Ted Nugent on Gun Control

[jsarno]

Originally Posted by JoeRedskin

So, your calls for respecting the Constitution and the Founder's intent is only true when the system they enacted results in a decision with which you agree. If the system enacted by the Founder's results in what you determine to be an infringement of your rights, you are then free to ignore it?

So much for your much vaunted "Rules are the Rules" arguments.

See your below argument.
I am not saying I would be right. Hell I speed constantly. When I travel to El Paso, I drive a MINIMUM of 85mph. Usually 90-95mph. The rules are the rules, and if I got caught then I'd expect to be disciplined...same would apply to this gun issue.

Fair question, and, honestly, not sure how to answer it. I think I would try to comply with the letter of the law while: a) finding every loophole possible in both it's wording and intent; and b) actively working to change it.

<sigh> It seems as if everything is a slippery slope to you. Every day, and in every action it takes "the government" is enforcing what "they think is best for you". Speed limits? Pollution controls? Food inspection requiremnts? Sanitation controls? who to tax and how much? How much to charge for postage? How to prioritize government spending? The list is f***'ing endless.

You missed the point. I am not saying that everything the government puts into action is something that would be a slippery slope.
I am against anything they would try to pass that infinges on rights. For instance, You do not have the right to drive 100mph because it's not your land. If it was, then you could drive as fast as you want. You went a little overboard there buddy. You are assuming.

To continually assert that things are going down a slippery slope is to ignore the fundamental responsiveness of the government created by the Founders. They created a system that continually balances the tension between 1) a society's need to have a governing body to ensure the goal of maximum individual freedom 2) the need for that governing body to have authority to limit individual freedom in order to effectuate that goal. The government created by the Founders is sometimes slow, awkward or seemingly out of touch, but it has historically balanced these tensions by always being government "of the people, by the people and for the people." As such, the extreme swings of governmental authority you seem to envision are simply removed from the reality of the government we have created for ourselves.

maximum individual freedom just stood out to me. Cause in the cases we have disagreed, you have been opposed to that. You should never ever make a decision out of fear, and this topic has a ton of fear behind it. The main argument for getting rid of guns is bad people are doing bad things with them. Well, you're right. But why try a assbackward way to fix it? The correct thing to do is punish the hell out of the person that abuses his gun rights. make the punishment severe and maybe these issues would cease. However, if guns were banished, all that would do is hurt the honest people. The honest, law abiding people are not the ones causing issues with guns, but the laws would ONLY affect them. That doesn't make any sense.

To be fair, it's been exactly two topics I said things would be a slippery slope, and both have similarities as to why I said that.

[JoeRedskin]

Originally Posted by jsarno

I am not saying I would be right. Hell I speed constantly. When I travel to El Paso, I drive a MINIMUM of 85mph. Usually 90-95mph. The rules are the rules, and if I got caught then I'd expect to be disciplined...same would apply to this gun issue.

Okay. Fair enough.

Originally Posted by jsarno

You missed the point. I am not saying that everything the government puts into action is something that would be a slippery slope.
I am against anything they would try to pass that infinges on rights. For instance, You do not have the right to drive 100mph because it's not your land. If it was, then you could drive as fast as you want. You went a little overboard there buddy. You are assuming.

I am sorry, I just don't understand what point you are trying to make. You original statement was "[w]hen the government starts enforcing what THEY THINK is best for you. That's a nasty slippery slope". To me that is a ludicrous statement b/c it encompasses the entirety of government actions.

If you are saying that, "when government begins to infringe on your constitutionally guarranteed rights, we are heading down a slippery slope". I would still argue that the qualifications to the underlying assumptions of that statement are numerous and invalidate the conclusion. First, as with the 2A debate, the question of what are your "constitutional rights" is something continually the topic of debate and evolution. Second, even once defined, your "constitutional rights" are subject to regulation. There are simply no constitutional rights that are are unlimited. Your freedom of speech does not entitle you to shout "Fire" in a crowded theater. Thus, your "freedom of speech" is limited and regulated for the safety of others.

It seems to me that, what you see as a "slippery slope", is simply the government performing its requisite balancing act.

Originally Posted by jsarno

maximum individual freedom just stood out to me. Cause in the cases we have disagreed, you have been opposed to that.

I have never been opposed to maximum individual freedom. I firmly believe that it is the essence of our form of government and necessary for the good of society as a whole. The problem, of course, is that your complete, unfettered freedom will inevitably clash with the complete, unfettered freedom of another (in the words of Isiah Berlin - the fox's idea of freedom is entirely different from the sheep's idea of freedom). Thus, our government exists to balance the inevitable conflicts that arise between you and others when each party is exercising what it views as its constitutional rights. In such clashes, and just as inevitable as the conflicts, is the result that the "constitutional rights" of one or more people will be subject to limitation.

The whole 2A debate is exactly a repesentation of this clash - You assert that you are guarranteed the "right" to "keep and bear" firearms - others argue that they have the "right" to limit the spread of firearms by limiting their ownership to those individuals who are part of a "well-regulated militia". Each side has legitimate constitutional arguments and support. Thus, it is up to the Supreme Court to determine the position that more closely reflects the Constitutional guarrantees. In doing so, the losing side will, inevitably, claim that their rights are being infringed upon when, in fact, the SC is just determining what rights are guarranteed and just how far those guarantees extend before they infringe upon others rights.

Originally Posted by jsarno

You should never ever make a decision out of fear, and this topic has a ton of fear behind it. The main argument for getting rid of guns is bad people are doing bad things with them. Well, you're right. But why try a assbackward way to fix it? The correct thing to do is punish the hell out of the person that abuses his gun rights. make the punishment severe and maybe these issues would cease. However, if guns were banished, all that would do is hurt the honest people. The honest, law abiding people are not the ones causing issues with guns, but the laws would ONLY affect them. That doesn't make any sense.

Generally, I agree with the assertions in this statement. My differences with it are laid out in several posts earlier in the thread and I am simply not going to rehash the areas of disagreement. Simply put, I oppose the banning of personal ownership of firearms but believe that the general public has the right to reasonably regulate their use, storage and qualifications of ownership.

Originally Posted by jsarno

To be fair, it's been exactly two topics I said things would be a slippery slope, and both have similarities as to why I said that.

Yes, and in each case it appeared to me that the "slippery slope" argument was invoked as an objection to the every day actions of our government as it attempts to balance individual rights v. collective rights through regulation.

[jsarno]

Originally Posted by JoeRedskin

I am sorry, I just don't understand what point you are trying to make.

If you are saying that, "when government begins to infringe on your constitutionally guarranteed rights, we are heading down a slippery slope".

Yes, that is what I am saying. Sometimes I write really quick and don't articulate what I am trying to say. My apologies.

I would still argue that the qualifications to the underlying assumptions of that statement are numerous and invalidate the conclusion. First, as with the 2A debate, the question of what are your "constitutional rights" is something continually the topic of debate and evolution. Second, even once defined, your "constitutional rights" are subject to regulation. There are simply no constitutional rights that are are unlimited. Your freedom of speech does not entitle you to shout "Fire" in a crowded theater. Thus, your "freedom of speech" is limited and regulated for the safety of others.

See, that's the problem. If we let the government take too much control of our lives, we will become dependant on them. You don't have to look far to see this either. Look at the amount of people on welfare and food stamps, and how many of them volunteer to get off???? We don't rehabilitate those than need rehabilitation, we as a country allow them to suckle off the teet of America without any concern about actually making them a "normal" member of society. We talk a lot about an "exit strategy" in iraq, but we have none for those already sucking our systems dry.
I'm not saying we are around the corner from this, but the next thing you know is the government will tell us what movies to watch, what plants to grow, what food to eat etc. The less they are involved in my life, the better.

It seems to me that, what you see as a "slippery slope", is simply the government performing its requisite balancing act.

Maybe you're right, and I'm just being cynical. It just seems over the years the government is stepping in more and more and taking decisions away from others and telling us more and more on what to do.

I have never been opposed to maximum individual freedom. I firmly believe that it is the essence of our form of government and necessary for the good of society as a whole. The problem, of course, is that your complete, unfettered freedom will inevitably clash with the complete, unfettered freedom of another (in the words of Isiah Berlin - the fox's idea of freedom is entirely different from the sheep's idea of freedom). Thus, our government exists to balance the inevitable conflicts that arise between you and others when each party is exercising what it views as its constitutional rights. In such clashes, and just as inevitable as the conflicts, is the result that the "constitutional rights" of one or more people will be subject to limitation.

Well, I am not saying I have the "freedom" to shoot someone (unless of course he breaks into my home), nor do I have the "freedom" to drink and drive cause that puts others in jeopardy.

The whole 2A debate is exactly a repesentation of this clash - You assert that you are guarranteed the "right" to "keep and bear" firearms - others argue that they have the "right" to limit the spread of firearms by limiting their ownership to those individuals who are part of a "well-regulated militia". Each side has legitimate constitutional arguments and support. Thus, it is up to the Supreme Court to determine the position that more closely reflects the Constitutional guarrantees. In doing so, the losing side will, inevitably, claim that their rights are being infringed upon when, in fact, the SC is just determining what rights are guarranteed and just how far those guarantees extend before they infringe upon others rights.

How is it their right to limit the spread of firearms? That has nothing to do with them directly. Taking firearms away does directly affect someone.
That being said, I have no problem with having stiffer restrictions on guns. (within reason) I do not think a felon should possess a gun. I'm all for getting the guns OUT of those that abused guns in the first place.

[JoeRedskin]

Originally Posted by jsarno

See, that's the problem. If we let the government take too much control of our lives, we will become dependant on them. You don't have to look far to see this either. Look at the amount of people on welfare and food stamps, and how many of them volunteer to get off???? We don't rehabilitate those than need rehabilitation, we as a country allow them to suckle off the teet of America without any concern about actually making them a "normal" member of society. We talk a lot about an "exit strategy" in iraq, but we have none for those already sucking our systems dry.
I'm not saying we are around the corner from this, but the next thing you know is the government will tell us what movies to watch, what plants to grow, what food to eat etc. The less they are involved in my life, the better.

So many assertions, so many flawed conclusions.

Preliminarily, I am uncertain as to why you bolded the phrase “There are simply no constitutional rights that are unlimited” in my original post. If it is your assertion that there should be, then I would suggest that you assert an impossibility. In any society of people, unfettered individual liberty simply cannot exist. I would think that to be self-evident but, if you disagree or if I have misstated your intent, please let me know.

On to the rest!

A) “If we let government take too much control of our lives we will become dependant on them”:

Okay, can we go back to Govt. 101? The “government” which you fear so much is, in fact, nothing more than the embodiment of societal will acting through Constitutionally created structures. Because it represents the whole of us, “Government” was created to “control our lives” so that the corporate whole can exist through the rule of law and maximize our competing personal liberties. Simply put - without a Government “taking control”, there is no American society – just warlords, tribes and individuals in violent competition with one another.

To balance against this fundamental reason for its existence, i.e. the right of the whole to control the actions of the individual, the Founders, in a moment of brilliance and clarity, realized (as they had seen in Britain) that any government could overstep this essential function unless certain personal liberties were guaranteed. In other words, the “government”, i.e. the will of the collective, could very easily, in the name of the collective need, destroy the very thing it was created to protect- the individual. Thus, the Bill of Rights and its guarantees of personal liberties were created to provide a line and to delineate the extent to which the will of the societal whole may “take control” of the individual.

B) “You don't have to look far to see this either. Look at the amount of people on welfare and food stamps, and how many of them volunteer to get off???? We don't rehabilitate those than need rehabilitation, we as a country allow them to suckle off the teet of America without any concern about actually making them a "normal" member of society. We talk a lot about an "exit strategy" in iraq, but we have none for those already sucking our systems dry.”

The plusses and minuses, abuses and inadequacies of the welfare system could be a thread in and of itself. How many volunteer to go off? I don’t know. I also don’t know how many volunteered to go on either. I am sure, however, that the answer to both questions is not “100%”.

Relevant to the issue at hand, however, is that the whole welfare system, again, represents the balancing of conflicting societal interests and remedies. On one hand, welfare is intended to provide a minimum level of aid to avoid having portions of the populace living in abject poverty b/c, as societies through the ages have recognized, large swaths of poverty create a host of even more expensive and dangerous problems. On the other hand, society as a whole does not want a system that destroys incentive.

Inevitably, these two goals – avoidance of poverty v. disincentive - are in conflict. Through the federal, state, and local govts, our society works on various solutions to the underlying conflicts. Ultimately, we – you and me – have both the ability and opportunity to affect these decisions because the Founders created a federalistic system where we have a legislative voice, popularly elected executives to apply the laws enacted by the will of the people, and a judicial branch to challenge any action by that executive and ensure that the executives apply the laws as enacted.

C) The linkage between govt. “taking control of our lives” and the assertion that we will become dependent upon it.

And this is where it all completely falls apart: Every day, and in every way, everyone who is a citizen of the US is dependent on the “Government”.

Did you drive on a road today? Do you maintain it? Or are you dependent upon the "Government" to do so? Did you have electricity in your home? As power concerns are monopolistic entities, what steps did you take to ensure that utilities companies provided power at constant rate and price? Do you test your food to ensure it is properly inspected and safe? Again, I could go on forever.

Don’t tell me that these functions are entirely different from Welfare/Food Stamps because they aren't. All of these functions, including the welfare program, are merely various ways of determining how to divide and protect the corporate wealth of the nation and the individuals who comprise that society. You may disagree with how the pie is apportioned, but that does not make you any less dependent upon receiving a slice of it.

Because we live in and are members of a larger society, we are dependent on the “Government”. As I said in the beginning, our dependence upon a central government to determine our corporate needs and balance them against our individual liberties is the essence of and raison d'être for “Government”.

Simply put, we created a “government” because we needed one and, thus, our “dependence” upon the created government is inherent.

Government, despite the current Red State/Blue State characterizations, is not an “Us v. Them” situation. It is an “Us. v Us” situation. The conflict arises as different parts of “Us” fundamentally disagree as to what it is best for the whole of “Us”.

Originally Posted by jsarno

Maybe you're right, and I'm just being cynical. It just seems over the years the government is stepping in more and more and taking decisions away from others and telling us more and more on what to do.

Because of our fundamental guarantees of personal freedom, IMO, our society is more free and our government (even considering all its various levels) is less intrusive than any other in the world. I have no extrinsic proof of this, it is just my opinion based on my understanding of other forms of government and my review of the news. The fact that this country of 300 Million people can create a system that provides a single postage rate for letters whether being delivered down the street or across the country and still can guarantee the level of individual freedom that it does is, to me, mind boggling.

Are there flaws, abuses, and inefficiencies and an occasional overstepping of the authority? Absolutely. Does the fact that we can lawfully, consistently and openly discuss these problems create, in me at least, a confidence that the extreme abuses you fear are without foundation? Absolutely.

Of course, we must be ever vigilant and always question governmental actions. The fact that we, as a society, believe it is necessary to protect the individual civilian duty to ask and debate such questions is the very reason that the abuse you fear will not come to pass.

Originally Posted by jsarno

Well, I am not saying I have the "freedom" to shoot someone (unless of course he breaks into my home), nor do I have the "freedom" to drink and drive cause that puts others in jeopardy.

You don’t have these “freedoms” b/c society as a whole, through the “Government” has a right to control your actions by creating limitations on your actions and punishments for violating those limitations. In fact, as your examples demonstrate, the right of the "Government" to limit your rights is the pre-existing situation and that societal right was only limited by the foresight of our founders to enact and guarantee certain personal liberties.

Originally Posted by jsarno

How is it their right to limit the spread of firearms? That has nothing to do with them directly. Taking firearms away does directly affect someone.
That being said, I have no problem with having stiffer restrictions on guns. (within reason) I do not think a felon should possess a gun. I'm all for getting the guns OUT of those that abused guns in the first place.

The guarantee of individual liberty that you rely on as your right to possess a firearm exists only as limit to the pre-existing and essential societal right to limit or control your individual actions to the benefit of the corporate whole. Thus, if the society determines that it is in the best interests of the corporate whole to deprive individuals of gun ownership, it is the "Government’s" right and duty to do so.

Because of the foresight of our Founders in protecting certain individual liberties, however, society’s right to control your actions as to gun ownership may be limited by certain 2A constitutional guarantees. That is the essential balancing that Founders created and for which the Constitution provides.

[Schneed10]

Originally Posted by JoeRedskin

So many assertions, so many flawed conclusions.

Preliminarily, I am uncertain as to why you bolded the phrase “There are simply no constitutional rights that are unlimited” in my original post. If it is your assertion that there should be, then I would suggest that you assert an impossibility. In any society of people, unfettered individual liberty simply cannot exist. I would think that to be self-evident but, if you disagree or if I have misstated your intent, please let me know.

On to the rest!

A) “If we let government take too much control of our lives we will become dependant on them”:

Okay, can we go back to Govt. 101? The “government” which you fear so much is, in fact, nothing more than the embodiment of societal will acting through Constitutionally created structures. Because it represents the whole of us, “Government” was created to “control our lives” so that the corporate whole can exist through the rule of law and maximize our competing personal liberties. Simply put - without a Government “taking control”, there is no American society – just warlords, tribes and individuals in violent competition with one another.

To balance against this fundamental reason for its existence, i.e. the right of the whole to control the actions of the individual, the Founders, in a moment of brilliance and clarity, realized (as they had seen in Britain) that any government could overstep this essential function unless certain personal liberties were guaranteed. In other words, the “government”, i.e. the will of the collective, could very easily, in the name of the collective need, destroy the very thing it was created to protect- the individual. Thus, the Bill of Rights and its guarantees of personal liberties were created to provide a line and to delineate the extent to which the will of the societal whole may “take control” of the individual.

B) “You don't have to look far to see this either. Look at the amount of people on welfare and food stamps, and how many of them volunteer to get off???? We don't rehabilitate those than need rehabilitation, we as a country allow them to suckle off the teet of America without any concern about actually making them a "normal" member of society. We talk a lot about an "exit strategy" in iraq, but we have none for those already sucking our systems dry.”

The plusses and minuses, abuses and inadequacies of the welfare system could be a thread in and of itself. How many volunteer to go off? I don’t know. I also don’t know how many volunteered to go on either. I am sure, however, that the answer to both questions is not “100%”.

Relevant to the issue at hand, however, is that the whole welfare system, again, represents the balancing of conflicting societal interests and remedies. On one hand, welfare is intended to provide a minimum level of aid to avoid having portions of the populace living in abject poverty b/c, as societies through the ages have recognized, large swaths of poverty create a host of even more expensive and dangerous problems. On the other hand, society as a whole does not want a system that destroys incentive.

Inevitably, these two goals – avoidance of poverty v. disincentive - are in conflict. Through the federal, state, and local govts, our society works on various solutions to the underlying conflicts. Ultimately, we – you and me – have both the ability and opportunity to affect these decisions because the Founders created a federalistic system where we have a legislative voice, popularly elected executives to apply the laws enacted by the will of the people, and a judicial branch to challenge any action by that executive and ensure that the executives apply the laws as enacted.

C) The linkage between govt. “taking control of our lives” and the assertion that we will become dependent upon it.

And this is where it all completely falls apart: Every day, and in every way, everyone who is a citizen of the US is dependent on the “Government”.

Did you drive on a road today? Do you maintain it? Or are you dependent upon the "Government" to do so? Did you have electricity in your home? As power concerns are monopolistic entities, what steps did you take to ensure that utilities companies provided power at constant rate and price? Do you test your food to ensure it is properly inspected and safe? Again, I could go on forever.

Don’t tell me that these functions are entirely different from Welfare/Food Stamps because they aren't. All of these functions, including the welfare program, are merely various ways of determining how to divide and protect the corporate wealth of the nation and the individuals who comprise that society. You may disagree with how the pie is apportioned, but that does not make you any less dependent upon receiving a slice of it.

Because we live in and are members of a larger society, we are dependent on the “Government”. As I said in the beginning, our dependence upon a central government to determine our corporate needs and balance them against our individual liberties is the essence of and raison d'être for “Government”.

Simply put, we created a “government” because we needed one and, thus, our “dependence” upon the created government is inherent.

Government, despite the current Red State/Blue State characterizations, is not an “Us v. Them” situation. It is an “Us. v Us” situation. The conflict arises as different parts of “Us” fundamentally disagree as to what it is best for the whole of “Us”.



Because of our fundamental guarantees of personal freedom, IMO, our society is more free and our government (even considering all its various levels) is less intrusive than any other in the world. I have no extrinsic proof of this, it is just my opinion based on my understanding of other forms of government and my review of the news. The fact that this country of 300 Million people can create a system that provides a single postage rate for letters whether being delivered down the street or across the country and still can guarantee the level of individual freedom that it does is, to me, mind boggling.

Are there flaws, abuses, and inefficiencies and an occasional overstepping of the authority? Absolutely. Does the fact that we can lawfully, consistently and openly discuss these problems create, in me at least, a confidence that the extreme abuses you fear are without foundation? Absolutely.

Of course, we must be ever vigilant and always question governmental actions. The fact that we, as a society, believe it is necessary to protect the individual civilian duty to ask and debate such questions is the very reason that the abuse you fear will not come to pass.



You don’t have these “freedoms” b/c society as a whole, through the “Government” has a right to control your actions by creating limitations on your actions and punishments for violating those limitations. In fact, as your examples demonstrate, the right of the "Government" to limit your rights is the pre-existing situation and that societal right was only limited by the foresight of our founders to enact and guarantee certain personal liberties.



The guarantee of individual liberty that you rely on as your right to possess a firearm exists only as limit to the pre-existing and essential societal right to limit or control your individual actions to the benefit of the corporate whole. Thus, if the society determines that it is in the best interests of the corporate whole to deprive individuals of gun ownership, it is the "Government’s" right and duty to do so.

Because of the foresight of our Founders in protecting certain individual liberties, however, society’s right to control your actions as to gun ownership may be limited by certain 2A constitutional guarantees. That is the essential balancing that Founders created and for which the Constitution provides.

Straight up embarassing Jsarno. I gotta love that.

[Sheriff Gonna Getcha]

Originally Posted by jsarno

You should never ever make a decision out of fear, and this topic has a ton of fear behind it. The main argument for getting rid of guns is bad people are doing bad things with them. Well, you're right. But why try a assbackward way to fix it?

The gun rights advocates seem to talk a lot about the "bad guys" and the need to protect themselves. If anything, it sounds like the gun rights advocates use fear to justify their beliefs.

And I don't agree that limiting access to guns is a assbackward way of fixing "the problem." Punishment reacts to the problem, it doesn't prevent it.

[firstdown]

Originally Posted by Sheriff Gonna Getcha

The gun rights advocates seem to talk a lot about the "bad guys" and the need to protect themselves. If anything, it sounds like the gun rights advocates use fear to justify their beliefs.

And I don't agree that limiting access to guns is a assbackward way of fixing "the problem." Punishment reacts to the problem, it doesn't prevent it.

Well people believe that they should have the right to owen a gun to protect themself. Who else are they protecting themself from if its not the bad guy? With all the crime that goes on how could you say they use fear when all you have to do is open up the news paper or watch the news on any given day. The threat is there, now the chance of that threat could be debated but not the threat itself. I have had two friends defend themself with a gun. One was home sick when two guys broke into his home and one was armed with a bat and the other with a knife. They came at him until they realised he had a gun. Another friend had his gun with him and while sitting in his car looking up an address he had three guys try to enter his car and threatend him with harm if he did not unlock his door. He pulled out his gun and they took off. Did guns save either one of these guys life? Who knows. but it sure turnd what could have been bad situation into a happy ending. In the first case the guy did shoot one of the intruders in the leg put they still fled and they never found the guys.

[jsarno]

Originally Posted by Sheriff Gonna Getcha

The gun rights advocates seem to talk a lot about the "bad guys" and the need to protect themselves. If anything, it sounds like the gun rights advocates use fear to justify their beliefs.

And I don't agree that limiting access to guns is a assbackward way of fixing "the problem." Punishment reacts to the problem, it doesn't prevent it.

I disagree 100%.
Look at a dog. If he pees on the carpet and you let it go, he will continue to do so. If you shove his nose in it, spank him and throw him outside, he eventually learns not to do it.
If you cut the hand off a person that steals, and others watch it, do you seriously think that won't deter others from stealing? I certainly do. Punishment absolutely prevents issues if the punishment is severe enough.

[htownskinfan]

Originally Posted by jsarno

I disagree 100%.
Look at a dog. If he pees on the carpet and you let it go, he will continue to do so. If you shove his nose in it, spank him and throw him outside, he eventually learns not to do it.
If you cut the hand off a person that steals, and others watch it, do you seriously think that won't deter others from stealing? I certainly do. Punishment absolutely prevents issues if the punishment is severe enough.

How many times do you have to do it to a dog? My dog is still shitting in the house

[jsarno]

Originally Posted by htownskinfan

How many times do you have to do it to a dog? My dog is still shitting in the house

My first basset hound figured it out in less than 2 weeks, my second basset took a tad bit longer but it was because of his dominance issues.
The spankings got progressively worse the more they didn't learn it.

What kind of dog do you have?

(editted to be a little more PC)

[htownskinfan]

Originally Posted by jsarno

My first basset hound figured it out in less than 2 weeks, my second basset took a tad bit longer but it was because of his dominance issues.
The beatings got progressively worse the more they didn't learn it.

What kind of dog do you have?

rat terrier

[MTK]

Originally Posted by jsarno

My first basset hound figured it out in less than 2 weeks, my second basset took a tad bit longer but it was because of his dominance issues.
The beatings got progressively worse the more they didn't learn it.

What kind of dog do you have?

I can't believe I missed this the first time around. Do you really beat your dogs??

[jsarno]

Originally Posted by Mattyk72

I can't believe I missed this the first time around. Do you really beat your dogs??

As probably the biggest dog lover on this site, I have no problem saying I do indeed punish my dogs with smacks on the ass that get progressively worse until they learn. It works, and it worked within a very short time frame. Haven't had to discipline them in many years now since they are about 6 years old.
Weren't you the same person that got on me cause I seem to love animals more than humans? So I have to ask why in the world you'd bring this up like this on a site about gun control? Maybe it has something to do with the fatc that you would quote someone just to cause trouble. I would give you negative rep points both for that post, and this one, but what's the point? You would just delete yours and then attack another and take away ALL of his right Matty? (think I forgot that one did you?)
When you make posts personal, what kind of remarks are you expecting? Or should I say..."yes massta, sorry massta"?
SO why not get back to being a decent poster again, and not abusing your position here. You [i]can[i] provide decent feedback, and I look forward to seeing those around here instead of crap posts like this with the sole intent of causing trouble.

[SmootSmack]

Originally Posted by jsarno

I disagree 100%.
Look at a dog. If he pees on the carpet and you let it go, he will continue to do so. If you shove his nose in it, spank him and throw him outside, he eventually learns not to do it.
If you cut the hand off a person that steals, and others watch it, do you seriously think that won't deter others from stealing? I certainly do. Punishment absolutely prevents issues if the punishment is severe enough.

But you don't do all that to the dog before he pees on the carpet do you? You're not shoving his nose in the carpet just because

I think that's what SGG is trying to say

[jsarno]

Originally Posted by SmootSmack

But you don't do all that to the dog before he pees on the carpet do you? You're not shoving his nose in the carpet just because

I think that's what SGG is trying to say

I see his point, this is what he said:
Punishment reacts to the problem, it doesn't prevent it.
He is correct in saying punishment reacts to a problem. However I am saying that punishment prevents problems. We are already having the problem, so the only way to really stop it is to show that we are willing to punish it, and create fear so that the problem does not occur again.
It's not like we're trying to prevent something from EVER occuring, it already is. Since it's not stopping (I believe partly cause of weak punishments) the punishments needs to get severe in order to put fear into the people who are doing the acts.
My dogs fear the beatings, therefore they do their dirty business outside. If I didn't beat on them when they peed on the carpet, they would not have stopped.