poor people have access to guns too.
34. Police officers have some special Jedi-like mastery over handguns that private citizens can never hope to obtain.
35. Private citizens don’t need a gun for self- protection because the police are there to protect them even though the Supreme Court says the police are not responsible for their protection.
36. Citizens don’t need to carry a gun for personal protection but police chiefs, who are desk-bound administrators who work in a building filled with cops, need a gun.
37. “Assault weapons” have no purpose other than to kill large numbers of people. The police need assault weapons. You do not.
38. When Microsoft pressures its distributors to give Microsoft preferential promotion, that’s bad; but when the Federal government pressures cities to buy guns only from Smith & Wesson, that’s good.
39. Trigger locks do not interfere with the ability to use a gun for defensive purposes, which is why you see police officers with one on their duty weapon.
40. Handgun Control, Inc., says they want to “keep guns out of the wrong hands.” Guess what? You have the wrong hands. - kolobcreek, on 02/10/2009, -3/+87@fascismahoy
History would prove you wrong. The more time passes the more the government wants to take away our guns. Back in the day a person could own a cannon. Today's equivalent would be a howitzer.
And you don't have to have state to have a militia. Individuals and communities are allowed to form lawful militias.
What's happened is times have changed and people are trying to get the constitution to change with it. It doesn't do that unless you pass an amendment. So go to Washington and pass an amendment. Until then stop promoting unconstitutional legislation. - rockon4life45, on 02/10/2009, -10/+93The thing that bothers is me is how people selectively read the second amendment. The Brady Campaign is the worst. When Brady Campaign officials 'repeat' the second amendment they tend to leave off "of the people" or put and awkward pause somewhere in there.
Dated but useful pic:
http://i40.tinypic.com/nvbg61.jpg
Also, if I'm not mistaken, the militia is composed of citizens, which is different from the military. Please correct me if I'm wrong. - arpad, on 02/10/2009, -2/+77Yes, the guys who wrote the Constitution were so clever they foresaw the creation of the National Guard over a hundred years in the future.
- exscape, on 02/10/2009, -4/+76OK, I'm not American, but the second amendment appears to be: "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."
So, 97% are correct. OMG I'm shocked. What's this story about, OR what am I missing? - xtmno3, on 02/10/2009, -1/+71Before the advent of the 2nd amendment, the individual states had their own similarly worded guaranteed rights. Here are a couple of them:
"
Connecticut: Every citizen has a right to bear arms in defense of himself and the state.
Kentucky: … the right of the citizens to bear arms in defense of themselves and the State shall not be questioned.
Pennsylvania: That the people have a right to bear arms for the defense of themselves and the state; ... The right of the citizens to bear arms in defense of themselves and the State shall not be questioned.
Rhode Island: The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
Vermont: … the people have a right to bear arms for the defense of themselves and the State.
"
Source: http://www.gunfacts.info/ (PDF version 5)
Still care to argue the second amendment does not refer to individuals? - inactive, on 02/10/2009, -1/+71Thank you. Thus the term "unalienable rights" as we find in the Declaration of Independence.
- rugrat54, on 02/10/2009, -28/+97Although it was a trick question, people still believe in the right to have guns.
BUT
Wasnt it Martin Luther King Jr. who said, " Never forget that everything Hitler did in Germany was legal." - normlsparky, on 02/10/2009, -12/+68Although this poll is hardly scientific, it does show why the majority of the Democratic Party has abandoned the gun control issue. It also explains why H.R. 45 still has zero cosponsors to this day.
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d111:h.r.0 ...
The gun grabbers are a loud, vocal minority within the party. - SuperVepr308, on 02/10/2009, -4/+59"shall not be infringed". If you can't understand that, you are hopeless.
- twoblink, on 02/10/2009, -7/+61"Shall not be infringed" how difficult is that??? Or does that depend on what the meaning of "IS" is?
- dracostimpy, on 02/10/2009, -18/+70I voted "no" because I believe we have an INHERENT (or "God-given" if you prefer) right to bear arms, not a Constitutionally-granted right that might imply the possibility of revocation should the 2nd amendment ever be repealed. In a free society, individuals have a right to bear arms regardless of whether it's outlined in their national charter.
To argue otherwise is to argue in favor of limits to personal freedom, which brings society a *big* step closer to tyranny. As owning a gun does not inherently cause any harm to anyone, there's zero reason to regulate it as opposed to, say, burning toxic waste in your backyard.
I therefore feel that the 2nd amendment's purpose is not to grant unto individuals that right, but rather to restrict government from attempting to curtail it. Kudos to the FFs for realizing the importance of protecting this crucial and fundamental right of all free men. - norman619, on 02/10/2009, -0/+49Factsahoy:
Your name is false advertising at its best. Militia is not military but private citizens. The founding fathers said the populous has the right to bare arms so that they can deffend themselves from enemies from without and within(government). Go back to school becasue it seems you slept through the constitution part of US history. - Spuy767, on 02/10/2009, -0/+49I wasn't acutally surprised by the results. But I'm distressed, nonetheless, that our elected officials can't recognize the will of their constituency.
- nobodyatall, on 02/10/2009, -4/+52Who is the Militia?
According to the the law its all of us.
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/10/311.html
US CODE TITLE 10 > Subtitle A > PART I > CHAPTER 13 > § 311
§ 311. Militia: composition and classes
(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.
all males between 17 and 45 are part of the unorganized militia and all females who are part of the National Guard are also enrolled. - inactive, on 02/10/2009, -2/+49Distort it to accommodate your opinion if you wish. It still does not change the clear wording and the lack of room for question about this to any who have the integrity to be honest about it with themselves and others.
The second amendment protects two rights, and is very obvious about it. It guarantees both the right to militias, AND the individual's right to bear arms.
Amendment II
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. - kolobcreek, on 02/10/2009, -0/+44Yes very yes....
- akula89, on 02/10/2009, -0/+39the Constitution doesn't grant rights, it states their existence
- minnecrapolis, on 02/10/2009, -2/+40@factsbegone
"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."
Notice that says "the people" and does not limit itself to JUST a regulated militia?
There's a reason that it is stated the way it is. It's because the intent was clearly that the right of the people to own guns should not be infringed.
In fact, you may take a look at history to see the intent. Minutemen, the Old West, etc.
Notice that the issue was never, until recent times, whether people could own weapons.
The reason it is an issue now is because we have a bunch of misled, bleeding hearts that think if you take guns away from law abiding citizens that the criminals will also get rid of their guns.
You know, because gang members get their guns legally. - rugrat54, on 02/10/2009, -4/+42@jenny:
All powers not given to the federal and state governments are reserved for the PEOPLE.
"of whether they think the intention is an "individual right" or the collective right of the people to have an armed militia."
America was founded on INDIVIDUAL FREEDOM. THE CONSTITUTION IS A DOCUMENT TELLING THE GOVERNMENT SOME OF OUR RIGHTS, BUT IS NOT THE ONLY RIGHTS WE HAVE THAT THEY CAN NOT TOUCH. - Toshibi, on 02/10/2009, -0/+36I'm a militia of one. I regulate myself pretty well.
- ThinkOutTheBox, on 02/10/2009, -3/+39In Germany, we aren't in Germany and we have had a criminal/rouge self serving government now for a while. The second amendment grants us legal authority to overthrow a tyrannical government.
I'm not suggesting anybody do what I'm about to say and only mean it as a total hypothetical statement, but legally we could all go march to Washington, arrest everybody in government and put them on trial.
My point being is the government is acting illegally and nothing they are doing is legal. - JB88, on 02/10/2009, -12/+47You're not missing a thing, except a lame attempt by the liberals to deny gun ownership to Americans.
- soupdawg30, on 02/10/2009, -2/+36National Guard should not be considered a militia since it is controlled directly by the government and not by the people.
- richmomz, on 02/09/2009, -6/+38Really? Where does it say that?
- JustLetGo, on 02/10/2009, -0/+32Yes.
- HAL90000, on 02/10/2009, -1/+33That's semantics, but you are correct, rights are natural. A more correct phrasing of the question could have replaced "give" with "protect", and "the" would have been stricken.
- tdclark23, on 02/10/2009, -0/+31I don't know where you get the idea that the Bill of Rights is really the Bill of Privileges. That is part of the slippery slope that will end our liberty. The Bill of Rights defines those rights that the government cannot limit or abridge. Although in our society it appears that attorneys, insurance companies and other corporate types can abridge our rights all they want, it is important to not fall into the mistaken belief that these rights are privileges that government can take away for failure to live up to a standard of behavior or some other criteria. Next we will be told that these are privileges that are only available to those who can afford to pay for the privilege or belong to some organization, like a militia, church or political group. These are individual RIGHTS and not privileges, regardless of what the government or those who would limit our rights would like you to think.
- LenBaird, on 02/10/2009, -0/+31This isn't startling at all. Of course it gives individuals that right. Anyone who reads the plain words without trying to twist it into something that it obviously isn't can see that.
- buddyfarr, on 02/10/2009, -0/+30awesome list...I have no idea what TheMishap is talking about. It is exactly true. The government trying to ban our rights but in the same breath say that it is ok to do the same with other rights. What a load of crap.
maybe by class you should take a handgun class? Do you honestly believe that if you take the guns away from the law abiding citizens that crime will go down? Do you not know that Washington DC has the strongest handgun laws and also has the highest crime rate? There is also a city in the south that it is law that you must own a gun to live in that town and they have a crime rate of almost zero? Please elaborate for us but try to do some research before you do... - Kingj3144, on 02/10/2009, -2/+32The fourth amendment says that my right to "be secure in [my] person, house, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches or seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue but upon probably cause supported by oath or affirmation..."
I am search every time i go to the airport as is everyone and even searched when going into school as is everyone. Either someone has affirmed that we posses dangerous weapons and illegal substances with us at all times or rights don't matter to some. (Public School is technically a government building) - earthwormzim, on 02/10/2009, -0/+29None of the amendments "give" me any rights. To suggest that someone/something can "give" rights is to suggest that it can also deny rights as well. My rights are inherent to my being, and cannot be "given" to me by a piece of paper. I suppose one might say, they are "God-given rights" (even though I'm not religious).
- WBWB, on 02/10/2009, -2/+31"Gun control means hitting your target."
- Egoist, on 02/10/2009, -0/+29Since the Founding Fathers had no concept of the internet or mass communication, do you also believe that freedom of speech should be limited to hand printed leaflets and street corner proselytizers?
You don't "totally agree" with the Bill of Rights. - Starkk, on 02/10/2009, -1/+29Exactly what I was thinking, how the hell are the results startling?
- Nintendesert, on 02/10/2009, -6/+33And where did the weapons for that militia come from Professor? Oh that's right, people's private homes.
-
Show 51 - 100 of 1003 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is 