digg

Join DiggAbout

Donkeys and Elephants and Delegates,oh my!
Check out the most popular Elections 2008 content on Digg.

See the original image at news.yahoo.com

DC gun ban overturned!!!

news.yahoo.com — WASHINGTON - The Supreme Court says Americans have a right to own guns for self-defense and hunting, the justices' first major pronouncement on gun rights in U.S. history.

Bury
show profanity settings
expand all
  • Tonicks, on 06/26/2008, -5/+51Heaven forbid law-abiding citizens have their constitutional rights. If they're not careful, the government will have to get a warrant to search your home!
    • RuffRidr, on 06/26/2008, -2/+19Or setup check points with illegal searches. Oh wait, D.C. already does that.
    • Shiftgood, on 06/27/2008, -0/+2Im gonna go get my gun and start shooting wildly into the air in celebration... of the fact.. that i can have a gun i already have?
  • AgelessStranger, on 06/26/2008, -7/+35This is a great day for America. No longer will the idiots at the Brady Campaign and Million Mom March have a legal leg to stand on. People who want to change the constitution for emotional reasons and feel good beliefs should be stripped of their right to vote.

    Great day for America and our freedoms.
    • Spuy767, on 06/26/2008, -3/+10No one shoud be stripped of their right to vote, but judges who fancy themselves legislators have no place in our system of government.
    • Kalior, on 06/27/2008, -2/+1You do realize that the second ammendment has been obsolete since the war of 1812 don't you?
    • cyberdork, on 06/27/2008, -1/+1And a great day for the world, because Americans can continue shooting themselves at a mindblowing rate ;-)
  • bgrah449, on 06/26/2008, -4/+51"In my view, there simply is no untouchable constitutional right guaranteed by the Second Amendment to keep loaded handguns in the house in crime-ridden urban areas." - Justice Breyer

    Oh wait, here it is: "The right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."
    • Tonicks, on 06/26/2008, -1/+23It's really not that hard, Justice Breyer.
    • stfucupcake, on 06/26/2008, -1/+9I wish that Congress/the House/President/Supreme Court could live the life of an average U.S. citizen for a year and see the flip side of the life that they are so removed from.

      They might see the need for personal protection or at least have empathy for those that do.
  • skiddles, on 06/26/2008, -4/+24FTA: "Opponents of the law have said it prevents residents from defending themselves. The Washington government says no one would be prosecuted for a gun law violation in cases of self-defense."

    Then why not allow guns to be owned and used for self defense? This puts the residents of DC hanging in the wind if they defend themselves. Their privilege could be revoked at the whim of a prosecutor or the mayor or the chief of Police for political advantage. Think Nifong and his reelection bid.
  • kamel, on 06/26/2008, -3/+32"Justice Stephen Breyer wrote a separate dissent in which he said, 'In my view, there simply is no untouchable constitutional right guaranteed by the Second Amendment to keep loaded handguns in the house in crime-ridden urban areas.'"

    Damn it. If anything, you should be required to have a loaded handgun in these areas. Let's let Justice Breyer and the other dissenters live in these neighborhoods for a couple weeks and see if they change their opinion.
    • USNavyBlue, on 06/26/2008, -2/+12Better yet send them to Zimbabwe for a month!
      • pintomp3, on 06/27/2008, -0/+4because the availability of guns has brought down violence over there?
    • n0gnuz, on 06/27/2008, -1/+8Individuals who live in exclusive, gated neighborhoods, and work in buildings with armed security guards, usually think the masses have no need to defend themselves.
    • logdesigner, on 06/27/2008, -0/+4The irony of the case is that it revolves around a security guard allowed to carry his gun at work to protect money, but not allowed to protect his family when a whacked out crackhead attempts a home invasion.
  • greaseddeafguy, on 06/26/2008, -14/+21This is why it is so important to vote for a Republican President. I don't like GWB but i like having fair minded Supreme Court Justices. A great day for Americans.

    oh and...
    ***** the Brady Campaign
    • bgrah449, on 06/26/2008, -11/+4This is one issue where conservative justices are more inclined to support freedom, but these same conservative justices are also usually supportive of broad executive power. So I think, actually, this is why it's so important to vote for a Democratic presidential candidate. Most of the conservative justices have a long career left, but a few of the liberal justices - Breyer, for example, who wrote the dissenting opinion - have been serving for around 15 years now, and will probably retire during the next administration.

      These liberal justices vote against certain liberties, such as the constitutional right to bear arms, but also act vigorously as a check against executive power. Considering the legislature has allowed itself to become crippled in this regard, I think it is very important for a Democrat to nominate the next round of Supreme Court justices - liberal justices are more likely to preserve our liberties in the face of an expending executive.
    • USNavyBlue, on 06/26/2008, -4/+12@greaseddeafguygreaseddeafguy - Good post, however voting republican is not always a safe PRO-Gun bet. Check out Gun Owners of America. They have Report Cards on all the Pro and Anti Gun members in Congress.

      You may be SHOCKED to find that John McCain received a grade of -F for his continuous support of anti- Second Amendment Rights. In short he is a GUN GRABBER.

      Don't make the mistake and just assume the person that has an "R" behind their names is automatically Pro-Guns. Check out what bills they vote on in Senate! John McCain is a RINO!

      Don't get me wrong, I am NOT supporter of Obama. Believe it or not Obama received a better grade (D) from Gun Owners of America. Still sucks, but HE scored better then McCain.

      Both are GUN GRABBERS and I will not vote for these two clowns for more reasons than just being a gun grabber.

      If you would like a candidate that is PRO- 2nd Amendment and is a life long member of the Gun Owners of America that by all means check out Chuck Baldwin, Constitution Party. http://www.baldwin2008.com
    • MutatedNantuko, on 06/26/2008, -8/+3You do know that a president has little to no control over the supreme court, right? Bush appointed a ton of judges because he got lucky, that's it.
      • greaseddeafguy, on 06/26/2008, -1/+6your second sentence proves that your point is *****
    • PappyPapillon, on 06/26/2008, -0/+9On June 12th a Republican, Mark Kirk [R-IL], introduced in to Congress a bill (H.R. 6257) to reauthorize the Federal "Assault Weapon" ban. Republican simply does not equal pro-gun.

      http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill= ...

  • Chahrlie5, on 06/26/2008, -17/+28Why am I not surprised that this isn't on the front page. Chicken ***** Obama Diggers.

    About ***** time some of our rights were defended and not stripped away.

    I guess the 4 lib judges think Government is supposed to Arm itself to protect itself from the people.

    An American without a gun is a subject, an American with a gun is a Citizen.
    • arpad, on 06/26/2008, -4/+7Who gives a ***** if it makes the front page of digg?

      I'm more concerned with Obama's reaction. I really hope he comes out big time all upset.

      He won't for the same reason we don't hear Michelle Obama going on about how she's, for the first time in her adult life, proud to be an American any more: the extended pinkie-finger set she belongs to can't elect her hubby and every time they open their mouths and identify themselves they piss off more Americans.

      I really wish Obama'd make it clear how utterly wrong he certainly feels this decision is but he's too smart to do that unfortunately.
      • USNavyBlue, on 06/26/2008, -6/+6I don't no that Obama is too smart NOT to mention this ruling. You know the press will ask him. He has always been very vocal of being a socialist short of a dictator on being a gun grabber.

        When the case was ruled on in FAVOR of guns for DC and the case was to be challenged in the Supreme Court.

        Obama came out and stated vocally that he DID NOT agree with the court ruling and was hoping the Supreme Court would over rule their decision, which they DID NOT! YEAH!

        So, I believe he will state something to the degree that he is "deeply disappointed with the Supreme Court verdict. And that many Americans are going to die or something completely nauseating!" GOOD I hope he does. One more foot in the grave.

        Neither he or his wife can keep their big trap shut. They have shown white America how much they are resented, loathed, despised and hated while smiling in our faces the entire time. I don't know why some of white Americans seem shocked, I think it was only the liberals everyone else new better. I say to them since they hate whitey so damn bad there are free to go back to their mother country anytime, but that is not what they want see. What they want is even MORE special treatment, NOT equal treatment.
        • Chahrlie5, on 06/26/2008, -0/+6Equal treatment would require them to actually have to try, as opposed to being handed opportunity.
    • thentro, on 06/26/2008, -2/+5Digg is slow, haven't you noticed?
    • 69fezz96, on 06/26/2008, -2/+9I was at a shooting range a few months ago and seen a nice older couple, both with Obama buttons on, and my friend and I talked to them about the 2nd Amend.. They both could not believe when we told them, that the government would like very much to take away their individual rights to keep and bear arms.
      I'm sure they would also be surprised to find out the architect of "Operation Iraqi Liberation" was none other than Zibiegnew Bresinski, Obama's Foreign Policy Chief.
      • logdesigner, on 06/27/2008, -1/+5In case you haven't noticed, Obama supporters are misinformed anyways. They get their news from John Stewart.
    • fasda, on 06/27/2008, -0/+2Actually it already is on the front page and got there a couple of hours ago
    • evilpandainlove, on 06/27/2008, -0/+4"An American without a gun is a subject, an American with a gun is a Citizen."
      not everyone wants to own a gun, you know. I agree that people should be allowed to own hand guns, though.
    • CryRightardCry, on 06/30/2008, -2/+1LOL
      "An American without a gun is a subject, an American with a gun is a Citizen."
      You been watching too much Starship Troopers.

      "An American without a gun is an American, a coward without a gun is a coward".

      That makes more sense.
      Men don't need guns to be men. Cowards need guns to be men.

      But hey, you guys won. The gun nuts managed to defeat sanity.
      Great. So now we have a country of armed cowards.
      Who is crowing loudest today? The most cowardly.
    • DreadPirate, on 06/30/2008, -0/+2CRC - "Men don't need guns to be men. Cowards need guns to be men."

      Funny how you never address the usage of guns by women to defend themselves from rape and murder. Is it because that too advanced a concept for you, or because you can find no way to spin it as a junior-high level insult?

      I'm surprised it took you this long to chime in on this topic - had to get over the embarrassment of utter defeat?
    • DreadPirate, on 07/01/2008, -0/+1What a surprise - when asked to answer a simple question, CRC is too much of a gutless coward to respond. Instead he runs away to pollute the next thread with his witless insults and rambling.
  • Tonicks, on 06/26/2008, -4/+21We need guns to defend ourselves from the government. No wonder they want to take them away.
    • Kizilbash, on 06/26/2008, -4/+3So when the ***** are you loudmouth idiots going to start 'defending yourselves from the government'?

      The only purpose the 'right to bear arms' serves is the right to bear arms.
      • Tonicks, on 06/27/2008, -0/+4Not if the government is tyrannical. I'n not saying it is. But when it is, I'll be prepared.
    • pintomp3, on 06/27/2008, -2/+1your handgun is really going to stand up to tanks and hellfire missiles.
  • ptgustan, on 06/26/2008, -6/+17The “But” monkeys are coming out of their trees. Barack Obama has been spotted clinging to a gun. Infringements will be redefined as reasonable restrictions.

    “You can’t fire in a crowded theater”

    An armed populace frightens tyrants more than anything else. Watch the ones that try to minimize or co-opt this decision; they would be tyrants if they could.
    • 1town, on 06/27/2008, -0/+1***** no, you can't fire in a crowded theater. Shouldn't yell either.

      Btw, someone try to yell fire the next time you go to the movies. 20 bucks says no one will give a *****.
  • jeffwmartin, on 06/26/2008, -4/+26Stevens said in the dissent, "would have us believe that over 200 years ago, the Framers made a choice to limit the tools available to elected officials wishing to regulate civilian uses of weapons."

    Yes, that's exactly what the Framers did because they knew if they didn't, the elected officials would abuse their power.
    • n0gnuz, on 06/27/2008, -1/+7Funny how today's statist elite likes to interpret the Founders in ways that suits their control over our lives.
  • thentro, on 06/26/2008, -2/+5Very interesting and extremely well reasoned opinion and decent. Go read the whole thing here:
    http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/court-a-constitutiona ...

    Majority:
    "“The inherent right of self-defense has been central to the Second Amendment right”
    But..
    "There seems to us no doubt, on the basis of both text and history, that the Second Amendment conferred an individual right to keep and bear arms. Of course the right was not unlimited, just as the First Amendment’s right of free speech was not. Thus, we do not read the Second Amendment to protect the right of citizens to carry arms for any sort of confrontation, just as we do not read the First Amendment to protect the right of citizens to speak for any purpose."

    Minority:
    "Today judicial craftsmen have confidently asserted that a policy choice that denies a "law-abiding, responsible citize[n]" the right to keep and use weapons in the home for self-defense is "off the table." Given the presumption that most citizens are law abiding, and the reality that the need to defend oneself may suddenly arise in a host of locations outside the home, I fear that the District’s policy choice may well be just the first of an unknown number of dominoes to be knocked off the table."



    • MikeFromAmerica, on 06/26/2008, -1/+9"Given the presumption that most citizens are law abiding, and the reality that the need to defend oneself may suddenly arise in a host of locations outside the home, I fear that the District’s policy choice may well be just the first of an unknown number of dominoes to be knocked off the table."

      Let's hope so.
    • skiddles, on 06/26/2008, -0/+6Presuming that criminals are NOT law abiding citizens, and might carry a weapon to use against a law abiding citizen anywhere, as we see daily on the evening news, why should law abiding citizens NOT have the right to defend themselves when moving around in public.

      Concealed Carry Permits should be federally issued with appropriate background checks.
      • thentro, on 06/26/2008, -5/+1I think this is key, and I hope this ruling moves the gun debate to more reasonable ground. Instead of silly 'no guns for anyone' vs 'guns for all', we should be debating about how best to regulate the sale and registration of guns.
        • Zarokima, on 06/26/2008, -0/+3Sale and regulation is already handled pretty well in many areas, so there's really nothing to debate. Also, I'm pretty sure the constitution says "guns for all," just not in those exact words.
  • greaseddeafguy, on 06/26/2008, -6/+7This should be on the main page!!!!!!

    Digg this up
  • Mier, on 06/26/2008, -3/+4Landmark ruling, now all those people in other countries can look here and see that a nation of law does recognize self-defense as legitimate recourse. I wonder how many British will leave for the US. That video the NRA put up of a rally to just try and keep hunting weapons was pretty big.

    Can't wait to see those gun bans start being declared unconstitutional. New York, Chicago, California. It'll be a glorious day.
  • wreckosaurus, on 06/26/2008, -5/+6I used to be anti-gun, but then I got married and moved to a city with a bit of a crime problem. I've heard one too many stories of innocent people getting beaten up or even killed because some crack head wants to score a hit. I'm absolutely outraged whenever I hear news like that, but now that I have a wife, I have an even stronger reaction. It's a completely different mindset when you have family to protect, and imagining one of those assholes assaulting my wife is too much to bear. If she's going somewhere at night, or somewhere where there aren't a lot of people around, I go with her. But without a gun, there's only so much I can do to protect her. Any law abiding citizen should be able to purchase and keep a gun, and soon I will have one too.
  • mathewsjw, on 06/26/2008, -11/+12For NOT reading the U.S. Constitution
    Impeach Ginsburg!
    Impeach Breyer!
    Impeach Souter!
    Impeach Stevens!
    and for that matter while we're at it Impeach Kennedy!
  • mathewsjw, on 06/26/2008, -8/+10and Obama and Pelosi to STILL take away YOUR guns.
  • PolishLogic, on 06/26/2008, -3/+9Today is a good day.
  • lazerus9, on 06/26/2008, -2/+10After reading the ruling I am less than optimistic about this courts support for the second amendment!
  • PappyPapillon, on 06/26/2008, -2/+12This ruling is definitely a step in the right direction.

    I feel compelled to mention that Feinstein, who in the article is quoted as being in disagreement with the Supremes, is a dedicated gun-grabber who, however, carries a firearm for protection. Her hypocrisy knows no bounds. She wants her right to self-defense while denying us our right to self defense. Please, my fellow Californians, stop reelecting her.
    • n0gnuz, on 06/27/2008, -0/+5Absolutely. Lower and middle-class activists for upstanding citizen disarmament usually confuse illegal gun ownership and legal gun ownership. Elite activists for upstanding citizen disarmament know better, but are surrounded by an armed security detail.
  • Yarmin3, on 06/26/2008, -2/+10I think the ownership of guns in today's society is not as important as when this amendment was first written, but I believe it's pretty apparent that we have this right until another amendment restricts it. It is funny how McCain applauds this decision for upholding the second amendment on par with freedom of speech and religion, but he thought one of the courts worst decisions was upholding habeas corpus and he wants to trample all over the fourth amendment. Follow the constitution, if you don't like it, work to amend it!
  • brainboy77, on 06/26/2008, -5/+2i'm kind of disgusted at the democrats on court. we all know that the republican justices play along party lines and criticize them for that. but when the republican justices actually fight for the constitution, the dems start playing the exact game the republicans are doing. shame on them; they should have been the bigger men but are now acting like the enemy, the right. I don't condone the Republicans for voting this way either. their past history show time and time again that the republicans heed the constitution when it benefits them. two people come as decent folks out of this whole affair: Justice Kennedy for being the only one to follow the goddamn constitution and obama for not caring. the justice system should be a seperate entity from the legislative and executive, and the problem with it is that the justice system is pretty much the executive and legislative branches' bitches. obama respects the court's decision and i respect him.
    • quesi, on 06/26/2008, -0/+4You sure play up the whole right/left, Republican/Democrat game. Both sides play up the Constitution when it is convenient. Don't let the People be divided over the little issues.

      I think you are right on the money in so many places. But, Obama is "decent folks" for not caring? I don't follow... if you back the Constitution, you back it - you don't condone not caring.
  • quesi, on 06/26/2008, -1/+8As far as DC (The Federal Zone - ten square miles for the seat of government) goes, Congress has exclusive jurisdiction and may legislate however they wish. Again, read the Constitution. As far as everywhere not under that exclusive jurisdiction, the Bill of Rights isn't to be "interpreted" in any way that would stray from our individual rights, as it was created for the government "in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers". These are not "Constitutional rights", these are inalienable rights.

    The People must read and remember the Supreme Law of the Land. Don't accept any of this living document crap. Forget your party line. Restore the Republic!
  • stfucupcake, on 06/26/2008, -1/+5About time.
  • m2garand, on 06/26/2008, -1/+6Two reason to have guns. To protect yourself from the common criminal. To protect yourself from a tyrannical government.
  • Shiftgood, on 06/26/2008, -7/+3HANDS OFF MY GUNS, I NEED TO SHOOT GUNS. GUNS GUNS GUNS! BEST THING IN LIFE GUNS! WHATS THAT? GUNS!
    • Bilabrin, on 06/27/2008, -0/+1I never understood the mentality that murderers, thugs and violent criminals who don't give a damn are going to give up thier weapons if the city passes a law against them. I don't think the argumant here is that guns and violence are good per se but that a law banning them is innefective and only good law abiding citizens will relinquesh the guns....making them more vulnerable to the thugs.
  • j0eg0d, on 06/26/2008, -2/+5I understand how some of you feel about guns & gun control, but there's a more important issue here than simply owning a firearm ...

    We can't allow our government to change or ignore ANY of our rights - no matter if we agree with them or not.
    • quesi, on 06/27/2008, -0/+1Looks like some megaphonies passed through to digg you down... Why would Pro-Israel forces be so against our inalienable rights?
  • 69fezz96, on 06/26/2008, -1/+3So the Supreme Court basically comes out and says that "You have an individual right to keep and bear arms, but we can take that right away from you at any time", and this is a victory?
    Aren't they basically calling themselves God by saying you have a right but WE can take it away?
    Think this through logically people, are not our rights God given and unalienable?

    Rights come from God, and privileges can be taken away by the granter.
  • db0255, on 06/27/2008, -1/+1Obviously a load of you have not spent 10 minutes in most parts of DC. The fact that handguns are now allowed in the nation's capital kind of gives me the creeps.
    As far as precedent goes...I'm not too sure. If you read the actually words of the second amendment in their proper grammar the meaning can only be construed as highly ambiguous. I'm not against this ruling's precedent, but I'm sure as hell not happy that guns are now going to be roaming the streets of DC.
    • n0gnuz, on 06/27/2008, -0/+4The gun-toting thugs are already using stolen guns. This ruling is for law-abiding citizens.
  • n8o8, on 06/27/2008, -0/+1This is a true victory for freedom loving Americans. Justice Breyer's statement is absurd and indicative of the remaining hurdles and current state of affairs. Can you imagine the lines at the gun stores today is the decision went the other way?!
  • Tomson74, on 06/27/2008, -0/+4It just sickens me that we actually have to go this far. Now, to make this worse. They overturned the verdict with a 5-4 vote. I am sure that once the new president is elected, there will be some Politics involved into over turning this. The Government will never say we can't own guns, they will make it IMPOSSIBLE to own one. Like licensing a gun for $5000 or some ridiculous price, and they will sit there and say "Hey, we never said you couldn't own a gun". It sickens me that we have IDIOTS out there trying to pull gun control. Gun Control only hurts the law abiding citizens. It was proven by the damn Brady Bill. It was proven in Australia with their Gun Control, where they banned all guns, and saw their crime rise.
    Clinton had the assault rifle ban, what a joke. It didn't matter if the "assault rifle" was semi or full auto, but as long as it had a rubber grip. WTF?
    If we want to A) keep our guns b) make sure theres no law stating that we have to pay a ridiculous amount for a license fee
    we as citizens need to do ALOT more. Stand up for your rights, because once this right goes, kiss all of our other rights out the window.
    I honestly think, we needs something in place where, at the age of 18 its mandatory to take gun defense classes. We have enough gun laws in place, NO MORE. I will not be threatened with a licensing fee of some ridiculous amount either.

    GUN CONTROL ONLY HURTS LAW ABIDING CITIZENS.
  • Evangelical, on 06/27/2008, -0/+0Great news the G's bro
  • Shao00, on 06/27/2008, -0/+3awesome, this is about way more than owning a gun and I hope people realize this.
  • logdesigner, on 06/27/2008, -0/+2Very disturbing that the decision was so close. Instead of not allowing me to have a gun in my own home, they should pass laws that give mandatory 15-20 years imprisonment for felons to possess a firearm. We don't need gun control, we need crime control. If a kid shoots up a school, go after the parents. Get rid of of the loopholes for gun shows. Armed robbery, 10 year minimum. Lock up the drug dealers, not the drug users.
  • Montey, on 06/27/2008, -5/+3Can someone please explain to a non-American (United States).... why do you want or need the right to carry guns?

    I was watching a documentary the other day, it was not anti-gun, but it did go to a gun community barbecue in Kansas where the interviewer asked several people why they needed to carry guns. The most cogent answer that came back was "its a tool that I use." But this sounds, to my ears at least, a little odd. Firstly, how many plumbers carry wrenches on their belts to a plumber's community barbecue, and how many accountants go to an accountants barbecue with a calculator on their hip? Secondly, precisely what function does this tool fulfill in the daily lives of an American citizen? Is it used to turn the lights off, or open cans of beer, what "tool" like purpose does it serve?

    The second most understandable answer that came back was "because I have a gun on my belt, no one has ever attacked me." This, to my mind, is bizarre logic. I carry a handkerchief in my pocket each day, to blow my nose on, and I have not been attacked by anyone, does this mean my handkerchief is an anti-mugging device? Also, surely if everyone is carrying guns and someone wanted to attack you, and they had a gun and also were willing to use it, they'd just shoot you before you even knew to pull your gun out to protect yourself?

    I am sure I am going to get flamed to death here (but at least not shot), but I genuinely can not fathom why it is so important that people have the "right" to carry a weapon (of any kind). The only logical explanation I have been able to come up with myself is that the citizenry is just as scared of each other as they are of everyone else, but that strikes me as a very sad existence for a country with so much going for it.

    Anyway, *flame suit on* can someone explain it to me in a non-emotional way?
    • ithejosh, on 06/27/2008, -1/+2Places where guns have been banned, crime rates rose. Make your own decision.
      • Montey, on 06/27/2008, -1/+0But was analysis done to confirm it was because of the guns being banned? Did anyone confirm that the lack of ability to carry a gun was the reason for committing the crime, or the reason for committing the crime against someone who could not carry a gun. To say that crime rates rose "because" guns were banned surely needs some empirical evidence to back it up.

        Even assuming, for a moment, that every crime victim became such because they didn't have a gun (which ignores a great likelihood that most crimes were without the victim being present), surely re-arming doesn't address the root problem of why people commit crimes, or is it a requirement to assume that everyone is a criminal and the guns are the only thing keeping them in check? If this is correct, this also is fairly tragic.
    • TacticalPenguin, on 06/27/2008, -1/+3If owning a self defense weapon is commonplace, people will think twice before doing something stupid - would you rob a bank with 5+ security guards watching it? Then why would you do something to a person when everyone around you can do just as much as a security guard (or more since some security guards don't carry weapons)
      • Montey, on 06/27/2008, -1/+0But why would I rob someone in the first place? Surely civilised society shouldn't require that everyone is armed, but in fact should rely on everyone just obeying the law and being civil (as in civilised) to each other. Your logic seems to imply that everyone is a potential criminal and that the only thing stopping complete anarchy is that lots of people are armed. Again this sounds like a very sad existence that a society may exist as a community purely because they might shoot each other.

        Also, given that I won't be robbing or otherwise attacking anyone why would those around me need to carry firearms? They would be protecting themselves against a non-existent, or very low likelihood, risk. Do you carry around a leg-splint every day just because you might trip over and break your leg?
    • ngmdotcom, on 06/27/2008, -0/+2cause it is liberating to carry a gun
  • Branchex, on 06/27/2008, -1/+2Why doesn't someone invent a good non-lethal alternative to the gun, then this whole debate can be neutralized.
    • ngmdotcom, on 06/27/2008, -0/+1Lethality of it is the whole point
  • shyampoo, on 06/27/2008, -1/+3I'm starting to think the Judicial branch is the only sane part of this dang government.
    • 0Xonox0, on 06/27/2008, -0/+2Well, the law is the law, I don't see what so confusing about the second ammendment, it pretty clearly states, "the right to bear arms will not be infringed" Yet 4 of 9 Judges still don't get it.
  • dunderballer, on 06/27/2008, -1/+4It's funny to see the GOP pissed at the Supreme Court for restoring Habeas Corpus and the Dem's pissed at it for restoring the second amendment. Seems like both parties would be happy if we just tore up that damn constitution all together.
  • iMike360, on 06/27/2008, -0/+2Difference between Canada and the States:
    Canada- trying to ban hand guns
    States- trying to get a gun in the hands of every American
    • 0Xonox0, on 06/27/2008, -0/+1Difference between Canada and the Lower 48
      Civil Liberties.
  • theNazz, on 06/27/2008, -1/+2Great news but already #1 on the front page... burried as dupe.
  • pintomp3, on 06/27/2008, -0/+1"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." the problem is how vaguely it is worded. does it mean each state can have it's own militia, or does it mean each person can have guns? it can be interpreted either way.
    • iMike360, on 06/27/2008, -1/+2Its was created so when the British reinvaded there would be large militias ready to fight, but i have news...
      The british aren't coming!
    • WestonP, on 06/27/2008, -0/+2The Supreme Court's ruling was that it being an individual right is consistent with the original intent, and how the 2nd amendment was interpreted when it first went into effect. If you read what this country's founding fathers said about the topic of firearms, it's pretty clear that they wanted it to be an individual right.
  • Kalior, on 06/27/2008, -1/+1This thread: Who let the freepers out of their trailer park?
  • empirefalling, on 06/27/2008, -3/+1Americans are now confirming the right to kill each other. What a waste of human life. One has to ask...What kind of society has citizens that must have weapons to defend themselves from each other???
    • skiddles, on 06/28/2008, -0/+1The answer to your question is Britain.

      But the real question is "What society has citizens that are allowed to have weapons to defend themselves?" because ALL countries have those who would prey upon their neighbour. That is global.
  • DarkReign16, on 06/27/2008, -0/+1Let's put it this way Montey. Would you rather rob a gun store or a "Citizens against firearms" HQ?

    If you had to choose, would you rather shoot up an NRA dinner, or a "Americans Against Guns" dinner?

    Exactly.
  •  

    Login or register to add a comment

    Create a new account or login to join in the conversation on Digg. You'll also be able to Digg stories to help promote things you like.


© Digg Inc. 2008 — Content posted by Digg users is dedicated to the public domain.
DIGG, DIGG IT, DUGG, DIGG THIS, Digg graphics, logos, designs, page headers, button icons, scripts, and other service names are the trademarks of Digg Inc.