Ted Nugent on Gun Control

[firstdown]

Originally Posted by 724Skinsfan

I think you've just solved both issues with one post. I wonder how many tobacco farmer's own guns in which the purpose is to protect their property? I'll bet 98%. If we restrict their ability to protect their property by taking away their guns then we'd see much, much less tobacco being produced. By ensuring that tobacco farmer's have no way of defending themselves from a home invasion we can assume that their deaths will in fact save nearly 5 million lives.

Yea, there's a big demand for raw tobaco and these farmers have to fight of theives everyday. I bet that maybe 98% probably own guns but they are for hunting not tobaco theives. Now yes they would use them for protection but I don't think thats why they really own guns.

[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.

[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.

[Sheriff Gonna Getcha]

Originally Posted by firstdown

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.

Well the high court thinks they do.

[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.

[724Skinsfan]

Originally Posted by firstdown

Yea, there's a big demand for raw tobaco and these farmers have to fight of theives everyday. I bet that maybe 98% probably own guns but they are for hunting not tobaco theives. Now yes they would use them for protection but I don't think thats why they really own guns.

firstdown just fell victim to another of 724Skinsfan nonsensical posts.

The 724Skinsfan family has been growing and/or leasing land for tobacco crops for about 180 years. The guns are indeed used to hunt and, to a lesser extent, protect their moonshine stills.

[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?

[dmek25]

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.

great post sheriff. right on point

[MTK]

Originally Posted by Sheriff Gonna Getcha

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.

That pretty much sums it up right there.

[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?

[cpayne5]

Originally Posted by Sheriff Gonna Getcha

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?

Well, the most glaring difference is the intangibility of the wiretapping vs the tangibility of having to physically give up guns. If the government said, "ok, you can no longer have any phone conversations regarding such-and-such", it would make the comparisons much more precise and clear. Then you would have people up in arms (literally? ). But, until then, people go along with it because they do not feel something is being taken from them. IMO, until something like that occurs, the only ones that will be upset about it are the ones that are already upset about it, right or wrong.

[firstdown]

Originally Posted by Sheriff Gonna Getcha

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?

I don't recall very many people saying they want the right to defend themself against the goverment they want the right to defend themself in general. There are also things that we do not need to know because it renders the program useless. What should have happened with the wiretapping issue is that the president and congress should have worked this out behind closed doors. Now that it is all over the pappers I'm sure terrorist have taken steps to make it harder to trace their phone ussage. I believe it was the New York Times which broke the story and when they got word that the president was going to stop them from printing the story they put it on their website before the goverment could stop them. That speaks will well of how this papper views the safty of this country. It was more important for them to get at Bush then to hear why they did not want the story to run or how it could jeperdize our safty. The same thing happend to the president when they had survalance on Bin Ladens phone someone leaked the info then the press ran the story. I don't support everything Bush has done but fighting terrorist he has done a great job. Its the left and the media that has hamppered these efforts every chance they have had only for political gains. By the way they passed a law in 2007 giving the Pesident the right to Tapp phones of susspected terrorist and was backed by a bunch of dems.

[Sheriff Gonna Getcha]

Originally Posted by firstdown

I don't recall very many people saying they want the right to defend themself against the goverment they want the right to defend themself in general.

I've seen several posts in this thread which talk about the need to protect ourselves from government tyranny.