What is Digg?217 Comments
- MateFrio, on 10/12/2007, -5/+122"Are we at last brought to such a humiliating and debasing degradation, that we cannot be trusted with arms for our own defence? Where is the difference between having our arms in our own possession and under our own direction, and having them under the management of Congress? If our defence be the_real_object of having those arms, in whose hands can they be trusted with more propriety, or equal safety to us, as in our own hands?" -- Patrick Henry
- theblooms, on 10/12/2007, -10/+97Our Founders were probably the greatest collection of minds come together for a single purpose in the History of Mankind. It is a shame that their words and documents are shat upon on a daily basis anymore.
- theblooms, on 10/12/2007, -9/+84This may turn out to be the most far-reaching decision since Brown vs. Board of Education. This will repeal 100's of years worth of blatantly un-Constitutional laws all over the country, (especially those in the North and on the Left Coast) NY, IL, MD, NJ, MA and CA, freedom looks like it is coming!
Congratulations to the residents of Washington, DC. It really is a good day for the Constitution. - RawShark, on 10/12/2007, -0/+69Another good one:
"Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect every one who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are ruined.... O sir, we should have fine times, indeed, if to punish tyrants, it were only sufficient to assemble the people!"
--Patrick Henry - EochaidRiata, on 10/12/2007, -2/+65The 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
----------
"Judge Karen Henderson dissented, writing that the Second Amendment does not apply to the District of Columbia because it is not a state."
Is she seriously arguing that the Bill Of Rights does not apply inside the city limits?
Already on wikipedia: "We wanted to ask her some questions," said one cowering reporter,"but she has removed the First Amendment from the District, so we decided it would be best to stay quiet and take an early lunch." - SW5906, on 10/12/2007, -1/+53Makes sense to me, now law abiding citizens will be on the same page as the illegally armed criminals..
Psst... In case you didn't know already, criminals never followed the laws in the first place...Oh that's right you weren't supposed to know that... - JoshuaLowe, on 10/12/2007, -3/+53Where in the name of common-sense, are our fears to end if we may not trust our sons, our brothers, our neighbors, our fellow-citizens? What shadow of danger can there be from men who are daily mingling with the rest of their countrymen and who participate with them in the same feelings, sentiments, habits and interests? --- Alexander Hamilton
- fisharmor, on 10/12/2007, -2/+52If this gets upheld, DC's in for some big changes.
Like being able to walk down certain streets, and neighborhood beautification efforts as they take the steel bars down from the windows....
....and as DC neighborhoods clean up, Virginia and Maryland will become somewhat less of a housing snafu as people may actually want to live in the District again.... - theblooms, on 10/12/2007, -4/+52"increase in gun violence"
If by gun violence, you mean thugs getting shot by law abiding citizens, then you are probably right. But what WON'T happen is more general gang-banging. That is already as bad as it possibly could get. - sv650touring, on 10/12/2007, -1/+43Wait. Are you implying that someone who was willing to murder someone would have the NERVE to also violate a gunlaw?
I was sure that gun-free areas had some sort of force field surrounding them that kept armed criminals out. The way you say it, it sounds like the law abiding citizens would be disarmed, leaving only armed criminals and disarmed victims. Would government really do that?
Would people really ASK the government to do that? - jrw624, on 10/12/2007, -2/+39This is probably the best news for personal freedoms that has come out of DC in decades.
- subliminalurge, on 10/12/2007, -2/+38@jcm267
"No. I mean thugs will be the first to run to the gun shop. "
Actually, no. Most REAL thugs have a felony or two under their belt, and have had their right to possess a firearm removed for that reason. So the gun shops won't be selling to them.
Besides, any criminal worth his salt can come up with a whole arsenal of weapons for much less money than paying full retail. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -6/+42Unfortunately, I can see a short term increase in gun violence..
No matter how miniscule, the media will report any increase in DC following a lifting of the ban.
My view is this is might be an inevitable consequence, much like a temporary increase in drug use would be if the drug war was ended. Long term, DC would be a much safer place.
Plus... an armed populace in DC is a good reminder to the crooks in our Government. Remember who owns who, *****. - foooey, on 10/12/2007, -0/+35Here's a page full of 2nd amendment quotes from constitutionally significant individuals
http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/RANCHO/POLITICS/RKBA/2ndQuotes.html - cjonpayne, on 10/12/2007, -3/+37Fantastic news. Now that the law-abiding populace can defend themselves, D.C. might finally get itself off the "most dangerous cities" list.
Which means that I might actually want to visit there. - subliminalurge, on 10/12/2007, -4/+36"That being said, do you think that maybe, just maybe, if our founding fathers had seen how different guns are from the primarily muzzle loaded and non-rifled guns of the day, the ease in which you can blow someone away, and the sheer carnage that guns have created, that maybe they would have re-worked the 2nd amendment just a little bit? I think that the current situation would have given them pause."
I disagree completely, if anything, the current situation would have made them MORE insistent that the average citizen have the right to bear arms. And not just handguns, shotguns, and hunting rifles. Full-auto M-16s, too. And hand grenades. And RPGs.
If you read the writings of the people who actually WROTE the second amendment, it's plain and clear that its purpose is not for us to be able to defend our homes from a burglar (although they would have certainly supported that right, as well), the purpose of the second amendment is to guarantee that the citizenry would have the ability to organize and overthrow the government. Considering where thay had came from, they knew all too well that the government would eventually get too big for its britches, as all government do, and the second amendment was put into place to guarantee that when that happend, WE THE PEOPLE, could boot the whole bunch of them out and take back the country for ourselves.
Like they had just done.
THAT is the real purpose of the second amendment. - silenteulogy, on 10/12/2007, -1/+32The thugs already have their "gun shops". The legal ones will get no business from them.
- PickinNGrinnin, on 10/12/2007, -0/+30Another One...
Samuel Adams, of Massachusetts:
"The said Constitution [shall] be never construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the press, or the rights of conscience; or to prevent the people of the United States, who are peaceable citizens, from keeping their own arms." -- Massachusetts` U.S. Constitution ratification convention, 1788
Clearly the thought of protecting the right of peaceable citizens to keep arms was in the thoughts of the founding fathers. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -2/+32good news for us legal gun owners!!!
- theblooms, on 10/12/2007, -1/+30"cite some International law that apparently trumps the US Constitution"
That's an impeachable offense if there ever was one. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -2/+31Some people say that it would be crazy if citizens were allowed to have automatic weapons and tanks etc... but when the Constitution was written, with the 2nd amendment upholding the right of ordinary citizens to bear arms, the guns that citizens had were not any worse than what the government had access to. The combined power of the citizenry would therefore easily surpass that of the government, which effectively keeps the govt honest and in service of the people alone. Now, with our govt having access to weaponry far beyond that of any normal citizen, we're open to potential tyranny. Just thinking out loud, government.
- killinger777, on 10/12/2007, -4/+31"Guns don't kill people, I do" -- Duke Nukem
- nyc2socal, on 10/12/2007, -1/+27"No. I mean thugs will be the first to run to the gun shop.
I'm 100% pro gun, and I think any temporary increase in gun violence after the ban is lifted would be because the ban was in place to begin with. Eventually, gun ownership will rise and crime will plummet."
Ummm.. Criminals don't go to gun shops to buy guns.... Felons are not allowed to legally purchase firearms.. So the criminals that want guns, already have them..
I expect this to decrease the number of violent home break ins. The gun violence will remain the same (due to the fact DC does not allow CCW). - sv650touring, on 10/12/2007, -1/+26I'll wait until they get CCW reciprocity with Florida.
- WikiEasy, on 10/12/2007, -7/+32Hurrary! Screw the liberal media and idiots like Rosy O Donald. There's a lot more at stake here than just random gun violence. The right to bear arms was an act of genius by our forefathers, one which ensures that we, the people, will always have the right of force should our own government become tyrannical.
I can think of many examples around the world, where people have tried to protest against their own governments, only to be shot in the back. The majority were powerless against the tyrants, for they had no means to fight.
The freedom of speech and right to arm are two of the best things to fight government corruption and give power back to the people! Don't ever forget that, and don't ever let fear-mongering hollywood types and the media trick you into thinking otherwise. Don't ever let your government make you think giving guns to the people will destabilize your country. It's just an excuse for them to have all the power. - marshallh, on 10/12/2007, -2/+27You want to know what gun control is all about? It's about hitting what you aim at.
- UnstableMind, on 10/12/2007, -9/+32Hoooor-*****-RAY!!!! It is about time I see some positive news regarding the constitution being used as toilet paper...er parchment. Does this mean that the courts are going to hold people accountable for their actions and not their choice of weapons for the crime?
I take a moment to pause for this wondrous moment. Now, it's time for the next battle...to repeal the PATRIOT Act...
God Bless American Revolution 2.0 - ZombyWoof78, on 10/12/2007, -4/+27This is about people excising their 2nd amendment rights to own a weapon. The fonding fathers gave every American a right to bear arms. The City of DC does not have the authority to take away our constitutional rights. If the city is so dangerous then people have the right to defend their selves. When criminals realize that breaking into a home may get them shot they will think twice about breaking in.
- aurorous, on 10/12/2007, -2/+25It goes beyond any of this... The 2nd amendment is the recognition that the government won't always be their to take care of you. The mayhem in New Orleans after Katrina proves this point perfectly. Are you gonna tell that me you wouldn't want a good pistol by your side if God forbid you were caught in the middle of that mess.
Furthermore the 2nd amendment is the recognition that the government may well be the entity trying to harm you. If, again God Forbid the US Government ever did turn against the citizens and started mass arrests or used military troops ordered to fire on Americans en mass. you would see a portion of the military refuse to obey and probably defect to the other side. Then we have Civil war, and having a dependable firearm in the middle of any war is just simple common sense any idiot would understand.
The 2nd amendment empowers you to take care of your self when nobody else can. - RawShark, on 10/12/2007, -0/+22Next step is an en banc hearing by the DC circuit, then the supreme court.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -6/+28No. I mean thugs will be the first to run to the gun shop.
I'm 100% pro gun, and I think any temporary increase in gun violence after the ban is lifted would be because the ban was in place to begin with. Eventually, gun ownership will rise and crime will plummet. - killinger777, on 10/12/2007, -0/+21Penn and Teller *****: Gun Control
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=2312508445846864220&q=*****+gun+control - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -5/+26They're gonna wanna bring this to the Supreme Court...
I'm afraid we're still 1 justice who actually believes in the Constitution away from this being upheld.
Ginsberg, Breyer, Souter, Kennedy, and Stevens will uphold the DC law as "constitutional". I'm sure someone, probably Ginsberg, will cite some International law that apparently trumps the US Constitution. - sullivans, on 10/12/2007, -2/+23Just a couple of weeks ago, Mayor Adrian Fenty acknowledged the obvious: "We have one of the highest homicide rates in the country but at the same time have the strictest [gun] law."
Washington Times Repeal D.C.'s gun law
TODAY'S EDITORIAL
February 9, 2007
Why do you think this statistic exists? It's because when you ban firearms, your passing legislation that only law abiding, tax paying citizens will adhere to. Conversely, the non-law abiding, non-tax paying citizenry will purchase guns illegally and use them with great advantage over true civic abiders. Even monkeys know how to sharpen sticks and take care of their own. - Dimensio, on 10/12/2007, -6/+27"Wow, the gun lobby is out in force tonight on Digg. Do you people really think that increasing the amount of guns in D.C. is going to lower the crime rate?"
Do you have evidence that it will increase the crime rate?
"You think that criminals are going to avoid committing crimes because other people might be more likely to have a gun?"
Criminals admit that their biggest fear is an armed victim. Why do you think that criminals gravitate to the more gun-restrictive areas when there are multiple districts with varying gun tolerances within a close range? - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+20She has already done it.
- theblooms, on 10/12/2007, -1/+21"I don't think they are going to get CCW anytime soon."
Keep *AND BEAR* Arms? - lilfroger, on 10/12/2007, -5/+23Personally I don't care about the over all rate of gun crimes in any city.
I care about the ability for ME to protect MY family! If some drugged up tweaker is intent on breaking into MY home and taking MY stuff. I am going to send him to his grave.
Crooks are crooks - they are going to do what ever they want. I just want the ability to stop them from do it to me and my family. - dlight, on 10/12/2007, -3/+20Shamelessly stolen from http://www.justfacts.com/gun_control.htm
And I quote Ninti: "Do you people really think that increasing the amount of guns in D.C. is going to lower the crime rate? You think that criminals are going to avoid committing crimes because other people might be more likely to have a gun?"
Americans use firearms to defend themselves from criminals at least 764,000 times a year. This figure is the lowest among a group of 9 nationwide surveys done by organizations including Gallup and the Los Angeles Times. (16b)
* In 1982, a survey of imprisoned criminals found that 34% of them had been "scared off, shot at, wounded or captured by an armed victim." (16c)
* Washington D.C. enacted a virtual ban on handguns in 1976. Between 1976 and 1991, Washington D.C.'s homicide rate rose 200%, while the U.S. rate rose 12%. (1)
* Florida adopted a right-to-carry law in 1987. Between 1987 and 1996, these changes occurred:
Florida United States
homicide rate -36% -0.4%
firearm homicide rate -37% +15%
handgun homicide rate -41% +24%
Source:
16b) Study: “Armed Resistance to Crime: The Prevalence and Nature of Self-Defense with a Gun.” By Gary Kleck and Marc Gertz. Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology (Northwestern University School of Law), 1995. Accessed at http://www.saf.org/LawReviews/KleckAndGertz1.htm.
The study states: “Eleven of the surveys permitted the computation of a reasonable adjusted estimate of [Defensive Gun Use] frequency. Two surveys for which estimates could not be produced were the Cambridge Reports and the Time/ CNN. Neither asked the [Defensive Gun Use] question of all [respondents]; thus, it would be sheer speculation what the responses would have been among those [respondents] not asked the [Defensive Gun Use] question. All of the eleven surveys yielded results that implied over 700,000 uses per year.” [Table 1 lists these studies and various facts about their methodologies. Eight of the 11 studies mentioned above were nationwide surveys. Among these, the range of defensive gun uses per year is 764,000 - 3,609,000. The 9th nationwide survey is the one this study is based upon. It was conducted with the most precise criteria off all such studies, and estimates that Americans use firearms to defend themselves from criminals between 1,900,000 and 2,500,000 times per year.]
3) - Evildudetx, on 10/12/2007, -0/+17FIREARMS REFRESHER COURSE:
1. An armed man is a citizen. An unarmed man is a subject.
2. A gun in the hand is better than a cop on the phone.
3. Colt: The original point and click interface.
4. Gun control is not about guns; it's about control.
5. If guns are outlawed, can we use swords?
6. If guns cause crime, then pencils cause misspelled words.
7. "Free" men do not ask permission to bear arms.
8 . If you don't know your rights you don't have any.
9. Those who trade liberty for security have neither.
10. The United States Constitution (c) 1791. All Rights Reserved.
11. What part of "shall not be infringed" do you NOT understand?
12. The Second Amendment is in place in case the politicians ignore the others.
13. 64,999,987 firearm owners killed no one yesterday.
14. Guns only have two enemies: rust and politicians.
15. Know guns, know peace, know safety. No guns, no peace, no safety.
16. You don't shoot to kill; you shoot to stay alive.
17. 911 - government sponsored Dial-a-Prayer.
18. Assault is a behavior, not a device.
19. Criminals love gun control -- it makes their job safer.
20. If guns cause crime, then matches cause arson.
21. Only a government that is afraid of its citizens, tries to control them.
22. You only have the rights you are willing to fight for.
23. Enforce the "gun control laws" we ALREADY have: Don't make more.
24. When you remove the people's right to bear arms, you create slaves.
25. The American Revolution would never have happened with gun control.
26. "A government of the people, by the people, for the people..." - schwit, on 10/12/2007, -7/+24DC should not BE a state. The few square miles around the Mall, Capitol, White House and Supreme Court should be a federal zone. All else should be given back to Maryland whence it came.
The President's family should be the only residents in this federal area. - bernieg1, on 10/12/2007, -1/+18Every Swiss household that has an adult male must have a gun by law. There is very little crime in Swtizerland.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -3/+19Best news I've heard all day..
- bluto36, on 10/12/2007, -3/+19call we call the wizards the bullets again
- Dimensio, on 10/12/2007, -2/+18If this leads to DC gun laws being relaxed and the handgun ban being overturned, then the blood of the first violent criminal who is shot by a would-be innocent victim is on the hands of these judges. How dare they suggest that innocent citizens have a right to have a means of self-defense?
Wait...would the judges be responsible or would the gun be responsible? I can't tell! Anyone but the shooter! - jackmeyhauffer, on 10/12/2007, -6/+22@pwim
What planet do you currently inhabit? - AnteChronos, on 10/12/2007, -0/+15@SMIKX
"militia = plural individual = singular"
Individual + individual + individual + . . . + individual = militia
If individuals aren't well-armed, then you can't form a well-armed miltita. Pretty simple. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -3/+17http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roper_v._Simmons
http://www.talkleft.com/story/2003/08/03/534/42891
You know there's this thing called "google". I'm getting tired of being challenged for souces when we all have the same Internet to scour for information that isn't exactly obscure. This is like when I was challenged for sources when I said that Teddy Kennedy drove a car into a lake with a girl in it, swam ashore, slept it off, then reported it to the authorities long after the girl had any shot in hell of living.
Search this "google" thing for "ginsberg international law". There's lots more out there. - subliminalurge, on 10/12/2007, -5/+19Oh yeah.....
It's also the reason the government is so desparate to take away our guns.
They know they're pushing the limits of what patriotic Americans are willing to tolerate. - spargett, on 10/12/2007, -2/+16Its really sad when a majority of a city can vote away the minorities constitutional rights.
I fully support the right to bear arms (assuming you're not a convicted felon) and I am a registered handgun owner in San Francisco. -
Show 51 - 100 of 217 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is