Ted Nugent on Gun Control

[firstdown]

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.

It also states "the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed". Its does not say that to bear the arms you have to be a well regulated militla. With those comas it breaks it up into different groups.

[Sheriff Gonna Getcha]

Originally Posted by firstdown

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.

It also states "the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed". Its does not say that to bear the arms you have to be a well regulated militla. With those comas it breaks it up into different groups.

What does "arms" mean? We seem to have arbitrarily determined that "arms" includes handguns, but not M-60s, RPGs, tanks, etc.

[Beemnseven]

Originally Posted by Sheriff Gonna Getcha

What does "arms" mean? We seem to have arbitrarily determined that "arms" includes handguns, but not M-60s, RPGs, tanks, etc.

Yes, "arms" means guns. There is little doubt to any rational person that the founders intended for the citizens to have the ability to kill government soldiers if the government got out of hand.

Knowing what they had to go through in order to separate from the king, is anyone here actually trying to argue that Madison wanted to make it more difficult for the citizens to overthrow another tyrant should they ever gain control of the government?

[saden1]

Originally Posted by Beemnseven

Yes, "arms" means guns. There is little doubt to any rational person that the founders intended for the citizens to have the ability to kill government soldiers if the government got out of hand.

Knowing what they had to go through in order to separate from the king, is anyone here actually trying to argue that Madison wanted to make it more difficult for the citizens to overthrow another tyrant should they ever gain control of the government?

I guess the founders failed miserable in that respect because if you try to overthrow the government you're royally f'ed. Hell, even opposing it is a no-no.

[Slingin Sammy 33]

Originally Posted by firstdown

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.

It also states "the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed". Its does not say that to bear the arms you have to be a well regulated militla. With those comas it breaks it up into different groups.

Agreed, and in light of the Framers breaking away from an oppresive government, I think their intent was pretty clear to allow "the people" to keep arms so that a new government would be less likely to become oppressive. The mention to the "well regulated militia" was intented to provide the Constitutional right to each state to have its own "militia" so that the federal government would be less likely to use military force against a state. The Framers intent was for the federal government to have FAR less control than it does today.

[Sheriff Gonna Getcha]

I'll admit that state legislators might have a slightly better idea of what I want and how I want to live my life. I just believe that I know better than anyone else what is in my best interests and how I want to live my life. All local, state, and federal governments should stay out of my business. So, for example, if I want to marry a dude (which, for the record, I don't), the government should say, "I might not agree with your lifestyle, but it's not my job or anyone else's to tell you how to live your life."

[JoeRedskin]

Just got back from vacation and catching up on some threads. It appears one of my favorites is back in play.

Yeah!!!

[firstdown]

Well just today in the paper today a man who owned a pizza joint killed a robber who shot at him first. The man was told to open his safe and he tried to convince the robber just to take the money from the cash registar as he had no money in his safe. The robber insisted that he open the safe and as the owner was opening it up was shot at by the robber which missed. He had his gun in the safe and returned fire killing the guy. I guess if he was in DC he and maybe his employees would not be here today. The gun was legally owned and he also had a carry permit so he could have protection when leaving to make deposits.

[Sheriff Gonna Getcha]

Originally Posted by firstdown

Well just today in the paper today a man who owned a pizza joint killed a robber who shot at him first. The man was told to open his safe and he tried to convince the robber just to take the money from the cash registar as he had no money in his safe. The robber insisted that he open the safe and as the owner was opening it up was shot at by the robber which missed. He had his gun in the safe and returned fire killing the guy. I guess if he was in DC he and maybe his employees would not be here today. The gun was legally owned and he also had a carry permit so he could have protection when leaving to make deposits.

I'll take your anecdote, and raise you.

Father accidentally shoots and kills baby

Man accidentally shoots friend in head

[Beemnseven]

Originally Posted by Sheriff Gonna Getcha

I'll take your anecdote, and raise you.

Father accidentally shoots and kills baby

Man accidentally shoots friend in head

I don't think anyone will try to argue that guns won't be used to kill innocent people, either intentionally or unintentionally.

I shudder to think what society would be like if some of the more extreme gun control advocates get their way and firearms are taken away from the law abiding.

In a free society, you have to live with the risks. If you don't want risks, there are many places in this world you can go to and be safe from everything. Personally, I'd choose the free society with all its warts over the police state.

[724Skinsfan]

I thought this was interesting. I would never have guessed 55%. In fact, I would have thought homicides, justified or unjustified, would overwhelmingly dominate the number of gun-related deaths.

[jsarno]

Originally Posted by 724Skinsfan

I thought this was interesting. I would never have guessed 55%. In fact, I would have thought homicides, justified or unjustified, would overwhelmingly dominate the number of gun-related deaths.

That's a good link.

But do you know what strikes me more than anything?
There was 31,000 gun related deaths, yet there are approx. 4.9 million tobacco related deaths in the world a year. In the US, there are 438,000 tobacco related deaths (approximately 1 in 5 deaths overall are tobacco related), and even MORE important, 38,000 (that's right 7k MORE deaths than guns) are directly related to SECOND HAND smoke. And people are up in arms about being able to defend yourself while cigarettes provide no defense.
Interesting that second hand smoke is statistically MORE deadly than guns themselves. WOW.

Tobacco-Related Mortality | OSH | CDC

[Schneed10]

Originally Posted by jsarno

That's a good link.

But do you know what strikes me more than anything?
There was 31,000 gun related deaths, yet there are approx. 4.9 million tobacco related deaths in the world a year. In the US, there are 438,000 tobacco related deaths (approximately 1 in 5 deaths overall are tobacco related), and even MORE important, 38,000 (that's right 7k MORE deaths than guns) are directly related to SECOND HAND smoke. And people are up in arms about being able to defend yourself while cigarettes provide no defense.
Interesting that second hand smoke is statistically MORE deadly than guns themselves. WOW.

Tobacco-Related Mortality | OSH | CDC

With the utmost respect for your opinion, I must disagree with the analysis.

Second hand smoke is not "more dangerous" than guns because it results in more deaths. Second hand smoke is way more prevalent in society, that's why it causes more deaths. Way more people are exposed to second hand smoke than are exposed to guns.

Now, there are plenty of guns in the US, legal or not. But a good portion of them stay locked away or otherwise secured safely. Many more people are exposed to smoking, hence the higher death numbers.

This anaylsis is akin to saying that the flu is more dangerous than small pox because more people die from the flu than small pox. It may be mathematically true, but only because nobody gets exposed to small pox.

[KLHJ2]

Originally Posted by Schneed10

With the utmost respect for your opinion, I must disagree with the analysis.

Second hand smoke is not "more dangerous" than guns because it results in more deaths. Second hand smoke is way more prevalent in society, that's why it causes more deaths. Way more people are exposed to second hand smoke than are exposed to guns.

Now, there are plenty of guns in the US, legal or not. But a good portion of them stay locked away or otherwise secured safely. Many more people are exposed to smoking, hence the higher death numbers.

This anaylsis is akin to saying that the flu is more dangerous than small pox because more people die from the flu than small pox. It may be mathematically true, but only because nobody gets exposed to small pox.

I have been exposed to small pox. Of coarse it was the preventative type of exposure.

[jsarno]

Originally Posted by Schneed10

With the utmost respect for your opinion, I must disagree with the analysis.

Second hand smoke is not "more dangerous" than guns because it results in more deaths. Second hand smoke is way more prevalent in society, that's why it causes more deaths. Way more people are exposed to second hand smoke than are exposed to guns.

Now, there are plenty of guns in the US, legal or not. But a good portion of them stay locked away or otherwise secured safely. Many more people are exposed to smoking, hence the higher death numbers.

This anaylsis is akin to saying that the flu is more dangerous than small pox because more people die from the flu than small pox. It may be mathematically true, but only because nobody gets exposed to small pox.

That's a good valid argument.
However, the second hand smoke argument was only part of the argument (and the 2nd part at that, I just ran with it cause I wasn't expecting to see those numbers), what about the 4.9 mil that die from tobacco related deaths world wide?

Also, your argument helps my point that it's more important to stop tobacco than it is to stop guns since we are much more likely to be exposed to smoke. Let's also keep in mind the MASSIVE amount of medical assistance required by tobacco related issues that we pay for with our insurances.

ps- the guns that are locked away aren't the ones causing the problems, but they are the ones that will be taken away.


On a side note, I appreciate your candor.