Ted Nugent on Gun Control

[mredskins]

Originally Posted by Mattyk72

Definitely a great show. Should be interesting.

Two weeks ago with the hunter living with the PETA people, that even made me second guess PETA and I hate them. It was hard to see what people do to animals at times.

[Sheriff Gonna Getcha]

Some gun enthusiasts will cite studies indicating that gun control laws embolden criminals. Those studies, however, rarely, if ever, distinguish between correlation and causation. Those studies rarely, if ever, account for other factors such as economic conditions, social changes (e.g., drug use), etc.

In any case, to me this debate fundamentally comes down to one issue. Criminals get their guns by either: (1) legally purchasing their firearms; or (2) illegally obtaining weapons that were legally procured. Some think that the way to mitigate the problem of guns falling into criminals' hands is to encourage the proliferation of weapons. Others believe that the proliferation of firearms is the problem, not the solution. I, of course, fall into the latter category.

[Beemnseven]

Originally Posted by Sheriff Gonna Getcha

Some gun enthusiasts will cite studies indicating that gun control laws embolden criminals. Those studies, however, rarely, if ever, distinguish between correlation and causation. Those studies rarely, if ever, account for other factors such as economic conditions, social changes (e.g., drug use), etc.

In any case, to me this debate fundamentally comes down to one issue. Criminals get their guns by either: (1) legally purchasing their firearms; or (2) illegally obtaining weapons that were legally procured. Some think that the way to mitigate the problem of guns falling into criminals' hands is to encourage the proliferation of weapons. Others believe that the proliferation of firearms is the problem, not the solution. I, of course, fall into the latter category.

I don't think that's a fair statement. Those who believe in gun rights don't necessarily believe the answer to solve crime is the "proliferation of weapons". Not all law abiding people have guns. Nobody believes people who don't want guns must have them. Certainly individuals with a criminal history, and those with a history of mental illness shouldn't have access to firearms. So that's quite different from believing in "the proliferation of weapons."

We believe law abiding citizens shouldn't be denied their fundamental right to defend themselves with a gun if they want one. We maintain that the problem would be much worse if the unarmed innocent have to depend on the mercy of the armed thug.

[firstdown]

Originally Posted by Beemnseven

I don't think that's a fair statement. Those who believe in gun rights don't necessarily believe the answer to solve crime is the "proliferation of weapons". Not all law abiding people have guns. Nobody believes people who don't want guns must have them. Certainly individuals with a criminal history, and those with a history of mental illness shouldn't have access to firearms. So that's quite different from believing in "the proliferation of weapons."

We believe law abiding citizens shouldn't be denied their fundamental right to defend themselves with a gun if they want one. We maintain that the problem would be much worse if the unarmed innocent have to depend on the mercy of the armed thug.

Its funny that the same people who site the constitution for other freedoms which they think are important (freedom of speech, gather etc...) seem to dismiss it for other people rights to own guns.

[Sheriff Gonna Getcha]

Originally Posted by firstdown

Its funny that the same people who site the constitution for other freedoms which they think are important (freedom of speech, gather etc...) seem to dismiss it for other people rights to own guns.

It's equally funny that people who so easily dismiss issues like wiretapping, gitmo, etc. get so upset when people discuss taking away their guns.

[firstdown]

Originally Posted by Sheriff Gonna Getcha

It's equally funny that people who so easily dismiss issues like wiretapping, gitmo, etc. get so upset when people discuss taking away their guns.

I did not know that these people at Gitmo (who by the way would love to cut off your head) had an constitutional rights because they are not in the US nor are US citzens.

[Hog1]

Originally Posted by firstdown

Its funny that the same people who site the constitution for other freedoms which they think are important (freedom of speech, gather etc...) seem to dismiss it for other people rights to own guns.

I have often found it curious (and some other things) that many people seem unconcerned when freedoms go away, if the enjoyment of that freedom is not important to them directly.
It is another freedom gone...........

[Sheriff Gonna Getcha]

Originally Posted by Beemnseven

Certainly individuals with a criminal history, and those with a history of mental illness shouldn't have access to firearms. So that's quite different from believing in "the proliferation of weapons."

I never said that gun enthusiasts want EVERYONE to get guns. I said they believe that the spread of guns in society is a good thing. For example, after the VT shootings, we all heard chants "well if the students were armed." I just happen to think that putting more guns out there to combat the guns that are out there is friggin crazy.

Moreover, why did the NRA spend millions to oppose the Brady bill, which merely required people trying to buy handguns to wait 5 days while a background check was conducted? Why does the NRA oppose background checks for guns sold at gun shows? The NRA and gun nuts do a lot of talking when it comes to keeping guns out of criminals' hands, and then turn around and do their best to fight laws designed to stop guns from getting into criminals' hands.

[Beemnseven]

Originally Posted by Sheriff Gonna Getcha

I never said that gun enthusiasts want EVERYONE to get guns. I said they believe that the spread of guns in society is a good thing. For example, after the VT shootings, we all heard chants "well if the students were armed." I just happen to think that putting more guns out there to combat the guns that are out there is friggin crazy.

Moreover, why did the NRA spend millions to oppose the Brady bill, which merely required people trying to buy handguns to wait 5 days while a background check was conducted? Why does the NRA oppose background checks for guns sold at gun shows? The NRA and gun nuts do a lot of talking when it comes to keeping guns out of criminals' hands, and then turn around and do their best to fight laws designed to stop guns from getting into criminals' hands.

See, we're reaching an impasse here, because you seem to think that proponents of gun rights favor "the spread of guns in society" or that we believe in the "proliferation of weapons" when in reality, all we want is the right to own a firearm if we want one to defend ourselves. Personally, I'd like it if only the good guys had guns. Going a step further, I wish we could live in utopian la-la land where weapons of any kind aren't necessary because we are all peace-loving flower children. But I realize that will never be possible. I just don't want a situation where the law abiding are unilaterally disarmed, while the violent predators of society can declare open season on anyone and everyone knowing that they have no way to defend themselves.

As far as the NRA goes, they opposed the 5-day waiting period because our rights should not be subject to a waiting period. Should there be a five day wait for you to voice an opinion, to express yourself politically?

At the most basic level, SGG, don't you have the fundamental, human right to defend yourself against an attacker? If someone tries to punch you in the face, is it your position that you morally have no basic right to punch back? Are you a pacifist?

[Sheriff Gonna Getcha]

Originally Posted by Beemnseven

See, we're reaching an impasse here, because you seem to think that proponents of gun rights favor "the spread of guns in society" or that we believe in the "proliferation of weapons" when in reality, all we want is the right to own a firearm if we want one to defend ourselves.

Proponents of gun rights generally oppose any gun control laws. For example, as you note, the NRA opposes a 5 day waiting period for background checks. Usually the people who need a gun within the next 5 days are the types of people who should be forced to wait an eternity to get a gun. Proponents of gun rights also generally subscribe to the theory that our society would be safer if more people were packing heat (hence their opposition to conceal & carry restrictions). So, if proponents of gun rights are not in favor of the proliferation of weapons, they damn sure are not advocating for restricting access to them.

Originally Posted by Beemnseven

As far as the NRA goes, they opposed the 5-day waiting period because our rights should not be subject to a waiting period. Should there be a five day wait for you to voice an opinion, to express yourself politically?

The NRA opposes just about any limitations on access to guns. That they oppose a 5 day period for a background check and "cooling off" scares me. As for your free speech analogy, I don't think the two are even in the same ballpark.

Originally Posted by Beemnseven

At the most basic level, SGG, don't you have the fundamental, human right to defend yourself against an attacker? If someone tries to punch you in the face, is it your position that you morally have no basic right to punch back? Are you a pacifist?

I obviously believe that everyone has the right to defend oneself against attack. However, I don't believe that the right of self-defense is synonymous with the right to have unlimited access to firearms. I also believe that when criminals are buying weapons legally or illegally acquiring weapons that were once purchased legally, you don't solve the problem by making weapons easier to obtain.

Finally, I think shotguns and rifles should be legal. I think almost all other firearms should be illegal.

[dmek25]

the same people that are ok with the stripping of our rights( wiretapping) voted for this yo yo in office. so its all good

[firstdown]

Originally Posted by dmek25

the same people that are ok with the stripping of our rights( wiretapping) voted for this yo yo in office. so its all good

This wiretapping is not what people make it out to be and has been blowing way out of wack. The program involves monitoring international phone calls and emails to and from the US INVOLVING PEOPLE WITH SUSPECTED TIES TO TERRORISTS. WOW, they want to hear what someone might be saying to someone over seas because they think they could be link to TERRORISTS. That might not be a bad idea and a highly doubt that anyone of us or anybody we know are on that list. If your on that list you probably deserve to be and I hope they are monitoring you activities. The way its been made out is that the are wiretapping everyones phone or emails. Good thing they made this public so we could warn the terrorist of another way we might catch them.

[Sheriff Gonna Getcha]

Originally Posted by firstdown

This wiretapping is not what people make it out to be and has been blowing way out of wack. The program involves monitoring international phone calls and emails to and from the US INVOLVING PEOPLE WITH SUSPECTED TIES TO TERRORISTS. WOW, they want to hear what someone might be saying to someone over seas because they think they could be link to TERRORISTS. That might not be a bad idea and a highly doubt that anyone of us or anybody we know are on that list. If your on that list you probably deserve to be and I hope they are monitoring you activities. The way its been made out is that the are wiretapping everyones phone or emails. Good thing they made this public so we could warn the terrorist of another way we might catch them.

First, you must have access to some top secret information, because the precise scope and nature of the secret wiretapping program has not been made public. What we do know is that AG Gonzalez said they were wiretapping the lines of "people who the government had a reasonable basis to believe were involved in terrorist activities." Every lawyer will tell you that "reasonable basis" is an INCREDIBLY easy threshhold to satisfy.

Second, the merits of the wiretapping program is not at issue. What is at issue is how many conservatives narrow the scope of Constitutional protections when it comes to the war on terrorism and very broadly define it when dealing with the 2nd Amendment.

[firstdown]

Originally Posted by Sheriff Gonna Getcha

First, you must have access to some top secret information, because the precise scope and nature of the secret wiretapping program has not been made public. What we do know is that AG Gonzalez said they were wiretapping the lines of "people who the government had a reasonable basis to believe were involved in terrorist activities." Every lawyer will tell you that "reasonable basis" is an INCREDIBLY easy threshhold to satisfy.

Second, the merits of the wiretapping program is not at issue. What is at issue is how many conservatives narrow the scope of Constitutional protections when it comes to the war on terrorism and very broadly define it when dealing with the 2nd Amendment.

So what you really think they are tapping line of the everyday Joe blow and listening in on his conversation?

[Sheriff Gonna Getcha]

Originally Posted by firstdown

So what you really think they are tapping line of the everyday Joe blow and listening in on his conversation?

Of course not. I don't know who they wiretapped or what formula they relied upon in determining who should be subject to a wiretap and, except for a few select individuals, neither does anyone else.

I just think it is interesting that so many people trust the government to do the right thing without any oversight when it comes to certain issues AND zealously guard their right to bear arms in the event this government gets to the point where it needs to be overthrown. How can people say with a straight face that they don't care about or want to know about a major spying program that may infringe on our constitutional rights and then say they need guns because they don't fully trust our government?