What is Digg?Sponsored by HowLifeWorks
How Much Are You Over-Paying For Your Auto Insurance view!
howlifeworks.com - Car insurance rates have dropped leaving many people paying far more than they need to...
267 Comments
- satx, on 10/15/2007, -4/+72Wait, wait, wait... Are you trying to tell me that there's a hypocritical politician? Wow. I need to let that soak in for a minute...
- davecor, on 10/15/2007, -7/+71If you truly believe that people shouldn't have guns, you should be proud of that position. You should hold your head up high and tell the world. You should put a sign in your yard that says "This is a gun free home!".
...Criminals prefer unarmed victims. - RuffRidr, on 10/15/2007, -14/+74More from the 'Do as I say, not as I do' idiots.
- inactive, on 10/11/2007, -8/+65You're walking down a deserted street with your wife and two small children. Suddenly, a dangerous looking man with a huge knife comes around the corner and is running at you screaming obscenities. In your hand is a 9mm Glock pistol, and you are an expert shot. You have mere seconds before he reaches you and your family. What do you do?
The LIBERAL'S Answer:
Well, that's not enough information to answer the question!
Does the man look poor or oppressed?
Have I ever done anything to him that is inspiring him to attack?
Could we run away?
What does my wife think?
What about the kids?
Could I possibly swing the gun like a club and knock the knife out of his hand?
What does the law say about this situation?
Is it possible he'd be happy with just killing me?
Does he definitely want to kill me or would he just be content to wound me?
If I were to grab his knees and hold on, could my family get away while he was stabbing me?
This is all so confusing!...I need to debate this with some friends for a few days to try to come to a conclusion.
The CONSERVATIVE'S Answer:
BANG!
The TEXAN'S Answer:
BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! Click Click (sounds of magazine being ejected and fresh magazine installed).
Wife: "Sweetheart, he looks like he's still moving!
Son: "Mom's right Dad! I saw him move!"
BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG!
Daughter: "Nice grouping, Dad!" - inactive, on 10/15/2007, -30/+78Just as a broken clock is right twice a day, there are Democrats who know that self-defense is not a political right, but a human right. This guy is obviously not one of them. But here are a few sites of liberals who actually stand up for the Second Amendment. They're still screwed up on every other issue, but they've managed to stumble upon the truth on this one. You little diggers need read no further. You might be in danger of learning something.
http://www.progunprogressive.com/
http://www.a2dems.net/
http://www.liberalswithguns.com/
http://www.pinkpistols.org/ - jmpeagle, on 10/11/2007, -4/+40gun control: the idea that a 100 pound woman should fist fight a 200 pound rapist
Don't worry. Democrats have jumped off that issue for good. It lost them the house in 1994 and they have no chance of winning the presidency if they press it because they are dependent on the swing muntain states that are very pro-gun. Government should not be allowed to disarm its population. It has no right to do so. And people who say owning small arms cannot fight off the world's most advanced military and therefore could not fight off oppression, then look at the Iraqis who are doing just that. - norman619, on 10/11/2007, -2/+36Gun control is just a tool to disarm the average person. Anyone with a brain knows criminals don't buy their guns from gunshops. Plus they have full access to guns which are already baned. A few years ago in NYC a street gang was busted with a freaking rocket launcher. Last I checked those are already illegal and that fact didn't seem to stop them for obtaining it.
- Wargalas, on 10/11/2007, -3/+35Perhaps you should read that article again.
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.
It uses the Militia as an EXAMPLE and then goes on to state that THE RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED.
It is NOT the sole justification for people to bear arms. There's historical documentation that states that the framers of the Constitution knew that a well armed populace wouldn't stand for a tyrannical government, which is why they put that in there. Perhaps you should read a bit more before making broad statements. - rettix, on 10/11/2007, -7/+36Kind of reminds me of the saying "A Democrat is just a Republican that hasn't been mugged yet".
- Muyoso, on 10/11/2007, -5/+32I am a militia of one.
- inactive, on 10/15/2007, -8/+30..........that is 100% *****. The 2nd Amendment has nothing to do with a militia...that is just another myth created by the liberal left gun grabbers. The first 10 Amendments (also known as the Bill of Rights) apply to INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS.
- davecor, on 10/11/2007, -1/+23Mwayne wrote; "Do you have any clue as to what the phrase "well regulated militia" meant in 1789?"
A Militia is made up of farmers and townsfolk who own their OWN weapons, and can be called to fight if the need should arise.
When the Canadians/Mexicans/Zombies attack, your local gun club would essentially be your militia. I'd rather have them around than not, and I have NO WORRIES that I'm going to get shot by a member of the NRA. - manstein01, on 10/11/2007, -1/+22That's utter garbage. Anti-gun nuts fabricated that argument out of thin air as an excuse to regulate arms.
Maybe you can explain to me why every other amendment that says "people" applies to the people, while when the second amendment (IE the one you do not agree with) says "people" it only applies to militias.
The right to bear arms - and the right to defend yourself is a human right. If it's taken away, things turn out like Great Britain, where thugs and robbers have more rights than the people they pray on. - Muyoso, on 10/11/2007, -2/+21Yes, cause wanting to protect your family, or liking the hobby of target shooting, wow, what pansies we must all be.
- cpixelante, on 10/11/2007, -0/+19“A fear of weapons is a sign of retarded sexual and emotional maturity”.
-Sigmund Freud
Also, next time a criminal threatens your life or your families life, just whip out you're huge penis and club em. - Muyoso, on 10/11/2007, -3/+21The militia argument is invalid because you have to SERIOUSLY misread the words to come to that conclusion. It specifically says the right of the PEOPLE to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
- kellymahan, on 10/15/2007, -1/+17Even if his intent wasn't to kill he still shot the man while he was running away after already throwing his knife. By the standard anti-gun crowds definition of not using more force than is required... he would still be in the wrong.
Thats why you should have the right to defend yourself whatever means are available if someone else is a danger to yourself, your family, or your private property. If you choose not to use deadly force when someone attacks you then thats your choice, just don't force others into giving up their rights. - ki1022, on 10/11/2007, -3/+19Make sure you remember that when you need a gun to protect yourself or your family.
- Muyoso, on 10/15/2007, -6/+20Yea, cause sniper rifles are so commonly MISUSED. Stop being a retard. Assault weapons, machine guns, sniper rifles, all of the things you are afraid of, are the LEAST likelly to be used in a crime. Even though other than machine guns, handguns are more regulated than all of the other guns. And also, I highly doubt you even know what constitutes a sniper rifle or a machine gun.
- inactive, on 10/11/2007, -5/+19So can you explain for everyone what distinguishes a sniper rifle from a deer hunting rifle?
- glock22ownr, on 10/11/2007, -0/+13You forget that everything is bigger in Texas... Pops woulda had a .45 not a 9mm!
- HarryBauzonia, on 10/11/2007, -1/+14That's what he wants the rest of us to do.
- inactive, on 10/11/2007, -0/+13Sounds like a great idea! I'm sure we could find a group of people willing to make these signs and provide them free of charge. I'm in.
- Muyoso, on 10/11/2007, -5/+18You are an idiot. The legislation you quoted is more damning than if he was just anti-gun. He doesnt want people to defend themselves in their homes, yet he, instead of retreating, confronted the thieves and shot them. According to his thinking, he should be tried for assault with a deadly weapon, cause he did not retreat. We will see if he pushes for his own prosecution. Also, there is 0 indication he shot the guy in the leg for any reason other than that is the only thing he hit. You never aim for anything other than center mass, and as a former cop, he would surely know that.
- Mothrog, on 10/11/2007, -0/+13Like these?
No freeman shall ever be debarred the use of arms.
---Thomas Jefferson: Draft Virginia Constitution, 1776.
[The Constitution preserves] the advantage of being armed which Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation...(where) the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms.
---James Madison,The Federalist Papers, No. 46.
[C]onceived it to be the privilege of every citizen, and one of his most essential rights, to bear arms, and to resist every attack upon his liberty or property, by whomsoever made. The particular states, like private citizens, have a right to be armed, and to defend, by force of arms, their rights, when invaded.
14 Debates in the House of Representatives, ed. Linda Grand De Pauw. (Balt., Johns Hopkins Univ. Press, 1972), 92-3. - iceperson, on 10/11/2007, -1/+14So you're implying that when someone has broken into your home you have an obligation to find out what their intent is before you defend your family?
I can see it now:
You: Hey there, are you just a trespasser are a thief/aggressor.
Rapist/Murderer: Nope. Sure not. Just passing through, you know you're out of Mayo?
You: OK, I'll go back to bed while you leave peacefully. - popularnerd, on 10/11/2007, -2/+14You liberals will criticize just about everyone for racial profiling or "racism" against minorities, yet you do it to southerners at every turn.
- inactive, on 10/11/2007, -2/+14Wrong. Any use of a firearm is recognized as "deadly force".
What do you mean "Shoot first, ask questions later"? In the article, it says that he confronted the men, and did not shoot anyone until a knife was thrown at him.
If someone comes in my house and starts throwing knives at me, you can bet your ass I'm gonna do something about it. - cawpin, on 10/11/2007, -0/+11There's a guy at my gun club that owns a printing business. I'm pretty good friends with him.
- VAXcat, on 10/11/2007, -0/+11 In Texas, using a firearm is considered "deadly force" by law, even if you just shoot someone in the leg.
- popularnerd, on 10/15/2007, -1/+12Guess what's in both of your legs!
THE FEMORAL ARTERIES! Either of those babies get breached, you're going to bleed out pretty ***** quick! So next time you decide your going to shoot someone in the leg as it's "less dangerous", I hope you remember your basic high school anatomy! - popularnerd, on 10/11/2007, -0/+10Let's see here.
The H&K PSG-1 is chambered in 7.62x51mm NATO which is simply a high pressure .308 Win cartridge commonly used for Deer hunting.
The SVD Dragunov is chambered in 7.62x54R which is almost the same size.
The Barret M82A1 is indeed chambered in 12.7x99mm (.50cal) and is commonly used to attack lighly armored vehicles and or bears and other large game.
The PSG-1, if you can find one, costs roughly 12,000-15,000 USD. About the same as the Barret. The SVD is quite difficult to procure in America, but if you could find one, it'd would set you back quite a bit.
In short, only one of these rifles is "high powered" and all of them are well out of the reach of the common criminal. - Muyoso, on 10/11/2007, -1/+10First of all, stealing is more than standing on some grass. Second of all, you never know when the person who is robbing you is freaking raging on some drugs and will decide to kill you and your family. If you want to be a perpetual victim, please put a sign outside your house that says its a "Gun Free Zone" and let the criminals come and ravage your house and family. Those of us that care about the people we love, and the things we worked our asses off to pay for, will not stand by and let little thugs go ahead and steal it from us because they are poor and lazy or psychotic.
- skrowl, on 10/11/2007, -1/+10'Do as I say, not as I do' from a liberal? Noooooo, certainly you jest!
Next you're probably going to tell me that Al Gore doesn't live a green lifesytle! - Twinked, on 10/11/2007, -0/+9You sir are an idiot. The thief was trying to loot the copper wiring in the house to sell it. It's not like he was taking a short cut across the guys lawn. He was stealing and probably damaging the property to get to the wiring.
- VAXcat, on 10/11/2007, -1/+10 So, if the amendment said "A well educated populace being desirable, the right of the people to keep and read books shall not be infringed", you'd argue that only libraries can own books?
- JAVandiver, on 10/11/2007, -2/+11The standard US issue M24 is bretty much just a beefier Remington 700 which can be found for between $400 to $500 at a sporting goods store near you. Just the way it should be!
- MaynardJK, on 10/15/2007, -0/+9*****. He opposed a bill that said you don't have to try to escape before you defend yourself. He didn't try to escape before he shot the guy so he is clearly a hypocrite.
- OwdenBowden, on 10/11/2007, -1/+10Saleem - Do you actually think before you speak? The 2nd amendment is not about a "well regulated militia" it is about everyones right to Self Preservation. All might I add without the reliance on any Government to do that for us. Further it was put in place to keep the people in power on their toes and looking out for the "we the People" so that they did not have to ability to screw around with us.
You might want to pick up a book or two that is not a strategy guide nor has a flying wizard in it. - mtekk, on 10/11/2007, -0/+9Yes, we all should be equal in the eyes of the law.
- norman619, on 10/11/2007, -0/+8Like I said before, if this guy was a cop at some point then he was trained to shoot to kill. Only an idiot shoots to disable. Notice how the ploice will not shoot you when you run from them. They chase you down and sometimes throw in a nice ass kicking for making them chase you. I can imagine your dumb ass now... "But officer I didn't mean to kill him. I was shooting for his leg!"
- irvman21, on 10/11/2007, -0/+8Can you tell me how many times someone didn't break into my house because of the large NRA sticker I have on my front door? I don't need to have shot someone for my firearm to be an effective deterent.
- cryptodecker, on 10/11/2007, -0/+8^--edit--^ The whole argument for militia is an argument that founding father's have made as one of multitude of reasons. But it has been shown to be a right they wanted for the population for defending themselves against tyranny, foreign aggressors, and domestic aggressors.
- manicallday, on 10/11/2007, -0/+8Here in DC our thugs are a protect species. Nobody can have guns except for them.
- Wargalas, on 10/11/2007, -0/+8I have used a weapon to protect my home one time. Neighbor was making noises in our shared backyard (no fence between us) when he was waiting for his wife to come home from work one night. Normally he works very early, so the sounds he made that late at night made be believe it was an intruder. (small condo complex). Anyways, he got the shock of his life when I saw a shadow go by my window and I rushed out of the house with my AR-15 pointed at him and I'm butt naked (I'm 6'1 and 275 pounds). As soon as I saw who he was, I lowered my weapon and apologized. He was very understanding and thanked me for "keeping an eye out for bad guys in the neighborhood". he never looked at me the same way though. I think it was the gun/fat/***** flapping in the wind combo that did him in. :)
- Muyoso, on 10/11/2007, -0/+8Because you never know if the guy stealing copper pipe is on meth or PCP and will bludgeon your face in with the pipe and rape your wife and family?
- jmpeagle, on 10/11/2007, -1/+9I say we have the swiss system where every adult male is required by law to own an automatic weapon
- NikoKun, on 10/11/2007, -0/+7Never ban guns... Cause it wont take them away from criminals... -_-
- vertinox, on 10/11/2007, -0/+7@"Not only is that legally and historically inaccurate, it serves no one's interests except GUN MANUFACTURERS."
Its true. The 2nd amendment is about citizens right to bear arms (not just guns) and form militias in case of a tyrannical government. However, everyone (including gun defenders) ignore this fact.
In truth, the fact you can own a licensed gun is pointless because the government has banned superior weapons in the hands of its citizens. You can't own full automatic weapons, nor anti-tank, and anti-aircraft weapons.
Even if you had a fully auto AK-47 do you think you can really do anything about a M1 Abrams tank or a bomb dropped from a predator drone. "Arms" by the spirit of times of the constitution meant muskets and cannons which was the most advanced weapons of the time. Had we had tanks and anti-tank weapons, the founding fathers would meant for them to be arms as well.
However, no one really pays attention to the constitution anymore so its a moot point either way... - Oracle95, on 10/15/2007, -0/+7I remember it was discovered that Rosie O'Donnell's bodyguards were all armed with concealed handguns. Her excuse was she needed to protect herself and her kids due to her celebrity status.
We're all created equal, but some of us are more equal than others. -
Show 51 - 100 of 267 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is