Ted Nugent on Gun Control

[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.

[jsarno]

Originally Posted by angryssg

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.

I don't think that those that are againts guns care angry. While the regular, law abiding, gun carrying citizens understand this, they don't cause they are just against guns. They feel that the fewer guns the better.
I know and you know that's not how it will work, but they don't. We've made similar comments a ton of times, yet they are still not listening.

[JoeRedskin]

Originally Posted by angryssg

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.

Originally Posted by jsarno

I don't think that those that are againts guns care angry. While the regular, law abiding, gun carrying citizens understand this, they don't cause they are just against guns. They feel that the fewer guns the better.
I know and you know that's not how it will work, but they don't. We've made similar comments a ton of times, yet they are still not listening.

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, IMO - 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.