What is Digg?Sponsored by Lost University
LOST Season 5 lands on Blu-ray(tm) & DVD Dec 8 view!
lostuniversity.org/ - Check out the 5-disc collection complete with deleted scenes and new bonus features.
502 Comments
- Stevanoski, on 06/28/2008, -43/+225Woohoo, love it when the good guys win one. When will the supposed defenders of the constitution, the Left, ever figure out, when you defend the constitution you defend the entire constitution. It is not a cafeteria constitution.
- inactive, on 06/28/2008, -9/+175Chicago can't possibly have a handgun ban! Haven't you heard about the outrageous level of violent criminal activity there? Next you're going to tell me those criminals aren't following the law!
- wonderchemist, on 06/28/2008, -16/+107Same could be said to the right.
- diggthis123, on 06/28/2008, -8/+91Too bad the illegal wiretapping by the government didn't "spread" massive lawsuits challenging the violation of the Constitution, like this gun ruling.
- BMR777, on 06/28/2008, -7/+77The bad guys already have guns. Since when has the law ever stopped this? This decision by the Supreme Court simply gives the homeowners the power to fight firepower with firepower.
The thing is, the home owners aren't going to go out and kill people for no reason, while the gangs that already have guns will. Have you ever heard of a gang that didn't have guns? - MasterThief117, on 06/28/2008, -13/+80Guns don't kill people. Massive internal organ damage and hemmoraging does.
- justinx0r, on 06/28/2008, -20/+73Good. Everyone likes to bash the NRA for some reason but they're actually a really great organization. Aside from fighting for our right to bear arms they have all kinds of classes you can take including gun safety ones.
- Stevanoski, on 06/28/2008, -7/+47@paranoiabacon, if by different interpretation you mean disregarding the fact that the entire bill of rights concerns individual rights, not government rights, then I reckon we will always disagree.
I have seen honest Liberals who say we need an amendment to get rid of the 2nd amendment. Now at least you can respect those folks. They are not lying to get the bill of rights to agree with their politics.
Didn't digg you down due to moderate tone. - inactive, on 06/28/2008, -2/+35They use clubs, bows'n arrows, and sharp sticks. I wouldn't go out on the street past 9PM without a chain-mail shirt, if not a full-suit of armor.
You really haven't been to Chicago lately 'eh? - inactive, on 06/28/2008, -3/+34Do you honestly think they'd add an amendment that said that the military has the right to bear arms (durr)?
It's obviously for the people. Considering the history, and considering that without arms they could not have defeated the British (which was fought by ordinary people, that called themselves militia), and considering all the writings by the founding fathers in support of the notion that every day citizens should be able to keep and bear arms, it's obvious this was for the citizens. - galeninjapan, on 06/28/2008, -4/+34Get rid of government subsidized public housing.
- BillE3, on 06/28/2008, -0/+3038 states have enacted concealed carry laws. After classroom and range qualifaction, usually conducted by the same NRA experts that train police officers, you can apply for the permitt. ALL of these states saw significant drop in violent and property crime. NONE of these states saw permitt carriers brandishing their guns and having "OK corral" type shootouts. Law abiding citizens, quietly obey the law. Criminals do not obey the law, must be why we call them criminals. 2 additional states have enacted the "castle doctorine", your home is your castle and you a right to defend it in any manner necessary. California has neither. Our police will warn you to NOT try to defend yourself or your property. They will tell you to be a compliant victim and try to be a good witness. That is public safety?
- inactive, on 06/28/2008, -3/+32Man what really disappoints me is the fact that it was a 5-4 decision. Especially when the Constitution it is explicitly stated. These judges want to make concessions to our rights in the name of public safety. Like the spy bill. DC has had this gun ban for around 30 some odd years and they still have a high level of gun violence. This only affects the law abiding citizens not the criminals.
- mal1964, on 06/28/2008, -4/+31Second Amendment to the United States Constitution
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Amendment_to_t ... - inactive, on 06/28/2008, -6/+32***** birdly, utter *****. This isn't about neocon judges, it's about the constitution.
The Bill of Rights doesn't give rights to militia, it gives rights to the PEOPLE. Why would they even bother adding an amendment that said that militia could have guns (DUH!)? It's obviously for the citizens.
Don't be an idiot. - Ebulating, on 06/28/2008, -0/+23Well, at the most fundamental level, lack of oxygen to the brain kills people.
- Vektuz, on 06/28/2008, -5/+28I like how the guy in the article equates a handgun banning law with "having more guns in public housing". Banning handguns has nothing to do with how many guns there are in a particular zone. The ruling simply states that those eligible to own guns should be allowed to. It has nothing to do with housing, city, location, etc.
- Drahkar, on 06/28/2008, -6/+28And of course we preventing law-abiding citizens from buying guns will certainly keep them out of the hands of criminals.
I think its time for you to open your eyes to the real world. All you do when you make it difficult to impossible for legal citizens from arming themselves is giving the criminals a free pass against them.
Look at it this way, Your a criminal looking at two homes. One home you know they not only have guns buy know how to use them. The other home you know to be unarmed. Which one are you going to try robbing?
Its unfortunate people like you are responsible for suppressing the statistics that in towns where it is mandatory for people to not only own a gun but be trained in its use that home based crime dropped more than 75%. That's a hell of a drop in crime if you ask me. - inactive, on 06/28/2008, -0/+22Gun Owners of America > National Rifle Association
http://www.gunowners.org/ - MWeather, on 06/28/2008, -0/+21A well regulated militia being necessary for the security of a free state is a reason, not a restriction. It's plain English. If you'd like to know the background of the amendment, I suggest you read the ruling, it quite nicely sums up the meaning, giving examples from state constitutions and referencing the writing of the men who drafted it.
- galeninjapan, on 06/28/2008, -1/+22Remember animal farm when the pigs kept reinterpreting the laws?
- usbcd36, on 06/28/2008, -0/+21It's also important to note the other documents from the writers of the constitution that explain the reasoning behind the second amendment. It's so the individuals can rise and protect themselves from anything, including an oppressive government with soldiers.
- Sandman666, on 06/28/2008, -2/+23You must be out of your mind. The right to bear arms is the most important amendment in the constitution. It's the last recourse the people have to stand up to an oppressive government. Stalin, Hitler, Mao, Idi Amin, Castro, Qaddafi, Pol Pot, and Kim Jong-Il were all proponents of gun control. If the government is ever allowed to disarm the people, then we have completed the transition to a completely dictatorial regime. The U.S. Government has already killed habeas corpus, declared that torture is legal, and can conduct sneak and peak searches of your home. Myabe it's just me, but I think that America is heading down a very dark path.
- inactive, on 06/28/2008, -3/+23Is a firearm in your home "22 times more likely" to be used to kill or injure a family member than to be used for protection? Or "43 times more likely?" How about "18 times more likely?" Anti-gun groups and politicians say it is, citing research by Arthur L. Kellermann, M.D.
Dr. Kellermann's dubious conclusions provide anti-gunners propaganda they use to try to frighten Americans into voluntarily disposing of their guns—in essence, to do to themselves what the anti-gunners have been unable to do to them by legislative, regulatory, or judicial means.
Kellermann admits to the political goal of his work, saying "People should be strongly discouraged from keeping guns in their homes." ("Gun ownership as a risk factor for homicide in the home," New England Journal of Medicine, Oct. 1993.) Anti-gun groups have seized upon his most recent attempt in this regard, a "study" from which the bogus "22 times more likely" risk-benefit ratio is derived. ("Injuries and Deaths Due to Firearms in the Home," Journal of Trauma, Injury, Infection and Critical Care, Aug. 1998.) The study suffers numerous flaws common to previous Kellermann efforts, including the fact that it is a very small-scale survey of sample jurisdictions that are not representative of the country or even of one another.
Most significant, though, Kellermann severely understates defensive uses of guns, by counting only those in which criminals are killed or injured. Dr. Edgar A. Suter, writing in the Journal of the Medical Association of Georgia, explains the error in the context of an earlier Kellermann study, which compared family member deaths to killings of criminals: "The true measure of the protective benefits of guns are the lives saved, the injuries prevented, the medical costs saved, and the property protected—not the burglar or rapist body count. Since only 0.1% to 0.2% of defensive gun usage involves the death of the criminal, any study, such as this, that counts criminal deaths as the only measure of the protective benefits of guns will expectedly underestimate the benefits of firearms by a factor of 500 to 1,000." ("Guns in the Medical Literature—A Failure of Peer Review," March 1994, p. 134.)
Similarly, criminologist Gary Kleck notes, "More commonly, guns are merely pointed at another person, or perhaps referred to or displayed, and this sufficient to accomplish the ends of the user." (Targeting Guns, Aldine de Gruyter, 1997, p. 162.) Kleck's 1995 landmark survey of defensive gun uses found guns used for protection as many as 2.5 million times annually. ("Armed Resistance to Crime: The Prevalence and Nature of Self-Defense with a Gun," Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, Fall 1995.)
Kellermann's "22 times more likely" study suffers yet another flaw: only 14.2% of criminal gun-related homicides and assaults he surveyed involved guns kept in the homes where the crimes occurred. With a similar sloppiness in his "43 times more likely" study, suicides (never shown to correlate to gun ownership) accounted for the overwhelming majority of gun-related family member deaths he pretended to compare to defensive gun uses. - inactive, on 06/28/2008, -1/+21militia
noun
1. civilians trained as soldiers but not part of the regular army
2. the entire body of physically fit civilians eligible by law for military service; "their troops were untrained militia"; "Congress shall have power to provide for calling forth the militia"--United States Constitution
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/militia
Read the second definition very carefully, as it applies too.
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.
You conveniently left off the last part.
Please don’t try to use lawyer-speak to try to pervert the constitution. - NSResponder, on 06/28/2008, -8/+28" a different interpretation of the second amendment."
The "interpretation" that it doesn't mean what it says.
-jcr - Mankar, on 06/28/2008, -1/+21"When the government fears the people, there is liberty. When the people fear the government, there is tyranny." Thomas Jefferson
"If someone is so fearful that, that they're going to start using their weapons to protect their rights, makes me very nervous that these people have these weapons at all!" Representative Henry A. Waxman (D - CA) - lostngone, on 06/28/2008, -1/+20NO CARS!
Cars=death
No cars=less death - inactive, on 06/28/2008, -2/+21While you're at it rewrite the whole damn thing, take out the parts you don't like and add whatever you want.
If you don't like the US constitution, I hear there are no handguns allowed in Britain... - Stevanoski, on 06/28/2008, -1/+20Valid points, although I am a purist on the 2nd Amendment and believe all Americans deserve the right to defend themselves against an agressive government.
Mr. City, do you think criminals have weapons in those public housing units? - MortVent, on 06/28/2008, -5/+24And all it takes to turn a law abiding family into a murder statistic is a criminal that doesn't care about the laws and will use what ever weapons or tools he chooses
- macdady843, on 06/28/2008, -3/+22I 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. Do we only gain the right to freedom of speech if we are with a group of people? No so i don't see how the 2nd amendment is any different.
P.S. it wasn't re-interpreted it was RE-AFFIRMED since people like you never understood it in the first place. :-)) - NSResponder, on 06/28/2008, -6/+25" The right to keep and bear arms is an outdated, dangerous, and irresponsible amendment. "
I hope you never have occasion to find out just how wrong you are, you smug, ignorant twit.
-jcr - Aero347, on 06/28/2008, -1/+19Here's how it works: Criminals don't think of robbing, raping, murdering or kidnapping anyone in that town, cause chances are about 90% the criminal will be staring down the barrel of a .38. That fact serves as a deterrent to *****. And what do u know it made for one of the best places to live. A war on guns is about as effective as the war on drugs and only serves the ends of cartels and criminals.
- atb12688, on 06/28/2008, -1/+18People kill people.
- galeninjapan, on 06/28/2008, -1/+18Oh yeah?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kennesaw,_Georgia
"On May 1, 1982 the city passed an ordinance [Sec 34-1a] requiring every head of household to maintain a firearm together with ammunition. "
"The City of Kennesaw was selected by Family Circle magazine as one of the nation's "10 Best Towns for Families." The article appears in the magazine's August 2007 edition" - GrimPraetorian, on 06/28/2008, -1/+17Handgun Crime up in the UK, as reported by the BBC
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/1440764.stm - GrimPraetorian, on 06/28/2008, -0/+16and if the US government ever becomes too powerful and starts oppressing us what are we going to use to fight in the revolution, spears?
- Soave, on 06/28/2008, -1/+16Agreed.
- inactive, on 06/28/2008, -0/+15I have 3 people I know directly that live rurally and whom have had attempted robbery by meth addicts.
(yes, meth - the skin, the bad teeth...)
Have you heard of meth? National law enforcement agencies in "the heartland" have already labeled meth an epidemic. Did you know that?
2 other things
1) "...deforestation...," etc. Give me a break; completely different issues.
2) Despite your meta attempts I sense no real context in your post. Although I _don't_ think (hopefully!) we are headed for Mad Max I _do_ think the economy is going bad, fast. Having lived rurally before and now working in Manhattan about 60 hours a week I can tell you; rural people should be armed to the teeth.
ps since guns kill people / are evil please blame my typos on my computer - I did not do them my keyboard did. - davidrools, on 06/28/2008, -1/+16I was with you until you started offering to sacrifice the 2nd for the 4th and 5th. Then what? Get rid of 2 through 8 to keep the 1st? No, let's keep the constitution intact, the way it was intended.
- woobyluv, on 06/28/2008, -0/+15And what are people supposed to do, keep their Arms in an armory? What is the homeowner supposed to do then? Call time-out to the criminal while he goes to get his gun from the armory down the block?
Since it appears you have no idea how to put language in the proper context of the time, I'll spell it out for you...
My paraphrasing,
"In order to keep the government in check, Congress shall not infringe upon the Right of the people (collectively and individually) to bear Arms and form Militias."
Actual Amendment,
"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."
Everything I said is found in the actual Amendment and you don't even have to dig for it... - snassiri, on 06/28/2008, -1/+16@paranoiabacon
True liberalism is about the individual and not "social" liberalism that forces "equality" through legislation and by categorizing people into "groups" instead of seeing them as individuals.
If you want to maintain that you are a liberal, then you should break with the sham that passes for liberalism in the U.S. No disrespect intended. I just believe that a healthy majority of the U.S. population would readily identify themselves as true liberals in regards to individualism if the position hadn't been co-opted by left/right politics. Sadly, no one has a real clear understanding of what American Conservatism or Liberalism are anymore. - galeninjapan, on 06/28/2008, -0/+14...or for everyone to restrain their dogs.
If a dog bites someone, the owner is responsible. If a dog bits a person we don't ban all dogs. - theghoul, on 06/28/2008, -2/+16Guns don't kill people, anger, stupidity and greed kill people.
- jscnet, on 06/28/2008, -5/+19Ok -- the BAN thing is not only illegal, but profoundly stupid. Bad guys are bad guys because they break the law as if the law doesn't apply or exist to them. So, Mr.Bad Guy goes out on the streets buys or steals a gun, goes up to someone points it at them and proceeds to steal from them and/or shoot them. However, Mr. Home Owner who owns a gun is very unlikely to use that gun in a illegal manner -- in most cases that gun will be secured or hidden and used only for his and his family's protection. Mr Home Owner most certainly purchased his gun from a gun store, whereby it was registered to him -- so should Mr Home Owner use his gun a criminal way -- Mr. Police Man can track the bullet "finger prints" and figure out who or what gun shot it -- its all in a huge database. It's the ancient art and science of a little something called "Ballistic Forensics" -- yes, its sexy.
Now, the majority of Mr. and Mrs. who own bang-bangs own them legally and the majority never use their bang-bang, even if they hate someone. The majority have the sense to know that using their bang-bang in a hostile way based on their emotional state will prove an undesirable outcome for them should they get caught. The majority of people who own guns are not interested in committing violent acts against other fellow human beings, only protecting themselves from the insane and profoundly stupid ones.
Case in-point of why banning guns is bad and the people who think "guns" actually kill people are stupid:
Australia. Several years ago the nation banned all guns. Result: Gun crime increased 300% -- there were more deaths from bullets than at any previous time when it was legal to own a gun. Why? Should be obvious.
Because the BALANCE of power was removed from the people, giving only the criminals the power to use a gun. You see, as mentioned above, criminals don't care about laws, hence -- they are criminals. So, to them the ban on guns was a fantastic entrepreneurial financial opportunity. They could now break into anyones home confidently knowing they will not be shot because criminals know, non-criminals like to obey they law.
Mr. Government and Mr. and Mrs. person who thinks "guns" kill people -- please shut the ***** up and learn something. Guns do not kill people no more than a pen writes on paper. PEOPLE KILL PEOPLE. Bad people who hold a gun in their hands, point it, and shoot it -- kill people.
So Mr. Government and Mr. and Mrs. person who in error thinks guns kill people -- you need to focus on the "personalities" who would use a gun or any instrument, perhaps a sipping straw to murder other people. You need to address the abundant sickness around you, which you ignore and instead blame inanimate, non-thinking, objects as the culprtis to a problem. No ma'am. The problem is the human being who narcissistically believes they are above the law, you and your life for they're own pettiness. You need to focus not on the gun, but on the person, the mindset, the sickness. You need to pay attention to the people, the person, to fix the problem otherwise ban or not, people are going to kill people.
Ironically, more people are killed every year being stuck by a vehicle than by a handgun -- so you see, the problem isn't the technology -- its WHO is operating the technology that's the problem.
Don't be brainwashed by Government and/or State anti-gun propaganda -- use your own mind and common sense. The majority of people who support such silliness have never had a gun pointed at them, nor a crime committed against them -- the irony of their ignorance should it be allowed to prosper is that that majority or someone close to them will become a victim of a gun crime because Mr. Bad Guy knows you ain't gonna ***** to him, you're his bitch and your junk is now his junk. - spyd3rweb, on 06/28/2008, -0/+14I don't see how theres any room for interpretation or discussion, its pretty absolute when it says "shall not be infringed."
- voodoo7, on 06/28/2008, -1/+14Few saw the Third Reich coming until it was too late. The Second Amendment is a doomsday provision, one designed for those exceptionally rare circumstances where all other rights have failed -- where the government refuses to stand for reelection and silences those who protest; where courts have lost the courage to oppose, or can find no one to enforce their decrees. However improbable these contingencies may seem today, facing them unprepared is a mistake a free people get to make only once.
- inactive, on 06/28/2008, -1/+14You lack logic. You talk as if shooting someone would result in the death of several other people, as if people are stacked up and in droves all around you at all times. Huh? I live in a reasonably large city and right now, I'm typing this in a large room all by myself. Hell, even in Hong Kong you'd be troubled to fire a bullet and take out the number of people you're making it sound like. Are you using some kind of heat-seeking .50 caliber pocket rocket?
A 9mm bullet won't even pass THROUGH a person if it's the proper hollow point type, which any simpleton owning a gun should know is the proper defense ammunition. A shotgun is still the preferred home defense method, thanks to its stopping power and the fact that it the blast separates and won't penetrate walls very well. Of course you need to evaluate your surroundings, but supporting a gun ban on the basis that a city is more crowded and a single "magic bullet" could potentially kill several unintended people is asinine. It's called self defense, and when it's utilized properly, has 0 innocent bystanders. - inactive, on 06/28/2008, -1/+14But you're recommending taking out a part of the constitution because its "outdated" That is silly. Just because you don't like guns doesn't mean I don't have the right to own one. Just like I don't like what you say doesn't mean you don't have the right to say it. I'm not saying if you don't like America, get out, I'm saying, our Constitution is what makes America great. Our forefathers knew that eventually the governmet would try to disarm its citizens so they made the right to own guns, the SECOND amendment. If it was no big deal it would be further down the list, because it was so high, it was important. Also, the argument that crime is so bad in America is exaggerated. Violent crimes are at a 30+ year low while in England they are up, and property crimes in the US are much lower than in England. Burglars are less likely to break into your house if they think you may have a gun.
-
Show 51 - 100 of 518 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is