Ted Nugent on Gun Control

[FRPLG]

Originally Posted by saden1

If someone wants to kill you're always at a disadvantage, whether you're packing or not.

So you'd rather be at a bigger disadvantage? You're not making sense.

[saden1]

Originally Posted by FRPLG

So you'd rather be at a bigger disadvantage? You're not making sense.

In the context of day to day life I'd rather not carry a gun. If that's a disadvantage, that's a chance I'm willing to take. I think the negatives associated with carrying a gun outweighs the advantages of being able to "protect yourself."

[jsarno]

Originally Posted by saden1

In the context of day to day life I'd rather not carry a gun. If that's a disadvantage, that's a chance I'm willing to take. I think the negatives associated with carrying a gun outweighs the advantages of being able to "protect yourself."

It's your right to not carry a gun, just as well as it is my constitutional right to carry one.
If we ignore the constitution, we better all leave the country, that's a slippery slope that I don't want to be a part of.

[dmek25]

Originally Posted by jsarno

It's your right to not carry a gun, just as well as it is my constitutional right to carry one.
If we ignore the constitution, we better all leave the country, that's a slippery slope that I don't want to be a part of.

your not willing to give up your right to a gun.how about someone wire tapping your phone? we need some sort of gun control. and we also need some sort of watchdog over the gun manufactures. there is simply too many guns available. a friend of mine just purchased an AK47. why in the world does anyone need a gun like that? what the heck would you use it for?

[JoeRedskin]

Originally Posted by jsarno

It's your right to not carry a gun, just as well as it is my constitutional right to carry one.
If we ignore the constitution, we better all leave the country, that's a slippery slope that I don't want to be a part of.

First, the Constitution does not guarrantee the unfettered, universal and individual right to gun ownership:

"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 federal circuit courts are in a general agreement that this is a collective right, not an individual right. Thus, regulation of gun ownership is constitutionally based and restrictions on ownership are generally well founded in constitution.

Are you part of a "well-regulated militia"? If so, fine. If not, then you don't clear cut constitutional right to gun ownership. Even if you are, it appears from the plain language of the 2nd A that heavy regualtion is the proper constitutional course.

[Hog1]

Originally Posted by JoeRedskin

First, the Constitution does not guarrantee the unfettered, universal and individual right to gun ownership:

"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 federal circuit courts are in a general agreement that this is a collective right, not an individual right. Thus, regulation of gun ownership is constitutionally based and restrictions on ownership are generally well founded in constitution.

Are you part of a "well-regulated militia"? If so, fine. If not, then you don't clear cut constitutional right to gun ownership. Even if you are, it appears from the plain language of the 2nd A that heavy regualtion is the proper constitutional course.

It's not a trap or anything Joe, but I am curious as to what part of the second amendment, or Constitution speaks the the "heavy regulation of gun ownership". I gave it a once over and did not notice that.
The second A also provides for the "the right of the people to keep and bear arms". That is in addition to " a well regulated militia, and not subject to a collective interpretation of any kind, that I can see.

"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"

[JoeRedskin]

Originally Posted by Hog1

It's not a trap or anything Joe, but I am curious as to what part of the second amendment, or Constitution speaks the the "heavy regulation of gun ownership". I gave it a once over and did not notice that.

The expectation of heavy regulation is my opinion based on the language of the amendment and a very brief review of some of the cases interpreting it. Given that the language speaks of individual gun ownership being necessary due tothe collective need of a "well-regulated" militia, it is my opinion that a gun owner should expect there to be significant governmental regulations in place to ensure and protect the public's interest in a well regulated militia.

Originally Posted by Hog1

The second A also provides for the "the right of the people to keep and bear arms". That is in addition to "a well regulated militia, and not subject to a collective interpretation of any kind, that I can see.

As I noted above, the individual right springs from and is given its reason d'etre from the collective need. There is substantial caselaw on this and the debate as to personal right v. collective right appears to go to the core of most 2A debates. As I understand it (again, based on a very cursory review of the law), the federal courts have generally held that the right to keep and bear arms is a "collective" right rather than an "individual" right.

Both from the language of the amendment and from the caselaw, I think it is pretty clear that, no matter what else is true about it, the "right to keep and bear arms", does not and was never intended to grant individuals unfettered and unlimited access to and/or owership of guns.

Personally, while I have no problem with lawful gun ownership, I am very comfortable with the government reasonably regulating their use and availability. As with all things subject to regulation, it is the "reasonableness" of it that comes into play.

For the record, I live in downtown Baltimore and, while my neighborhood is fine, some of the surrounding neighborhoods are kinda seedy. I have seen guns fired in public and often heard gunfire throughout the city. Quite frankly, the bad guys are walking around with semi and automatic weapons. Unless I go around with an unconcealed .50 cal., they pretty much got me outgunned. If I get into a situation where they intend me harm, owning or carrying a gun would not stop them from doing so. Further, it might only ratchet up their need to show that they're the big man and cause them to get even bigger guns.

To me, it is appropriate to both ensure that government does not have a monopoly on the use and ownership of guns and to regulate individual ownership of guns to ensure that the government can properly carry out its duty to protect its citizenry.

Enforce the laws on the books. Send anyone using a handgun in the course of a crime to jail for a significant amount of un-paroleable minimum time (to me, "use" includes brandishing the weapon). Send anyone firing an automatic weapon in an unauthorized manner to jail (generally, i got no problem with the ownership of automatic weaponry - it's the use of it that I object to). Send anyone who uses an automatic weapon in the course of a crime to jail w/o parole for a long time.

While it's true that people kill people - guns sure make it a lot easier. For that reason, their use and ownership should be "well regulated" (even if you're not in the militia )

[Hog1]

Originally Posted by JoeRedskin

The expectation of heavy regulation is my opinion based on the language of the amendment and a very brief review of some of the cases interpreting it. Given that the language speaks of individual gun ownership being necessary due tothe collective need of a "well-regulated" militia, it is my opinion that a gun owner should expect there to be significant governmental regulations in place to ensure and protect the public's interest in a well regulated militia.



As I noted above, the individual right springs from and is given its reason d'etre from the collective need. There is substantial caselaw on this and the debate as to personal right v. collective right appears to go to the core of most 2A debates. As I understand it (again, based on a very cursory review of the law), the federal courts have generally held that the right to keep and bear arms is a "collective" right rather than an "individual" right.

Both from the language of the amendment and from the caselaw, I think it is pretty clear that, no matter what else is true about it, the "right to keep and bear arms", does not and was never intended to grant individuals unfettered and unlimited access to and/or owership of guns.

Personally, while I have no problem with lawful gun ownership, I am very comfortable with the government reasonably regulating their use and availability. As with all things subject to regulation, it is the "reasonableness" of it that comes into play.

For the record, I live in downtown Baltimore and, while my neighborhood is fine, some of the surrounding neighborhoods are kinda seedy. I have seen guns fired in public and often heard gunfire throughout the city. Quite frankly, the bad guys are walking around with semi and automatic weapons. Unless I go around with an unconcealed .50 cal., they pretty much got me outgunned. If I get into a situation where they intend me harm, owning or carrying a gun would not stop them from doing so. Further, it might only ratchet up their need to show that they're the big man and cause them to get even bigger guns.

To me, it is appropriate to both ensure that government does not have a monopoly on the use and ownership of guns and to regulate individual ownership of guns to ensure that the government can properly carry out its duty to protect its citizenry.

Enforce the laws on the books. Send anyone using a handgun in the course of a crime to jail for a significant amount of un-paroleable minimum time (to me, "use" includes brandishing the weapon). Send anyone firing an automatic weapon in an unauthorized manner to jail (generally, i got no problem with the ownership of automatic weaponry - it's the use of it that I object to). Send anyone who uses an automatic weapon in the course of a crime to jail w/o parole for a long time.

While it's true that people kill people - guns sure make it a lot easier. For that reason, their use and ownership should be "well regulated" (even if you're not in the militia )

Nice Post Joe,
naturally the interpretation of the 2nd A. has been the debate of sport for lo' these many years.
For the record, I completely agree with the regulation, and control of who gets a weapon in this country. As you alluded to, we have the laws on the books, and they need to be enforced. The justice system is letting us down.

[jsarno]

Originally Posted by JoeRedskin

For the record, I live in downtown Baltimore and, while my neighborhood is fine, some of the surrounding neighborhoods are kinda seedy. I have seen guns fired in public and often heard gunfire throughout the city. Quite frankly, the bad guys are walking around with semi and automatic weapons. Unless I go around with an unconcealed .50 cal., they pretty much got me outgunned. If I get into a situation where they intend me harm, owning or carrying a gun would not stop them from doing so. Further, it might only ratchet up their need to show that they're the big man and cause them to get even bigger guns.

I just needed to point this out...no matter if there were strict gun laws, or loose ones, those situations will still exist. The evil people of the world will still ignore them and find way to own those guns.