What is Digg?Sponsored by HowLifeWorks
How Much Are You Over-Paying For Your Auto Insurance view!
howlifeworks.com - Car insurance rates have dropped leaving many people paying far more than they need to...
468 Comments
- acceptab1euname, on 10/12/2007, -22/+206I hope that argument doesn't pass muster....it'd be scary to see other cities or states trying to argue the same. Maybe those lawyers were forgetting that in the days that the Bill of Rights was written the Milita *were* the individual civillians. In those days 'regulated' meant 'well trained and disciplined', not 'government ordained and restricted'.
More info here:
http://www.guncite.com/gc2ndmea.html
Opposing viewpoint here:
http://www.bradycampaign.org/facts/issues/?page=second - GlenLeafJr, on 10/12/2007, -26/+140"everywhere that has banned them from normal unqualified citizens has had a decrease in gun crime and general homicide"
That sir is a lie!
The crime rates in Great Britain and Australia have sored since the prohibition of firearms. And despite how the media portrays it the crime rates have been falling in the US for 20 years. - GeneralAntilles, on 10/12/2007, -15/+113And what are you going to do when the zombies come?
- talldean, on 10/12/2007, -12/+88warriorscot, your ideas are quaint, but they're not based in fact.
Britain, for example, has more violent crime than the US, and it certainly isn't caused by guns. (Their rate of violent crime exceeded the USA in 2004, and has been stuck there ever since.)
In a localized example, Washington DC, the capitol of the United States, has more crime than most other cities. Handguns are absolutely illegal there, resulting in between a $5,000 fine and five years in jail. The 'lack' of guns doesn't seem to be causing a lack of crime; much the opposite, in fact. - Inverno, on 10/12/2007, -10/+82@warriorscot
The problem I have with banning guns in the US revolves around the fact that they are so common now. Let's say I own a rifle that I used to use for hunting, and Joe Blow owns a pistol for breaking into peoples homes. Guns become banned, I turn mine in, Joe Blow does not. See the problem now? - lordmetroid, on 10/12/2007, -27/+94Their is no law that can do anything to you unless you cooperate. It's your right as a sovereign individual of the state of whatever you live in to defend your property in the way of monarchs of the old world. If you need guns, if you need Anti-tank weaponry, if you even need a tank than you can have one to defend your property. That is if you can afford a tank. Because you are the ruler of your property and no paper of law can remove your rights unless you give them up voluntarily. Yes, living like a free man is not easy, do you think the kings and queens had it easy defending their rights? It can even be lethal to defend ones rights. But if you don't do it, you will become a subject and a servant to whatever authority you choose to obey.
- littlebylittle, on 10/12/2007, -11/+76Out of my cold, dead hands.
- GeneralAntilles, on 10/12/2007, -3/+60Firearms aren't the problem, illegally obtained firearms aren't the problem, people who go out and rob, rape, murder, and steal are the problem. If it weren't guns, it would be swords. If it weren't swords, it would be rocks. Bad people will always find tools for the job but the beautiful thing about guns is that _anybody_ can use them, be they your grandmother or yourself. They are the great equalizer, without them we'd still be at the behest of whatever lord of the castle were in power. America as you know it would not exist (remember, bunch of farmers who got together and shot up the British?). Guns are never the problem, people who kill other people for greed, sport or just plain evilness are the problem.
- OSDAgent, on 10/12/2007, -6/+58Firearms are not the problem. Illegally obtained firearms are the problem. So taking guns from legally abiding citizens will do nothing, if little at all, to solve any sort of crime problem.
- revisrev, on 10/12/2007, -0/+52Freedom isn't easy, it's not supposed to be. The price of freedom is eternal vigilance right? People say they want freedom, but what most of them really want isn't freedom, but convenience and complacency. What people from other countries don't seem to get is they don't need guns because if they get owned by their government they can always call on us to bail them out. We do not have that luxury. If the US Government goes full police state, just who the hell is going to bail us out?
The UK?
The UN?
China?
When a government is as powerful as ours is already it is very important that it remains fearful and respectful of its citizens. Let's not forget that these freedoms are the very thing that drives the American Spirit. Sure, once we lose them we'll still have the spirit for a bit, but it would soon wane, and with it our power as a nation.
America is a powerful nation not necessarily due to freedom, but moreover, the perception thereof. They started taking rights away from us not long after they were declared, but they were able to maintain the perception. Now we have the internet, and every little freedom-hating thing that our government does is broadcast to millions, and so it's not as easy for them to keep up a fake perception. This is why we have such fervent right vs. left debates in the country. The problem is that both sides would like to take away some freedoms, they just pick and choose which freedoms they aim at. We elect a republican and they attack free speech, expression, and our rights to our own body, we elect a democrat and they attack gun and property rights. Each time one gains power they take rights, and nobody is ever restoring them.
New political parties need to be made. Well, one's already here, and that is libertarian, or Goldwater Conservatives. It doesn't really matter what you call the other one, but let's just say that it's the "police" or "communist" party. One is for freedoms, one is against. Of course that would degrade over time as very few will actually knowingly vote to lose their freedoms. So then we'll be back to our two parties screwing us from both ends.
I suppose what we really need is to learn to respect the rights of others. So, the second amendment isn't important to you, but the first is. Respect them both. They are important to somebody, and may become important to you in the future. Any American who is for losing liberties has forgotten the face of their father (dumb reference, but fitting). They have forgotten all of the brave men that died defending these freedoms. They lack the clairvoyance to see the light at the end of the tunnel they're taking off into. That light is control, and oppression. There is no free and complacent. There is only free and vigilant, or controlled and complacent.
I guess I could keep going, but it doesn't matter. Those who would be best served reading this have already made their minds up that complacency is more important than freedom. Everybody else is the Choir, and I'm done with my Saturday Sermon. I knew my mom named me Rev for a reason... - LaueOfficer, on 10/12/2007, -5/+56"Some right wing nut."
Who, in this case, is completely correct. - turnpaugh622, on 10/12/2007, -4/+55This is why Americans(US) want their firearms. This is the preamble to the Declaration of Indendence.
"...That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles, and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness...."
We would hope guns would not be necessary but we still have the right to defend out rights against an armed government too.
Also It is my personal opinion that we, and everyone else, should be allowed firearms to defend ourselves, our country and our government against invading forces. - Bushlied, on 10/12/2007, -26/+77Please God make the madness stop! This is my rifle their are many like it, but this one is mine. If you chose to confiscate my rifle, you better be willing to make the ultimate sacrifice to disarm me. The day owning a rifle is illegal, is the day we find out who is truly American.
- kavaliro, on 10/12/2007, -8/+58@warriorscot:
You underestimate how many criminals there are in the U.S. As much as we like to say that most of them are working on Capitol Hill, there are droves of them everywhere. The fear of getting shot is a great deterrent for crime. See Kennesaw, Georgia. Everyone MUST own a gun and ammo in their home there, and there's just about zero break-ins. Lack of fear of getting shot is why cops even THINK of ***** like the Rodney King beating. What we need is more guns, not less, because without them the U.S. would instantly be as much a police state as Nazi Germany was. Heck, it almost qualifies, now.
To those saying it doesn't apply to individuals, what!? That's just the dumbass in you talking. Since anyone can form a corporation or business, anyone could get around them restricting "individuals" from having guns, anyway. But who else would it apply to? Take away guns from individuals, and you MUST take away guns from the police as well--they are not a militia (since they, by design, have no military connection whatever), they are local law enforcement.
Or you could go with the second definition: militia: the whole body of able-bodied male citizens declared by law as being subject to call to military service. In that case, the whole argument pretty much dissolves, doesn't it? - lordmetroid, on 10/12/2007, -24/+72warriorscot, you don't get it!
The people of the states in the federal U.S. are all sovereign. Just like any king or queen doesn't answer to anyone but themselves. So are the people of the states of America. As declared in the declaration of independence and also shown in their federal and state constitutions.
If you are sovereign you can do anything you like as long as you don't violate someone else's property and rights. And if you someone does so you will have to defend your property, your rights and yourself. That is why it's so important to have the means to defend yourself from anyone that like to violate you, being a sovereign person and not a subject under any regulations from any authority is what makes or at least made the states of the new world so wonderful. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -6/+51The "War on Guns" is so blown out of proportion its not even funny. In New York City, on average, 1 person dies each die from a gunshot. Sounds serious? The city has about 8 million people. How many people die per day due to heart attack, stroke, or cancer?
We really need to stop funding the War on Drugs, the War on Violent Video Games, and the War on Guns - and start funding the War on Reality.
/bush - twinklyJesus, on 10/12/2007, -1/+41It is illegal to possess a handgun in NYC, yet the crime involving handguns statistics are unbelievable. Why don't those criminals abide by the law?
- jermm, on 10/12/2007, -7/+47I'd say this is bad, just because what they could take away next.
- koolaide, on 10/12/2007, -5/+41I know, it sounds like a great thing; no guns anymore! Crime should just stop, right?
Unfortunately, wrong. When there's a gun ban, the only people that actually turn in their guns are good law-abiding citizens. Know who won't turn in their guns? Criminals. Which means that good people don't have anything to defend themselves with, and criminals know that, making it easier to rob people. A perfect example is Chicago which has seen a HUGE increase in gun crime (I don't have numbers, but I did write an essay on this about a year ago and did extensive research). - mozacq, on 10/12/2007, -3/+38I second OSDAgent: firearms are NOT a major problem in the United States, their illegal use and procurement is however. What can probably be interpreted as a "redneck response" is that we are still allowing people to own cars, matches, gasoline, wood stickks, kitchen knives, and everything else people use to kill people every year. The problem is not the tool, it is the person. Some might even suggest that gun safety be taught in Home Economics in schools, just as other safety rules are. I grew up growing up with a FIRM understanding of weapons safety, and because of that, I've never accidentially shot anyone. When we fear, we sometimes choose not to understand, and look to blame elsewhere.
- nfulton, on 10/12/2007, -22/+56I thought we learned who was "truly" american when we found out who supported torture of prisoners by US troops, imprisonment without trial or representation, etc. This nation stands for more than gun rights . . . (but it stands for them too)
- Captj, on 10/12/2007, -1/+35As though they let militias, in the true sense of what they are (armed groups of people (possible intentions of keeping gov't in check)), exist.
- gotamd, on 10/12/2007, -0/+34DC's ban on handguns just doesn't work. I live right outside DC and on the local news I constantly hear about shootings and armed robberies in the city. As the saying goes: if you make guns criminal, only criminals have guns.
- rdotson, on 10/12/2007, -8/+42If any government attempt is made to ban firearm ownership by individuals, then I'm prepared for a shootout. Yes I know I would die, but it would be a honorable way to go - especially if I were able to take out at least two or three scumbag jack booted government thugs beforehand.
P.S.
Make sure you have stock up on plenty of ammo, because it will become very hard to get once the government goes totalitarian. - chosenone-, on 10/12/2007, -2/+35Notice that most massacres have happened in gun-free zones. Limiting a law-abiding citizens ability to carry a weapon will do no one good because criminals with illegal weapons don't care one bit. Yes, the problem is out of control and no it can't be solved by passing more legislation. The minds are what need to be changed, not the law.
- cdlavalle, on 10/12/2007, -5/+34Looks like the militias' enlistment numbers are about to jump!
- Muyoso, on 10/12/2007, -0/+28From Penn & Tellers ***** on Gun Control (which you should all watch):
"Read the words. A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state. Sure, you need an organized military force to defend your country, but the right of the PEOPLE to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed. This is the PEOPLE, in contrast with the MILITIA. It doesnt say the right of the MILITIA to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed. It says the right of the PEOPLE. Now why the word "people"? Because the PEOPLE who wrote this had just fought a war for TWO YEARS, against a tyrannical state MILITIA. They knew the time might come when they would have to do that again, so they made the possession of weapons a RIGHT, that the MILITIA could never take away. Now gun control advocates say the phrasing is Clumsy and the comma seperating the STATE from the PEOPLE is just a PAUSE to get your breath. HA, Strange they can't seem to point out any other places where those HACK framers, ***** up the wording."
Words in caps for emphasis. - donleyp, on 10/12/2007, -0/+27@plugues
Valid discussion, yes, but it is not the court's place to rewrite the constitution. We have a process for that: ammendment, which is necessarily a much greater hurdle than a simple court case. - zizzybaloobah, on 10/12/2007, -1/+28Indeed, and look how much good its done -- especially in Southeast DC.
- brstilson, on 10/12/2007, -0/+27""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."
It says the right of the PEOPLE, not the right of the MILITIA. It's quite clear. - wickedlogic, on 10/12/2007, -1/+27"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 well-regulated militia, is important, so the people should be allowed to bear arms and we should not take that away.
It doesn't say militia people or militia members, the goal is to have enough people able to use guns that the militia could get people who shoot guns at all. WTF is going on in this country. I'm tired of being told I need saving, America and Americans need saying from this over reaching government. - GeneralAntilles, on 10/12/2007, -0/+26See, but to get silencers, sawed-off shotguns, short barrelled rifles (broomhandle Mauser types, pistols with stocks) you have to pay the outrageous tax (and hope that they approve your application, since they usually don't) or get them illegally. Automatic weapons are a whole different story, you have to be approved by a federal judge, pay the taxes, get your application processed (again, maybe) and then pay anywhere from $2,000 to $200,000 to buy a gun because the supply has been fixed. The government defines illegal, the government does not have your best interests in mind. More and more guns are going to become illegal until we end up with a complete ban and it wont just be violent criminals that have to get them illegally.
- HMTKSteve, on 10/12/2007, -3/+29States with concealed carry laws have seen a decrease in gun crime, and crime in general.
When the sheep are as well armed as the wolves the wolves go hungry. - felchdonkey, on 10/12/2007, -6/+32I would have dug you up if it weren't for your moronic statement about Democrats.
A lot of us are gun-totin' liberals, and proud of it. - Anubis2051, on 10/12/2007, -6/+31Let's hope this doesn't work.
- arcangelgabriel, on 10/12/2007, -18/+43Because voting Republican has brought us a utopia unequaled in the history of civilization.
/? - Inverno, on 10/12/2007, -9/+33"A well armed populace is the best defense against tyranny." ~Some right wing nut.
- GeneralAntilles, on 10/12/2007, -3/+26The 2nd amendment in the guarantee that backs up all the other amendments. Because without the right to defend yourself, the government can do whatever it wants to you and Hey! Presto! we've got a totalitarian regime again.
Yes, I've heard the "But they have TANKS!" argument. They don't seem to be working very well over in Iraq, they didn't work very well in Vietnam, either. Modern organized militaries don't fight guerilla movements well. Who do you kill? Your mother, your brother, your aunt, your uncle? - dbldwn, on 10/12/2007, -1/+24Most of the greatest human rights tragedies in the world's history have begun with a disarmed populace.
- david76, on 10/12/2007, -8/+30"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."
Interpretation of the 2nd Amendment from the DOJ:
http://www.usdoj.gov/olc/secondamendment2.htm#2c
There's plenty to read at the above link, but the jist of it is that the 2nd Amendment preserves an individuals right to bear arms. The right is not framed within the context of a militia, as "A well regulated militia" is a prefatory clause.
"Although the Amendment's prefatory clause, standing alone, might suggest a collective or possibly quasi-collective right to a modern reader, when its words are read as they were understood at the Founding, the preface is fully consistent with the individual right that the Amendment's operative language sets out."
I, for one, frequently argued the amendment provided for the right within the context of a well regulated militia, but after reading the DOJ explanation, it is clear this interpretation was inaccurate.
While I admit the amendment grants the individual the right to bear arms, I think many take the spirit of this right too far. Unfortunately, this right, intended to ensure freedom, has been manipulated and taken out of context to ensure everyone has the right to carry a machine gun if they so please. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -8/+30"Remember that the next time you vote for a Democrat."
I'm a Democrat and the leader of our state legislature is a Democrat and we both have carry permits. We had lunch with the county sheriff (also a Democrat) the other day and all had a big laugh that we carried bigger guns than he did.
And none of us voted for a draft-dodging drunken frat boy from Connecticut pretending to be a religious fighter pilot from Texas.
There has to be some reasonable regulation of firearms. I supported background checks at gun shows and restricting where you can shoot some weapons like .50 caliber sniper rifles. We live out in the twigs and there still isn't any safe direction to point a rifle with a 2 kilometer range.
Don't know about anywhere else, but if the court decided that the 2nd Amendment didn't apply to individuals...which I highly doubt will fly...I know at least one legislature that would make sure it applied in this state.
And I'd invite you to air your opinion of Democrats out loud at any of the little restaurants around here...pick one with about 20 pickup trucks outside. Just let me know so I can bring the video camera. Because the ass-whipping you'd get would definitely be pay-per-view material. Or maybe you could just STFU. - tweaked, on 10/12/2007, -0/+22I'm glad that 2nd amendment advocates are saying what they really mean in this thread. There is no possible justification for the US government removing the right to bear arms, even (especially!) if as cited on that Brady Campaign page, the states already have 'National Guard' regiments that constitute their 'well-regulated' militia. Especially when Bush has just signed into law a bill allowing him to unilaterally take control of those national guard regiments...
Arguments about protecting your property from robbers and such really miss the heart of the matter. I'm not even an American, and I understand that the intention of the 2nd amendment is to maintain the ultimate sovereignty of the American populace over its government. No matter how good the protection of the government can get, it doesn't give them a reason to take away the right to bear arms, because those arms are ultimately for protection AGAINST the government.
For all the exaggerated talk of GWB being a 'fascist' and such, I don't think it's entirely farfetched that something like what happened in 1930s Germany could take place in the US, where a democratically elected president suddenly decides to take dictatorial powers for themselves with the backing of the military, or a paramilitary force. If and when that happens, gun-control advocates are going to be mighty thankful that their "whack job" neighbours have crates full of automatic weapons in their basements.
I'm a pretty left-wing guy, really, but this is one issue on which I do see the validity of the libertarian perspective. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -1/+23Fear ANY government that is afraid of an armed populous.
If they are afraid of honest law abiding citizens having guns, there IS A REASON for them to be afraid.
The next step is….. Well, you guys really don’t need control of your money, we should take it and distribute it correctly. That would be the easiest way.
Then Well yes I know you want to work as a tire changer, but we really need more bricklayers, so you are going to do that now. Its easier that way. - lordmetroid, on 10/12/2007, -9/+29I would say remember that when you vote for any of the left, right options... Libertarian party(the upwards away from totalitarianism in both the sense or moral regulations(republicans) and economical regulations(democrats)) is the only future that I can possibly imagine for the states.
- ceemeister, on 10/12/2007, -0/+20People, remember that the Bill of Rights does not enumerate the rights of Americans! By default, Americans naturally possess every right as sovereign people. That's why our rights are called inalienable. The Bill of Rights is a document that specifically restricts the Government from interfering with certain key rights in its exercise of governance.
For example, the Bill of Rights does not guarantee religious freedom, that is a side effect of prohibiting the government from favoring any particular religion. The First Amendment does not guarantee free speech--that is a natural right--but it justly forbids the government from infringing on that right.
And the 2nd Amendment does not give Americans the right to bear arms--as with any right, that's a given. Instead it forbids the government to infringe upon the right to keep and bear arms. (The additional explanation about militias is merely one reason given for this restriction on the government. but it does not exclude other justifications.)
I emphasize, the Bill of Rights does not define what rights Americans have--it instructs the government what the government is NOT allowed to do.
But it's all meaningless unless the Bill of Rights and Constitution is enforced and upheld, and over the last 200+ years we've suffered from an increasing defiance of these limits as an ever more powerful federal governments seeks to reserve all rights to itself and dole out only those liberties it sees fit to the people. - CiXeL, on 10/12/2007, -1/+20@ rdotson
or learn to pack your own shells
its alot easier than you think - masamunecyrus, on 10/12/2007, -7/+26The best alternative to voting Libertarian, I believe, is to vote for an all Democrat Congress, but continue voting for a Republican president. That way, both parties have to work together and agree to solve anything because either the Congress can turn down a bill or the President can veto it. The best government is the most confused and weak government.
- bobbknight, on 10/12/2007, -1/+20One must look at the words:
The Right Of The People
If the right of the people does not stand for an individual, than the whole meaning of the following parts of The Bill Of Rights have no meaning.
AMENDMENT ONE
AMENDMENT FOUR
AMENDMENT NINE
AMENDMENT TEN
Of course nine and ten have been wash away by the courts. - Socolco, on 10/12/2007, -2/+20I guess the real goal is to create a genderless society, unarmed, indentured to debt, devoid of freedom, politically correct, physically beautiful and morally corrupt, heavily medicated consumers driven by radical religious idolatry perfecting more efficient ways to kill greater numbers of people while preserving real estate, keeping profits high and wages low, creating fictitious enemies to conquer in a black and white world while being overly entertained. But we can look and feel great, being empty shells devoid of any semblance of humanity while we bury ourselves in post consumer waste. Bound to the mindless paradoxes created by a two-party system that's the same under the surface. In order for the system to work, individuality cannot survive or it'll destroy the group-think mentality and form an alternate reality and real choice. We can't have that.
- StanleyKoolPrik, on 10/12/2007, -4/+21*****. If the founding fathers meant it to only apply to militias then they they would of seized the firearms from every citizen that wasn't in a militia. This has never even been thought of, much less attempted, until recently.
Furthermore, isn't it interesting that all the people who shriek and scream that the Bush administration is the second coming of the Third Reich are the same ones who want to revoke the right to bear arms. What sort of logic is this? If Bush is the next Hitler and our government is about to turn against us, wouldnt it make make sense that we be armed? -
Show 51 - 100 of 469 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is