Ted Nugent on Gun Control

[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 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].

[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 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.

[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 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.

[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.

[jsarno]

Originally Posted by JoeRedskin

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.

See your below argument.
I am not saying I would be right. Hell I speed constantly. When I travel to El Paso, I drive a MINIMUM of 85mph. Usually 90-95mph. The rules are the rules, and if I got caught then I'd expect to be disciplined...same would apply to this gun issue.

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.

<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.

You missed the point. I am not saying that everything the government puts into action is something that would be a slippery slope.
I am against anything they would try to pass that infinges on rights. For instance, You do not have the right to drive 100mph because it's not your land. If it was, then you could drive as fast as you want. You went a little overboard there buddy. You are assuming.

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.

maximum individual freedom just stood out to me. Cause in the cases we have disagreed, you have been opposed to that. You should never ever make a decision out of fear, and this topic has a ton of fear behind it. The main argument for getting rid of guns is bad people are doing bad things with them. Well, you're right. But why try a assbackward way to fix it? The correct thing to do is punish the hell out of the person that abuses his gun rights. make the punishment severe and maybe these issues would cease. However, if guns were banished, all that would do is hurt the honest people. The honest, law abiding people are not the ones causing issues with guns, but the laws would ONLY affect them. That doesn't make any sense.

To be fair, it's been exactly two topics I said things would be a slippery slope, and both have similarities as to why I said that.

[JoeRedskin]

Originally Posted by jsarno

I am not saying I would be right. Hell I speed constantly. When I travel to El Paso, I drive a MINIMUM of 85mph. Usually 90-95mph. The rules are the rules, and if I got caught then I'd expect to be disciplined...same would apply to this gun issue.

Okay. Fair enough.

Originally Posted by jsarno

You missed the point. I am not saying that everything the government puts into action is something that would be a slippery slope.
I am against anything they would try to pass that infinges on rights. For instance, You do not have the right to drive 100mph because it's not your land. If it was, then you could drive as fast as you want. You went a little overboard there buddy. You are assuming.

I am sorry, I just don't understand what point you are trying to make. You original statement was "[w]hen the government starts enforcing what THEY THINK is best for you. That's a nasty slippery slope". To me that is a ludicrous statement b/c it encompasses the entirety of government actions.

If you are saying that, "when government begins to infringe on your constitutionally guarranteed rights, we are heading down a slippery slope". I would still argue that the qualifications to the underlying assumptions of that statement are numerous and invalidate the conclusion. First, as with the 2A debate, the question of what are your "constitutional rights" is something continually the topic of debate and evolution. Second, even once defined, your "constitutional rights" are subject to regulation. There are simply no constitutional rights that are are unlimited. Your freedom of speech does not entitle you to shout "Fire" in a crowded theater. Thus, your "freedom of speech" is limited and regulated for the safety of others.

It seems to me that, what you see as a "slippery slope", is simply the government performing its requisite balancing act.

Originally Posted by jsarno

maximum individual freedom just stood out to me. Cause in the cases we have disagreed, you have been opposed to that.

I have never been opposed to maximum individual freedom. I firmly believe that it is the essence of our form of government and necessary for the good of society as a whole. The problem, of course, is that your complete, unfettered freedom will inevitably clash with the complete, unfettered freedom of another (in the words of Isiah Berlin - the fox's idea of freedom is entirely different from the sheep's idea of freedom). Thus, our government exists to balance the inevitable conflicts that arise between you and others when each party is exercising what it views as its constitutional rights. In such clashes, and just as inevitable as the conflicts, is the result that the "constitutional rights" of one or more people will be subject to limitation.

The whole 2A debate is exactly a repesentation of this clash - You assert that you are guarranteed the "right" to "keep and bear" firearms - others argue that they have the "right" to limit the spread of firearms by limiting their ownership to those individuals who are part of a "well-regulated militia". Each side has legitimate constitutional arguments and support. Thus, it is up to the Supreme Court to determine the position that more closely reflects the Constitutional guarrantees. In doing so, the losing side will, inevitably, claim that their rights are being infringed upon when, in fact, the SC is just determining what rights are guarranteed and just how far those guarantees extend before they infringe upon others rights.

Originally Posted by jsarno

You should never ever make a decision out of fear, and this topic has a ton of fear behind it. The main argument for getting rid of guns is bad people are doing bad things with them. Well, you're right. But why try a assbackward way to fix it? The correct thing to do is punish the hell out of the person that abuses his gun rights. make the punishment severe and maybe these issues would cease. However, if guns were banished, all that would do is hurt the honest people. The honest, law abiding people are not the ones causing issues with guns, but the laws would ONLY affect them. That doesn't make any sense.

Generally, I agree with the assertions in this statement. My differences with it are laid out in several posts earlier in the thread and I am simply not going to rehash the areas of disagreement. Simply put, I oppose the banning of personal ownership of firearms but believe that the general public has the right to reasonably regulate their use, storage and qualifications of ownership.

Originally Posted by jsarno

To be fair, it's been exactly two topics I said things would be a slippery slope, and both have similarities as to why I said that.

Yes, and in each case it appeared to me that the "slippery slope" argument was invoked as an objection to the every day actions of our government as it attempts to balance individual rights v. collective rights through regulation.

[Sheriff Gonna Getcha]

Originally Posted by jsarno

You should never ever make a decision out of fear, and this topic has a ton of fear behind it. The main argument for getting rid of guns is bad people are doing bad things with them. Well, you're right. But why try a assbackward way to fix it?

The gun rights advocates seem to talk a lot about the "bad guys" and the need to protect themselves. If anything, it sounds like the gun rights advocates use fear to justify their beliefs.

And I don't agree that limiting access to guns is a assbackward way of fixing "the problem." Punishment reacts to the problem, it doesn't prevent it.

[firstdown]

Originally Posted by Sheriff Gonna Getcha

The gun rights advocates seem to talk a lot about the "bad guys" and the need to protect themselves. If anything, it sounds like the gun rights advocates use fear to justify their beliefs.

And I don't agree that limiting access to guns is a assbackward way of fixing "the problem." Punishment reacts to the problem, it doesn't prevent it.

Well people believe that they should have the right to owen a gun to protect themself. Who else are they protecting themself from if its not the bad guy? With all the crime that goes on how could you say they use fear when all you have to do is open up the news paper or watch the news on any given day. The threat is there, now the chance of that threat could be debated but not the threat itself. I have had two friends defend themself with a gun. One was home sick when two guys broke into his home and one was armed with a bat and the other with a knife. They came at him until they realised he had a gun. Another friend had his gun with him and while sitting in his car looking up an address he had three guys try to enter his car and threatend him with harm if he did not unlock his door. He pulled out his gun and they took off. Did guns save either one of these guys life? Who knows. but it sure turnd what could have been bad situation into a happy ending. In the first case the guy did shoot one of the intruders in the leg put they still fled and they never found the guys.

[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

[jsarno]

Originally Posted by JoeRedskin

I am sorry, I just don't understand what point you are trying to make.

If you are saying that, "when government begins to infringe on your constitutionally guarranteed rights, we are heading down a slippery slope".

Yes, that is what I am saying. Sometimes I write really quick and don't articulate what I am trying to say. My apologies.

I would still argue that the qualifications to the underlying assumptions of that statement are numerous and invalidate the conclusion. First, as with the 2A debate, the question of what are your "constitutional rights" is something continually the topic of debate and evolution. Second, even once defined, your "constitutional rights" are subject to regulation. There are simply no constitutional rights that are are unlimited. Your freedom of speech does not entitle you to shout "Fire" in a crowded theater. Thus, your "freedom of speech" is limited and regulated for the safety of others.

See, that's the problem. If we let the government take too much control of our lives, we will become dependant on them. You don't have to look far to see this either. Look at the amount of people on welfare and food stamps, and how many of them volunteer to get off???? We don't rehabilitate those than need rehabilitation, we as a country allow them to suckle off the teet of America without any concern about actually making them a "normal" member of society. We talk a lot about an "exit strategy" in iraq, but we have none for those already sucking our systems dry.
I'm not saying we are around the corner from this, but the next thing you know is the government will tell us what movies to watch, what plants to grow, what food to eat etc. The less they are involved in my life, the better.

It seems to me that, what you see as a "slippery slope", is simply the government performing its requisite balancing act.

Maybe you're right, and I'm just being cynical. It just seems over the years the government is stepping in more and more and taking decisions away from others and telling us more and more on what to do.

I have never been opposed to maximum individual freedom. I firmly believe that it is the essence of our form of government and necessary for the good of society as a whole. The problem, of course, is that your complete, unfettered freedom will inevitably clash with the complete, unfettered freedom of another (in the words of Isiah Berlin - the fox's idea of freedom is entirely different from the sheep's idea of freedom). Thus, our government exists to balance the inevitable conflicts that arise between you and others when each party is exercising what it views as its constitutional rights. In such clashes, and just as inevitable as the conflicts, is the result that the "constitutional rights" of one or more people will be subject to limitation.

Well, I am not saying I have the "freedom" to shoot someone (unless of course he breaks into my home), nor do I have the "freedom" to drink and drive cause that puts others in jeopardy.

The whole 2A debate is exactly a repesentation of this clash - You assert that you are guarranteed the "right" to "keep and bear" firearms - others argue that they have the "right" to limit the spread of firearms by limiting their ownership to those individuals who are part of a "well-regulated militia". Each side has legitimate constitutional arguments and support. Thus, it is up to the Supreme Court to determine the position that more closely reflects the Constitutional guarrantees. In doing so, the losing side will, inevitably, claim that their rights are being infringed upon when, in fact, the SC is just determining what rights are guarranteed and just how far those guarantees extend before they infringe upon others rights.

How is it their right to limit the spread of firearms? That has nothing to do with them directly. Taking firearms away does directly affect someone.
That being said, I have no problem with having stiffer restrictions on guns. (within reason) I do not think a felon should possess a gun. I'm all for getting the guns OUT of those that abused guns in the first place.

[jsarno]

Originally Posted by Sheriff Gonna Getcha

The gun rights advocates seem to talk a lot about the "bad guys" and the need to protect themselves. If anything, it sounds like the gun rights advocates use fear to justify their beliefs.

And I don't agree that limiting access to guns is a assbackward way of fixing "the problem." Punishment reacts to the problem, it doesn't prevent it.

I disagree 100%.
Look at a dog. If he pees on the carpet and you let it go, he will continue to do so. If you shove his nose in it, spank him and throw him outside, he eventually learns not to do it.
If you cut the hand off a person that steals, and others watch it, do you seriously think that won't deter others from stealing? I certainly do. Punishment absolutely prevents issues if the punishment is severe enough.