What is Digg?113 Comments
- megtrallific, on 09/18/2009, -1/+28This isn't a big deal. The gun has to be unloaded and in a locked container. It's not like they're letting people walk around the train with a loaded pistol looking for a gunfight. You're already allowed to put guns in your checked bags on AIRPLANES if you follow proper procedures.
- rblancarte, on 09/18/2009, -1/+21Buried for the sensationalist title. They are doing what airlines do - allow people to check guns. They still can't carry them on. But they can transport them.
- inactive, on 09/18/2009, -6/+24For anyone who has actually read the article and understands the situation, do you ACTUALLY oppose this measure? If so, for what reason? Is it for some reason other than a completely vague opposition to guns because they're used to kill people and killing peopel is bad? I find it hard to believe that it is.
I honestly can't imagine how anyone who opposes this bill would be in favor of anything but an all-out ban of firearms. And if you support an all out ban on firearms, you are immediately assuming infinite trust in those "above" you who have been elected by your peers. If you want to live in that fantasy world, I guess I can't stop you. But I don't want my kids or my kids' kids to live in a world where government makes every decision for them.
If you truly value individual liberty in the sense that man must make his own destiny, you can't possibly vote for Democrats or Republicans. Their agenda is an agenda of controlling you. - HigherLogic, on 09/18/2009, -4/+16Never understood the logic of denying guns in certain areas. If someone who wants to break the law is going to hold up a place, they don't give a ***** about the gun laws. They'll still bring a gun in.
- HouseofEl, on 09/18/2009, -8/+20As a gun owner myself, I'm pretty sure I don't need some ***** walking around ***** in a bar carrying. It should indeed be infringed in certain places. It all comes down to common sense and anyone that feels we should freely carry a gun everywhere and anywhere in this country is missing that sense.
Also FTA: "The firearms also have to be unloaded and locked in a container." No one is going to be openly carrying on the train. - Vhaeos, on 09/18/2009, -2/+13A country with no guns does not exist.
- HigherLogic, on 09/18/2009, -6/+15Nope, but I don't make a good victim. Glad you do though!
- siszam, on 09/18/2009, -21/+30The right to bear arms should not be infringed anywhere in America.
- kplo, on 09/17/2009, -6/+15Regulators, mount up.
- Haha71687, on 09/18/2009, -2/+10An armed populace started America.
- inactive, on 09/18/2009, -6/+14Slippery slope fallacy.
Next you'll be equating gay marriage to someone wanting to marry a duck. - 45superman, on 09/18/2009, -3/+10ngrez says: "Does it make you feel like a big man?"
Well, I guess you could feel him and find out, but I wouldn't suggest it. - ricksite, on 09/18/2009, -0/+7Amtrak is a public corporation.
- inactive, on 09/18/2009, -4/+11A country with no guns is a country ruled by criminals who ignore the law and have guns anyway.
- GiggleStick, on 09/18/2009, -1/+7@ngrez
It sounds like you are the one who is afraid to me. - ErickStevenson, on 09/18/2009, -0/+6How about a M16A1 +M203 Grenade Launcher?
- tao52nyc, on 09/18/2009, -1/+7Do you realize that you are probably part of the militia? According to USC 10 (1791), Any able-bodied male between the ages of 17 and 45 (up to 61 with prior military experience) is, de facto, part of "the militia", and if called to duty by your respective State, you are required to report to the specified mustering area, bringing your own gun with you. That's what "well regulated militia" means. You are expected to own your own weapon and it's supposed to be up to speed with current military specs. The law's never been repealed, so technically all us guys are on the hook.
- palehorse864, on 09/18/2009, -1/+6As long as people don't pack any barrel shrouds or heat seeking bullets. (Check the videos before you bury.)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9rGpykAX1fo
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BRQqieimwLQ&fea ... - Dimensio, on 09/18/2009, -1/+6" It all comes down to common sense and anyone that feels we should freely carry a gun everywhere and anywhere in this country is missing that sense."
Declaring that your position is "common sense" is an appeal to the "poisoning the well" fallacy.
"Also FTA: "The firearms also have to be unloaded and locked in a container." No one is going to be openly carrying on the train."
Advocates of civilian disarmament are notoriously dishonest. This fact will be ignored, and they will instead claim that the proposed legislation will allow individuals to carry firearms while traveling on an Amtrak train. - Dimensio, on 09/18/2009, -2/+7"Of course words like well regulated militia are just to complicated to comprehend when you are busy trying to cover for your failed manhood with your piece."
Have you any honest and rational argument to offer? - Dimensio, on 09/18/2009, -1/+6Have you any statement based upon reality to offer?
- CRCulver, on 09/18/2009, -2/+7Sure, Denmark and Austria are uncivilized wastelands ruled by criminals. Oh wait, no, they less crime and more transparency than most parts of the US. Looks like your theory needs some refinement.
- realeskimopimp, on 09/18/2009, -18/+22What about grenade launchers? Can I carry a grenade launcher on amtrack? If not, my right to bear arms is being infringed.
- Dimensio, on 09/18/2009, -3/+7"I think it's quite obvious I meant the general populace not owning guns - something which is the policy of many nations."
Why do you prefer to live in a nation where only criminals may possess firearms? - HigherLogic, on 09/18/2009, -11/+15Why the hell would you want to live in a country with no guns?
// Proud FNH FNP-45 gun owner in Arizona who can freely carry his gun on his side pretty much anywhere - Mothrog, on 09/18/2009, -2/+6"Children probably shouldn't be around guns..."
Do you realize in the not to distant past, most schools had riflery teams? - Dimensio, on 09/18/2009, -1/+5"Can I carry a grenade launcher on amtrack? If not, my right to bear arms is being infringed."
Your statement is both irrational and irrelevant with respect to the current discussion. - rrife, on 09/18/2009, -0/+4Don't know why you couldn't carry a grenade launcher, nothing special about them.
- Fletchex, on 09/18/2009, -8/+12Nobody is going to take my bear arms away from me!
- Angostura, on 09/18/2009, -1/+5ordnance is a general term for items including weapons. The dictionary definition of arms is basically 'weapons'.
- Angostura, on 09/18/2009, -1/+5It's only the slippery slope fallacy if you can show that a grenade launcher is not an item of armament.
If not, you appear to be making an arbitrary decision that some kinds of arms are OK, and other not. - Dimensio, on 09/18/2009, -0/+4"Children probably shouldn't be around guns."
Why? - bdbr, on 09/18/2009, -0/+4The original article said in the very first sentence that its only about checked bags, but the blog spam in this post didn't even mention it.
http://www.usatoday.com/travel/news/2009-09-16-amt ...
Buried for inaccuracy. - realeskimopimp, on 09/18/2009, -4/+7Slippery slope my behind.
The 2nd amendment clearly says:
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.
Therefore, to deny my right to own a grenade launcher or even infringe it with qualifications is INFRINGEMENT. - 45superman, on 09/18/2009, -4/+7This is a pretty minor gain for gun rights, but if it makes the citizen disarmament tyranny advocates unhappy, it's worth a smile.
- ByteGuerilla, on 09/18/2009, -0/+3It was a clear black night, a clear white moon,
- HigherLogic, on 09/18/2009, -5/+8So you'd like to live in a country where the general populace (e.g. law abiding citizens) don't have guns, but only outlaws do? Sweet plan, man. Sweet plan.
- Dimensio, on 09/18/2009, -1/+4While your statement is correct, advocates of civilian disarmament are both irrational and dishonest. The actual reality of the legislation is not of relevance in their attempts to denounce it.
- Mnementh2230, on 09/18/2009, -2/+4Grenade launchers are ordinance, not arms, and are not protected under the 2nd amendment.
Unless you actually know what you're talking about, you should be quiet and learn something (as a wise person would), instead of speaking (as a fool would). - JBizness, on 09/18/2009, -0/+2I agree with you House. I think people should be allowed to have guns, but let's not kid ourselves...people are stupid, and people make mistakes. If people could be carrying a loaded weapon anywhere, anytime...some really dumb ***** is going to happen. I went to a football game a week ago, and 2 fights broke out between fans of opposing teams....if one of them had a gun, things could have ended much worse than just getting escorted out by the police.
@Dimensio....you may be right about the type of argument House made, but if you honestly don't see how it would be a bad idea to allow people to walk around with a gun anywhere/whenever...you're just being naive. No matter how much faith you have in humanity, people ***** up. My guess is that a lot of gun deaths wouldn't be premeditated or even intentional, but simply in the heat of the moment or drunk or something, some people would reach for the gun if they had it, justified or not.
But obviously the article states that the weapons would be unloaded and locked in a container, which I really wouldn't have a problem with. - Jrr6415sun, on 09/18/2009, -0/+2who the ***** is going to hold up a school? a hospital? What do they need to protect themselves from in a school? Guns are not needed there.
- Pixelante, on 09/18/2009, -3/+5@publiclurker: SCOTUS doesn't agree with you, so suck it up.
- gordonj, on 09/18/2009, -0/+2"A country with no guns is a country ruled by criminals who ignore the law and have guns anyway."
There are plenty of counter examples to this, i.e. most of the countries in western Europe. - Mnementh2230, on 09/18/2009, -1/+3"Speaking as someone who lives in a country where law-abiding citizens don't have guns, I prefer it by far."
Just curious - you say that you prefer to live in a place where law-abiding citizens (who, armed or not, you would have no reason to fear because they are indeed law abiding) are unarmed. That seems a bit strange, to me - why should you prefer that those who you would have no reason to fear be unarmed? As law abiding citizens, it shouldn't make a difference. Personally, I'd rather be in a place where law abiding citizens have the means to protect themselves from those who are *not* law abiding. - krisdahl, on 09/18/2009, -1/+3The firearm murder rate in United Sates is indeed higher than the rest, yet the OVERALL murder rate is the same or lower. So in other countries where firearms are harder to obtain murderers simply use knives, blunt instruments, poisons, automobiles, and their bare hands to kill people.
Gun ownership does not translate into higher homicide rates.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_violence
Corolation does not imply causation. There are many factors that are different between the US and other countries that will affect violence rates--including the political and enforcement issues like the war on drugs. - gordonj, on 09/18/2009, -1/+3"Are homicides committed without firearms preferable to homicides committed with firearms?".
No, but it is a lot easier to kill someone with a gun than most other forms of homicide. It is also more disconnected, as the shooter doesn't even need to be close to the person they're shooting. I think it is also important to look at the rates of homicides committed by different methods. Anecdotally, the overall homicide rate in my country is also a lot lower than the firearm homicide rate in America (1.5 vs. 3 per 100,000).
"This does not constitute a scientific study."
You're right, it was my opinion. I didn't claim otherwise.
"Government tyranny often results from a mistrust of the general populace."
Citation please. - Junkyarddawg, on 09/20/2009, -0/+1@mnemeth: Your understanding of the Iraqi resistance tactics is lacking; they mostly use ambushes, sniping, and IED's, not gun & run - even if that would be understandible given that they are in fact civilians with weapons, not trained military.
Also I'd like to hear what tactics you think civilians armed with light weapons should use against a high-tech modern army. - Mike17102, on 09/18/2009, -3/+4Thats right comrade, the 2nd amendment just isnt important. I wonder what other amendments we can just start ignoring so scared ignorant liberals feel better.
- gordonj, on 09/18/2009, -1/+2I agree with covertbadger. I too live in a country where the general populace doesn't possess guns (neither do the general cops, but there are some special police that do). There are some criminals with guns (generally drug gangs - and the people who do get shot here are almost exclusively drug dealers or those who have run-ins with them), but most criminals don't have easy access to firearms. The firearm homicide rate here is negligible. I think that the presence of guns will effect the frequency of their use, be it for crime, protection, accidents, or crazy people running amock. I don't trust the general populace at hand enough to like the idea of everyone having guns, even if I am afforded one for my own protection.
- rhoonah, on 09/18/2009, -0/+1what does one have to do with the other? Despite what anyone may think, a checked gun doesn't cause any problem with other passengers. A dog pissing and barking does.
-
Show 51 - 100 of 117 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is