Ted Nugent on Gun Control

[Beemnseven]

Originally Posted by saden1

You're missing the point. What purpose do silencers, hollow point bullets, and AK-47's serve with respect to the second amendment?

The same purpose internet porn, television and talk radio serve the first amendment. They are extensions of the rights set forth in the Constitution as it grows in modern terms to reflect the technological advance of society.

The Bill of Rights aren't negated by the growth of human ingenuity.

[saden1]

Originally Posted by Beemnseven

The same purpose internet porn, television and talk radio serve the first amendment. They are extensions of the rights set forth in the Constitution as it grows in modern terms to reflect the technological advance of society.

The Bill of Rights aren't negated by the growth of human ingenuity.

Well, the only difference is that those things are not an assassin's weapons. They don't kill. I suppose the difference between you and I is that I think the constitution is open to interpretation and common sense rules the day. We'll just have to agree to disagree.

p.s. I would like your take on people being able to browse for porn in schools and libraries.

[saden1]

Can public and private institutions declare their premises gun free zone (schools, transit stations, etc)?

[jdlea]

Originally Posted by saden1

Can public and private institutions declare their premises gun free zone (schools, transit stations, etc)?

Yes, Jose Canseco had something in his book about how he was arrested for possessing a legal gun on some school's property. The gun was legal, however, it was illegal for him to have it where he did.

[saden1]

Originally Posted by jdlea

Yes, Jose Canseco had something in his book about how he was arrested for possessing a legal gun on some school's property. The gun was legal, however, it was illegal for him to have it where he did.

I guess if you can ban smoking you can ban guns...hoary for the constitution.

[dmek25]

and what exactly would that accomplish? other then the county that person lives in getting more money? it does nothing to control the amount of guns one person owns.

[Lady Brave]

Originally Posted by dmek25

and what exactly would that accomplish? other then the county that person lives in getting more money? it does nothing to control the amount of guns one person owns.

Huh? Are you talking to me? If so, collector's licenses are issued by the feds, not the state.

[KLHJ2]

I like guns. I have a right to own guns. They should be prohibited in certain areas such as schools, hospitals, and Goverment buildings. Other than that you should be allowed to cary them anywhere that you want. The amount of guns that I own should be of no concern of anyone else so long as I do not use them in a manner that is not in conjunction with the law.
There is no reason for anyone to own armor piercing bullets, silencers, or fully automatic weapons.

[JoeRedskin]

Originally Posted by angryssg

I like guns. I have a right to own guns. They should be prohibited in certain areas such as schools, hospitals, and Goverment buildings. Other than that you should be allowed to cary them anywhere that you want. The amount of guns that I own should be of no concern of anyone else so long as I do not use them in a manner that is not in conjunction with the law.
There is no reason for anyone to own armor piercing bullets, silencers, or fully automatic weapons.

Well, I like dynamite. I have a right to own dynamite. Dynamite should be prohibited in certain areas such as schools, hospitals, and Goverment buildings. Other than that you should be allowed to cary it anywhere that you want. The amount of dynamite that I own should be of no concern of anyone else so long as I do not use it in a manner that is not in conjunction with the law.

Okay, so I jest - my point is, that just b/c we have a right to something doesn't mean it is of no concern to others. Guns are inherently dangerous. When used properly by good people they pose little threat to others. However, the careless use or misuse (whether accident or intentional) of guns poses a threat to all around them.

Sorry, if ur packing, I don't want my 4 year old around you. Further, I live in the city with about 150-200 people living w/in a 100 foot radius of my home with about 30 kids. I believe there is a legitimate interest prohibiting people from carrying concealed weapons as they travel around in high density areas. You want a gun in ur home, okay. You want to carry it around where my and others kids live and play - not as thrilled with that concept.

[KLHJ2]

Originally Posted by JoeRedskin

Well, I like dynamite. I have a right to own dynamite. Dynamite should be prohibited in certain areas such as schools, hospitals, and Goverment buildings. Other than that you should be allowed to cary it anywhere that you want. The amount of dynamite that I own should be of no concern of anyone else so long as I do not use it in a manner that is not in conjunction with the law.

Okay, so I jest - my point is, that just b/c we have a right to something doesn't mean it is of no concern to others. Guns are inherently dangerous. When used properly by good people they pose little threat to others. However, the careless use or misuse (whether accident or intentional) of guns poses a threat to all around them.

Sorry, if ur packing, I don't want my 4 year old around you. Further, I live in the city with about 150-200 people living w/in a 100 foot radius of my home with about 30 kids. I believe there is a legitimate interest prohibiting people from carrying concealed weapons as they travel around in high density areas. You want a gun in ur home, okay. You want to carry it around where my and others kids live and play - not as thrilled with that concept.

You missed the point. I am not going to bother trying to argue with you, because you took it to a whole new extreme.

[JoeRedskin]

Originally Posted by angryssg

You missed the point. I am not going to bother trying to argue with you, because you took it to a whole new extreme.

No, I got your point and then used the rhetorical tool of hyperbole to demonstrate the absurdity of it if carried to its logical extreme.

I understand your point - You have a right to carry guns. My point is that the public has the right to regulate inherently dangerous things such as guns.

[KLHJ2]

Originally Posted by JoeRedskin

No, I got your point and then used the rhetorical tool of hyperbole to demonstrate the absurdity of it if carried to its logical extreme.

I understand your point - You have a right to carry guns. My point is that the public has the right to regulate inherently dangerous things such as guns.

What your are failing to realize is that when you regulate guns you are only regulating the Law obiding citizens. If I guy wants to use a gun against the law, then a Reulation or a Law is certainly not going to stop him. All your gun laws do is hinder me "the honest law obiding buyer" from attaining one.

Bye the way you are not the only one with children. I would never be packing anywhere near where children are playing. Will I cary one with me in downtown D.C. You are dog on right I will.

[dmek25]

i cant understand why a gun owner will not give up his gun, if it means one less person getting shot and killed. are the gun owners in agreement that there are way too many guns available?

[Hog1]

Originally Posted by dmek25

i cant understand why a gun owner will not give up his gun, if it means one less person getting shot and killed. are the gun owners in agreement that there are way too many guns available?

Because taking the guns from gun owners implies legal owners? That will not stop people from getting killed by pistol toting thugs. Legal owners do not kill others.
Are we going to ban aircraft because of the 9-11 attacks?
Are we going to ban alcohol? If you believe what you read, it is the greatest killer in vehicular death.
Are we going to ban steaks because they are responsible for over a thousand choking deaths annually?
It's not the steaks fault, or the cars, or the drink or the etc.
In this country banning things has nothing to do with the actual disappearance of the banned item. Look at what a wonderful success story the war on drugs has been for............ever.
We have a justice system problem. When we get serious about crime, punishment, and prevention, these things will cease to be an issue

"When guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns"

[jsarno]

Originally Posted by Hog1

Because taking the guns from gun owners implies legal owners? That will not stop people from getting killed by pistol toting thugs. Legal owners do not kill others.
Are we going to ban aircraft because of the 9-11 attacks?
Are we going to ban alcohol? If you believe what you read, it is the greatest killer in vehicular death.
Are we going to ban steaks because they are responsible for over a thousand choking deaths annually?
It's not the steaks fault, or the cars, or the drink or the etc.
In this country banning things has nothing to do with the actual disappearance of the banned item. Look at what a wonderful success story the war on drugs has been for............ever.
We have a justice system problem. When we get serious about crime, punishment, and prevention, these things will cease to be an issue

"When guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns"

Exactly...great post.