Ted Nugent on Gun Control

[KLHJ2]

Originally Posted by Hog1

What does the state use to determine is a waiting period (regulated weapon) AR, and a non?

Whether or not it is semi-automatic. If the weapon can automatically re-chamber a round from a cartridge or magazine, then it requires a waiting period.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[dmek25]

to me, the biggest difference is the actual gun. its sole purpose is to kill. period. guns kill people, plain and simple. but, one of the biggest problems we have today, is all the bickering, and negotiating by lawyers, to get reduced sentences for crimes involving guns. it seems like the laws are OK. they just get manipulated by the legal system. lets review what laws we have, and if they are good enough to stay in the books, then lets enforce them like they were written

[KLHJ2]

I have an emotional attachment to firing numerous small projectiles out of a tube at a high rate of speed and there is nothing I want done about it............

[KLHJ2]

Originally Posted by dmek25

to me, the biggest difference is the actual gun. its sole purpose is to kill. period. guns kill people, plain and simple. but, one of the biggest problems we have today, is all the bickering, and negotiating by lawyers, to get reduced sentences for crimes involving guns. it seems like the laws are OK. they just get manipulated by the legal system. lets review what laws we have, and if they are good enough to stay in the books, then lets enforce them like they were written

I would have to disagree, I would tell you that from my point of view that the sole purpose of a gun is to launch a bullet at an intended target. That target does not have to be a living thing. For some of us it can be a bottle, a piece of paper, or a clay pigeon. Some people just like to shoot, but will never pull a gun on anyone in their entire lives. Yes, many of those same people may carry one for protection at home. That is because most of them know how to use it.

This morning a story on CNN explained how a former female boxer fought off a burgular in her home. She used a tool to do it. Not everyone can wield a hoe like she can. Not everybody can shoot gun properly either, but to take that tool away from everybody is not right. Whats next, a metal detector and security at your front door telling you that you cannot bring toe nail clippers into your house because they can potentially be a weapon? Come on.

[Redskins8588]

Originally Posted by dmek25

to me, the biggest difference is the actual gun. its sole purpose is to kill. period. guns kill people, plain and simple. but, one of the biggest problems we have today, is all the bickering, and negotiating by lawyers, to get reduced sentences for crimes involving guns. it seems like the laws are OK. they just get manipulated by the legal system. lets review what laws we have, and if they are good enough to stay in the books, then lets enforce them like they were written

I agree 100%, too many times the justice system gets manipulated and people get set free or get just a slap on the wrist when in fact they should have went to jail or what not. I do think that we need to enforce the laws more..

[Hog1]

Originally Posted by dmek25

to me, the biggest difference is the actual gun. its sole purpose is to kill. period. guns kill people, plain and simple. but, one of the biggest problems we have today, is all the bickering, and negotiating by lawyers, to get reduced sentences for crimes involving guns. it seems like the laws are OK. they just get manipulated by the legal system. lets review what laws we have, and if they are good enough to stay in the books, then lets enforce them like they were written

Dmek for President in '08!!!!!!!!

You are totally correct. The justice system IS letting us down in many arena's............and we do not need more laws (unless others are taken off the books to make room). We need to enforce what we have.

[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.

[dmek25]

sgg, most gun owners are borderline fanatical about their rights. while i applaud their enthusiasm, i believe that guns kill people. its almost like trying to persuade someone to change who they are voting for. its not going to happen

[Sheriff Gonna Getcha]

Originally Posted by dmek25

sgg, most gun owners are borderline fanatical about their rights. while i applaud their enthusiasm, i believe that guns kill people. its almost like trying to persuade someone to change who they are voting for. its not going to happen

I realize that I am not going to change anyone's opinion. I would, however, like to hear someone articulate a balanced, sound, and persuasive argument, rather than simply resorting to the same ole' meaningless phrases like "guns don't kill people, people do." What the hell does that mean or add to the debate?

[firstdown]

Originally Posted by dmek25

sgg, most gun owners are borderline fanatical about their rights. while i applaud their enthusiasm, i believe that guns kill people. its almost like trying to persuade someone to change who they are voting for. its not going to happen

Most gun owners are not fanatical about their rights. Also if you take a gun and sit it on a table how does it kill a person?