What is Digg?Sponsored by Travelzoo
$52 and Up—Airlines Slash Fares On Peak Holiday Flights. view!
travelzoo.com - This year, waiting until the last minute is NOT the best strategy. See why.
1242 Comments
- tkstock, on 06/26/2008, -26/+505Yay. The court upholds the constitution!!
- thomasblair, on 06/26/2008, -30/+481'Tis a sad day when we celebrate a decision upholding what we already know. That the issue even needed to go this far is a testament to just how much we've let the government trample our rights.
- d3matt, on 06/26/2008, -29/+461and it was thus proven that there are people in washington DC who can pass a simple reading comprehension exam (which is what the SCOTUS's job is)
- mickpimpin, on 06/26/2008, -27/+355I am surprised it was a 5-4 decision. It seemed very cut-and-dry.
- FastEP3, on 06/26/2008, -27/+309Well there goes most of the anti-gun folks argument.
- Sumyunguy, on 06/26/2008, -20/+249Lock and load...Maybe DC won't be the murder capital of the US anymore...
- GhostyBoy, on 06/26/2008, -9/+236I'm anti-gun but I support the 2nd amendment.
What I mean is that I don't like guns, won't have them in my home, and prefer to live in places where the majority do not own or use guns. However, the constitution was written for a reason and I don't think the supreme court should be able to override it.
What freaks me out is that this bill was 5-4....that's way to close for something so clearly defined in the constitution. - dennugsmello15, on 06/26/2008, -39/+249Thank god!
- Kent4jmj, on 06/26/2008, -10/+189"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."
A citizens right to bear arms is not just for personal use and protection but is necessary for the "Security of the State." From whom or what? Think about the context within which it was written and it becomes obvious. From a government taken over by tyrants who are abusing the people. - snapplellama, on 06/26/2008, -14/+167At least it's a step in the right direction. I'll agree with thomasblair, though. It's sad when we proclaim victory when these rights are clearly defined in the Constitution.
- yuppiexj, on 06/26/2008, -26/+171I can't wait for "the gun ban is constitutional" Obama's retraction/flipflop.
- penguinsix, on 06/26/2008, -16/+158One would think groups like the ACLU would be jumping up and down at this, a conservative court EXPANDING the rights of the citizens (or recognizing the right that was already there), but I doubt it...
- inactive, on 06/26/2008, -20/+156Score one for the constitution
"If guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns" - Minarchian, on 06/26/2008, -21/+150I was a hallow victory, but a victory nonetheless.
They left open liscensing, bans on AK-47s and all sorts of bad crap against our Right to own a weapon.
Notice how they say "in the home" when they talk about our Right?
If it's only in the home, then how do we get the weapons there, teleportation?
This is just the first salvo for returning our 2nd Amendment. The Court has left the door wide open to abuses by the Government, even while saying we have an individual Right in the 2nd Amendment. - FastEP3, on 06/26/2008, -2/+129You know that is a great attitude to have. I do not agree with a lot of things that people legally do.. that does not mean that I push to outlaw these things, I simply do not partake. It seems like common sense to me. I wish the world was a place where I did not feel like I needed to own a gun to feel safe.. sadly my feelings on gun ownership were confirmed earlier this year when I had to protect myself with a handgun(luckily no shots had to be fired, just having the tool was good enough to avoid possible death or serious injury and further destruction of my property)
- badfrog, on 06/26/2008, -8/+119I'm really looking forward to not seeing the "Are you in the militia?" crap anymore!
- juankovo, on 06/26/2008, -17/+122If you were going to rob a local convenience store, would you rather rob the one where none of the customers and employees had guns, or the one where ALL of the customers and employees had guns? http://www.gunowners.org/
- dafragsta, on 06/26/2008, -22/+125Yeah, uuuh... why the ***** was this a split decision? You're slaves people. The SCOTUS can't even make a cut and dry constitutional decision. The dissenting votes should be tarred, feathered, hung, and castrated for treason.
- 0xbaadf00d, on 06/26/2008, -5/+106Pretty sad that it was 5-4
- rthakidn, on 06/26/2008, -6/+107Scary isn't it?
- RuffRidr, on 06/26/2008, -7/+106The ACLU has traditionally not stood up for gun rights, holding the position that the 2nd Amendment was a collective right. It will be interesting to see if they change their position now that the meaning has been cemented as an individual right. If they do not, they risk coming off as hypocrites who pick and choose the civil rights they deem worthy of defending.
- Phughu, on 06/26/2008, -14/+106About damned time
- DaDrake, on 06/26/2008, -5/+96Don't forget... Obama publicly stated he would support ANY national handgun ban OR semiautomatic ban when he was a candidate for senator. Obama has "turned down" his rhetoric against guns because he understands its a loosing position.
Support for the 2nd Amendment is an AMERICAN ISSUE .... not a partisan issue. - franklymister, on 06/26/2008, -12/+101Why do people think the 2nd Amendment has to be some kind of conservative/liberal litmus test?
I'm very liberal, and I'm an absolute believer in our Constitutional right to keep and bear arms.
I know there are plenty of us gun-totin' liberals out here, so I think it's ridiculous that people are calling this a conservative victory. It's an American victory. - ducksoup31, on 06/26/2008, -19/+108Finally.
- brjohnson789, on 06/26/2008, -9/+98I disagree. To me, a 'right' is something you can exercise without worrying about getting permission from someone else. The court ruled that for the 'right' to bear arms, you can be forced to get a license first. Why can't this requirement to get a license extend to other rights?
- ikbrooks, on 06/26/2008, -15/+93In 5-4 decision, affirm Constitution confers individual right to bear arms....
It appears we are safe...for now! Only time will tell when and where the assault on our rights will continue. Are you packin? I am! - DaDrake, on 06/26/2008, -22/+95I am proud to be an American today. The 2nd amendment is a RIGHT and many fought and died to protect it.
GO USA!!!!! - DaDrake, on 06/26/2008, -13/+83The ACLU is fairly selective in what rights they defend.
- oconnor11, on 06/26/2008, -14/+84I'm surprised the Supreme Court was split so closely but I'm glad the majority took the high road.
- RuffRidr, on 06/26/2008, -4/+73Oh, he'll still be pushing his "reasonable restriction" spiel (such as the ridiculous no guns within 5 miles of a park or school). Count on it.
- Wargalas, on 06/26/2008, -5/+73And when bad things happen, gun owners like me will gladly come to your aid because you respected our rights to own firearms.
- wreckosaurus, on 06/26/2008, -7/+71I used to be anti-gun, but then I got married and moved to a city with a bit of a crime problem. I've heard one too many stories of innocent people getting beaten up or even killed because some crack head wants to score a hit. I'm absolutely outraged whenever I hear news like that, but now that I have a wife, I have an even stronger reaction. It's a completely different mindset when you have family to protect, and imagining one of those ***** assaulting my wife is too much to bear. If she's going somewhere at night, or somewhere where there aren't a lot of people around, I go with her. But without a gun, there's only so much I can do to protect her. Any law abiding citizen should be able to purchase and keep a gun, and soon I will have one too. Good work on upholding the constitution SCOTUS.
- oilcan, on 06/26/2008, -4/+68liberal here, thinking it's pretty cool that the constitution wasn't trampled upon for once.
:) - bigj480, on 06/26/2008, -1/+61 I dugg you up even though I have nothing against guns and happen to have many, even the "scary" "military style" ones. Gun owners are not trying to force anyone to agree with our decision to own guns, we only wish that they would realize that individual gun ownership IS protected and should stay that way. I thank you for you respect of the constitution. I have to add that more guns does not equal more crime, many places have far more guns than DC, NY and CA and many of those places have FAR less crime. Crime goes up when legal gun ownership is restricted, ask the UK.
- bigj480, on 06/26/2008, -1/+60 I agree, it's ridiculous. Imagine if the 1st amendment read like this "Publications, being necessary for the dissemination of information, the right of the people to speak freely shall not be infringed."
Would they then contend that only publications can speak freely? - Kythas, on 06/26/2008, -8/+67The mayor of DC just announced that semi-automatic handguns are still illegal in DC. This means that you will only be able to register and own a revolver type pistol in DC.
I'm sure the predators who are already illegally carrying semi-automatic pistols in DC will limit themselves to only 6 rounds in their clips to make things fair. - RonnyIsRondo, on 06/26/2008, -3/+61That was close I was about to "accidentally lose" my gun.
- brjohnson789, on 06/26/2008, -22/+79This opinion is total garbage. In order to exercise this 'right', the court ruled that the government can make you get a license. They put no limits on how much the license costs, or what sort of hoops you have to jump through to get the license. This implies the government can make you get a license to exercise any right now! Want some free speech? No problem, just fill out this form and pay a fee. Oops, your old free speech license expired, BAM, you get arrested for speaking out against the gov't on a street corner. THAT'S the reality of this decision.
- rthakidn, on 06/26/2008, -2/+58It's frightening that a discussion on something clearly written into the constitution is needed, while "interpretations" fly daily out this land's courts.
- puter, on 06/26/2008, -6/+61um, yes.
Statistically that has been the case. Anywhere gun control was made stricter saw a significant increase in violent crimes.
DC saw a significant hike in gun deaths as compared to the rest of the US when they established their gun control laws.
Criminals carry guns and don't care if they break the laws. Establish strict gun control and the only people you are preventing from owning firearms are the people who won't use them illegally. - chokeumout, on 06/26/2008, -2/+55Yeah we were one vote from having laws like the UK!
- Cheezo, on 06/26/2008, -49/+102YES!!!!! and now the wailing and gnashing of liberal teeth will begin
- brjohnson789, on 06/26/2008, -2/+55Its a step in the right direction for the 2nd amendment, its a step backward for all rights. According to this ruling, the gov't can require a license for any 'right' now. To me this is much worse than if they had just ruled the 2nd amendment is just for militias. At least then I wouldn't have to worry about in the future getting a license to write my opinion here on digg.
- Barackalypse, on 06/26/2008, -10/+62Sorry Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton, I know you refused to join the 55 senators and 250 House members that signed on to a brief asking the Court to support Heller and asking the court to fully affirm the lower court ruling. Its pretty shameful that even Dick Cheney and John McCain were on the correct side of the issue.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,338282,00.html - inactive, on 06/26/2008, -5/+54From the opinion:
There are many reasons why the militia was thought to
be “necessary to the security of a free state.” See 3 Story
§1890. First, of course, it is useful in repelling invasions
and suppressing insurrections. Second, it renders large
standing armies unnecessary—an argument that Alexander
Hamilton made in favor of federal control over the
militia. The Federalist No. 29, pp. 226, 227 (B. Wright ed.
1961) (A. Hamilton). ******Third, when the able-bodied men of
a nation are trained in arms and organized, they are better able to resist tyranny****** (emphasis mine). - cheesecake42, on 06/26/2008, -4/+51us having guns keeps the government's power in check 100 times more than any other amendment.
- lndmn01, on 06/26/2008, -1/+47Actually, they did. The purpose of the second amendment is to insure that he people have the ability to use an amount of force equal to that of the government in order to overthrow the government if it encroached on our constitutional freedoms. In theory, the people of the US should be allowed to maintain a citizens army, air force and navy to keep our government in check.
-
Show 51 - 100 of 1365 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