Ted Nugent on Gun Control

[djnemo65]

Originally Posted by Beemnseven

I don't think anyone is saying that. Crime and murder will always exist, regardless of the availability of firearms.

The question I have for you is, do you have the right to defend yourself?

That's a common argument that I hear, one which seems to be empirically denied.

All I know is I live in a country in which guns are illegal for everyone but police and professional hunters and the only thing that makes me fearful for my life are the spiders.

[MTK]

alright let's calm down with flexing our internet muscles and stay on topic. The pics are funny though

[Lady Brave]

Originally Posted by Mattyk72

alright let's calm down with flexing our internet muscles and stay on topic. The pics are funny though

I wasn't picking up on any overly hostile vibe. Might just be me though.

As far as where I stand on the issues of ccw's and gun control I guess I'm on both sides of the fence.

1. Those who have a valid ccw should be able to carry it nationally. Do away with reciprocity agreements. Also, the feds should establish the guidelines on how to transport firearms when travelling from state to state. Each state has their own guidelines about how to transport firearms and somes states have no guidelines at all. Needless to say it creates a lot of confusion for people. Those travelling out of state sometimes have their firearms confiscated due to simple ignorance and I question whether that's fair or not.

2. All gun owners should be required to complete a firearms safety training course. Whether that be for a ccw permit or even the purchase of a firearm. The majority of people who come in my office have no clue of how to properly shoot or store a weapon. It just makes sense that they receive some sort of basic instruction on firearms safety.

3. The federal laws on purchasing firearms are completely adequate, save for the mental health statute. That one needs some work. I'm an advocate of individuals producing some sort of proof as to their mental competence before they are either sold a weapon or issued a purchase permit. Also, it should be mandatory that all states must contribute mental commitment and mental defective files to NICS. Right now, that's not the case.

4. I pretty much believe everything should be handled on the federal level. Contrary to popular belief, it is not the feds that more restrictive on the sale of firearms, it is the states. Those who strongly support the 2nd amendment would be better served if we went by the federal statutes only. Since most state statutes mirror the federal statutes, there is no reason to have two sets of laws governing the sale of firearms. Some state lawmakers use gun laws as a political tool and I believe they overstep their authority when they enact laws on the state level that might conflict with the 2nd amendment.

[Sheriff Gonna Getcha]

I find the "guns are dangerous, people have them, so we need more of them" logic interesting. I also find it interesting that the people most likely to legally purchase guns are the least likely to ever have to use them against a would-be attacker. None of my friends who grew up or hung out in shady areas owned guns, but a fair number of my friends from suburban or rural areas did.

Also, do the "pro-gun" members think it would be okay for people to own grenades or more deadly weapons?

[Sheriff Gonna Getcha]

Joeredskin,

Thank you for sharing your thoughts about the Constitution and gun ownership. Most people have no clue what the Second Amendment means.

[70Chip]

[saden1]

I would like to add a few more thoughts to the subject:

I think people should be able to purchase a gun and the government has a right to create a set of criterion for who can or can't own a gun. It already does it for every product out there, whether it's the food we consume or the medication we take.

People always talk about protecting yourself and all of that but the truth is if everyone was packing this country would be totally fucked up. I mean, you couldn't turn around and tell the jerk sitting next to you he's being a jerk without fear of getting shot. Talk about emasculating the entire population.

I think the issue of Nuclear proliferation is parallel to gun control. If not having a gun is a disadvantage as some in here have suggested then perhaps those countries that don't have nuclear weapons are in grave disadvantage. Perhaps they are justified in trying to obtain nuclear weapons.

[Sheriff Gonna Getcha]

Originally Posted by saden1

I think the issue of Nuclear proliferation is parallel to gun control. If not having a gun is a disadvantage as some in here have suggested then perhaps those countries that don't have nuclear weapons are in grave disadvantage. Perhaps they are justified in trying to obtain nuclear weapons.

Good analogy. So basically the "pro gun" crowd just believes in the mutually assured destruction theory.

[Bushead]

I usually don't assume the person next to me has a gun. Hopefully with everyone having a gun, i can have out of control anxiety, then shoot someone before they can shoot me.

[Mizzin44]

Ted is cool

[saden1]

The founders were astute folks but I highly doubt they envisioned citizens sporting silencers, hollow point bullets, and AK-47's.

[jsarno]

Originally Posted by saden1

The founders were astute folks but I highly doubt they envisioned citizens sporting silencers, hollow point bullets, and AK-47's.

While that is absolutely true, they did carry rifles and shotguns. Our technology has just evolved. Just like I'm sure Henry ford didn't see the automobile going over 200mph with A/C, satellite radio, and a top that can be converted into the trunk.
FYI- I do not see a need to go "hunting" with an AK-47, so you won't actually see me defend that. But I will scream from the roof tops that I should be able to have a rifle, a shot gun, and hand guns. (the scope just makes picking off people a lot easier. JK)

[Beemnseven]

Originally Posted by saden1

The founders were astute folks but I highly doubt they envisioned citizens sporting silencers, hollow point bullets, and AK-47's.

They also never envisioned internet porn. Should there be limits to freedom of expression and speech in light of that?

[saden1]

Originally Posted by Beemnseven

They also never envisioned internet porn. Should there be limits to freedom of expression and speech in light of that?

You're missing the point. What purpose do silencers, hollow point bullets, and AK-47's serve with respect to the second amendment?

[Lady Brave]

I do think the number of handguns a person can own should be limited. This of course would not apply to antiques, curios and relics. They're not subject to either the gun control act or brady act.

If you're coming into my office and getting 10 handgun purchase permits every other month, you should be forced to get some sort of collector's license.