What is Digg?15 Comments
- dayal911, on 06/26/2008, -0/+5Thank god for the conservative judges on the panel. I guess the deciding vote was declared by Antonin Scalia, a conservative appointed by Reagan.
- elijahputnam, on 06/26/2008, -0/+5Finally.....We have a constitution again.............sort of. I would fire those scum bags who voted no in the Supreme Court. Teach them what the 2nd amendment means.
- edmoser, on 06/26/2008, -0/+4Great decision. Studies have shown that crime drops when criminals know there's a chance they could be the ones getting shot if they break into a house. Still not happy about the Kennedy decision, though.
- macdady843, on 06/26/2008, -0/+3Also to re-iterate my pro gun stance i would like to say to any gun right opposers that the Bill of Rights is for PERSONAL freedoms and liberties. Your argument that the 2nd Amendment only applies to state militias is absurd and holds no weight. And it looks like finally we have obtained that ruling. Thank God.
- Insomne3065, on 06/26/2008, -0/+3About time! Everyone has a right to defend themselves; now they need to make this a federal ruling.
- macdady843, on 06/26/2008, -0/+3That's constitution - 1
Wacko activists - 0
Maybe we do have sane judges up there in the supreme court somewhere - FinanceBuzz, on 06/26/2008, -0/+3I am not advocating this, but if they try to turn over the 2nd Amendment now, I suspect there are some people out there that will start a war over it.
- Sumyunguy, on 06/26/2008, -0/+3hmmm...maybe DC won't be the murder capitol of the US anymore!
- PawnsOfJoshua, on 06/26/2008, -0/+3To ask people to give up their right to own personal firearms and trust their protection to "state militias" is about on par with asking the U.S. to disband its military with the understanding that the U.N. will provide our protection. Both scenarios are equally absurd. You cannot make anyone safer by taking away their ability to protect themselves. Also, the criminals who commit crimes are going to continue to acquire firearms via the black market, like they always do, and so all you are really doing is taking away a level playing field from the innocents. I cannot believe there is really this much argument over this - though I am liberal on most issues, gun control is simply brainless pansy ideology.
- BigManOnCampus, on 06/26/2008, -0/+2I think you assume that human nature has changed in 200 years, you assume that wrongly.
Humanity hasn't changed much in 10,000 years, much less 200. People will still kill you if they feel they need to for survival. Humans with a functioning brain should be allowed to defend their functioning brain because the police cannot be everywhere all of the time. - inactive, on 06/26/2008, -0/+2Yeah and the main form of communication back then was the quill....Does the first amendment only apply to communications used in "that era"? You overturn the SA you better hope no one attacks the first.....
- FinanceBuzz, on 06/26/2008, -0/+2Way to go, Supremes!! And now the Court has settled the question – the Second Amendment applied to individuals and not just militias. A victory for freedom in America! And, as much as I do not like him, it is decisions like this that makes it absolutely critical that we hold our noses, close our eyes, and vote for McCain. Obama cannot take away guns now, but there is still much a liberal court could do.
- dfsw, on 06/26/2008, -0/+2What is shocking about this is that the vote was so close. Now we just need to appeal against the overly restrictive laws in NYC, Chicago, and California.
- EntropyFan, on 06/26/2008, -1/+1Most of the personal rights of individuals have changed, as have their interpretations. In some cases expanded, and in others they (the courts) have adjusted them based on modern technology.
The problem with the SA is people want it to be an absolute, cut and dry with no adjustments for the passage of time.
Laws about privacy and how that applies to computers were not scratched out with the quill. We have allowed for and made interpretations and alterations..
The same cannot be said for personal firearms. - EntropyFan, on 06/26/2008, -2/+1I wonder if this will start a serious debate about overturning the 2nd Amendment entirely.
Whether you like the 2nd amendment or not, you have to agree the times have changed. The main weapon of that era was a musket. A pro could fire 4 times a minute with a max range of ~75 yards. And in that era, unlike today, most adults would have had training with firearms, and have been familiar with their use.
Sadly, I think this will just continue the name calling and mindless shouting on both sides, instead of stopping and looking at the problems/benifits guns are in modern America.
Browsing Digg on your phone just got easier with our enhancements to the 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is