Ted Nugent on Gun Control

[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?

[jsarno]

Originally Posted by Hog1

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?

OK, now you're starting to scare me. We have been on the exact same side of the argument over and over again.
I 100% agree with you. To me, once you do something completely moronic like kill someone, you should lose your rights in prison, and be given a certain amount of rights when you get out (if you even get out). I fully believe that if you are a violent criminal you should not be allowed to have a gun. But that doesn't have anything to do with the Tom, Dick or Harry that keeps their nose clean.
I agree with you about the plain language as well, but somehow someone is always thinking to change it or "interpret" it in a wierd way. That was my point.

[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

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?

You make some very valid points.
Well, we are a country that beleives every man should be free. While they were "OK" with it, it was not a constitutional right such as the right to bear arms. I'm honestly not saying that what they believed in 1776 should 100% apply...just what the country was founded on IE: the constitution.

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.

Well I am referring to the "gun control" part as in, you shouldn't have a gun. In the wild west they all had guns and liked it, although they requested certain areas be gun free (ie: leave them at the door) etc.

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.

While I agree, I disagree to a point as well. They put a lot of thought into our country and we've made it this far with them. The people of now-a-days would like to change a lot of things. Hell, what if we get a gay president and he decides to make a law that saws all heterosexual sex is illegal punished by death? The whole country couldn't reproduce and we would die. So just cause our society might feel it's right, doesn't mean it is. We are colored by our experiences, and we are a country of "reactors", not visionaries.

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

I absolutely agree. We need to be careful though.

[JoeRedskin]

Originally Posted by jsarno

You make some very valid points.
Well, we are a country that beleives every man should be free. While they were "OK" with it, it was not a constitutional right such as the right to bear arms. I'm honestly not saying that what they believed in 1776 should 100% apply...just what the country was founded on IE: the constitution.

Well, actually, the constitution had to be amended to permit blacks, women and unpropertied white men to vote.

Please trust me when I tell you that I am a firm believer in the Rule of Law and the Constitution as the touchstone of our society. Because of that, and b/c the founders were, in fact, a diverse collection of brilliant men, it is important to discern and "interpret" what they were trying to say and why they said it. The english language is a wonderful tool and can be very precise and clear. Unfortunately, some of its beauty is found in its flexibility and this can lead to confusion and misunderstanding. What seems plain to you may not seem so plain to others even though they are reading the same sentence. ("The car is quiet" - Does that mean its running quietly? That people in the car are quiet? Could be either - don't know out of context).

In the Bill of Rights the founders identified and succintly stated many timeless truths and guides. They did so, however, based on the world view of upper class propertied white men and used the english language in a manner in a particular way inherent to their education and class. Further, they made these statements in response to particular things going on around them. To say "it means what it says" about the Constitution and Bill of Rights is to emasculate the brilliance of our founders.

Originally Posted by jsarno

Well I am referring to the "gun control" part as in, you shouldn't have a gun. In the wild west they all had guns and liked it, although they requested certain areas be gun free (ie: leave them at the door) etc.

I believe, but am not certain, that the "everybody had guns and carried em everywhere" is a myth perpetuated by a variety of sources. My curiosity is peaked. Certainly, many towns had an armed populace (the Dalton Gang was shot to shreds by the locals). At the same time, I have read a couple sources that suggest the majority of western towns had pretty strict rules on gun ownership.

Originally Posted by jsarno

While I agree, I disagree to a point as well. They put a lot of thought into our country and we've made it this far with them. The people of now-a-days would like to change a lot of things. Hell, what if we get a gay president and he decides to make a law that saws all heterosexual sex is illegal punished by death? The whole country couldn't reproduce and we would die. So just cause our society might feel it's right, doesn't mean it is. We are colored by our experiences, and we are a country of "reactors", not visionaries.

First, I am going to assume your gay president, sex punishable by death example is hyperbole based on the ridiculousness of the statement to demonstrate your statement that "just cause our society might feel its right doesn't mean it is". Such a scenario is simply not going to happen for any number of reasons. Essentially, it would require either the vast majority of the population aquiescing to trashing the Constitution, all judicial precedent and the imposition of martial law to suppress any dissenters.

In response to the argument that "just cause we think its right doesn't make it is" assertion - I pose the timeless question asked by Pontious Pilate - "What is truth?". Ultimately, as a society, we choose what is right for us. You say that just b/c we choose it, that doesn't make it right. Again, who does get to decide what is "right"? Part of the beauty of the Constitution is that it set forth a government in which "We the People" choose what is right for us. The checks and balances contained within it, the ability to modify it, and the basic governmental structure set out in it create a system that is not subject to rampant change but that can (and has) grown. In turn, the system thus created both allows and ensures that, ultimately, it is the people of this country who decide "what is right" for them.

GOD SAVE THE QUEEN
(just a little plug for the monarchist party)

[jsarno]

[QUOTE=JoeRedskin;329356][QUOTE=jsarno;329329]You make some very valid points.
Well, we are a country that beleives every man should be free. While they were "OK" with it, it was not a constitutional right such as the right to bear arms. I'm honestly not saying that what they believed in 1776 should 100% apply...just what the country was founded on IE: the constitution.[Quote]

Well, actually, the constitution had to be amended to permit blacks, women and unpropertied white men to vote.

Please trust me when I tell you that I am a firm believer in the Rule of Law and the Constitution as the touchstone of our society. Because of that, and b/c the founders were, in fact, a diverse collection of brilliant men, it is important to discern and "interpret" what they were trying to say and why they said it. The english language is a wonderful tool and can be very precise and clear. Unfortunately, some of its beauty is found in its flexibility and this can lead to confusion and misunderstanding. What seems plain to you may not seem so plain to others even though they are reading the same sentence. ("The car is quiet" - Does that mean its running quietly? That people in the car are quiet? Could be either - don't know out of context).

In the Bill of Rights the founders identified and succintly stated many timeless truths and guides. They did so, however, based on the world view of upper class propertied white men and used the english language in a manner in a particular way inherent to their education and class. Further, they made these statements in response to particular things going on around them. To say "it means what it says" about the Constitution and Bill of Rights is to emasculate the brilliance of our founders.


[QUOTE=jsarno;329329]Well I am referring to the "gun control" part as in, you shouldn't have a gun. In the wild west they all had guns and liked it, although they requested certain areas be gun free (ie: leave them at the door) etc.[Quote]

I believe, but am not certain, that the "everybody had guns and carried em everywhere" is a myth perpetuated by a variety of sources. My curiosity is peaked. Certainly, many towns had an armed populace (the Dalton Gang was shot to shreds by the locals). At the same time, I have read a couple sources that suggest the majority of western towns had pretty strict rules on gun ownership.

[QUOTE=jsarno;329329]While I agree, I disagree to a point as well. They put a lot of thought into our country and we've made it this far with them. The people of now-a-days would like to change a lot of things. Hell, what if we get a gay president and he decides to make a law that saws all heterosexual sex is illegal punished by death? The whole country couldn't reproduce and we would die. So just cause our society might feel it's right, doesn't mean it is. We are colored by our experiences, and we are a country of "reactors", not visionaries.

First, I am going to assume your gay president, sex punishable by death example is hyperbole based on the ridiculousness of the statement to demonstrate your statement that "just cause our society might feel its right doesn't mean it is". Such a scenario is simply not going to happen for any number of reasons. Essentially, it would require either the vast majority of the population aquiescing to trashing the Constitution, all judicial precedent and the imposition of martial law to suppress any dissenters.

In response to the argument that "just cause we think its right doesn't make it is" assertion - I pose the timeless question asked by Pontious Pilate - "What is truth?". Ultimately, as a society, we choose what is right for us. You say that just b/c we choose it, that doesn't make it right. Again, who does get to decide what is "right"? Part of the beauty of the Constitution is that it set forth a government in which "We the People" choose what is right for us. The checks and balances contained within it, the ability to modify it, and the basic governmental structure set out in it create a system that is not subject to rampant change but that can (and has) grown. In turn, the system thus created both allows and ensures that, ultimately, it is the people of this country who decide "what is right" for them.

GOD SAVE THE QUEEN
(just a little plug for the monarchist party)

Again, you make good arguments. My initial point was about the slavery comment, not the voting comment. I actually feel that our founding fathers only wanted intelligent people to vote, and felt that not every person was smart enough to choose correctly. (IE: the electoral college was founded) I actually believe this to be true. South Park thinks that 25% of the world is "retarded", I think that percentage is slightly higher. So while we should all be considered equal, we all are not equal, some of us don't deserve to vote. Of course I expect that to met with a ton of resistance.

My homosexual president scenario is just an over the top scenario to help understand that not every idea is a good idea.