What is Digg?567 Comments
- Valmorgan, on 11/25/2007, -28/+264Apparently the gun grabbers just dont understand my second ammendment right to protect myself is non negotiable. period. Governments are historically the largest killers of thier own people, just ask Hitler, Mao, Stalin... and just before they rounded up political dissidents, there was a gun grab. Every time.
- georgemason01, on 11/25/2007, -3/+170"The strongest reason for people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government." - Thomas Jefferson
- sharpfork, on 11/25/2007, -10/+129I'm glad the supreme court is finally going to clarify the (lack of) constitutionality of the gun bans. I sincerely hope they overturn the bans not only because they are unconstitutional, also because they don't work. Gun bans take protection out of the hands of law abiding citizens, not weapons out of the hands of criminals.
BTW- it is possible to be a pro second amendment, pro Constitution liberal- I'm one. - matador3, on 11/25/2007, -2/+89"Laws that forbid the carrying of arms...disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes...Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man." - Thomas Jefferson
- mancat, on 11/25/2007, -6/+74There is NOTHING to debate here. The handgun ban in Washington DC is clearly unconstitutional, and should be repealed immediately. This doesn't require any mulling over on the part of the supreme court.
If we allow the government to begin "revisiting" the constitution in our current political climate, I predict that we will end up with some seriously frightening results. - argoff, on 11/25/2007, -4/+67I think at any other time in US history I'd welcome this because it is so obvious that is it an individual right. But the US is moving into fascist mode so quickly as of late, and the supremes were so screwed up about their eminent domain ruling that I fear this could be used as a pretext to attack gun rights.
- vvaduva, on 11/25/2007, -7/+69In Romania, when the communists came to power, the first thing they did was to go from house to house and confiscate ALL rifles, pistols and shotguns. I would not say it's impossible. If some whacko gets power in this country, it's not inconceivable. Guns have always been a threat to thuggish governments and dictators. Washington DC is not one of the most violent cities for nothing.
- dumpyhumpy, on 11/25/2007, -5/+66RE: "If some whacko gets power in this country..."
Where the ***** have you been the last 7 years? - elvisB, on 11/25/2007, -11/+59They can't take hundreds of millions of guns out of the hands of tens of millions, it is physically impossible. If the NWO doesn't already feel over-extended, they should try a nation wide gun ban. They are panicking and slipping up big time in my opinion.
- latrosicarius, on 11/25/2007, -2/+45wait wait wait.... so.... a ban on guns actually prevents guns? Well, we should just ban crime then!!! That will solve all problems immediatly
- benedictkenny, on 11/25/2007, -3/+41Actually, no.
The purpose of having the right to these arms is to be able to defend yourself against the government as well.
As long as the government uses these weapons, the people should be able to use said weapons, lest they constantly be outmatched and overrun by the arms of the corrupt government, because they possess inferior weapons.
It is VERY obvious that the government is no longer a government for the people, by the people, for the people. They are a government of the ruling minority, for their own profit. They act on their own interests, and hold down "the people." They are a threat, and as such, it is moronic that you are advocating making it the rule that for some arbitrary reason, they can and should always be more powerful than the people that they are betraying. - DukeMojo, on 11/25/2007, -1/+38I'm one as well.
Though beyond liberal or conservative I am a constitutionalist. The Bill of Rights is in my eyes one of man's greatest steps in politics and freedom, as great or perhaps greater than the Magna Carta. - thejokell, on 11/25/2007, -2/+34They don't have fighter jets and tanks in Iraq, but how is our war against them going?
Just because a group is less technologically advanced doesn't mean they pose no threat. - barrt814, on 11/25/2007, -1/+33This is the most controversial amendment in the Constitution simply because a well armed populace has the ability to stand against tyranny. You take away the guns, under-fund schools, and immerse the populace in entertainment that draws attention away from the real issues and you now have total control. Already our media outlets are not required to tell the truth, only what they want you to hear and believe.
Don't ever give up your guns. Home school your kids if your area schools are crap and always look for the truth behind the news. - StormyAaron, on 11/25/2007, -2/+32Yet your argument works against you. Look at Sweden it's safe to say close to every one owns a gun yet gun crime is rare, same with Finland.
- alex7575, on 11/25/2007, -1/+31I never owned a gun and hopefully never will. That said, the 2nd amendment was put there to ensure that the people would have a fighting chance against their own government, in case that same government went against the will of the people. This is obviously a failsafe for a catastrophic situation, but none the less, in a catastrophic situation wouldn't anyone want ANY fighting chance they get?
If we kill the 2nd amendment we may be killing that last fighting chance we have, even if it's SYMBOLIC. - matador3, on 11/25/2007, -16/+43" A well regulated law enforcement agency, being necessary to the security of the police state, the right of the government to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."
-the liberal 2nd Amendment - TheHighPrivate, on 11/25/2007, -4/+30It's not just the well regulated militia that has the right, it's the people.
- consoneo, on 11/25/2007, -4/+30Being a member of the Military myself, I believe your comparison is flawed. We are a volunteer force. When there is a draft, then there may be a moral right to bear arms in defense of the country's sovereignty.
- valkyries, on 11/25/2007, -2/+27actually it happens alot.
- inactive, on 11/25/2007, -1/+25Handgun is outlawed in Canada.
- Dragular, on 11/25/2007, -1/+25So does that mean that if they ban guns in this country we'll all start being addicted to tentacle rape porn?
- Izacus, on 11/25/2007, -26/+49And yet you do nothing, when your government is killing your people in Iraq and lying to you. Why have the guns then?
- whatsupimphil, on 11/25/2007, -3/+26I don't know why they even bother. DC has no shortage of unregistered guns, they are only taking them away from people who want to do things legally.
- fpssledge, on 11/25/2007, -1/+22Anti-gunners and Pro-gunners can argue all day about whether or not we should be allowed to own firearms or be allowed to own certain firearms.
I've heard the anti-gun argument plenty. There's only one flaw in their arguments. I've never heard anything about restricting firearms from our government. I'm not talking about the military. I'm talking about all levels of gov't. From the Secret Service or FBI, down to your local Sheriffs office.
Why is it, that certain individuals have a right to bare arms, while as a citizen, you can't? Why is it, that someone can join the military at 16 (with parent signature) and learn how to effectively kill someone using a fully automatic firearm (or grenades) yet, as a civilian, they can't purchase a simple pistol until the age of 21? Why is it that Lawmakers will allow their bodyguards to carry fully automatic weapons for "security" while (in some circumstances under the Brady Bill) some people are not even allowed to purchase a single shot .22? Could it be that lawmakers think they are more important than the people who pay their salaries? I hope not. I hope lawmakers trust citizens to make good decisions. Afterall, the people are who voted for them.
The point is, it doesn't make any sense for firearms to exist to one group of people, and not exist to the other. The gov't is the most powerful organization in this country. For someone to tell me that the gov't are more responsible with firearms than I am is incredibly discomforting. This concept only leads to one conclusion. More power to the gov't and less power of the people.
So in case my point hasn't been made; Regardless of one's stance on gun restriction is, the restriction should apply to EVERYONE within the boundaries of the United States. This is the only way to ensure equality. Until then. Don't waste everyones time - itseffinkasey, on 11/25/2007, -1/+21I just got back from a gun show down here in socal, and let me tell you. A LOT of people are not going to let this just slide by. Also I would like to add that there was a Ron Paul booth and it was getting some good amount of attention.
- Rikkochet, on 11/25/2007, -3/+23Correlation is not causation, jesus christ. Watch Bowling for Columbine again, even Michael Freaking Moore doesn't suggest they are related.
The US simply has a violent culture. - knomevol, on 11/25/2007, -8/+27i do look forward to their decision: we'll have an opportunity to see in a very clear-cut fashion whether the honorable justices are going to rule as the Constitution demands.
- subterfuge, on 11/25/2007, -0/+19anyone who quotes jefferson gets dugg by me
- ettin, on 11/25/2007, -11/+30Now how am i supposed to hunt neocon's if the liberals take my guns away?
- JonForTheWin, on 11/25/2007, -4/+23>Just as a locality can require permits for protests, or you can't freely speak certain things
Which are also unconstitutional. - guairdean, on 11/25/2007, -1/+20From Title 10 Section 311 of the United States Code:
(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.
(b) The classes of the militia are—
(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and
(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.
=============================
The militia consists of the citizens. Individual citizens. The reference to males is invalid since gender is no longer a qualification, and the upper age of 45 is under revision. The law is clear, we are the militia.
To those arguing about assault weapons, Remember that assault weapons are, by legal definition, fully automatic weapons. They can only be owned by paying the proper tax and filing the proper paperwork. The assault weapons the media cries about are simply ugly semiautomatic rifles. Their funtionality is no different than a hunting rifle. Don't fall for that lie. It leads to too many others. - guardianzero, on 11/25/2007, -0/+18"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."
I see what you mean. The SCourt is gonna need to define what the amendment means by "the people." Is it the people in the militias? or the citizens in general.
*Note: imo, there's no way the court is gonna rule in favor of gun control, but one+ judges probable will. - inactive, on 11/25/2007, -13/+313...2...1 till someone from the UK gives a smart ass remark about banning guns because they think we walk around with assault rifles shooting at everything that moves.
- badqat, on 11/25/2007, -3/+21Only problem for the libs is that "militia" isn't a government or law enforcement agency. Some libs like to claim the "militia" refers to the National Guard, which is bogus.
Any why do libs insist that of the entire Bill of Rights, only the second amendment is aimed at the rights of government? - cranium, on 11/25/2007, -1/+19There's no way the 2nd amendment was meant to keep the government from disarming itself, which is how most liberals interpret the thing. That interpretation doesn't even make sense. Clearly, the intent was to make sure we have an armed populace from which we can raise an equipped militia if need be.
- badqat, on 11/25/2007, -1/+19Sheesh...the Bill of Rights is about individual freedoms all "people" enjoy. Spin it however you'd like, but "the people" includes all of us, and we do have the right to not only possess, but to bear our arms as well.
- lebaige, on 11/25/2007, -4/+22I totally shouldn't be able to have a gun because you don't want me to. That makes perfect sense. Lets apply that logic to all facets of society while we're at it and see what we end up with.
- forgiste, on 11/25/2007, -1/+18The militia that it speaks of is a militia of the citizens. The founding fathers understood well the need for the people to pick up arms and overthrow sick government from time to time in order to preserve our civil liberties.
- ezco506th, on 11/25/2007, -2/+19You are really very good at getting dug down. How-do-you-do-it?
- victimofkratina, on 11/25/2007, -0/+16Why dont we go after the cause of gun violence such as lack of education, unemployment, etc.
- Urusai, on 11/26/2007, -0/+16That's great, but the US federal government has no sovereignty (see 10th Amendment). Sovereignty resides in the states and the people. That's why we have a right to bear arms, to keep the federal government from overreaching its delegated and limited powers. Look up the Founding Fathers' comments on the subject.
- theblooms, on 11/25/2007, -2/+18The First Amendment is just a remnant from revolutionary days. It has no meaning today!
Your Logic = If I didn't have this printing press, the King of England could just walk in here any time he wants, and start shoving me around. - tdrizzle, on 11/25/2007, -5/+21The second amendment should applied the same as the first. Banning handguns is no different than banning certain forms of speech.
- FoolishMortal, on 11/25/2007, -3/+19It happens all the time. It just doesn't make it to the news because it doesn't sell news as well as the gang member who got an illegal gun and used it in a shootout 6 states over.
- EmperorAwesome, on 11/25/2007, -0/+16You fail to take into account the fact that the vast majority of murders in Japan are committed by ninjas, who dispose of the bodies.
- bigj480, on 11/25/2007, -0/+15 If they rule against the 2A, it would not change much. Politicians already ban guns, which is anti-2A IMO. The opposite outcome would change a lot, however. Gun bans would be deemed unconstitutional. The question is, how far reaching would this be? If you can't ban handguns, could you ban rifles or shotguns? Presumably, no. What about "assault rifles"? automatic weapons? bombs? etc. I personaly draw the line at WMDs ;^)
BTW, fighting the government with handguns would be a VERY bad move. - latrosicarius, on 11/25/2007, -1/+16seriously... what's there to "examine". Gun restriction laws are blatantly unconstitutional.
Even gun registration with the federal government goes against the whole point of arming the people, so that if the government oversteps their bounds, the people can take action. That's the whole point of the ammendment. - theworldisflat, on 11/25/2007, -3/+18DC is obviously the safest place in the country if it doesn't allow firearms...
As we all know, logic and politics rarely go hand in hand. And we also know crimminals always purchase their firearms legally...
The saddest thing is it took this long to fight the illegal act. - vvaduva, on 11/25/2007, -1/+16Regulated by whom? According to your logic only the military has the right to bear arms.
How about the fact that the second amendment has NEVER been interpreted as you propose? The "people" have those rights, not some convoluted group that liberals like you get to define. -
Show 51 - 100 of 559 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