Re: Ted Nugent on Gun Control
 

[QUOTE=firstdown;330881]If you buy a gun get a pump shot gun. That distenct sound of pumping a shell into the chamber is enough to make most theives run for there life.[/QUOTE]

I was thinking more about purchasing a handgun.

Re: Ted Nugent on Gun Control
 

[QUOTE=jdlea;330906]I was thinking more about purchasing a handgun.[/QUOTE]

And if you don't keep a bullet in the chamber (which I don't keep a bullet in the chamber) then the sound of cocking the gun is just as familiar to a pump action shotgun.

Re: Ted Nugent on Gun Control
 

[quote=jsarno;330912]And if you don't keep a bullet in the chamber (which I don't keep a bullet in the chamber) then the sound of cocking the gun is just as familiar to a pump action shotgun.[/quote]
Yea but a shot gun gives you a better chance on a dark night.

Re: Ted Nugent on Gun Control
 

[quote=JoeRedskin;330859]Preliminarily, this is mostly just a restatement of the 1000 posts that gone on before and so I am just summarizing previously made arguments.

FIRST: I believe it is unconstitutional to completely ban the personal ownership of guns and, quite frankly, I do not advocate that position. There is an important public interest in preventing a government from having an absolute monopoly on the use of force. Preventing such a monopoly was the crux of and the intent behind the Second Amendment's guarrantee of the individual right to own guns.

SECOND: I don't "fail" to realize anything about your assertion AngrySS. In fact, I agree that regulating guns only affects those who follow regulations. I am okay with this BECAUSE:
- As I argued earlier, those who will illegally own a gun are not necessarily going to be deterred by the possibility of you carrying a concealed weapon; and, thus,
- Carrying a concealed weapon in public does not necessarily increase ur personal safety; but
- A proliferation of concealed weapons in public places, IMO, does create a greater risk to the public.
- Balancing the public's right to safety against your personal right to own a gun requires a balancing process and the regulation of who can own guns, how many they can own, and where they can carry them is both appropriate and well within the the constitutional guidelines set up bythe second amendment.

I and others have said all this before and, at this point, if you can't agree that the public at large has a right to reasonably regulate the availability and ownership of guns and to place restrictions on where they may carried, then we are simply going to have to agree to disagree.
- The 2A DOES NOT guarrantee you the unfettered right to own an arsenal and to go armed anywhere you want.
- As to gun ownership, there is a public interest which must be balanced against any private right you have.
- And, (this one is my personal opinion) while fewer guns may not necessarily make us individually safer, a proliferation of weaponry is not guarantee to greater public safety. Again, [I]IMO[/I] - a proliferation of weaponry is more likely to decrease public safety than to increase it.

And with that - I will refer you back to my previous posts 'cause I think I am now just pretty much rehashing what has already been said about dozen times and about a dozen different ways.[/quote]
One thing that you assume is that a person carring a gun becomes a danger to everyone else. The facts show just the opposite is true as they have a very low crime rate with people who have a concealed permit and they have safty to take safty classes to carry a gun. I'll see if I can find a link to back this up. I think that your post is your personal thought and is not backed by facts.

Re: Ted Nugent on Gun Control
 

Here is two links which one is the NRA but they do use facts and numbers to back them up. The other one is very, very, long but with a quick scan i did see some numbers like theNRA used.
[url=http://www.savetheguns.com/the_truth_is_everything.htm#Concealed%20Carry]The truth is everything on the issue of firearms.[/url]

[url=http://www.mcsm.org/lott1.htm]Gun Control Paper[/url]

One other thing that I saw was in the NRA page and it did talk about this wild west argument and they showed numbers back from then and the murder rate was very low.

Re: Ted Nugent on Gun Control
 

[QUOTE=firstdown;330920]One thing that you assume is that a person carring a gun becomes a danger to everyone else. The facts show just the opposite is true as they have a very low crime rate with people who have a concealed permit and they have safty to take safty classes to carry a gun. I'll see if I can find a link to back this up. [B]I think that your post is your personal thought and is not backed by facts.[/B][/QUOTE]

Some of my post is, absolutely, my opinion and, yes, it is a gut reaction in some respects. In that I actually support gun ownership, I haven't generally researched the reasons for limiting it. I USUALLY am the one arguing that gun ownership is okay. It's just the "I have a right to have a gun, as many guns as I want, and it's nobody's business but mine" attitude I take issue with. As I said, and as with all constitutionally guaranteed rights, gun ownership requires a balancing of the public interest against the private right.

For example, I have heard few gun owners argue that people should have the right to carry a concealed weapon in schools (Angry even opposed this). BUT:
- If guns encourage safety and all gun owners are concerned with safety (as the NRA article asserts), why not allow them in schools? Aren't they just as safe at a playground as they are on the sidewalk in front of my house? If they inherently pose a danger to kids when carried in schools and playgrounds, dont they inherently pose a danger to adults in other public places? Further, based on the "fewer guns don't make us safer" argument, don't we make schools the targets for armed predators b/c they know no one is armed?

Re: Ted Nugent on Gun Control
 

i agree with ted nugent 1000000000%

Re: Ted Nugent on Gun Control
 

All I have to say is that, JoeRedskin, you often have some of the most thoughtful, articulate, and interesting posts.

Re: Ted Nugent on Gun Control
 

[QUOTE=Sheriff Gonna Getcha;330966]All I have to say is that, JoeRedskin, you often have some of the most thoughtful, articulate, and interesting posts.[/QUOTE]

Awwwww, shucks. <kicks dirt>

Re: Ted Nugent on Gun Control
 

[quote=JoeRedskin;330859]Preliminarily, this is mostly just a restatement of the 1000 posts that gone on before and so I am just summarizing previously made arguments.

FIRST: I believe it is unconstitutional to completely ban the personal ownership of guns and, quite frankly, I do not advocate that position. There is an important public interest in preventing a government from having an absolute monopoly on the use of force. Preventing such a monopoly was the crux of and the intent behind the Second Amendment's guarrantee of the individual right to own guns.

SECOND: I don't "fail" to realize anything about your assertion AngrySS. In fact, I agree that regulating guns only affects those who follow regulations. I am okay with this BECAUSE:
- As I argued earlier, those who will illegally own a gun are not necessarily going to be deterred by the possibility of you carrying a concealed weapon; and, thus,
- Carrying a concealed weapon in public does not necessarily increase ur personal safety; but
- A proliferation of concealed weapons in public places, IMO, does create a greater risk to the public.
- Balancing the public's right to safety against your personal right to own a gun requires a balancing process and the regulation of who can own guns, how many they can own, and where they can carry them is both appropriate and well within the the constitutional guidelines set up bythe second amendment.

I and others have said all this before and, at this point, if you can't agree that the public at large has a right to reasonably regulate the availability and ownership of guns and to place restrictions on where they may carried, then we are simply going to have to agree to disagree.
- The 2A DOES NOT guarrantee you the unfettered right to own an arsenal and to go armed anywhere you want.
- As to gun ownership, there is a public interest which must be balanced against any private right you have.
- And, (this one is my personal opinion) while fewer guns may not necessarily make us individually safer, a proliferation of weaponry is not guarantee to greater public safety. Again, [I]IMO[/I] - a proliferation of weaponry is more likely to decrease public safety than to increase it.

And with that - I will refer you back to my previous posts 'cause I think I am now just pretty much rehashing what has already been said about dozen times and about a dozen different ways.[/quote]

After reading this post we pretty much see eye to eye. Our differences are so small that it is not even worth further debate. I bid you a good day sir.

Re: Ted Nugent on Gun Control
 

[QUOTE=firstdown;330919]Yea but a shot gun gives you a better chance on a dark night.[/QUOTE]

Well, I do understand the sentiment, however, when in your home, you should be able to see the intruder, and 2, a shot gun will spray pellets which could damage the home. I have bullets that explode on impact, so the worst I will have to do is pick up pieces of brain.
Oh, and I have practiced regularly out at the range...I'm a sure shot.

Re: Ted Nugent on Gun Control
 

[QUOTE=firstdown;330920]One thing that you assume is that a person carring a gun becomes a danger to everyone else. The facts show just the opposite is true as they have a very low crime rate with people who have a concealed permit and they have safty to take safty classes to carry a gun. I'll see if I can find a link to back this up. I think that your post is your personal thought and is not backed by facts.[/QUOTE]

Well, and another little known fact out there in the cities, is that A LOT, and I do mean A LOT of people out in Texas and New Mexico etc have concealed weapons on them 24/7. You just never know. They make holsters for the inner pant, and you could never tell they had a gun.

Re: Ted Nugent on Gun Control
 

[quote=JoeRedskin;330945]Some of my post is, absolutely, my opinion and, yes, it is a gut reaction in some respects. In that I actually support gun ownership, I haven't generally researched the reasons for limiting it. I USUALLY am the one arguing that gun ownership is okay. It's just the "I have a right to have a gun, as many guns as I want, and it's nobody's business but mine" attitude I take issue with. As I said, and as with all constitutionally guaranteed rights, gun ownership requires a balancing of the public interest against the private right.

For example, I have heard few gun owners argue that people should have the right to carry a concealed weapon in schools (Angry even opposed this). BUT:
- If guns encourage safety and all gun owners are concerned with safety (as the NRA article asserts), why not allow them in schools? Aren't they just as safe at a playground as they are on the sidewalk in front of my house? If they inherently pose a danger to kids when carried in schools and playgrounds, dont they inherently pose a danger to adults in other public places? Further, based on the "fewer guns don't make us safer" argument, don't we make schools the targets for armed predators b/c they know no one is armed?[/quote]
You say play grounds but to carry a gun you have to be over the age 18 so I don't think "kids" will be packing at school. Now if maybe each school had a few trained people to carry a gun it maybe a good idea. The argument was made that if one of the VT students just had a gun they may have stopped that guy from killing all of those people. I really don't think we will see the day when students will be packing a gun but we could see the day when teachers and or the administration is allowed to carry a gun. The crazy part of this is that we even have to talk about arming our schools and it would be nice if we knew what has gone wrong for this to be even an issue.

Re: Ted Nugent on Gun Control
 

[QUOTE=firstdown;331254]You say play grounds but to carry a gun you have to be over the age 18 so I don't think "kids" will be packing at school. Now if maybe each school had a few trained people to carry a gun it maybe a good idea. The argument was made that if one of the VT students just had a gun they may have stopped that guy from killing all of those people. I really don't think we will see the day when students will be packing a gun but we could see the day when teachers and or the administration is allowed to carry a gun. The crazy part of this is that we even have to talk about arming our schools and it would be nice if we knew what has gone wrong for this to be even an issue.[/QUOTE]

I think it would be a tough to get administrators or teachers to carry guns, and I don't know that I would feel comfortable around some of them if they did. There are on campus police at universities and they carry guns, maybe we just need more of them.

Re: Ted Nugent on Gun Control
 

[QUOTE=firstdown;331254]You say play grounds but to carry a gun you have to be over the age 18 so I don't think "kids" will be packing at school. Now if maybe each school had a few trained people to carry a gun it maybe a good idea. The argument was made that if one of the VT students just had a gun they may have stopped that guy from killing all of those people. I really don't think we will see the day when students will be packing a gun but we could see the day when teachers and or the administration is allowed to carry a gun. The crazy part of this is that we even have to talk about arming our schools and it would be nice if we knew what has gone wrong for this to be even an issue.[/QUOTE]


While I like the idea, I think that a school should be a gun free environment. There have been teachers that have lost their control in the past, so that could pose as a problem. Also students that have gone out of control too...just not a good scenario in schools.
How about security systems for metal detectors or armed security guards?
It's really tough to play the "what could have happened" game. Hindsight is always 20/20.

Re: Ted Nugent on Gun Control
 

I believe that this is a better place to talk about gun control, rather than the Charlton Heston Thread.

Re: Ted Nugent on Gun Control
 

Good call angry

Re: Ted Nugent on Gun Control
 

[QUOTE=jsarno;331046]Well, I do understand the sentiment, however, when in your home, you should be able to see the intruder, and 2, a shot gun will spray pellets which could damage the home. I have bullets that explode on impact, so the worst I will have to do is pick up pieces of brain.
Oh, and I have practiced regularly out at the range...I'm a sure shot.[/QUOTE]

you crack me up. "i'd use the shotty, but those pellets are just so... messy." Would you prefer the .44 and the ginormous bloodstain? Shooting someone is always going to make a friggin' mess.

Hard to beat a sawed off for self defense...

Re: Ted Nugent on Gun Control
 

Glad to see this thread getting some new love...


Now we just need Joe Redskin to post another one them kick ass posts. And more Mullets!

Cat Scratch Fever! Duh duh duh! Cat Scratch Fever! Duh Duh Duh Duh! (Bangs head so mullet goes flying...) The Motor City Madman was the second concert I ever saw (on the "World Penetration" tour), at Meriwether-Post, and my ears are still ringing.

(Will pass on my regrets about C. Heston on the appropriate thread. Get yer hand off em, you damn dirty apes!)

Re: Ted Nugent on Gun Control
 

[QUOTE=saden1;328378]Clearly you don't get it. The point I was trying to make is you can not defend yourself by carrying a gun. If everyone is packing you have absolutely no advantage whatsoever.

The argument that somehow carrying a gun eliminates or reduces the incentive for someone wanting to off you is absurd. They'll simply go about it smarter.


I like guns, I go to the gun range a few times a year but I really don't think we should play laissez-faire with guns and go back to the wild wild west.[/QUOTE]

This is totally a side note, but the criminals ARE packing.

Like I said, completely irrelevant, unrelated...

Re: Ted Nugent on Gun Control
 

The Supreme Court is considering a case that will likely become the leading case on how the Second Amendment is to be interpreted for years to come. Here's an article on the case:

[url=http://writ.lp.findlaw.com/dorf/20080324.html]FindLaw's Writ - Dorf: With the Supreme Court Poised to Redefine the Right to Bear Arms, Far-Reaching Questions Loom[/url]

Re: Ted Nugent on Gun Control
 

[quote=Mattyk72;328427]LOL outnumbered in the streets? Where do you live? Gotham?[/quote]

This is a classic post. Just hilarious!

Re: Ted Nugent on Gun Control
 

[quote=mheisig;438152]This is totally a side note, but the [B]criminals ARE packing.[/B]

Like I said, completely irrelevant, unrelated...[/quote]

And your point is?

Re: Ted Nugent on Gun Control
 

[QUOTE=BleedBurgundy;438096]you crack me up. "i'd use the shotty, but those pellets are just so... messy." Would you prefer the .44 and the ginormous bloodstain? Shooting someone is always going to make a friggin' mess.

Hard to beat a sawed off for self defense...[/QUOTE]

Came REAL close to buying a shotgun at Big5...one of those home defense shotguns. Just didn't feel like spending the $225 or so at that time. Still considering it though.

Re: Ted Nugent on Gun Control
 

[quote=jsarno;438218]Came REAL close to buying a shotgun at Big5...one of those home defense shotguns. Just didn't feel like spending the $225 or so at that time. Still considering it though.[/quote]


Go to a gun show and shop the Mossberg's..................you'll feel better!!!

Re: Ted Nugent on Gun Control
 

[quote=dmek25;438057]regardless of how you look at this, it is a political statement. the N.R.A funnels big time money into the republican party to make sure there is no such thing as any kind of gun control. remember a ways back, all the crying when assault rifles were banned? [B]i still cant figure out what the heck any ordinary citizen would use an AK47 for.[/B][/quote]

Hunting and home protection, well more home protection than hunting. It's a hell of alot more accurate than a pistol.

Edit* On a more serious note, I do prefer rifles for home protection as opposed to pistols. While I might not use an AK-47, I do have an AR-15 which is a M-4 carbine (or a smaller version of the M-16). Excellent size and accuracy for close quarters home protection. Of course if you do not like the size of the 5.56mm round you can always get it modified to a 9mm round.

[url=http://www.ar15pro.com/item/57955_Bushmaster_Rifles/Shotguns_Bushmaster,_Semi-automati_Bushmaster_Rifles/Shotguns.aspx]Error[/url]

Re: Ted Nugent on Gun Control
 

gun control, and gun owners rights, is a lame duck argument. very rarely can anyone get any kind of movement from either side of the debate. too me, its ridiculous to say more guns make the world a safer place. it just doesnt make sense

Re: Ted Nugent on Gun Control
 

[quote=angryssg;438268][/b]

[B]Hunting[/B] and home protection, well more home protection than hunting. It's a hell of alot more accurate than a pistol.[/quote]
what do you hunt with it? and are you being serious? im not being an ass, im just not sure if your joking

Re: Ted Nugent on Gun Control
 

[quote=dmek25;438271]what do you hunt with it? and are you being serious? im not being an ass, im just not sure if your joking[/quote]

Read the edit.

Re: Ted Nugent on Gun Control
 

An AK or M4 for home protection? Isn't that a bit over the top?

Why not just go all the way with something like an M60 mounted to your living room window? Or how about a Barrett for your roof top sniping needs?

Re: Ted Nugent on Gun Control
 

[quote=Mattyk72;438277]An AK or M4 for home protection? Isn't that a bit over the top?

Why not just go all the way with something like an M60 mounted to your living room window?[/quote]

It is not as big as you think. Pistols fire much larger rounds, 5.56 is equivelant to a 22. Recoil and trigger squeeze (along with other things)can cause you to be very innacurate when firing a pistol. The M-4 has very little kick and a butstock to help stabalize the weapon. A pistol can hold 15 or 16 rounds. A M-4 with legal magazines can hold 20-21 rounds.

A pistol has more stopping power, but I am not trying to stop you. In my home I want to be more accurate than anything else.

Re: Ted Nugent on Gun Control
 

Is the M16 more accurate than the M4?

Re: Ted Nugent on Gun Control
 

With its longer barrel, the M16 is inherently more accurate.

Re: Ted Nugent on Gun Control
 

Yeah, what cpayne said.

Re: Ted Nugent on Gun Control
 

[quote=Mattyk72;438277]An AK or M4 for home protection? Isn't that a bit over the top?

Why not just go all the way with something like an M60 mounted to your living room window? Or how about a Barrett for your roof top sniping needs?[/quote]

This is one of the biggest problems as I see it with Gun control. Media, and political spin. The "assualt weapon" ban of late was nothing but window dressing by the proponents of same. It affectively duped an..........uninformed public into believing something had been accomplished.
Attempts such as these do nothing but inconvenience "law abiding" people that deal through legit channels.
Thugs probably don't use legitimate purchasing methods to buy their weapons for nefarious purposes
The weapons on the ban list don't do anything (for the most part) that every other gun does. A semi-automatic is a semi-automatic. Call it an AK-47, or a Remington model 742. You can buy large capacity magazines for both (or about anything else for that matter)
Actually the Remington is far more accurate, and for that reason is probably the more deadly of the two.
However, we were told the Ak, AR, Ttek=9's, etc, were bad (and they do look evil). It's a gun, they are made to kill.

I am a lifelong gun owner, hunter, and lover of the outdoors. I would LOVE to see a positive impact on the violent crime rate in this country. I would also be very receptive to legislation that was rationally devised, based on sound reason. I would not have a problem if it caused more hardship for myself and others like me if it had some chance of success.
To date, I have not seen it. Furthermore, our Government seems unlikely to have the ability to accomplish such a task.
Look at the good job we have done with Drug trafficking, and illegal immigration in this country.

PS Matty, I love the .50 cals...............however, I do not own one

Re: Ted Nugent on Gun Control
 

[url=http://groups.msn.com/themarylandar15shooterssite/ar15sthelaw.msnw]The Maryland AR15 Shooters Site[/url]

Q: I thought AR-15s were banned? Well, yes and no. Some states & municipalities have banned them (check your local regulations). Some bans specify by name, some by features, others by commonality of parts. Manufacturers changed names and deleted features to comply with the bans.

Buying & Selling an AR-15 in Maryland: Since this is a site devoted to Maryland shooters I'll let you in the legalities in Maryland. In Mayland most AR-15 style rifles are considered 'regulated' weapons (like handguns). You must pay an extra $10 fee, have seen the safety video (or show a DD-214), and wait the 8 day 'cooling off' period before you can pick up your rifle. You are also limited to one (1) Rifle (or Lower Receiver) in a 30 day period. This also prevents you from buying a handgun during this period, since you are limited to 1 'regulated weapon' per 30 day period (either a handgun or so-called 'assault weapon'). Private transfers of AR-15s are PROHIBITED - they must either go through an FFL (max fee he can charge is $20 per law) or you can go to the local State Police barracks and they can do the transfer. There is an EXCEPTION for Colt Sporter H-BAR Rifle; Eagle Arms EA-15 (probably due to differences with internal parts). These are treated just like any other rifle; private transfers are permitted, there is no waiting period, no limit to how many you can buy at a time, nor will it interfere with your purchase of a handgun. State Police consider any rifle with an HBAR barrel (like the Bushmaster) to be identical. Note: the State Police have indicated HBAR Bushmasters are NOT considered 'regulated' - they are treated like the HBAR Colts. As such you are not required to have a 'safety class' to purchase one. Most dealers don't know this and don't bother to check it out (so expect to pay the fee, wait the time, and take the 'class').

Re: Ted Nugent on Gun Control
 

[QUOTE=dmek25;438270]gun control, and gun owners rights, is a lame duck argument. very rarely can anyone get any kind of movement from either side of the debate. too me, its ridiculous to say more guns make the world a safer place. it just doesnt make sense[/QUOTE]

Well, you're right, and you're wrong, it doesn't make our society a safer place. It makes the innocent safer because the guns are already in the hands of criminals and how are the innocent to defend themselves?
However, would you care to tell the US government to throw all their guns away and use, say, cats to defend this country?
The argument could be made to say knives make this country unsafe as well due to the MASSIVE amount of stabbings, and accidental cuts. Of course I'd love to see people try to cut their steak with a spoon, but whatever.

Again I will say, guns don't kill people, people kill people. Stop the evil people from doing evil things and you won't need to worry about guns. Of course that would be a feat unto itself.

Re: Ted Nugent on Gun Control
 

Any idea, Angry what the State thinks the distinction in the AR's is about?
Flat top? Flash suppressor?

Re: Ted Nugent on Gun Control
 

[quote=Hog1;438309]Any idea, Angry what the State thinks the distinction in the AR's is about?
Flat top? Flash suppressor?[/quote]


Please rephrase the question. I am not sure what you are trying to ask me.

Re: Ted Nugent on Gun Control
 

What does the state use to determine is a waiting period (regulated weapon) AR, and a non?