Ted Nugent on Gun Control

[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.

[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............

[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?

[Sheriff Gonna Getcha]

Originally Posted by firstdown

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?

Obviously, guns do not kill anyone by themselves. Then again, neither do RPGs, IEDs, or claymores, but no one really thinks they should be legal. That guns do not, by themselves, kill does not IMO alter the debate about gun control/rights.

[KLHJ2]

Originally Posted by Sheriff Gonna Getcha

Obviously, guns do not kill anyone by themselves. Then again, neither do RPGs, IEDs, or claymores, but no one really thinks they should be legal. That guns do not, by themselves, kill does not alter the debate about gun control/rights.

Do you know how many deer I could hit in one shot with a claymore? That would be cool!

JK.

[JoeRedskin]

Didn't we cover all this in the first 15 pages?

[MTK]

I'm not even sure why we're bothering with this discussion. Apparently guns don't kill people, don't you guys get it?

[saden1]

Originally Posted by Mattyk72

I'm not even sure why we're bothering with this discussion. Apparently guns don't kill people, don't you guys get it?

Now now, people kill people. Even people with frying pans can kill people. Protect your neck, get a frying pan!

[JoeRedskin]

This one is specifically for Jsarno, given his reliance on his constitutional right to own a gun:

In the case I referenced earlier, assume the Supreme Court rules that: 1) the modern incarnation of a "well-regulated militia" constitutes the National Guard and that, as a result: 1) only off-duty, private citizens of the National Guard are permitted to keep guns; AND 2) only the guns retained must be necessary for their duties as part of the National Guard.

Anticipating one of your standard responses: Yes. This is a hypothetical and an unlikely one at that. However, I ask b/c, given your past assertion that the Constitution must be respected, I am curious to see if you would continue to hold that belief if the body of government charged with interpreting the Constitution determined you were not entitled to have a gun.

Less hypothetical - if the ruling in Heller in any way allows for the restriction of personal ownership of guns, will you comply with the restrictions?

[jsarno]

Originally Posted by JoeRedskin

This one is specifically for Jsarno, given his reliance on his constitutional right to own a gun:

In the case I referenced earlier, assume the Supreme Court rules that: 1) the modern incarnation of a "well-regulated militia" constitutes the National Guard and that, as a result: 1) only off-duty, private citizens of the National Guard are permitted to keep guns; AND 2) only the guns retained must be necessary for their duties as part of the National Guard.

Anticipating one of your standard responses: Yes. This is a hypothetical and an unlikely one at that. However, I ask b/c, given your past assertion that the Constitution must be respected, I am curious to see if you would continue to hold that belief if the body of government charged with interpreting the Constitution determined you were not entitled to have a gun.

Less hypothetical - if the ruling in Heller in any way allows for the restriction of personal ownership of guns, will you comply with the restrictions?

Well, I would only become uncompliant if they banned guns altogether. I do not have ANY desire to own semi automatic weapons. My concern is personal safety. My guns of choice are handguns and shotguns. I am not even a hunter, I can't kill an animal like that, but I would not take that right away from hunters. That's just a personal preference.
To me, people that are trying to ban guns are doing so 100% out of fear and never owned a gun in their life, and likely never needed one for any reason. So the people trying to ban guns would be like a virgin nun trying to ban condoms.
Does that answer you question?

[JoeRedskin]

Originally Posted by jsarno

Well, I would only become uncompliant if they banned guns altogether. I do not have ANY desire to own semi automatic weapons. My concern is personal safety. My guns of choice are handguns and shotguns. I am not even a hunter, I can't kill an animal like that, but I would not take that right away from hunters. That's just a personal preference.
To me, people that are trying to ban guns are doing so 100% out of fear and never owned a gun in their life, and likely never needed one for any reason. So the people trying to ban guns would be like a virgin nun trying to ban condoms.
Does that answer you question?

I think so, but correct me if I am wrong:
If the Supreme Court, the final arbiter of the Constitution's meaning, determined that it was permissible for a State to entirely ban your private ownership of guns, then you would disobey any law passed in accordance with that determination.

[Sheriff Gonna Getcha]

Originally Posted by JoeRedskin

I think so, but correct me if I am wrong:
If the Supreme Court, the final arbiter of the Constitution's meaning, determined that it was permissible for a State to entirely ban your private ownership of guns, then you would disobey any law passed in accordance with that determination.

Unfortunately, given the current makeup of the U.S. Supreme Court, I think the Court will affirm the lower court's holding. I'm frankly astonished that is has taken over 200 years for the Court to determine whether the 2nd Amendment is a collective or individual right.

[JoeRedskin]

Originally Posted by Sheriff Gonna Getcha

Unfortunately, given the current makeup of the U.S. Supreme Court, I think the Court will affirm the lower court's holding.

I think it is pretty clear that is the way they are heading, and again, I am actually okay with that. At the same time, it does become a question of regulation. If private ownership of guns is protected: Can the State limit the number owned? The storage and safety measures required by owners? If so, to what extent?

Originally Posted by Sheriff Gonna Getcha

I'm frankly astonished that is has taken over 200 years for the Court to determine whether the 2nd Amendment is a collective or individual right.

I agree. When I first started looking into this, I expected to find a fairly straightforward answer. Part of the confusion, I think, is the societal change that has occurred in the last 200 hundred years and the changes in how governments raise and maintain armies. Stretching back to antiquity, there was a time when, as a public duty, men were required to have arms in order to provide for the common defense. Thus, the individual right was part of a public duty. As times changed, so did the neccessity for individual ownership as part of a public duty (generally, in developed countries that is simply no longer the case). At the same time, the right to privately own guns became so ingrained in society that, IMO, it became seen as neccessary to individual liberty.

I have always held that the right to "keep and bear arms" is a necessary check on attempt by the central authority to monopolize power. Balanced against this, of course, is the central authority's need to protect the general citizenry from dangerous conditions created by a prolifieration of deadly weapons.