Ted Nugent on Gun Control

[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 Hog1

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.

While I agree, it is a good post...don't you agree that from 1776 to the when the first person started wanting gun control (I'll say 1929), that the country would have stopped all those people from owning guns? Are we so arrogant as to think that our society should change was has been generally accepted for over a century, and what this country was founded on? Why is it we seem to think we're better than what the ideals of the country stated?

[Hog1]

Originally Posted by jsarno

While I agree, it is a good post...don't you agree that from 1776 to the when the first person started wanting gun control (I'll say 1929), that the country would have stopped all those people from owning guns? Are we so arrogant as to think that our society should change was has been generally accepted for over a century, and what this country was founded on? Why is it we seem to think we're better than what the ideals of the country stated?

I do not disagree with you Jsarno.
I also believe in the 2nd A as it is stated. I believe it clearly guarantee's the right to individual gun ownership in this country in plain language.
I do think additional......common sense must apply when determining that some people may not qualify for that privilege. Ex. violent criminals, etc. And, no I do not believe that we know better today, than the signers of the Constitution, what is right for this country.
Are you saying sometjhing different?

[JoeRedskin]

Originally Posted by jsarno

While I agree, it is a good post...don't you agree that from 1776 to the when the first person started wanting gun control (I'll say 1929), that the country would have stopped all those people from owning guns? Are we so arrogant as to think that our society should change was has been generally accepted for over a century, and what this country was founded on? Why is it we seem to think we're better than what the ideals of the country stated?

The founders were also okay with slavery, not letting women or men without property vote and, BTW, they were none to keen on that whole "standing army" thing. Are we arrogant to think those things are wrong?

The men of 1776 were radicals in there day b/c they refused to accept what they saw as Britain's betrayal of its own principles. We would be betraying them if we didn't look past the words and into the purpose.

As time goes by and society changes, the standards and realities of life change. In 1776, they didn't have automatic weapons or cities with multi-million populations.

Also, let's be clear - the "ideal" protected by the concept of "right to bear and keep arms" was protecting the citizenry from government's monopoly of power. In light of the events of their recent history, the founder's were concerned with the imposition of tyranny by a government and the citizenries inability to respond. Lexington and Concord occurred b/c the Brits were going to seize the public arsenal not b/c they were taking people's personal weapons(Hmmmm, last I checked, there isn't a "public arsenal" in Baltimore - well, except for a couple of street corners but that's just 'cause the clientele is armed to the teeth). While I respect this ideal, the world has changed significantly, and the specific threat that the 2A was intended to protect against does not exist in the same manner as it did two hundred years ago.

BTW - gun control didn't start in the 20 century. It existed from the beginning of this country and was prominent in the "Wild West". Many towns had strict gun contro (a' la "The Unforgiven"). Many towns were much more lax and the specific regulations varied from town to town but whoa unto you if you violated the local gun regs.

It is not arrogant to re-examine our governing principles, it is essential to do so. Otherwise, we end up like the arabian culture of the 17th and 18th centuries - A once progressive culture that was a beacon of human ingenuity, art and science that refused to reexamine itself and ended up betraying the very tenets it was founded upon.

It is not arrogant to reexamine our founding fathers actions, it is essential to uphold their ideals.

BTW - anybody see where I left my glock?

[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.

[JoeRedskin]

Originally Posted by jsarno

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.

Yes. Absolutely true.

For that very same reason, however, gun ownership does not guarrantee safety nor does it neccessarily enhance one's personal safety.

Given that the existence or non-existence of strict gun laws (or enforcement of the same) has no effect on whether or not evil people will use guns, the ownership of guns will not deter those same evil people intent on inflicting harm. I suggest to you, that those intent on doing harm with guns or those who could care less if they cause harm with guns will do so whether or not those around them are armed.

While owning a gun for home defense may protect you from injury in certain limited circumstances (A break in occurs, it does so in such a manner as to allow you sufficient warning to retrieve your weapon, avoid discovery and safely confront the burglar (i.e. make sure you don't harm those whom you would protect)). At the same time, I would argue that the inherent danger posed to residents and visitors by a readily available weapon with readily available ammunition is not insignificant.

As others have pointed out, however, it seems unlikely to me that someone intent on doing you harm by waylaying you will be deterred by thought you might be carrying a gun. It seems to me that, if someone is intentionally carrying a gun with intent to cause harm despite the possibility of governmental reprecussion, those people are unlikely to be deterred by the possibility of you being armed. Rather, they will be more careful in their actions and, essentially, kill you before you have a chance to retaliate.

Further, for those who carry guns with a complete lack of concern as to whether or not they do good or evil with the weapons, the fact that you are armed will, again, be of no concern to them. In these cases you may see the danger approaching and prevent it prior to being shot by using a weapon (in this scenario, it doesn't even matter whether or not the weapon is concealed because the individual creating the danger is unconcerned as to anyone's safety including his). Given the unpredictability of these types, the greater danger is to those unaware that this person is present. You will simply be an innocent bystander dead without even knowing what hit you.

As I said, I got no problem with guns. They are simply tools -inherently dangerous, powerful, efficient with limited purpose - but tools nonetheless.

I do believe, however, that those who argue they are necessary for increased safety are assuming the bad guys think and act like they themselves would. I suggest to you that this is not true. People who are willing to use deadly force to impose their will upon others - either out of a specific intent to do whatever it takes to do so or out of a complete disregard for the destruction they may cause - are not likely to concern themselves with how easy or difficult a target, in the first case, their prey or, in the second, anyone around them actually is.

I believe that, generally, carrying a gun (and I have just so we're clear), rather than heighten one's personal security, actually dulls it by creating a false sense of security and, thus, lessening the truly important factors of personal safety - self and situation awareness.

[724Skinsfan]

Originally Posted by JoeRedskin

Yes. Absolutely true.

For that very same reason, however, gun ownership does not guarrantee safety nor does it neccessarily enhance one's personal safety.

Given that the existence or non-existence of strict gun laws (or enforcement of the same) has no effect on whether or not evil people will use guns, the ownership of guns will not deter those same evil people intent on inflicting harm. I suggest to you, that those intent on doing harm with guns or those who could care less if they cause harm with guns will do so whether or not those around them are armed.

While owning a gun for home defense may protect you from injury in certain limited circumstances (A break in occurs, it does so in such a manner as to allow you sufficient warning to retrieve your weapon, avoid discovery and safely confront the burglar (i.e. make sure you don't harm those whom you would protect)). At the same time, I would argue that the inherent danger posed to residents and visitors by a readily available weapon with readily available ammunition is not insignificant.

As others have pointed out, however, it seems unlikely to me that someone intent on doing you harm by waylaying you will be deterred by thought you might be carrying a gun. It seems to me that, if someone is intentionally carrying a gun with intent to cause harm despite the possibility of governmental reprecussion, those people are unlikely to be deterred by the possibility of you being armed. Rather, they will be more careful in their actions and, essentially, kill you before you have a chance to retaliate.

Further, for those who carry guns with a complete lack of concern as to whether or not they do good or evil with the weapons, the fact that you are armed will, again, be of no concern to them. In these cases you may see the danger approaching and prevent it prior to being shot by using a weapon (in this scenario, it doesn't even matter whether or not the weapon is concealed because the individual creating the danger is unconcerned as to anyone's safety including his). Given the unpredictability of these types, the greater danger is to those unaware that this person is present. You will simply be an innocent bystander dead without even knowing what hit you.

As I said, I got no problem with guns. They are simply tools -inherently dangerous, powerful, efficient with limited purpose - but tools nonetheless.

I do believe, however, that those who argue they are necessary for increased safety are assuming the bad guys think and act like they themselves would. I suggest to you that this is not true. People who are willing to use deadly force to impose their will upon others - either out of a specific intent to do whatever it takes to do so or out of a complete disregard for the destruction they may cause - are not likely to concern themselves with how easy or difficult a target, in the first case, their prey or, in the second, anyone around them actually is.

I believe that, generally, carrying a gun (and I have just so we're clear), rather than heighten one's personal security, actually dulls it by creating a false sense of security and, thus, lessening the truly important factors of personal safety - self and situation awareness.

If I knew how to speak/write intelligently this is what I would say. Nicely done, Joe!

[love them hogs]

[QUOTE=JoeRedskin

I do believe, however, that those who argue they are necessary for increased safety are assuming the bad guys think and act like they themselves would. I suggest to you that this is not true. People who are willing to use deadly force to impose their will upon others - either out of a specific intent to do whatever it takes to do so or out of a complete disregard for the destruction they may cause are not likely to concern themselves with how easy or difficult a target, in the first case, their prey or, in the second, anyone around them actually is.[/QUOTE]

While I agree with most of what you posted this statement is just plain wrong.Predators always pray on the weakest and pay very close attention to whom they prey upon.If you need proof just observe every living creature on the planet.

[jsarno]

Originally Posted by JoeRedskin

Yes. Absolutely true.

For that very same reason, however, gun ownership does not guarrantee safety nor does it neccessarily enhance one's personal safety.

I am not saying it guarentees safety, just that it should not be taken out of my hands. If I think it makes me safer, then it does. I have an alarm system and it makes me feel safe, and I have a .45 automatic next to my bed...those two make me feel incredibly safe. To this point I haven't had to use either of them, and I hope it stays that way, but the point still remains those laws were put in place to allow me that safety...it shouldn't be taken away.

As others have pointed out, however, it seems unlikely to me that someone intent on doing you harm by waylaying you will be deterred by thought you might be carrying a gun. It seems to me that, if someone is intentionally carrying a gun with intent to cause harm despite the possibility of governmental reprecussion, those people are unlikely to be deterred by the possibility of you being armed. Rather, they will be more careful in their actions and, essentially, kill you before you have a chance to retaliate.
I do believe, however, that those who argue they are necessary for increased safety are assuming the bad guys think and act like they themselves would. I suggest to you that this is not true. People who are willing to use deadly force to impose their will upon others - either out of a specific intent to do whatever it takes to do so or out of a complete disregard for the destruction they may cause - are not likely to concern themselves with how easy or difficult a target, in the first case, their prey or, in the second, anyone around them actually is.

Well, I do think it would deter the simple criminals...the "rookies" if you will. The harden criminals it won't deter, you are right. But when it comes to the guy that has no intention of using the gun other than to use it as a "fear" device, it will be a great deterant. But that's my opinion. Again I say, don't take the thought of safety or actual ability for me to be safe out of my hands by taking a gun out of my hand.