What is Digg?310 Comments
- stephenv, on 10/12/2007, -8/+211An unarmed golf course community chock full of valuables. What more could a criminal ask for?
Oh yeah, a map:
http://maps.google.com/maps?q=Nashboro+Village,+antioch+tennessee - ThatGirlTasha, on 10/12/2007, -12/+167Truly outrageous! These HOA are really getting out of control.
- Lyanto, on 10/12/2007, -5/+141This can only fuel the recent resurgence of sword attacks.
- ttony, on 10/12/2007, -15/+137...'m sorry, but my constitutional rights supersede your homeowners' association policy...
- Ryosen, on 10/12/2007, -4/+80@kuribo
Because this attempts to control something in your home, not outside on your lawn.
The argument that HOAs make regarding ornaments, fences, etc, is that it detracts from the property and potentially affects your property value. This is different. It would be similar to controlling the color of carpet, the size of your bathmat, or what type of computer you can own. Sure, gun ownership is controversial, but the result is the same - an attempt at controlling your personal life.
Personally, I would never live in a community that had an Association. My experience has been that they tend to be over-bearing, nosy and offensive people who give every indication that they were bullied and picked on when they were kids and now it's payback time. - Zuggy, on 10/12/2007, -5/+76That HOA actually believes that by banning guns on the properties that criminals, who are out to break the law, will obey the HOA rules. Now that's a special kind of stupid reserved for people who think that they can control the world.
- nepawoods, on 10/12/2007, -3/+69This is the problem with Home Owners Associations. Legally, you give them the right to take away your freedoms. When you buy a home in one of these places, you sign off on an agreement to abide by the communities rules, including changes to rules as lawfully enacted by their committees (lawfully meaning by their laws). They can, and they absolutely do, restrict your free speech, for instance, and the Constitution provides you no protection, as they are not, technically, "the government" ... yet they are a government, and generally they are a government without respect for basic American principles.
The real danger is the huge percentage (I forget, but it's huge) of new home construction that just happens to be in these kinds of developments. This is a bad thing for America. People are signing away their basic rights to little mini quasi-governments that can do as they please, unfettered by Constitutional restraints. - 1Bit, on 10/12/2007, -5/+57"Neighbors said they understand the gun rule is meant to keep criminals out of Nashboro Village..."
Yeah because a criminal is totally gonna obey a gun rule.. - shaun1018, on 10/12/2007, -5/+47What do they expect their residents do when the inevitable zombie horde comes bashing at their door for their delicious flesh?
- brstilson, on 10/12/2007, -6/+42"By living in this neighborhood and being part of the association, they are giving away some of their rights."
Incorrect. No group or entity has the authority to suspend your constitutional rights. Banning guns is exactly the same as banning Democrats, Republicans, Catholics, Blacks, or Gays from living in the neighborhood. You should not have to give away your constitutional rights just to live in a certain area. If what you said was true, then there would be no point to having a constitution in the first place.
I fear for this country because there are too many people like you who are so constitutionally retarded you'd give the BIll of Rights away to the first used car salesman that came along. - pawchikapawpaw, on 10/12/2007, -7/+41or you can just stand idly by while a private corporation strips a citizen of the United States a constitutional right.
only cowards say "not my problem." - blablaman, on 10/12/2007, -6/+32I believe all 50 states have something similar to this. If I'm not mistaken, I think it's called the Second Amendment.
- tdrizzle, on 10/12/2007, -1/+27The state I live in (Minnesota) has laws saying that landlords can't prevent residents or guests from having guns on their property. I'm not sure how many states have similar provisions, but they should.
- Y0tsuya, on 10/12/2007, -3/+28HOAs are so unamerican. Its enforced uniformity and conformity carries shades of of communism.
I already paid taxes to fed, state, and local gubmints telling me what I can and cannot do. Why anyone would want to pay an additional fee to their local neighborhood to further restrict their freedom is beyond me. - pittpat, on 10/12/2007, -4/+26I don't think every moron should have a gun but I also don't want some HOA telling me that I CAN'T have one.
- elnerdo, on 10/12/2007, -2/+22No, you're wrong.
- pawchikapawpaw, on 10/12/2007, -0/+20and because criminals live there, they are sure to obey the gun rule!
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -3/+23^IDIOT!
- member57, on 10/12/2007, -4/+24But the problem is that some people may have moved in BEFORE the ban took place. How do you resolve that, the "don't move there" and "no one is forcing you to live there" smart ass remarks doesn't apply. If I'm not mistaken the Constitution state the all powers not described with the Constitution is given to the States and individuals respectively. The Right to Bear Arms is outlined in the Constitution, therefore cannot be stripped away by a lowly HOA.
- tastypastry, on 10/12/2007, -3/+22HOA = Nazis
- rasterbator, on 10/12/2007, -1/+20as they make their way to their cars, ambush them with bows. that'll teach 'em.
- Blisshead, on 10/12/2007, -2/+21"Neighbors said they understand the gun rule is meant to keep criminals out of Nashboro Village..."
-that is truly and deeply retarded. - zephc, on 10/12/2007, -3/+22"What do they expect their residents do when the inevitable zombie horde comes bashing at their door for their delicious flesh?"
Get eaten would be my first guess. - NSMike, on 10/12/2007, -5/+24Nope, sorry, HOA declarations do NOT constitute law. If you're allowed a gun in the United States, you're allowed a gun in any United States neighborhood.
Hell, if they're not allowed to forbid you putting a TELEVISION antenna on your house, they're not allowed to ***** with constitutional rights. - amoirae, on 10/12/2007, -1/+19Shaun1018:You're supposed to grab your cricket bat.
Oh, and you've got some red on you. - Jagdwulfe, on 10/12/2007, -1/+18Afraid of being killed by a firearm owner when you break into their home?
- Dimensio, on 10/12/2007, -2/+19"I didn't realize American was in such anarchy that its citizens need guns to protect themselves."
Non-sequitur. Need of a firearm for self-defense is not indicative of living in an anarchy. Only an idiot would claim as much. - Mothrog, on 10/12/2007, -2/+18Funny, but the Second Amendment did protect my mother and I when our house was broken into by a thug. A little buckshot took all the fight out of him. The police my mother called didn't come for another half an hour. Had my shotgun not been in the house, they'd have been good for little more then cleaning up bodies.
- spyd3rweb, on 10/12/2007, -3/+19The right of the PEOPLE (ie: Citizens) to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed. It does not say the right of the militia.
And you call yourself an American.. what a disgrace. - d00ley, on 10/12/2007, -2/+18HOA's suck. They are the antithesis of America. When visiting a friend's parents in Phoenix, I was completely shocked to learn that they had to receive approval for the colors they used when decorating the INTERIOR of their homes.
- jjb123, on 10/12/2007, -2/+17Criminals will get guns, they already plan to break the law. The reason the second amendment exists is because if there is one thing dictators hate it is citizens with guns. It is insurance that no government will ever take over without giving the citizens the tools they need to take back there country.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -4/+19Sorry we don't live in a fascist regime. Us Americans like our freedom. I wouldn't want to be under your country's education system as you can't even put two and two together; it's gun ownership of the civilian so if a tyrannically controlled government were to ever be installed like the british then we could revolt.
- jonohull, on 10/12/2007, -2/+16"the right of the People to keep and bear arms"
I am "people." - ronh, on 10/12/2007, -2/+16Yeah it's kind of pesky, you know people having the right to defend themselves.
- brianbennett, on 10/12/2007, -2/+15...isn't this an invitation for burglary?
- TheChance, on 10/12/2007, -3/+16Left wing or right wing, we have to agree adults have a right to be protected and own arms.
-From a damn "bleedin' heart" lib - Mothrog, on 10/12/2007, -1/+14Not necessarily. Some states have the castle doctrine, under which someone who illegally enters your home may be considered a lethal threat. But, in my case, that argument is purely academic as the 250 lb 6 time felon was attacking my mother when I came into the picture.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+13Does it mention crossbows?
- monergism, on 10/12/2007, -1/+13You don't need a guy everyday. True. The days you do though, you'll be glad you have it.
- thenativeraver, on 10/12/2007, -2/+14http://www.ghertner.com/Email.asp
Tell them what you think! - KibibyteBrain, on 10/12/2007, -4/+16@argabob Its difficult to say if one can surrender their 2nd amendment rights under the language of the constitution. Many rights can be willfully surrendered because of the language, but the 2nd amendment has very strong language on "shall not be infringed". It does not seem like someone could write a bulletproof way around in that in a contract. This is the same reason why someone also cannot sign away their protection from slavery, etc. Constitutional rights are inherent, so the wording is very critical.
- InfamousAtheist, on 10/12/2007, -0/+12When guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns.
Or HOA policy violators. - master_of_fm, on 10/12/2007, -4/+15i have seen this floating around the net a couple of times, always a good read (sorry it is a little long)
40 REASON TO BAN GUNS
-----------------------------------------------
1. Banning guns works, which is why New York, DC, & 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 seatbelts, 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 is 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. - Johnagain, on 10/12/2007, -2/+13@MortonMaxwell, you are wrong, wrong, wrong
1) The first part of the sentence is justification for the second part, not a restriction.
2) This has been tested in court many, many times. The government cannot take away my gun unless I am a convicted of a felony.
3) Are there any 'registered' state militias??? - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -1/+12the right to bear arms is a constitutional right. it, like freedom of speech, freedom of press, etc. can all be supressed on private property (consider a private school, for example; you get kicked out if you say the wrong thing). however, slavery is constitutionally banned and can this be exercised nowhere. thus, private property can always add more restrictions than the federal government (like revoking freedom of speech). it cannot take away restrictions (like banned slavery).
just to clarify. - spyd3rweb, on 10/12/2007, -2/+13FTA "Neighbors said they understand the gun rule is meant to keep criminals out of Nashboro Village..."
That is the STUPIDEST thing i've ever heard, this is like putting up a big ass neon sign saying 'ROB ME IM DEFENSELESS'
You want to keep CRIMINALS out of your neighborhood equip the residents with assault rifles and give them proper training on how to use them. No criminal in their right mind would go within 10 miles of the place once they heard their buddy Bubba got turned to swiss cheese. - Mothrog, on 10/12/2007, -1/+11When the Constitution says the states, they mean the states. When the Constitution says the people, they mean the people. The only way you can believe that interpretation of the Second Amendment is to ignore all the history surrounding the Second Amendment, Supreme Court jurisprudence, and all period material written about the Second Amendment. Read the DC Gun Ban decision. It's enlightening.
"Little more can reasonably be aimed at with the respect to the people at large than to have them properly armed and equipped..."
-Hamilton
"Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation..."
-Madison (that would be the guy that wrote the Second Amendment)
"The signification attributed to the term Militia appears from the debates in the Convention, the history and legislation of Colonies and States, and the writings of approved commentators. These show plainly enough that the Militia comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. 'A body of citizens enrolled for military discipline.' And further, that ordinarily when called for service these men were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at the time."
-US v. Miller - nepawoods, on 10/12/2007, -1/+11@ Seidoger
"Come on now! Like you need to use it everyday. If no one had any, then nothing would happen."
How about your government? They don't have any? Because if they do, you should. - EnergyPolice, on 10/12/2007, -0/+10Laws cow the law abiding.
This may not include most current forms of government.
Boy Scouts Motto: 'Better to have it and not need it, than to need it and not have it'
CYA - Mothrog, on 10/12/2007, -3/+13Anyone who believes in the collective rights theory of the 2nd Amendment ought to take a look at the recent DC gun ban court decision. It pretty well shreds that little theory. As far this homeowners association bit is concerned, just what was the purpose of this? The criminals in your community won't give up their guns, nor will it stop criminals with guns from entering your community. Grow a brain.
I do wonder if they're going to try to apply this to current residents, and if the contract allows such a change like this. More reason not to move somewhere with a HOA.
"Am i the only non-American who thinks that Americans are a little bit overzealous over that "bear arms" thing? Come on now! Like you need to use it everyday. If no one had any, then nothing would happen."
Yes, you are. In the US, we take our freedom seriously. I may not need to exercise the freedom every day and am glad that is not the case, but that does not negate the 2nd amendment's importance. The 2nd amendment involves the freedom with which all other freedoms are secured. The peoples' right to keep and bear arms represents the final check on the government.
As far as your idea that if no one had any guns, that there would be no crime, that's ridiculous. Crime exists everywhere, and will continue to exist everywhere, regardless of the existence or non-existence of guns. Guns will also always be in the hand of criminals. All making a gun takes is a lathe and milling machine, and some metal. There's no effective way to ban a machine as simple as a gun. Criminals wouldn't be disarmed, honest citizens would be. I see no point in that. -
Show 51 - 100 of 307 discussions
Digg is coming to a city (and computer) near you! Check out all the details on our 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is