Introducing Digg Dialogg!
Check out the first Digg Dialogg with Nancy Pelosi. More guests to be announced soon!
Supreme Court's Handgun Ruling Spreads
news.bbc.co.uk — A powerful gun lobby group in the United States has filed legal challenges to handgun bans in San Francisco and Chicago.
meeces- 964 diggs
- digg it
- Stevanoski, on 06/28/2008, -43/+228Woohoo, 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.
- wonderchemist, on 06/28/2008, -16/+108Same could be said to the right.
- HenvY, on 06/28/2008, -30/+8Yeah - but I guess Habeas Corpus isn't as important for people like Stevanoski as the right to shoot at each other huh?
- Stevanoski, on 06/28/2008, -22/+17@wonderchemist, Did not digg you down as you are right. The difference is we know how dangerous it is to abridge it during a time of war, after all we remember Clinton/Reno. The Left wants to disregard it regardless of circumstance.
- paranoiabacon, on 06/28/2008, -21/+27Oh christ all the left is doing is taking a different interpretation of the second amendment. The bush administration is disregarding entire amendments because they damn well feel like it.
I don't actually personally agree with the common liberal stance on gun control even though I consider myself a liberal, but this argument is just stupid. - 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. - ElAssoWipo, on 06/28/2008, -19/+8You don't have a left.
You have a left handed right. - snassiri, on 06/28/2008, -1/+17@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. - Stevanoski, on 06/28/2008, -1/+8@snassiri, damn well said. Would be a Liberal if the people who call themselves by that name were only that liberal.
- Cloned, on 06/29/2008, -1/+4There are irrational ideals on both sides of the fence. Not all liberals are zealots and not all conservatives are zealots.
- wonderchemist, on 06/29/2008, -1/+3I would argue time of war is the most important time in ensuring our rights stay intact. Using the war on terror to limit the accused access to a court makes about as much sense as banning guns for anyone who's ever played a video in response to school shootings.
- birdly, on 06/28/2008, -40/+10Until the constitution was reinterpreted by the five radical neocon judges yesterday, the second amendment was designed to keep the militia armed. Now mental midgets like Scalia, the same guy who ignored a judge's obligation to non-partisan impartiality by saying, "Five to four, we win" after they put Bush in office, have decided they'd like to go back to the days of the wild west.
Remember, all it takes to make a law-abiding citizen into a criminal is one shot from a gun.- MortVent, on 06/28/2008, -5/+25And 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
- DarkReign16, on 06/28/2008, -6/+33***** 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. - 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. - macdady843, on 06/28/2008, -3/+23I 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. :-)) - Netwatcher, on 06/28/2008, -11/+3I've never really been a big fan of the militia system. Before the civil war all the militia's in Washington DC, thought they were in the south and were planning of annexing the capitol. If they weren't caught by Allen Pinkerton, we would have lost the war.
Meanwhile every gun totting, preparing for the: [Y2K/ The Great Race War / World War Three / Biblical Armageddon] nut I ever knew seemed to belong to a so called militia.
While I'm for gun control, I'd rather have the kid down the street could play with a shotgun, then know that the wannabee mercenary across the street could be playing with hand grenades and IED's. - birdly, on 06/28/2008, -19/+7To pretend that there has never been any question about the interpretation of the second amendment (as several gun lovers are doing in this thread) is absolutely wrong.
Many of the worst gun crimes are committed with guns that were taken from law-abiding citizens. Many others are committed by formerly law abiding citizens.
It's not very hard to do the math: Making guns more accessible will make shootings more common.
Well, thank goodness we can now settle this debate with our AK-47s. Duel anyone? - OC73, on 06/28/2008, -7/+2Neocon means nothing, so stfu.
- Pixelante, on 06/28/2008, -4/+2Lose the AK-47. Get a good weapon instead. Don't be a cheapozoid.
- Stevanoski, on 06/28/2008, -5/+2@OC73, lol, loved your comment because the Left has taken the meaning out of all terms by their overuse and abuse of calling any who dare to disagree any name.
Originally the term neocon mean Jew. So substitute the word "Jews" every time the Left uses it. I keeps them from appearing antisemitic. - Laughsatyou, on 06/29/2008, -0/+1Gun owners are frequently the targets of professional victims because gun owners are willing and able to prevent their own victimization.
- MortVent, on 06/28/2008, -5/+25And 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
- bugsy187, on 06/28/2008, -35/+14Gun enthusiasts keep misinterpreting the 2nd ammendment.
The right to bear arms in a "well-regulated militia". Regulated means government controlled. A militia is something raised by a state (the national guard), not a private group of gun enthusiasts in the woods. How do you guys keep missing this?- ZenMojo, on 06/28/2008, -23/+4"the right of The People to keep and bear arms." If conservatives ever read the actual constitution, they would notice things like the difference between "People," "Person," and "Persons."
The only time "People" refers to an individual is, as of yesterday, the 2nd amendment. - DarkReign16, on 06/28/2008, -3/+35Do 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. - 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.
- andibarnes, on 06/28/2008, -21/+3A well regulated militia is a restriction - if you look at British history during the American Revolutionary period, the interpretation was that you had a right to bear arms, but it was highly limited: most of all, you were not allowed to practice military drill or such like without the express permission of the crown. The second amendment was born in an era before the police force, the birth of which should have ended its need to exist, like it has done in large parts of the common law world
- 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.
- rex84, on 06/28/2008, -1/+22militia
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. - woobyluv, on 06/28/2008, -0/+16And 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... - jpop, on 06/28/2008, -0/+9Those words, I do not think they mean what you think they mean. Perhaps you should research "Well regulated" and "Militia" in terms of the day that the Constitution was written.
- MWeather, on 06/28/2008, -2/+8It doesn't matter what well-regulated or milita mean. The prefatory clause doesn't restrict anything. It just says a well-regulated militia is needed for security.
Take the following example.
"Being that a well fed militia is necessary for the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and consume food shall not be infringed."
Would anyone argue the above means only the militia has the right to eat? - andrew1193, on 06/29/2008, -0/+8"Well regulated" does not mean government regulated. It means 'well functioning'.
- netant, on 06/29/2008, -6/+2A militia is also NOT necessarily a military unit. You have to take it in the context of how the Founding Father's meant it. A militia was a group of armed local men charged with the defense/safety of the community. It doesn't NEED to be the National Guard. It can be the local constabulary; they would fall under the "definition" of militia back in 1776.
There is a reason why the 2nd amendment includes "well regulated". The Founding Fathers wanted to differentiate between an organized group of armed men acting on behalf of the community, and an armed group of bandits, or an armed group of farmers that did not want to pay taxes to the state or federal gov't.
You have to remember one of the reasons why the Founding Fathers put together the Constitution was that the Articles of Confederation was not cutting it as a basis for a functioning government. The A of C was originally the PREFERRED form of gov't. It FAILED because of resistance such as the Shay's Rebellion. Its not enough to say "any" group of thugs can have their right to firearms; it needs to be ANSWERABLE to the local representative of gov't. That made it "well-regulated", as opposed to unregulated. AND YET, the founding fathers UNDERSTOOD that if the Federal Gov't restricted access to firearms, that the states were vulnerable to a Federal usurpation of their powers AND external threats. Note that the amendment did not go on to specify that every citizen needed firearms to fight crime or even their individual personal safety. There is a RATIONALE for the reason why the amendment's wording is contructed the way it is.
Frankly, my interpretation is that as long as you belong to the State Guard, or local police force, the Federal Gov't cannot infringe upon your right to bear arms. Furthermore, I'd argue that even members of a gun club with some form of sponsorship by a locally elected official would fall under the definition of "well-regulated" militia. But it seems obvious to me that the 2nd amendment didn't say, "ANYBODY can bear arms without infringement (by the Federal Gov't)", OR ELSE IT WOULD HAVE BEEN WORDED THAT WAY.
Yeah, go ahead, digg me down, but at least try not to be a coward about it and address my argument.
- ZenMojo, on 06/28/2008, -23/+4"the right of The People to keep and bear arms." If conservatives ever read the actual constitution, they would notice things like the difference between "People," "Person," and "Persons."
- CrunkeD, on 06/28/2008, -19/+0http://digg.com/people/Stupid_kid_breaks_leg
- VicHislop, on 06/28/2008, -22/+22Good guys? What does that even mean? If Scalia is considered one of the "good" guys, well then we are really *****.
Oh, and since you're one of the "good guys" will you please take your guns two threads down on the front page and enforce our 4th Amendment rights that out Government has so unceremoniously trampled on? That's what the guns are for, right? When the Government oversteps its bounds? RIGHT?- Tebixan, on 06/28/2008, -14/+7Thats what they keep saying, but none of these people will ever use their guns for what the 2nd amendment intends them for. They will, however, use their AK-47 to keep pesky kids off their lawn
- MrWhite7, on 06/28/2008, -3/+11So... you're advocating violent solutions when peaceful ones still exist?
- VicHislop, on 06/29/2008, -1/+2Uh, MrWhite7, I'm merely pointing out the hypocrisy of the mind that produced the parent message. Thanks for taking it literally though.
- rz8472, on 06/28/2008, -17/+9As a leftist myself, I was pleased with the ruling found the ruling well-reasoned and moderate; they both upheld the Second Amendment but made it clear that the government could regulate the distribution of firearms and restrict the use of, say, assault weapons.
Also "The Left" has been defending all the other amendments -- If I were given a choice, I would take the 4th and the 5th over the 2nd; It's like getting a toe cut off rather than your entire leg.- andrew1193, on 06/28/2008, -2/+4"they both upheld the Second Amendment but made it clear that the government could regulate the distribution of firearms and restrict the use of, say, assault weapons."
Where, exactly do you find this in the text of the decision? - 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.
- MrWhite7, on 06/28/2008, -1/+5and in the meantime...please...define an assault weapon.
- netant, on 06/29/2008, -0/+3@andrew1193
Read Scalia's opinion. He makes it clear that the decision does not make a determination whether local government (the States) have the right to regulate the manner in which citizens can possess firearms. - andrew1193, on 06/29/2008, -0/+2"Read Scalia's opinion. He makes it clear that the decision does not make a determination whether local government (the States) have the right to regulate the manner in which citizens can possess firearms."
Not making a determination, or not incorporating the Second Amendment, is not the same thing as saying that the government may ban certain semi-automatic firearms that some call "assault weapons". - Disease, on 06/29/2008, -0/+1@MrWhite7
Any gun that looks big and scary.
- andrew1193, on 06/28/2008, -2/+4"they both upheld the Second Amendment but made it clear that the government could regulate the distribution of firearms and restrict the use of, say, assault weapons."
- arjie, on 06/28/2008, -18/+10Funny how the Left in the US (if that's the Democratic Party we're talking about) would be center-right anywhere else in the world.
- bphicke, on 06/28/2008, -6/+8Ya funny... go back to poorly answering customer support calls please.
- Clark3934, on 06/28/2008, -0/+13Funny how we still over-simply political thought to an a single axis.
- smotpoker1, on 06/29/2008, -1/+1No the democratic is still a right winger. All we have is just a ineffective 2 party system.The far lefts are the liberals and independents.Oh you can keep the "right to lifers" nutcases over there too.They are part of the fringe religious people.
I like my guns and know well how to use them.I understand the responsibility of possessing them,Do you?Break into my house and I will call the police to pick up the body.Other than that my gun are used for calibrations and cleaning.
Do republicans really use them for sex?That's just kind of disturbing to me.
- Pake, on 06/28/2008, -8/+5"when you defend the constitution you defend the entire constitution."
The problem is that times have changed significantly over 200 years and that what was simple back then, is far more complicated now. For instance, just taking the 2nd Amendment alone, one could argue that it only concerns guns while another could say it concerns all weapons, including advanced weaponry such as missiles. The 1st Amendment varies as well, because you have to ask yourself, where do you draw the line? Shouldn't verbal harassment be protected by the 1st Amendment? Shouldn't death threats? How about anything considered "hate speech?"
So basically it comes down to what paranoiabacon said regarding different interpretations.- WhoismP, on 06/28/2008, -1/+6Valid point, but the context is to infer guns, since that was the only "arm" to be used by the average American in 1787.
The only way to ensure that it ONLY means guns is of course to amend, but our nation has a lengthy history of prolonged ratification and flopped proposals. - Stevanoski, on 06/28/2008, -2/+8Then be honest about it and use the constitutional remedy and offer an amendment.
- silverharbinger, on 06/28/2008, -4/+4Let's look at the amendment as it was written and ratified:
"Amendment 2 - Right to Bear Arms. Ratified 12/15/1791.
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's weird to me that there is so much debate in our legal system about what this amendment means. It seems to simply state that a State-regulated Militia may be formed in order to protect the freedoms granted by the Constitution or of their individual State, so the citizens of any State have a right to possess and use weapons for that purpose. To me, this would include practically any weapon you can imagine, unless regulated otherwise by the individual State, as they may be necessary depending on the type of threatening force the militia would have to defend themselves against. Does this mean that a person can use a surface-to-air missile system to go duck hunting? No, that would be unconstitutional under the amendment. However, that person can possess such a weapons system and use it if needed for defense purposes against an attacking force that threatens the free government of their country or State *if it is allowed by State law*.
When it comes to home and self-defense issues it gets a little more cloudy, but if the second amendment gives citizens the right to form a militia army and use any means legally at their disposal to fight for their freedoms, then surely any citizen of the United States can possess and use appropriate weapons to protect the security of themselves and their property. I would even think that this would include the possession and use of assault weapons, seeing as a criminal could use that type of weapon when committing these types of crimes.
I do not own a firearm nor do I particularly want to, but the Constitutionally-granted right is there for them and other weapons to be used for an appropriate purpose, and I don't think that it is really that hard to make sense of. - Pake, on 06/28/2008, -4/+2"Does this mean that a person can use a surface-to-air missile system to go duck hunting? No, that would be unconstitutional under the amendment."
Just want to point out that A) That would be freaking hilarious to do and B) Would also mean the usage of any weapon for hunting purposes would be unconstitutional considering the 2nd Amendment is only referring to the usage of weapons for security reasons. - silverharbinger, on 06/28/2008, -0/+3"Just want to point out that A) That would be freaking hilarious to do and B) Would also mean the usage of any weapon for hunting purposes would be unconstitutional considering the 2nd Amendment is only referring to the usage of weapons for security reasons."
That would be right on both counts, Pake. The Constitution does not specifically give citizens the right to use weapons for hunting purposes, but seeing as this was happening long before and during the time it was being written, I think it was considered an implied right that did not have to be specifically spelled out for federal protection in the document. State laws would have to regulate what weapons are appropriate for hunting use just like they would for a Militia, and while I am not by any means a legal expert, I'm sure that many States do regulate it somewhat.
Otherwise, Dick Cheney should be in a lot of trouble right now. - smotpoker1, on 06/29/2008, -2/+1It seems to me you are forgetting the rest of the Constitution.The right for guns is for the protecting of our freedoms but we have no right to others around us so death threats and ect,ect, are harmful.If you got a missile to fire at and hit a duck what would be left to eat?Oh ***** Cheney is in a lot of trouble.This admin is not going to get away with the rape of America
- LeeSoong, on 06/30/2008, -0/+1Clearly, the second amendment protects the individual's right to own and operate space based weapon platforms for fishing, and hunting squirrels, rabbits, and deer . . .
- WhoismP, on 06/28/2008, -1/+6Valid point, but the context is to infer guns, since that was the only "arm" to be used by the average American in 1787.
- Yage2006, on 06/28/2008, -9/+6Ya the right has been doing such a good job with the constitution with bush in power lol .
- WhoismP, on 06/28/2008, -4/+5News flash: Bush isn't "in power". The left controls congress, thusly, they have the power. They just don't use it, for who knows why. They can get everything they "promised" us, i.e. out of Iraq, start fixing federal programs, etc. But they are too cozy in their congressional seats to make a move.
- VicHislop, on 06/28/2008, -3/+3The "Left" doesn't control Congress. Democrats do. Those two are not the same animal.
- Nitesmoke, on 06/28/2008, -3/+24Is 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.- mcquitty, on 06/29/2008, -0/+7According to the CDC, in 2005:
789 people died in unintentional gun deaths.
17,002 people died using a firearm, via suicide.
13,962 people died via firearm, as in homicides.
But, those are simply a drop in the bucket. Where is the outrage over:
47,894 transportation related deaths.
32,691 deaths by poisoning
21,081 deaths by alcohol (not accidents and homicides)
652,486 deaths by heart disease
553,888 deaths by cancer
150,074 deaths by strokes
121,987 deaths by respiratory disease
112,012 deaths by accidents (unintentional inuries)
73,138 diabetes related deaths
and the list goes on.
But, let's scrap the Constitution and the Bill of rights because guns killed 1.29% of all people who died. If you take out suicide, that means .058% of all deaths were related to guns. That makes a lot of sense, doesn't it?
- mcquitty, on 06/29/2008, -0/+7According to the CDC, in 2005:
- flashback99, on 06/28/2008, -6/+8I am normally anti-gun, but seriously, you guys in the states need it, what with your police & government being against you.
- MrWhite7, on 06/28/2008, -2/+12If only we had our cctv cameras to save us.
- yazheirx, on 06/28/2008, -1/+6It has been said that the 2nd amendment of the U.S. constitution had three meanings:
1. Protection of ones home and property
2. To allow for hunting and feeding of ones family
3. To allow the people to forcefully over through a tyrannical government.
The third one is seldom spoken about because that would mean that we have failed as voters.
As a side note I am not advocating a forceful overthrow of the U.S. government. As I have said in previous political comments, if we as U.S. citizens do not vote in all primaries and elections we can not change what we do not like. Vote often so that #3 never has to come into play. - Stevanoski, on 06/29/2008, -2/+3@flashback99, Europeans grew used to having kings and such rule over them after thousands of years of serfdom so I can understand how you believe as you do.
America is the anti-Europe so keep posting but expect your opinions to be ignored. Much like a Silent But Deadly is ignored at a wedding or funeral. They stink, but there isn't anything that can be done about them. - rheaume, on 06/29/2008, -3/+2I agree with this man, if you are a gun nut, I highly recommend you go out and attack a government or law official tomorrow.
- netant, on 06/29/2008, -0/+4@yazheirx
What you fail to realize is that you can only make peaceful changes to the local and federal gov't officials WHEN the system is lawfully permitting the voting will of the people to be expressed. The Founding Fathers understood that any government can become despotic and either disenfranchise a minority voting block or rig the vote count.
The firearm is there to be an available option when the Federal gov't despotically denies your legal rights. And after watching 8 years of George W Bush in action, I certainly reserve the "right" to use firearms when the Federal gov't ceases to operate in a lawful manner upon my person.
- flashback99, on 06/28/2008, -8/+4 UK gun crime stats:
* The number of overall offences involving firearms fell by 13% in 2006/07 compared to the previous year.
* Firearms were involved in 566 serious or fatal injuries in 2006/07, compared to 645 the previous year - a drop of 12%.
* The number of armed robberies involving guns dropped by 3%
* There were 13% fewer serious and fatal injuries related to gun crimes in 2006/07.
* The number of reported crimes involving imitation guns dropped by 15% in 2006/07.
* The number of reported crimes involving air guns dropped by 15% in 2006/07 over 2005/06.
source: http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/crime-victims/reducin ...- Stevanoski, on 06/28/2008, -4/+10You forgot to add *UK toothbrush use dropped 50% , there fixed it for you.
- Gudeldar, on 06/29/2008, -4/+9Your forgot to include data about the number of stabbings that occur in the UK. When they banned guns, criminals just switched to knives.
- Beveridge89, on 06/29/2008, -4/+3Gudelar, you mean how violent crimer has reduced as a whole by 30% since 1997 when handguns were banned? I don't agree thats due the firearms act, but if you're going to ***** figures, at least be vaguely accurate.
- MrWhite7, on 06/28/2008, -1/+8aren''t samurai sword killings up?
- rheaume, on 06/29/2008, -7/+2I had to click an extra button to remind why I blocked you ages ago. Big Mistake.
I'm sure if I lived down there you would shoot me for saying that, but sadly all you can do is digg me down en masse.- Stevanoski, on 06/29/2008, -2/+6Nope, we're pretty frugal people and only use our ammo for things of value.
- rheaume, on 06/29/2008, -5/+2Like black people on your property?
- Stevanoski, on 06/29/2008, -2/+4Sure do, come over for dinner some weekends, sometimes we go to their homes.
- rheaume, on 06/29/2008, -5/+1"It is not a cafeteria constitution."
If it was I'm sure they would serve Budweiser and Freedom Fries for lunch- Stevanoski, on 06/29/2008, -3/+1lol
- chillypacman, on 06/29/2008, -3/+2haha, right to bear arms should extend to everything, nuclear warheads, tanks, helicopter gunships, all should be avilable in the free market. Remember, the 2nd amendment was not created for self defense against criminals it was created for defense from the federel government, more to the point however the 2nd amendment makes no distinction between big guns or little guns, it's 'arms', in the most generel terms. The 2nd amendment is more of a political novelty, no one wants to enforce it to its fullest because, well we dont want lockheed martin selling multi million dollar cruise missiles on the free market now do we?
- elTito, on 06/29/2008, -3/+1"Remember, the 2nd amendment was not created for self defense against criminals it was created for defense from the federel government..."
The "keep and bear arms" clause is most definitely there to address an individual's right to defend himself from criminals or (at that time) hostile natives or what have you. The 2nd Amendment is at LEAST as much about the individual's right to self defense as it is about the States' right to maintain "a well regulated militia" as a check against Federal tyranny. The two are not mutually exclusive either, rather the 2nd Amendment sort of kills two birds with one stone. An armed citizenry is safer both individually and collectively.
"it is about more to the point however the 2nd amendment makes no distinction between big guns or little guns, it's 'arms', in the most generel terms."
I don't think anyone in his right mind would interpret the 2nd Amendment to allow for the possession of such munitions by the individual. It is almost certainly intended to enumerate the right of the States to keep weapons capable of being used in defense against the Federal government. This is why the National Guard has fighter planes and bombers and other heavy weaponry. - chillypacman, on 06/29/2008, -1/+3@elTito
sorry, try again, for all intents and purpouses the right to bear arms was written so that people could defend themselves from the federel government, it had nothing, no clause, no specification on defending oneself from criminals.
"I don't think anyone in his right mind would interpret the 2nd Amendment to allow for the possession of such munitions by the individual."
Indeed, but that is only because it highlights when the 2nd amendment was written, hundreds of years ago. Times have changed, it needs to be looked into and altered, as it stands however the 2nd amendment is simply a novelty, no one actually wants to enforce it to its fullest but at the same time no gun advocate is willing to acknowledge it's terribly out of date.
- elTito, on 06/29/2008, -3/+1"Remember, the 2nd amendment was not created for self defense against criminals it was created for defense from the federel government..."
- wonderchemist, on 06/28/2008, -16/+108Same could be said to the right.
- itsthebrod, on 06/28/2008, -9/+177Chicago 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!
- userperson, on 06/28/2008, -2/+36They 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?- enantiodromia, on 06/28/2008, -15/+8uhm, what part of Chicago are you talking about? The Loop/Downtown area is always very clean and safe when I am there.
- ZenMojo, on 06/28/2008, -12/+5@enantiodromia
Dugg down for actually knowing what you're talking about I guess. - MWeather, on 06/28/2008, -1/+11I've never seen any crime any of the times I went to Compton, either. That doesn't mean it's not there,
- itsthebrod, on 06/28/2008, -0/+13@enatiodomia
Anecdotal evidence FTL! - userperson, on 06/28/2008, -4/+1@enatiodomia
Nah I don't recall anything like that on The Loop
http://is.gd/xzl
- DigitusAnonymus, on 06/28/2008, -2/+11I always carry a crowbar with me, perhaps you should do the same.
- rex84, on 06/28/2008, -1/+14Gordon Freeman?
- mllawso, on 06/28/2008, -0/+10I know what you mean: those goddamn headcrabs are always just around the corner.
- ralphthemagi, on 06/28/2008, -19/+5I'm a fan of guns. I have several myself. I sleep with a gun next to my bed, even though I live in a ridiculously safe place. It just makes me feel better. I also live in the suburbs.
That being said, I sort of *support* the idea of a handgun ban for large cities like New York, Chicago, and San Francisco. Not all guns, just handguns. If I lived in the city and there was a handgun ban, I'd give up my handgun and get a shotgun. Not on any Constitutional basis, but on a practical basis. When you live in an urban environment, you are really close to people. Now any idiot can own a handgun. Think of how many idiots there are. Think of how many you meet on a daily basis. Now imagine that some of them live on top of you, some of them live below you, some to your right, some to your left, etc. Couple that with the fact that a 9mm round will tear through a dozen sheets of drywall with ease... and, well, I can't exactly say that's a good situation.
If I lived in Chicago, I can't say I'd be a huge fan of knowing that half the of morons around me now have handguns just so I can have one too. I'm not saying guns should be illegal in any are, and they never have been, but banning specific types of weapons in specific types of settings isn't the end of the world. We ban guns in schools, even though that's probably the one place where you'd really want to be able to carry considering things like Virginia Tech, but that would mean letting everyone else do it too. Just want I want, all the douches around me with pistols.- itsthebrod, on 06/28/2008, -1/+15You 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. - ralphthemagi, on 06/28/2008, -5/+0I'm not lacking in logic, you just completely missed the point.
The reality is that in urban settings there are more innocent bystanders as a result of gun crime because people are closer together. That's just the reality. Allowing everyone in a city the right to a handgun isn't going to help decrease gun crime. Adding more handguns into the homes of people in Chicago isn't going to make the city a safer place. Instead you will simply have more idiots with guns, who don't know how to use them, and fail to lock them up. - NetJunkie, on 06/28/2008, -0/+5ralph: Go check penetration testing. You're shotgun loaded with 00 buckshot will penetrate far more drywall than a .45ACP or 9mm handgun. Handgun defensive ammo is made to expand and release energy, not continue penetrating like a shotgun pellet is. It's the same with a lot of rifle ammo. Some people keep AR-15s for home protection and others think they are crazy. There is plenty of evidence showing how rifle ammo (of the right size) will penetrate FAR less structural material than a non-expanding shotgun pellet (or even heavier expanding handgun round).
The data is out there. I suggest checking http://www.theboxotruth.com/ - netant, on 06/29/2008, -1/+1New York City does not actually ban handgun ownership. What it bans is CARRYING a handgun, or possessing an unlicensed handgun. If you apply for a hangun permit, and are not a felon or mentally ill, you can own a handgun. NYC on the other hand, bans RIFLE or SHOTGUN ownership, and that state of affair I find objectionable.
I agree completely with the rest of your sentiments. The population density means there will be a larger number of idiots in the area, and the last thing I'd want to see is lawfully licensed to carry handgun citizens getting into a "defensive" shootout in the subway. I personally don't even feel the need to own a handgun for home defense. There are so many cops crawling around NYC, I don't feel particularly threatened by armed burglars, or handgun carrying criminals. And carrying a handgun on the street is not going to "protect" me from some punk's bullets unless I can kill him first. That's what ballistic cloth is for. And no, any ***** stupid enough to go firing a gun without a calculated reason in public is unlikely to be deterred by the fact that there are other people around them who do.
I don't even have a compelling urge to own a handgun for home defense. This damn city has no-knock warrants. I'd probably more likely get killed by retarded cops busting through my door after checking that the residence has a handgun owner, than an armed burglar or whacko.
- itsthebrod, on 06/28/2008, -1/+15You 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?
- ZenMojo, on 06/28/2008, -16/+3The typical gun owner is a college-educated, white, middle-class male living in a rural area. No doubt every digger who owns a gun is at least 4 out of 5 of these.
There are several questions to ask yourself given these statistics.
1) If there are 30,000 violent gun deaths each year, and one demographic group owns all of the guns, who the hell are they killing?
2) If your typical gun owner lives in a rural area, who the hell are they defending themselves from? Cattle rustlers? Cow tippers? Did I just answer question 1?
3) Is gun ownership for purposes other than sportsmanship (i.e., rifles) an expression of libido or typical gun panic -- a base fear of what may happen even though, living in a rural area, nothing is going to ***** happen?
4) Is this further support for the Republican Party as the party of fear?
5) How does the NRA sleep at night supporting deforestation and the fouling of our public lands while sportsmen will never be able to take their kids camping or hunting ten years from now?
6) Can typical gun owners tell the difference between crime (vandalism and drug use), violent crime (punching a guy in a bar, date rape), homicide (poisoning your husband, stabbing him with a kitchen knife), and gun-related homicide (shooting someone)? If not, does that explain why they constantly talk about crime rates and not about gun-related homicides or gun-related crime rates or homicides when trying to make their point? Or is this another verifiable expression of typical gun panic, a threat inflation in order to justify one's own paranoia?
Inquiring minds want to know.
Worth noting, New York State has "may-issue" concealed carry laws, but in practice New York City rarely gives these out. Nonetheless, it is the #1 safest big city in the country.
On the other hand, Atlanta, Georgia allows you to conceal carry everywhere, but has one of the highest big city crime rates in the country.
What's the difference between a city where you are less likely to be able to carry a weapon in public where crime is low and a city where you are easily allowed to carry a weapon in public but crime is extremely high?
Could it be the police? This is the 20th century, and instead of this frontier mindset some demographics seem to have where they suggest everyone wander the streets with a gun and shoot it out over budweisers in a saloon, might I suggest more sheriffs?
And stunguns. And mace.- nycmac247, on 06/28/2008, -0/+16I 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. - azimir, on 06/28/2008, -0/+10"2) If your typical gun owner lives in a rural area, who the hell are they defending themselves from? Cattle rustlers? Cow tippers? Did I just answer question 1?"
You did not just answer question #1.
I do happen to live in a rural area. On several occasions I have had reason to use deadly force. Not against people, but coyotes and cougars. Carrying a firearm on the edges of town and into the hills is a safety issue.
Trying to take the ability to defend myself and my family against wildlife, both human (we do have the occasional human-related issue, such as a shooting on the university campus of 3 people and 6 wounded when a man decided to target the local city hall. In both cases our police did great work, but when seconds count they're only minutes away) and non-human predators is irresponsible on your part and shows a willing disregard for our safety.
Thank you, but I *will* retain my firearms. - mllawso, on 06/28/2008, -0/+11Funny, I grew up around guns, and I don't consider them anything special. I don't own guns for any of the reasons you've listed: I own them because they're useful tools. I can protect my pets from the semi-feral dogs and coyotes around here, I can get food with them, protect myself and my family (haven't had to yet, but you never know). I've never considered shooting someone, and it's the last thing I'd want to do. I don't consider guns "manly"; if they were, the old woman down the road would be more manly than me.
- megaloid, on 06/28/2008, -1/+2azimir:
You got attacked by a *coyote*? - shig, on 06/28/2008, -0/+71) If there are 30,000 violent gun deaths each year, and one demographic group owns all of the guns, who the hell are they killing?
For one, not all guns are owned by a single group or by law abiding citizens. Two, not all those killed are a single group or law abiding citizens. Three, all gun deaths are violent.
2) If your typical gun owner lives in a rural area, who the hell are they defending themselves from? Cattle rustlers? Cow tippers? Did I just answer question 1?
For one, there is no such thing a typical gun owner. Two, if they are defending themselves does it really matter who they are defending themselves against? Would it make a difference if it was an arsonist instead of a cattle thief?
3) Is gun ownership for purposes other than sportsmanship (i.e., rifles) an expression of libido or typical gun panic -- a base fear of what may happen even though, living in a rural area, nothing is going to ***** happen?
If you can overlook the crimes that occur in rural areas then you can overlook the fact that we own guns. Even if we own them illegally on down the road, because that's a crime, you should overlook it.
4) Is this further support for the Republican Party as the party of fear?
Is gun ownership reasonable only if they happen to be Democrats? The rural South has a long history of voting for the Democrat Party, but you somehow think they didn't own guns until they voted Republican.
5) How does the NRA sleep at night supporting deforestation and the fouling of our public lands while sportsmen will never be able to take their kids camping or hunting ten years from now?
The NRA has sponsored more anti-gun legislation than any other group. Gun Owners of America is the only, truly conservative, gun lobby. Case in point, why would a gun lobby have anything to do with forestry? That's disgustingly fraudulent.
6) Can typical gun owners tell the difference between crime (vandalism and drug use), violent crime (punching a guy in a bar, date rape), homicide (poisoning your husband, stabbing him with a kitchen knife), and gun-related homicide (shooting someone)? If not, does that explain why they constantly talk about crime rates and not about gun-related homicides or gun-related crime rates or homicides when trying to make their point? Or is this another verifiable expression of typical gun panic, a threat inflation in order to justify one's own paranoia?
What about the number of crimes that privately owned guns have prevented? Am I allowed to source those statistics?'
############
"Worth noting, New York State has "may-issue" concealed carry laws, but in practice New York City rarely gives these out. Nonetheless, it is the #1 safest big city in the country."
Is it because they didn't issue CCs? No.
"On the other hand, Atlanta, Georgia allows you to conceal carry everywhere, but has one of the highest big city crime rates in the country."
Is it because they issued CCs? No.
"What's the difference between a city where you are less likely to be able to carry a weapon in public where crime is low and a city where you are easily allowed to carry a weapon in public but crime is extremely high?"
The number of criminals? Get a brain, dude.
"Could it be the police? This is the 20th century, and instead of this frontier mindset some demographics seem to have where they suggest everyone wander the streets with a gun and shoot it out over budweisers in a saloon, might I suggest more sheriffs? And stunguns. And mace."
My former sheriff is on trial for cocaine trafficking and taking a cut from a Mexican money laundering operation, among other allegations. - azimir, on 06/30/2008, -0/+1@megaloid
Actually, a pack of coyotes. They're often found in packs when food requires them to work together. Since around here, deer are in easy supply they are not solitary hunters.
Another issue is that loose or tied up dogs, even large ones, of prey for coyote packs. They'll actually get a smaller member of the pack to lure the dog out before surrounding and killing it. Tied up dogs can face a worse fate.
I hike in the hills and farmlands, and on a couple of occasions I've been warned off and even stalked a bit by a pack. Fortunately, my dog sticks close when there are predators about, so the danger has been low so far.
The only reason I decided to get a concealed carry permit is so that I can legally carry my firearm to the edge of town (only a couple hundred meters) without having to keep it unloaded and in a container before being *legally* able to remove it, load it and holster it once I leave city limits.
I grew up shooting. Rule #1 is safety first. Rule #2 is safety first. Rule #3 is safety first! A firearm is a tool. It can be used for recreation, defense, offense or stupidity. Education is key to using any tool. Learning how to operate any dangerous tool is a must (I still am cautious beyond belief around bandsaws), and I consider anyone who just picks up a gun without knowing how to operate it, nor thinking about the possible consequences of their next actions to be a danger to all around them.
A firearm is a tool. I never had a reason to use it as such until recently, but I find anyone advocating that "no one needs a gun, they're only for killing" has never lived around other creatures who consider you or your family (that includes my dog!) as possible food.
I consider trying to take my firearms is akin to trying to harm me personally.
- nycmac247, on 06/28/2008, -0/+16I have 3 people I know directly that live rurally and whom have had attempted robbery by meth addicts.
- jellygraph, on 06/28/2008, -7/+1criminals will always break the law, whats your point? more guns = more guns hanging around to be used.
- criverstamu09, on 06/28/2008, -2/+3Where are your statistics from? It is very easy to quote statistics without knowing what they mean. What study did you get them from? What was the margin of error? Was there any inherent biases in the study? What was the time period the study covered? What demographic did the study cover? Was the research done for the study sound and impartial? Did the scientist address the counter-arguments to his statements?
All of these have to be accounted for when reading research. It is quite obvious that your statement comes from propaganda instead of from empirical research.
- userperson, on 06/28/2008, -2/+36They 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.
- MasterThief117, on 06/28/2008, -13/+81Guns don't kill people. Massive internal organ damage and hemmoraging does.
- drkmirror, on 06/28/2008, -1/+13Guns do not kill people small chunks of lead flying at 700mph kill people
- Mahstah, on 06/28/2008, -0/+12The average 1500ft/s handgun round goes over 1000mph. Many go much faster.
- ralphthemagi, on 06/28/2008, -1/+5No, he's right. The average round is not anywhere near 1500ft/s. The most prolific rounds in this country are the 9mm, .40S&W and the .45 ACP. All three are well under 1200ft/s in standard loads. Just about the only standard load I can think of that's over 1500ft/s is the .357 SIG.
- Ebulating, on 06/28/2008, -0/+23Well, at the most fundamental level, lack of oxygen to the brain kills people.
- Aero347, on 06/28/2008, -8/+18or creates another neocon
- bigsteve3OOO, on 06/28/2008, -2/+2bullets kill. especially hollow points and cross tips
- zephyr42, on 06/28/2008, -2/+5I like, "Guns don't kill people, gaping holes in vital organs kill people" better.
- GhostM, on 06/28/2008, -3/+3Anything with an firearm shoots people, remember this? http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21545181/
An gaping hole or lack of oxygen just puts the final touch. - yazheirx, on 06/28/2008, -0/+4To bastardize a phrase I once heard and can not remember who to site for: If guns are responsible for killing people then keyboards are responsible for mistyped, misspelled posts with bad grammar.
- AzureRise, on 06/29/2008, -0/+1Guns don't kill people, magic missiles do.
- JonForTheWin, on 06/29/2008, -0/+5Guns do kill people. Thus why I own one. Stay the ***** off my property.
- Zaneris, on 06/29/2008, -0/+1Human life is quite fragile, so, we die really easily...
If someone has the intention to kill you, they can certainly do it with or without a handgun.
Should someone want to kill THEMSELVES, there's plenty of other less messy and easy ways to do so.
Pointless to ban them.
- drkmirror, on 06/28/2008, -1/+13Guns do not kill people small chunks of lead flying at 700mph kill people
- leontes, on 06/28/2008, -71/+13Amend the constitution. The right to keep and bear arms is an outdated, dangerous, and irresponsible amendment.
I love the bill of rights, don't get me wrong. I love the freedom of speech, I love that our property is protected from undue searching, and I love the rights of everyone to vote.
But we have the power to amend the constitution when things need to change and guns are a plague on our society. Get rid of them, while protecting the things that really do make this nation great. The right to own killing-sticks is not one of them.- Nitesmoke, on 06/28/2008, -3/+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...- leontes, on 06/28/2008, -18/+5oooo! The "if you don't like it, you can get out" argument. I know the constitution is not perfect, but that doesn't make me any less of a patriot. I think the laws of America can be better than they are right now, that doesn't make me any less of a patriot. I think the supreme court has made mistakes in the past and will probably do so in the future, that doesn't make me any less of patriot. I welcome you, intolerant and as small minded as you are, as a member of my country.
- birdly, on 06/28/2008, -16/+2And very few violent killings in Britain. Sounds like a smart country......
- 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 - Nitesmoke, 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.
- lolmacs, on 06/28/2008, -1/+10Yea just like the right to free speech isn't one of them...oh wait it is.
- thetayloreffect, on 06/28/2008, -2/+12Heck, why not take away the First Amendment too... if you're going to hack up the constitution all willy-nilly, we might as well get outrageous.
- NSResponder, on 06/28/2008, -6/+26" 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- leontes, on 06/28/2008, -21/+3I hope you never have occasion to find out just how wrong you are, you smug, ignorant twit.
- Nitesmoke, on 06/28/2008, -2/+12@leontes, apparently he isn't wrong, at least that's what the Supreme Court says *****. But what do they know, they're the Supreme Court, and you are a dude that doesn't agree with the constitution.
- bigsteve3OOO, on 06/28/2008, -13/+6That is the most intelligent anti gun post I have ever read. The founding Fathers would be proud. The constitution is made just for that...so it can be changed not circumvented. I dont agree with you point but I commend you on your proposed methods.. Kudos to you my friend you are a truly great American.
I do doubt you can get the 2/3 majority though. - Sandman666, on 06/28/2008, -2/+24You 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.
- diggthis123, on 06/28/2008, -1/+6Yeah you're right; the point of guns is to protect against the government.
Besides, this ruling didn't put guns in the hands of citizens, it merely restored their right to own a gun. It's about giving citizens a choice. Those that want it still have to buy it with their own money.
For those that say guns kill people - don't you think those people who really want to harm and kill others would have found some other way to obtain a gun by now? (From another state, black market purchase etc.) You can make a case against knives, baseball bats and other blunt/sharp objects that they "kill people" too.
Guns "could/can" contribute to deaths, sure - but there is a huge difference between what "does" and what "could/can". Those that do kill/harm others, regardless of their method, will suffer the consequences of doing so. According to my beliefs, the majority of American citizens are good - of course there are a mixture of bad people out there, but why should those "bad people" ruin gun ownership rights of those that are "good" and responsible citizens?
- diggthis123, on 06/28/2008, -1/+6Yeah you're right; the point of guns is to protect against the government.
- GrimPraetorian, on 06/28/2008, -0/+17and if the US government ever becomes too powerful and starts oppressing us what are we going to use to fight in the revolution, spears?
- BrownBears, on 06/28/2008, -12/+3Honestly, I can't understand why more people don't share this viewpoint. I think it's would have been a stretch for the court to say that only members of "militias" have the right to bear arms when it's clear that the founders intended for gun ownership to be a universal right. But I also think it's stupid not to realize that the founders wrote the constitution before there were police forces or even street lights. The world has changed a little bit in the past 220 years, our laws have changed, and the constitution has been updated when necessary to accommodate this progress. It's the responsibility of the legislatures and not the courts to allow for these changes, but the court fails when it steps in the way of this positive progress. While this verdict is certainly a victory for strict constitutionalism, it is a loss for the idea of positive progress upon which this country was founded and through which we remain great.
- onefinalstep, on 06/28/2008, -0/+1It is only a loss for your idea of positive progress. There are alot of people who disagree that banning guns would be progress. I think it would be a blow to personal freedom. But in any case, if you want people to live by your ideals you should get support and amend the Constitution; not allow the Supreme Court to usurp it.
- SpartanErik, on 06/28/2008, -0/+11Well what would you do to defend yourself upon burglary? Call the cops? Pfft
Banning guns would only effect innocent civilians using them as a defensive measure. What good is banning guns when all the bad guys have them?- nycmac247, on 06/28/2008, -2/+2Wow - and I thought the WW2 french were idiots
- nycmac247, on 06/28/2008, -0/+5SpartanErik
apologies; posted to wrong sub thread - bphicke, on 06/28/2008, -0/+6Cops help you after a crime, guns help you during a crime.
- undeadwarrior, on 06/28/2008, -0/+10Leontes, you're just plain wrong, and the highest court in the land says so. The thing with you is different than saying only militias should possess guns, you are saying no citizen should have guns, throw out the entire 2nd amendment. We have it for a reason, its been stated repeatedly, so I won't bother typing it again. I'm not ususlly one of those "like it or leave it" guys, but our constitution IS America. It defines us as a nation. Throwing out the 2nd amendment is very dangerous. It will never happen. I agree with Nitesmoke, if you feel so strongly about "killing sticks" why not live in a country where they're banned? To suggest that we trash part of the constitution because you don't like it or its "outdated" is ridiculous. Digg is famous for having a "liberal" leaning user base, and THEY are burying you deep. If that doesn't prove you're wrong, then there's no hope for you.
- leontes, on 06/29/2008, -1/+1Keep up: First of all, the supreme court determined that the amendment prevented the handgun law from being listed. If the constitution was amended, their job would be sustain that amendment, i.e., I'm proposing changing the constitution; it in no way states any criticism with the current supreme courts decision.
Our constitution is a living document, it is designed to adjust: the outlawing of slavery and the right of women to vote were not enumerated in the constitution initially and now are.
There is hope for you, even though you cannot conceive of hope for me. Breathe, try to understand what is truly being discussed, and learn to be a little more open-minded. You will gain a lot more from life with less of a sense of entitlement.
I posted a call to action that is ahead of its time. The reason I want to remove guns is because of shootings of passion/accidental deaths that would be prevented with the removal of guns. I think the answer is to ammend the consitution, not circumvent it. That requires 2/3rds of the states to agree. We have a lot of work ahead of us, but if people like you want people like me to leave, you are sad person. We are stronger the more we accept diverse opinions and welcome people who think differently than the majority. But the one thing I can barely is intolerance which you 'no hope for you' statement betrays. - Pixelante, on 06/29/2008, -0/+0You know, I'd like to remove your computer, and the internet. No more kiddie porn on the internet. Seriously, it's not worth the hassle.
No hope for you. What is truly being discusses is that you're a waste of oxygen.
- leontes, on 06/29/2008, -1/+1Keep up: First of all, the supreme court determined that the amendment prevented the handgun law from being listed. If the constitution was amended, their job would be sustain that amendment, i.e., I'm proposing changing the constitution; it in no way states any criticism with the current supreme courts decision.
- Pixelante, on 06/28/2008, -0/+4Amend the Constitution. In the era of global instantaneous communication, the ability for everyone to communicate anytime, anywhere with anyone on the planet using nearly unbreakable cryptography and anti-tracing technology is clearly dangerous. Imagine what would have happened if any Nazi sympathizer had had access to this technology in the 30s: we would be all goose-stepping and loving it.
There. Do you like your reasoning now?- leontes, on 06/29/2008, -0/+1Nice straw man there.
- Pixelante, on 06/29/2008, -0/+0You should see my tin man and my cowardly lion.
- westers47, on 06/28/2008, -1/+5You sir are a piece of ***** who does not know what it means to be a real American. Why dont you move to Britian with all the pussies who think the government needs to make your decisions for you.
- shredluc, on 06/30/2008, -0/+1Your right we should have it amended. We should reword it in a fashion such that people like you could never re-interpret it to your whims. Maybe something like this:
Amendment 2: The people shall own weapons. the people will overthrow government if need be.
See how easy that was?
- Nitesmoke, on 06/28/2008, -3/+21While you're at it rewrite the whole damn thing, take out the parts you don't like and add whatever you want.
- ryanhayn, on 06/28/2008, -62/+6NO GUNS!
Guns=death
No guns=less death- galeninjapan, on 06/28/2008, -1/+19Oh 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"- gjunkie, on 06/28/2008, -11/+2Wouldn't you rather live trusting in your fellow neighbors and community instead of in fear of everyone around you?
I'm sorry, but REQUIRING everyone to own a gun is the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard, regardless of how many statistics you throw at my face.
Let them have their guns, let them live in their "perfect family town" bubble. I'm never stepping foot in that town anyway.
- gjunkie, on 06/28/2008, -11/+2Wouldn't you rather live trusting in your fellow neighbors and community instead of in fear of everyone around you?
- lostngone, on 06/28/2008, -1/+20NO CARS!
Cars=death
No cars=less death - diggthis123, on 06/28/2008, -2/+8NO ALCOHOL
Alcohol = death / DUI
No Alcohol = less death / DUI
Flawed logic is fun!- damntourists, on 06/28/2008, -0/+2no alcohol? dude, seriously. don't kid like that. haha.
- diggthis123, on 06/28/2008, -0/+0Haha yeah - I was using the ***** logic of "ryanhayn"
I don't know why I was dugg down
- retral, on 06/28/2008, -0/+12NO COMPUTERS!
Computers=piracy
No computers=less piracy
***** logic is *****- Pixelante, on 06/28/2008, -0/+1Exactly. But don't threaten the "right" of some diggers to possess a computer, they might, like, cry a lot and post stuff on MySpace. And maybe hurt themselves.
- davidrools, on 06/28/2008, -0/+3If you're anti-gun, my guess is that guns scare you and you haven't shot one in a while. Face your fear. Go down to a local range and take a shooting lesson. Learn how a firearm in the hands of a responsible, trained individual is an asset. Then come back to digg.
- wolfebyte, on 06/28/2008, -0/+3Get out of the house much?
- galeninjapan, on 06/28/2008, -1/+19Oh yeah?
- LeadStripes, on 06/28/2008, -33/+15Guns don't kill people. People with guns kill people
- woobyluv, on 06/28/2008, -1/+6Haha, funny...
Now get it right...
Guns don't kill people. People kill people (with whatever weapon is available).
See what I did there? - snassiri, on 06/28/2008, -0/+7And if we outlaw guns, then criminals will never be able to have them because criminals are so keen on following all the laws of gun ownership!
- jellygraph, on 06/28/2008, -1/+1dogs sitting on guns have also killed some people in the past
- IrishKeith, on 06/30/2008, -0/+1If guns kill people, do pencils misspell words?
- woobyluv, on 06/28/2008, -1/+6Haha, funny...
- Trosso, on 06/28/2008, -45/+5***** I POP A CAP IN YO ASS FOO'
- Tribunis, on 06/28/2008, -0/+6No.
- 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.
- twomeyw23334, on 06/28/2008, -7/+5Know anybody who has been illegally spied on?
- UglyBunny, on 06/28/2008, -5/+2I was.
- shig, on 06/28/2008, -2/+3I think we all are.
- elipabst, on 06/29/2008, -0/+1yes actually I do.
- MWeather, on 06/28/2008, -0/+10You can't sue unless you can prove you were a target of illegal wiretapping, just like you can't sue San Francisco for banning guns in public housing if you don't live in public housing in San Francisco.
- onefinalstep, on 06/28/2008, -1/+3They tried, they didn't have any standing. Before you speak you should look ***** up.
- Elliuotatar, on 06/29/2008, -0/+1Onefinal is right. Lawsuits were filed. But the lawsuit failed. It was a catch-22. Without the secret list of people who were spied upon, they couldn't find someone who was spied upon so that they could bring a lawsuit to get the list unsealed.
- WhiteRaven, on 06/29/2008, -1/+1It didn't because the wiretapping was *legal*. Telecom companies voluntarily granted access to equipment they owned and had every right to do anything they wanted with.
The dirty little secret of the amnesty deal is that by not enforcing the Wiretap act, congress isn't going to have to face the fact that it exceeded it's constitutional authority when it sought to regulate what telephone companies can choose to do with the equipment it owns. - MasterLJ, on 06/29/2008, -1/+1The Constitution very clearly protects your right to bear arms, but it only protects you against "unreasonable search and seizure." I don't like it any more than the next liberty-loving person, but the simple addition of "unreasonable" adds a lot of leeway that is pretty hard to argue against in the context of wiretaps.
To add an aside, it's not like the original premise for gun-ownership exists anymore. The Founding Fathers wanted the government to fear the people, and for the people to keep the government in line. This is clearly not the case anymore.
- twomeyw23334, on 06/28/2008, -7/+5Know anybody who has been illegally spied on?
- 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.
- enantiodromia, on 06/28/2008, -31/+5The best way to reduce dog bites is for everyone to have pit bulls, right?
- 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.- enantiodromia, on 06/28/2008, -2/+1and what if dog always killed the person they bit, even if it was an accident?
- ousthouse, on 06/28/2008, -2/+5The best way to prevent dog bites is to have the government euthanize all dogs.
- galeninjapan, on 06/28/2008, -0/+14...or for everyone to restrain their dogs.
- mal1964, on 06/28/2008, -4/+31Second Amendment to the United States Constitution
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Amendment_to_t ... - 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- galeninjapan, on 06/28/2008, -1/+22Remember animal farm when the pigs kept reinterpreting the laws?
- NSResponder, on 06/30/2008, -0/+1Remember it? We're living it!
-jcr
- NSResponder, on 06/30/2008, -0/+1Remember it? We're living it!
- 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."
- philhatesyou, on 06/28/2008, -8/+2You're allowed to keep a musket and, as such, your right to bear arms hasn't been infringed. The type of arm you're allowed to bear is regulated, and rightly so.
- galeninjapan, on 06/28/2008, -0/+6I dont see the part of the second amendment that says "You're allowed to keep a musket and, as such" Can you point that out to me?
I was under the impression that "Shall not be infringed" means that it can not be limited by the government. - Vash265, on 06/29/2008, -4/+1I believe the part that is left open to interpretation is the part referencing a militia. Like it or not, there's a very valid reason for leaving the ammendment open for interpretation.
- galeninjapan, on 06/28/2008, -1/+22Remember animal farm when the pigs kept reinterpreting the laws?
- justinx0r, on 06/28/2008, -20/+74Good. 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.
- NSResponder, on 06/28/2008, -6/+17"Everyone likes to bash the NRA for some reason but they're actually a really great organization."
Not if you care about keeping your right to self-defense, they're not. The NRA sold us out years ago.
-jcr- bassik, on 06/29/2008, -0/+2Gun Owners of America is a much much better organization if you must belong to one http://www.gunowners.org/
- drgruney, on 06/29/2008, -1/+1please stop using a sig... I can see your name to the left of the post. Sigs are lame. It's like walking into a party and making everyone stop having their fun so you can yell "HEY EVERYONE I'M HERE!"
Attention whore.
- gjunkie, on 06/28/2008, -8/+3You've gotta be kidding me...
- OSuX, on 06/28/2008, -3/+14I like to bash the NRA for 2 reasons:
1. They haven't done enough/sold out on their members.
2. When I was a member many years ago, I would send in my $35/yr and they would send a cool magazine to my house... and then... they would send fat envelopes with 3 color advertising 2 or 3 times a week, each one asking me for more money. Essentially I was paying them $35/yr to have them stuff my mailbox with junk mail.
They need to get back to the basics of fighting for the just cause rather than use the second amendment as a business model. - bezshai, on 06/28/2008, -0/+11NSResponder, I agree that the NRA sold out a long time ago. But at the same time, I recently joined the NRA as a life member because they do at least slow down the progression of bans against our Constitutional non-hunting-related gun-bearing rights. I hate it though every time I hear them support a restriction or measure "for the saftey of the children." Oh well, for now they are still better than nothing. I hope that they stay that way.
- rex84, on 06/28/2008, -0/+22Gun Owners of America > National Rifle Association
http://www.gunowners.org/- zephyr42, on 06/28/2008, -0/+7absolutely.
- EvilGunOwner, on 06/28/2008, -0/+6Don't forget about Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership (JPFO), Second Amendment Foundation (SAF), etc.
Watch JPFO's "Innocents Betrayed" and "The Gang". One teaches the worldwide consequences of victim disarmament and the other tells the truth about the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (BATFE) and why we have never needed this alphabet soup organization. - BobaFettTDG, on 06/29/2008, -0/+2New website desperately needed.
- warriorscot, on 06/28/2008, -11/+1Why is a "Rifle" association fighting against a handgun ban, the two are very different and in most civilised nations differentiated in the eyes of the law. Owning a handgun and owning a rifle are two VERY different things, there are very few circumstances where I can think of that carrying a handgun is reasonable for an average citizen as you can't use them to hunt and you don't need to carry one around to use for sport.
Outside a firing range setting I don't think any civilian anywhere should have access to a handgun without a very good reason, and in the case of the US constitution I don't think a free for all of weapons is implied, you can't even really use the militia card as very few soldiers actually use pistols in combat many countries don't even issue them to rank and file as its seen as a wasted expenditure to purchase and maintain weapons ill suited to modern infantry combat.- MortVent, on 06/28/2008, -0/+5You do realize an organizational name does not include all that they do.
- BobaFettTDG, on 06/29/2008, -0/+1/sarcasm?
Nah, I'm giving you too much credit.
- MortVent, on 06/28/2008, -0/+5You do realize an organizational name does not include all that they do.
- jellygraph, on 06/28/2008, -10/+1Thats kind of like Alcoholics Anonymous giving lessons on responsible drinking. Sounds good at first, until you realize its retarded
- NSResponder, on 06/28/2008, -6/+17"Everyone likes to bash the NRA for some reason but they're actually a really great organization."
- dizilbdog, on 06/28/2008, -4/+16It's not as good as the outcome could have been. It's still the Government Saying "Jump", and all the citizens saying "How High?
- kosser, on 06/28/2008, -10/+7If you read the supreme court decision, we basically lost the right to the 2nd amendment...they used double talk all over the place and now the words forged in the constitution that says "the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed." no longer mean anything because in the decision it directly states ""the government may infringe your right to own a gun" and they are doing this federally and soon state to state. i think we will see much more regulations bottle necking our gun rights...we shall see tho
- TheSwashbuckler, on 06/28/2008, -4/+6Dude, there are no absolute rights. None.
- bezshai, on 06/28/2008, -0/+7A "right" that can be taken away, even slightly, by a government ceases to be a natural inalienable right and simply becomes a privilege granted to you by the government. And something that is a privilege can be taken away by the government any time the government decides to take it.
- shig, on 06/28/2008, -0/+3That's why they need to be protected.
- bezshai, on 06/28/2008, -0/+2Shig, thanks. I meant to add that at the end of my comment but somehow forgot it. The "that's why they need to be protected" is exactly where I was going though.
- shig, on 06/29/2008, -0/+1Anytime.
"Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect every one who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are inevitably ruined. ... O sir, we should have fine times, indeed, if, to punish tyrants, it were only sufficient to assemble the people!" - Patrick Henry. - bezshai, on 06/29/2008, -0/+1After reading a reply to this from TheSwashbuckler, I have noticed that the wording of my statement was very bad. After about 10 minutes of thinking about it, I should have said the following.
A right for which you have to gain any type of governmental approval to exercise ceases to be an inalienable right and becomes a privilege granted to you by the government. Once it is a privilege, the government can take it away from you at any time. That's why they need to be protected.
Note that I believe this in regards to any restrictions on gun ownership, requirement to have a CCW, etc. I also believe this in regards to having to gain a permit for a public demonstration or any other free speech activity.
Also, my rights extend only so far as they do not infringe on the rights of others. At that point, I have committed a crime and it is up to society (government) to decide what punishment should fit my infringement on another person's rights.
- bezshai, on 06/28/2008, -1/+7Agreed! The text says "shall not be infringed" not "shall only be restricted in a manner deemed reasonable by Congress." And to those who insist that "well-regulated" means government controlled, please look up the meaning of the phrase "well-regulated" as used during the 18th and 19th century. It meant for something to be working in proper order, not for something to be controlled or restricted. So, to paraphrase the 2nd amendment using a synonym, "A properly working militia, being necessary to the security of a free state..."
http://www.constitution.org/cons/wellregu.htm
I can't wait to see how many liberals bury this!!!- TheSwashbuckler, on 06/28/2008, -0/+2"A "right" that can be taken away, even slightly, by a government ceases to be a natural inalienable right and simply becomes a privilege granted to you by the government."
Then by your definition, we have no inalienable rights --- including the right to life. - bezshai, on 06/29/2008, -0/+1TheSwashbuckler, I think that you meant to respond to my post above the one that you actually responded to. Anyways, your comment made me think about my wording and I have added a revised statement above. Thanks for the input.
- TheSwashbuckler, on 06/28/2008, -0/+2"A "right" that can be taken away, even slightly, by a government ceases to be a natural inalienable right and simply becomes a privilege granted to you by the government."
- LenBaird, on 06/28/2008, -0/+2This is absolutely correct. According to this decision, the second amendment reads " A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms may be infringed as long as we tag the infringement with the word 'reasonable'"
- gquaglia, on 06/29/2008, -0/+1Doubt it. Ultra restrictive gun laws went out of fashion years ago. Most Americans support gun ownership with minimal restrictions that make sense.
- WindReaver, on 06/29/2008, -0/+1It did no such thing. He very clearly states that such things as limitations, registration, etc are outside the scope of that particular case. These will be decided when someone brings a case about it before the Supreme Court.
- LenBaird, on 06/29/2008, -0/+1They shouldn't have to go in front of the Supreme Court, since the wording "shall not be infringed" doesn't leave any wiggle room to anyone looking at it honestly. Then again, the same could be said about the individual right. If it was interpreted to mean a state militia , they would have successfully turned it into the exact opposite of its original intent.
- TheSwashbuckler, on 06/28/2008, -4/+6Dude, there are no absolute rights. None.
- whyknot2k, on 06/28/2008, -14/+16About time the supremes actually followed the Constitution on something instead of studiously ignoring it.
- SaperKain, on 06/28/2008, -22/+4When you are facing a barrel of a loaded gun suddenly everybody is a gun-control liberal. Of course the Republican Rambos or (RR) for short will come here and scream otherwise. But my favorites are the libertarians with their “black government helicopters are coming to take your guns away“ routine.
- galeninjapan, on 06/28/2008, -1/+7There are lots of democrats that support gun rights also. It's our constitutional right.
- SaperKain, on 06/28/2008, -5/+1What part of “well regulated militia” don’t you understand?
- Professr, on 06/28/2008, -1/+5@SaperKain
You can't use that argument anymore. The supreme court ruled that it is an INDIVIDUAL right, completely separate from anything to do with a militia. So STFU. - SaperKain, on 06/28/2008, -4/+1Yes. That must be this so called “strict” interpretation of the constitution that republicans & conservatives were demanding from supreme court. The hypocrisy is so thick I… can’t…. breathe.
- galeninjapan, on 06/28/2008, -1/+4How is that hypocritical? And agian i must repeat that out constitutional rights are neither a left or right thing. It's an american thing.
- MWeather, on 06/28/2008, -3/+1"What part of “well regulated militia” don’t you understand"
The part where it's a restriction, not an explanation. - galeninjapan, on 06/28/2008, -1/+3The supreme court ruled that the militia part was separate all together from the "shall not be infringed" part.
- rex84, on 06/28/2008, -1/+4What part of “the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" do you not understand?
- galeninjapan, on 06/28/2008, -1/+7There are lots of democrats that support gun rights also. It's our constitutional right.
- 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?- enantiodromia, on 06/28/2008, -15/+4why do the bad guys already have guns? did they go to gun smithing school? Are Mexican gangs flying in cheap chinese guns?
maybe it's because bad guys steal things, and sometimes, they steal guns.
if a city wants to say "we dont want anyone to have guns", then so be it. if you dont like it, move.
no one is putting a gun to your head making you stay... wait.- MortVent, on 06/28/2008, -0/+10You do know it's possible to buy black market firearms that are already illegal for law abiding citizens?
In fact many gangs have chinese/russian AK series rifles (since they were made in such large numbers), as well as other fully automatic weapons.
They were not stolen but smuggled into the united states. - UTKEngineer, on 06/28/2008, -0/+10"if a city wants to say "we dont want anyone to have guns", then so be it."
No, if a city says no one can have guns, it is in violation of the 2nd amendment. If you don't like it, move to another country. - MWeather, on 06/28/2008, -0/+6"Are Mexican gangs flying in cheap chinese guns?"
Yes. Though I think the Russian variety are the more popular choice. - rex84, on 06/28/2008, -0/+7"if a city wants to say "we dont want anyone to have guns", then so be it. if you dont like it, move."
They're called constitutional rights, if you don't like them; move.
- MortVent, on 06/28/2008, -0/+10You do know it's possible to buy black market firearms that are already illegal for law abiding citizens?
- birdly, on 06/28/2008, -5/+1I didn't know that no bad guys own homes!
- arjie, on 06/28/2008, -3/+1Considering how everyone seems to be violating law by your statement about criminals illegally possessing arms, I think you have a far greater problem on your hand - The people in charge of your law and order are completely incompetent.
It's your country, and your courts apparently say handguns are okay, so that's your thing. Not saying anything about that. Just pointing out the obvious. - gavin422, on 06/28/2008, -8/+4Well, to be fair, there hasn't been any sort of real, strong nationwide gun control yet.
Of course local gun control laws will fail, because all criminals have to do is cross the city limits to get a gun. Effective gun control is a cooperative undertaking.
I realize I'll be dugg down for having gun-control sentiments, but I'm actually curious as to your responses, so please leave one after you click the red thumb.- gavin422, on 06/29/2008, -1/+2No responses and 7 burys? Wow, you guys must be really confident in your arguments.
- cybrguy, on 06/30/2008, -0/+1Or people are tired of repeating themselves over and over. For many people, it is a subject that has been argued to death.
- thatsmyaibo, on 06/28/2008, -1/+5All I know is that in L.A. shootings are an everyday occurrence. By taking guns out of good people's hands we are just making the criminals stronger and leaving ourselves, our homes, and our families defenseless.
- jwkpiano1, on 06/29/2008, -3/+2No one's taking a gun out of anyone's hands, dude. Remember, even Scalia said the 2nd Amendment's right to bear arms is not absolute. The government can make laws to ban specific types of firearms, just not all firearms, e.g. the Automatic Weapons Ban. Would you like us to repeal that? The NRA doesn't even believe in that. You can't pick and choose like that.
- elipabst, on 06/29/2008, -2/+4That's not at all what Scalia said. If he did, then he would have no problem with a handgun ban like the one in DC. He did however specifically mention that there are limitations and defined them as what what is considered reasonable in the context of public safety (so something like a nuclear device, a tomahawk missile, or a fully automatic machine gun would be considered unreasonable). The DC handgun ban definitely took guns out of the hands of lawful citizens.
/Liberal
- shig, on 06/28/2008, -0/+2The Sugarhill Gang
- DeathGod321, on 06/29/2008, -0/+1Charlie Brown and the gang.
- enantiodromia, on 06/28/2008, -15/+4why do the bad guys already have guns? did they go to gun smithing school? Are Mexican gangs flying in cheap chinese guns?
- bigsteve3OOO, on 06/28/2008, -13/+25now I can stop them when they come to take me to the gas chamber. Hitler took the guns from his citizens first rounded um up and gassed um second.
- bezshai, on 06/28/2008, -1/+13Why is the parent getting buried? He points out exactly what the second amendment is about. An armed populace is a group of citizens who can stand up for their rights in the face of government tyranny. A disarmed populace is nothing more than a group of subjects who have no recourse against a corrupt government.
Don't think that the government in this country can't turn completely against the people just because we have the Constitution and a republican form of government. Remember that Hitler was voted into power via completely legal means by the people in Germany.- Gudeldar, on 06/29/2008, -3/+1I buried him for the paranoia of thinking that the government coming to send him to the gas chamber is inevitable. I buried you for not realizing that.
BTW I support gun ownership just in case you were wondering.
- Gudeldar, on 06/29/2008, -3/+1I buried him for the paranoia of thinking that the government coming to send him to the gas chamber is inevitable. I buried you for not realizing that.
- DaDrake, on 06/28/2008, -1/+13Historically, he is right. Hitler created a de-facto system were guns were automatically confiscated from religious leaders, homosexuals, and gays. If you were part of the Hitler youth/Nazi/SS ... they gave you guns. The entire implication is they disarmed those who were victimized.
- bezshai, on 06/28/2008, -1/+13Why is the parent getting buried? He points out exactly what the second amendment is about. An armed populace is a group of citizens who can stand up for their rights in the face of government tyranny. A disarmed populace is nothing more than a group of subjects who have no recourse against a corrupt government.
- HappyScrappy, on 06/28/2008, -5/+12It was the right decision. Even though the Neocons spit on it with their torture and kidnappings, the Constitution does actually mean something, and we can't just ignore it because it's inconvenient at a particular moment.
I wish the politicans (all of them) would pay more attention to the Constitution and stop willfully violating it and passing obviously unconstitutional laws (or executive orders) as "feel good" measures. - , on 06/28/2008, -0/+1test
- Burnse, on 06/28/2008, -12/+22There were 4 Supreme court Justices that committed Treason by ignoring the constitution and their oath of office!
- enantiodromia, on 06/28/2008, -10/+6maybe you dont know what Treason means. it's ok, you guys have been throwing the term around for so long now it effectively now means "disagrees with the extreme Right".
- onefinalstep, on 06/28/2008, -2/+5I agree, and if you read their dissents they sound like complete morons next to Scalia's masterpiece.
- proliance, on 06/28/2008, -2/+4The timing on this case was a very close call.
Obama will be elected president in November. McCain does not have a chance. (Please don't mistake me for an Obama supporter.) When Obama gets to choose a Supreme Court Justice, he or she will no doubt be liberal enough to have voted with the other liberals on the Supreme Court, making it a 5-4 decision the other way.
This was a tragedy narrowly averted.
- depro9, on 06/28/2008, -17/+4More death more pain & more money in the pocket$ of the gun makers.
Don't be fooled for one ***** second, this ruling is about $MONEY$ & nothing else.- galeni