Ted Nugent on Gun Control

[dmek25]

gun control, and gun owners rights, is a lame duck argument. very rarely can anyone get any kind of movement from either side of the debate. too me, its ridiculous to say more guns make the world a safer place. it just doesnt make sense

[jsarno]

Originally Posted by dmek25

gun control, and gun owners rights, is a lame duck argument. very rarely can anyone get any kind of movement from either side of the debate. too me, its ridiculous to say more guns make the world a safer place. it just doesnt make sense

Well, you're right, and you're wrong, it doesn't make our society a safer place. It makes the innocent safer because the guns are already in the hands of criminals and how are the innocent to defend themselves?
However, would you care to tell the US government to throw all their guns away and use, say, cats to defend this country?
The argument could be made to say knives make this country unsafe as well due to the MASSIVE amount of stabbings, and accidental cuts. Of course I'd love to see people try to cut their steak with a spoon, but whatever.

Again I will say, guns don't kill people, people kill people. Stop the evil people from doing evil things and you won't need to worry about guns. Of course that would be a feat unto itself.

[Sheriff Gonna Getcha]

Originally Posted by jsarno

However, would you care to tell the US government to throw all their guns away and use, say, cats to defend this country?
The argument could be made to say knives make this country unsafe as well due to the MASSIVE amount of stabbings, and accidental cuts. Of course I'd love to see people try to cut their steak with a spoon, but whatever.

I don't think that analogy holds water. But, if you want to compare people to states, do you think we should actively encourage the proliferation of nuclear arms on the theory that the more nations that have them the better? After all, "bad guys" like China have nukes.

Also, no offense, but I think the phrase "guns don't kill people, people do" adds little if anything of substance to the debate about gun control/rights.

Finally, I don't think the comparison of knives, cars, or anything else that can kill can be compared to guns. Knives and cars have a lot of practical uses that are perfectly good, legal, and necessary. Guns have very limited purposes. Guns are pretty much designed to kill and/or maim.

But, I realize I'm not going to change anyone else's opinion about the matter. I like firing weapons. I think hunting rifles and shotguns are fine. But, I also realize that some people have an emotional attachment to firing numerous small projectiles out of a steel tube at a high rate of speed and there's nothing I can do about it.

[jsarno]

Originally Posted by Sheriff Gonna Getcha

I don't think that analogy holds water. But, if you want to compare people to states, do you think we should actively encourage the proliferation of nuclear arms on the theory that the more nations that have them the better? After all, "bad guys" like China have nukes.

Hmmm, guns to nuclear arms. Yeah, that's a good comparison.

Also, no offense, but I think the phrase "guns don't kill people, people do" adds little if anything of substance to the debate about gun control/rights.

That's cause, no offense, but you don't get it. A gun has never, ever, ever killed someone on it's own. You don't walk into a room and see a gun sitting there on the counter and boom, you're dead.

Finally, I don't think the comparison of knives, cars, or anything else that can kill can be compared to guns. Knives and cars have a lot of practical uses that are perfectly good, legal, and necessary. Guns have very limited purposes. Guns are pretty much designed to kill and/or maim.

Knifes are meant to CUT / SLICE, I'm not saying that knives are as dangerous, but if used by the wrong people, it can be just as deadly.

But, I realize I'm not going to change anyone else's opinion about the matter. I like firing weapons. I think hunting rifles and shotguns are fine. But, I also realize that some people have an emotional attachment to firing numerous small projectiles out of a steel tube at a high rate of speed and there's nothing I can do about it.

ditto.

[Sheriff Gonna Getcha]

Originally Posted by jsarno

Hmmm, guns to nuclear arms. Yeah, that's a good comparison.

It's about as appropriate as your comparison of individuals to nations.

Originally Posted by jsarno

That's cause, no offense, but you don't get it. A gun has never, ever, ever killed someone on it's own. You don't walk into a room and see a gun sitting there on the counter and boom, you're dead.

What don't I get? How exactly does that add anything of substance to the gun rights debate? It doesn't and your response did nothing but reiterate the phrase.

[jsarno]

Originally Posted by Sheriff Gonna Getcha

It's about as appropriate as your comparison of individuals to nations.

Alright, it's been a long couple of days, but when and what did I say to compare individuals to nations?

What don't I get? How exactly does that add anything of substance to the gun rights debate? It doesn't and your response did nothing but reiterate the phrase.

I think it adds a lot of substance if you just sit back and think about it, but the problem is, those that do not like guns don't even look at that comment and absorb it.

I asked earlier how you could allow the country to use guns to defend the country, but you made no comment about it. So how can you be OK with the military using guns / rifles / automatic weapons, but it's not OK to use guns in self defense in your own home? (please do not forget to answer this question)
(is this what you were referring to when you asked about the comparison of individuals to nations?? If so, this is a valid question since individuals are the ones using the weapons. Just cause they are fighting for a country instead of family shouldn't disqualify the question)

You ask for substance in this debate, but unfortunately you are not offering any at this point. So let's debate with substance. Keep in mind you have a lot to prove since 1- you are trying to make something legal, illegal. 2- you are trying to convince others to ignore the constitution and ultimately change it. The burden of proof is on you. So what do you have to convince us we need to turn in our guns? (please note this is not sarcasm, I am truly interested in a debate with logical substance)

[Sheriff Gonna Getcha]

Originally Posted by jsarno

Alright, it's been a long couple of days, but when and what did I say to compare individuals to nations?

See your cats argument and your below comments.

Originally Posted by jsarno

I think it adds a lot of substance if you just sit back and think about it, but the problem is, those that do not like guns don't even look at that comment and absorb it.

I am lazy and dumb, so please articulate how the phrase "guns don't kill people, people do" is meaningful.

Originally Posted by jsarno

I asked earlier how you could allow the country to use guns to defend the country, but you made no comment about it. So how can you be OK with the military using guns / rifles / automatic weapons, but it's not OK to use guns in self defense in your own home? (please do not forget to answer this question)
(is this what you were referring to when you asked about the comparison of individuals to nations?? If so, this is a valid question since individuals are the ones using the weapons. Just cause they are fighting for a country instead of family shouldn't disqualify the question)

You ask for substance in this debate, but unfortunately you are not offering any at this point. So let's debate with substance. Keep in mind you have a lot to prove since 1- you are trying to make something legal, illegal. 2- you are trying to convince others to ignore the constitution and ultimately change it. The burden of proof is on you. So what do you have to convince us we need to turn in our guns? (please note this is not sarcasm, I am truly interested in a debate with logical substance)

The "burden of proof" is not on anyone. This isn't a court, it is a website. Moreover, I never said that all guns should be illegal. I believe hunting rifles and shotguns should be legal, although they should be regulated like handguns (i.e., background check, waiting period). I believe that many other weapons (e.g., semi-automatic rifles that cab readily be turned into fully automatic weapons and .50 cal sniper rifles) should be illegal.

There are many reasons why I believe firearms should be subject to heavy regulation. First, I believe the NRA and many gun enthusiasts are reading the Second Amendment far too liberally. The Second Amendment was intended to enable the public to protect themselves from government abuses. If you believe (a) you need firearms in case you need to wage war on our government OR (b) a glock is going to stop the 10th Mountain Division, you should probably see your doctor because you are obviously not taking all of your lithium.

Second, many gun enthusiasts believe that gun control advocates are naive and do not realize how many "bad guys" there are out there in the cold world. However, I think those people are naive and do not realize how many "bad guys" there who simply lack the maturity to responsibly handle firearms. If you need to take a written examination and a driving test to operate a vehicle that is indispensible, why do you not need to do anything to purchase an object that is specifically designed to kill, wound, or intimidate? Moroever, the notion that we should respond to the gun problem by proliferating guns seems quite strange.

Third, the "average Joe" cannot be compared to our nation's military. Our men and women in uniform spend countless hours training to use firearms. So, that analogy is totally inappropriate IMO. But, since you think the two are analogous, do you then believe that members of the public should be able to go to the local Walmart and buy M1-A2 tanks, F-22 Raptors, stingers, claymores, etc? After all, many criminals have automatic weapons, so should the average Joe be able to "one up" them?

Fourth, I do not believe guns pass a cost benefit test. We could go on and on citing statistics from various groups that have a vested interest in proving or disproving the utility and cost of firearms. I don't care to do so.

[MTK]

Originally Posted by jsarno

Well, you're right, and you're wrong, it doesn't make our society a safer place. It makes the innocent safer because the guns are already in the hands of criminals and how are the innocent to defend themselves?
However, would you care to tell the US government to throw all their guns away and use, say, cats to defend this country?
The argument could be made to say knives make this country unsafe as well due to the MASSIVE amount of stabbings, and accidental cuts. Of course I'd love to see people try to cut their steak with a spoon, but whatever.

Again I will say, guns don't kill people, people kill people. Stop the evil people from doing evil things and you won't need to worry about guns. Of course that would be a feat unto itself.

I'm guessing you haven't heard of laser cats?

[Sheriff Gonna Getcha]

Originally Posted by Mattyk72

I'm guessing you haven't heard of laser cats?

Nice. That's got to be the post of the day.

[jsarno]

Originally Posted by Mattyk72

I'm guessing you haven't heard of laser cats?

LOL...that's funny...that's actually why I said cats.