Ted Nugent on Gun Control

[jsarno]

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.

I don't think that would ever happen. Too many gun owners would protest it. We'd have a prohibition on our hands.
But to answer your question for shits and giggles, I would absolutely disobey it. The supreme court would be wrong for doing so, and I refuse to allow them to tell me how to protect myself.
If they made a ruling to disallow all security systems in vehicles, homes, and work related, would you comply?

ps- if the government decided to do something so blantently stupid, then what is next? Be very careful when the government starts enforcing what THEY THINK is best for you. That's a nasty slippery slope, and I feel would be the beginning of the end of this country.

[JoeRedskin]

Originally Posted by jsarno

I don't think that would ever happen. Too many gun owners would protest it. We'd have a prohibition on our hands.

I agree. Even if permitted by the Court, I doubt State's would act to do so. Further, the day after such a restrictive decision came out, calls for a new amendment would also be out.

Originally Posted by jsarno

But to answer your question for shits and giggles, I would absolutely disobey it. The supreme court would be wrong for doing so, and I refuse to allow them to tell me how to protect myself.

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.

Originally Posted by jsarno

If they made a ruling to disallow all security systems in vehicles, homes, and work related, would you comply?.

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.

Originally Posted by jsarno

ps- if the government decided to do something so blantently stupid, then what is next? Be very careful when the government starts enforcing what THEY THINK is best for you. That's a nasty slippery slope, and I feel would be the beginning of the end of this country.

<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. [As a personal example: Should I settle the case I am working on? Should I pursue it to litigation? Which is in the best interests of the public (i.e. what outcome is best for you)?]

With all due respect, the fundamental flaw in almost all your arguments is that you continually assert/assume that "the government" is some separate entity that exists free and clear of the society that both created and supports it. You seem to constantly view the government as an opponent of the society that created it. To some extent, it is because - as the saying goes - you can't please all the people all the time. BUT, that is only half the equation. It is also works on behalf of every individual who comprises it. It does not exist in a void or separate from the governed.

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.

[KLHJ2]

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?

I know that this was for JSARNO, but I could not resist. This is not always feesable.

1. Would you trust a 21 year old man with only 3 years experience with weaponry vs. a 38 year old retiree with 20 years because the 18 year old is in the guard and the retiree is done with the military alltogether.

2. The weapons used by the National Guard are issued to them and are held at a centralized arms room. If for some reason thase arms rooms were seized by the hypothetical enemy, then what?

I will tell you what; we are in trouble because in your world we either dont have weapons, or we have less experience backing them.

[JoeRedskin]

Originally Posted by angryssg

I know that this was for JSARNO, but I could not resist. This is not always feesable.

1. Would you trust a 21 year old man with only 3 years experience with weaponry vs. a 38 year old retiree with 20 years because the 18 year old is in the guard and the retiree is done with the military alltogether.

2. The weapons used by the National Guard are issued to them and are held at a centralized arms room. If for some reason thase arms rooms were seized by the hypothetical enemy, then what?

I will tell you what; we are in trouble because in your world we either dont have weapons, or we have less experience backing them.

First, the National Guard was just an example and the opinions and transcript I have cited deal with this issue (i.e. - Federal control of state arms).

More importantly, I was not asking whether or not someone believed this was a correct decision. Rather, I was asking if this unlikely hypothetical eventuality became a reality, would you comply?

[Just want to be clear: I am not in favor of banning guns and would opppose any determination by the S.Court that would result in my hypothetical becoming a reality. At the same time, I would do so through the legal process rather than by unlawful action].

[KLHJ2]

Originally Posted by JoeRedskin

First, the National Guard was just an example and the opinions and transcript I have cited deal with this issue (i.e. - Federal control of state arms).

More importantly, I was not asking whether or not someone believed this was a correct decision. Rather, I was asking if this unlikely hypothetical eventuality became a reality, would you comply?

[Just want to be clear: I am not in favor of banning guns and would opppose any determination by the S.Court that would result in my hypothetical becoming a reality. At the same time, I would do so through the legal process rather than by unlawful action].

I see what you are saying. To put it simply I am happy until they try to take my guns away. I would hope to maintain posession of them legally, but I would take any and all necessary actions to maintain possession of my own firearms.

[JoeRedskin]

Originally Posted by angryssg

I see what you are saying. To put it simply I am happy until they try to take my guns away. I would hope to maintain posession of them legally, but I would take any and all necessary actions to maintain possession of my own firearms.

Fair enough. Further, I would assert that a complete ban will not occur and could not occur under the Constitution as currently written.

[JoeRedskin]

Just as an aside, if you REALLY want to see some interesting and scholarly debate on the history of 2A, its original meaing and subsequent interpretation go here:

http://www.supremecourtus.gov/oral_a...pts/07-290.pdf

It's the transcript from the recent oral argument in Heller. It's about 110 pages and, at points, assumes you have read the underlying briefs, but, IMO, it is required reading for any intelligent debate or assertions as to the legal status of a person's right to carry/own guns. Good stuff.

[JoeRedskin]

Sorry to be doing this in bits and pieces. Here is the lower court's finding that has been appealled (by D.C.) to the Supreme Court:

http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/docs/...3/04-7041a.pdf

Lots of good stuff on the history of gun ownership and gun rights in the context of the English common law.

[Sheriff Gonna Getcha]

Originally Posted by JoeRedskin

Sorry to be doing this in bits and pieces. Here is the lower court's finding that has been appealled (by D.C.) to the Supreme Court:

http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/docs/...3/04-7041a.pdf

Lots of good stuff on the history of gun ownership and gun rights in the context of the English common law.

Interesting stuff. I strongly suggest others read this decision.

[KLHJ2]

Originally Posted by Sheriff Gonna Getcha

Interesting stuff. I strongly suggest others read this decision.

WOW, That is jacked up considering that DC has a National Guard.

Joint Force HQ DC National Guard

[htownskinfan]

I didnt watch the clip,i really dont care what Nuge has to say,all I know is he rocks,Rush was my first concert,Nuge was my second,keep rockin Ted

[Bishop Hammer]

I have never liked Ted Nugents music, but I agree with over 90% of his political views.

[JWsleep]

Ahhh, I haven't got my Ted-Nugent-gun-control-warpath-debate fix in a while. As usual, JoeRedskin has expressed my views far better than I could.


Just a thought: all y'all who are anti-government here, should we then do away with our massive military? Should we at least limit the amount of hard-earned tax-payer dollars siphoned directly into the military-industrial complex? Can we at least get a little oversight there? The lion's share of our tax dollars fund programs in defense, not welfare. A true libertarian (see Milton Friedman or Robert Nozick, for example) would argue for a privatization of the military and an end to the enormous transfer of individual's money to defense contractors.

Here's another thought: gun owners and supporters of gun rights are generally pro defense spending. This suggests it's not rights that are at issue. It's about the ability to KICK ASS, either as an individual or as a nation. There's a feeling that we are being neutered, weakened, pussified, etc. when we can't have serious firepower, either in our homes or in the world at large. And that's something the MOTOR CITY MADMAN would NEVER stand for. Whatever he is, he is no pussy.

Rock on.

[firstdown]

Originally Posted by JWsleep

Ahhh, I haven't got my Ted-Nugent-gun-control-warpath-debate fix in a while. As usual, JoeRedskin has expressed my views far better than I could.


Just a thought: all y'all who are anti-government here, should we then do away with our massive military? Should we at least limit the amount of hard-earned tax-payer dollars siphoned directly into the military-industrial complex? Can we at least get a little oversight there? The lion's share of our tax dollars fund programs in defense, not welfare. A true libertarian (see Milton Friedman or Robert Nozick, for example) would argue for a privatization of the military and an end to the enormous transfer of individual's money to defense contractors.

Here's another thought: gun owners and supporters of gun rights are generally pro defense spending. This suggests it's not rights that are at issue. It's about the ability to KICK ASS, either as an individual or as a nation. There's a feeling that we are being neutered, weakened, pussified, etc. when we can't have serious firepower, either in our homes or in the world at large. And that's something the MOTOR CITY MADMAN would NEVER stand for. Whatever he is, he is no pussy.

Rock on.

May be you should look at a chart of federal spending. We spend twice as much for SS, and medicare type programs then for our military.

[JWsleep]

Originally Posted by firstdown

May be you should look at a chart of federal spending. We spend twice as much for SS, and medicare type programs then for our military.

I think there's some question about that, though this is certainly a source with an agenda. The bigger pie is calculated by including debt incurred from military spending, including the supplemental support for the war, and trying to more accurately gauge what is being spent on the war on terror that's buried in other outlays. The smaller pie is the one you refer to, I take it.

We could argue the accuracy of this stuff, no doubt, but if you don't think the gov't is downplaying military spending to some degree, I think you should look more closely.

In any event, my point was more general: if you're against gov't intrusion and taxation, what about military spending? Should there be more or less? Why is it acceptable to a libertarian? My guess is that it's because it's for the common good. But that same reasoning can be used to promote gun control and welfare. The main issue is not whether taxation and government programs are allowed, it's a question of what is in the common interest. There is no blanket prohibition against the government acting in this way, which I take it was JoeRedskin's point.

(And I think a pie hijacking might be appropriate now...)



The Federal Pie Chart