Ted Nugent on Gun Control

[SmootSmack]

Originally Posted by jsarno

No...his 3500 was in the neverending thread and it was to say he hit 3500 and he's going to bed.
I think he stayed up just to hit that number. LOL.

Good well that last post of his here still sucked...unless it was dripping with irony, in which case it was brilliant

[jsarno]

Originally Posted by SmootSmack

Good well that last post of his here still sucked...unless it was dripping with irony, in which case it was brilliant

Since when have you seen quake post a brilliant post?

(not cutting quake down, just stating the obvious)

[JoeRedskin]

Originally Posted by angryssg

I like guns. I have a right to own guns. They should be prohibited in certain areas such as schools, hospitals, and Goverment buildings. Other than that you should be allowed to cary them anywhere that you want. The amount of guns that I own should be of no concern of anyone else so long as I do not use them in a manner that is not in conjunction with the law.
There is no reason for anyone to own armor piercing bullets, silencers, or fully automatic weapons.

Well, I like dynamite. I have a right to own dynamite. Dynamite should be prohibited in certain areas such as schools, hospitals, and Goverment buildings. Other than that you should be allowed to cary it anywhere that you want. The amount of dynamite that I own should be of no concern of anyone else so long as I do not use it in a manner that is not in conjunction with the law.

Okay, so I jest - my point is, that just b/c we have a right to something doesn't mean it is of no concern to others. Guns are inherently dangerous. When used properly by good people they pose little threat to others. However, the careless use or misuse (whether accident or intentional) of guns poses a threat to all around them.

Sorry, if ur packing, I don't want my 4 year old around you. Further, I live in the city with about 150-200 people living w/in a 100 foot radius of my home with about 30 kids. I believe there is a legitimate interest prohibiting people from carrying concealed weapons as they travel around in high density areas. You want a gun in ur home, okay. You want to carry it around where my and others kids live and play - not as thrilled with that concept.

[Beemnseven]

Originally Posted by saden1

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

The same purpose internet porn, television and talk radio serve the first amendment. They are extensions of the rights set forth in the Constitution as it grows in modern terms to reflect the technological advance of society.

The Bill of Rights aren't negated by the growth of human ingenuity.

[dmek25]

i cant understand why a gun owner will not give up his gun, if it means one less person getting shot and killed. are the gun owners in agreement that there are way too many guns available?

[firstdown]

Originally Posted by dmek25

we need some sort of gun control. and we also need the laws that are on the books to be enforced. and anyone that listens to that acid dropping Nugent needs to have their head examined

If I'm correct it is widely known theTN is clean and does not even drink.

[Hog1]

Originally Posted by dmek25

i cant understand why a gun owner will not give up his gun, if it means one less person getting shot and killed. are the gun owners in agreement that there are way too many guns available?

Because taking the guns from gun owners implies legal owners? That will not stop people from getting killed by pistol toting thugs. Legal owners do not kill others.
Are we going to ban aircraft because of the 9-11 attacks?
Are we going to ban alcohol? If you believe what you read, it is the greatest killer in vehicular death.
Are we going to ban steaks because they are responsible for over a thousand choking deaths annually?
It's not the steaks fault, or the cars, or the drink or the etc.
In this country banning things has nothing to do with the actual disappearance of the banned item. Look at what a wonderful success story the war on drugs has been for............ever.
We have a justice system problem. When we get serious about crime, punishment, and prevention, these things will cease to be an issue

"When guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns"

[dmek25]

yeah, yeah, yeah. if someone in law enforcement came up to you, and said you could save a child's life by turning in your gun, would you? i don't get the whole" i have a gun, I'm macho" thing. in this area, there are thousands of people that are hunters. explain to me the enjoyment of shooting Bambi, or Bambi's dad? i just don't get it

[dmek25]

Originally Posted by firstdown

If I'm correct it is widely known theTN is clean and does not even drink.

i talking about the good old days. Nugent is a buffoon, that thinks he lives in 1700's

[saden1]

Originally Posted by Beemnseven

The same purpose internet porn, television and talk radio serve the first amendment. They are extensions of the rights set forth in the Constitution as it grows in modern terms to reflect the technological advance of society.

The Bill of Rights aren't negated by the growth of human ingenuity.

Well, the only difference is that those things are not an assassin's weapons. They don't kill. I suppose the difference between you and I is that I think the constitution is open to interpretation and common sense rules the day. We'll just have to agree to disagree.

p.s. I would like your take on people being able to browse for porn in schools and libraries.

[Hog1]

Originally Posted by dmek25

yeah, yeah, yeah. if someone in law enforcement came up to you, and said you could save a child's life by turning in your gun, would you? i don't get the whole" i have a gun, I'm macho" thing. in this area, there are thousands of people that are hunters. explain to me the enjoyment of shooting Bambi, or Bambi's dad? i just don't get it

Yes, I would
If you are asking me if I would advocate the banning of all weapons in the hands of the citizens in this country under the same scenario, I would not.
Actually, for me (and I have hunted, fished, etc. all my life) the older I get the less importance actually killing something takes on. Don't get me wrong, I love to eat our wild friends. It's more of the experience rather than the act of killing.
Possibly in your eyes, you see that as something of an atrocity. In my eyes, it's more of a harvesting issue, or something akin to it. I always feel a little guilt. Like it or not somebody has to do. We as humans have continued to encroach wild habitat. It does not go well for the animal world. They cannot all survive, if left to do so.
Something as a sidebar. Revenue generated from Hunting, and fishing licensing and associated expenses paid by outdoorsmen, and women foot the bill for the lions share of conservation efforts in this country.
PS, I find it VERY relaxing to go to the gun range for a couple of hours. Not sure why, but it has that effect on me

Thankyou Charlton Heston

[firstdown]

Originally Posted by dmek25

yeah, yeah, yeah. if someone in law enforcement came up to you, and said you could save a child's life by turning in your gun, would you? i don't get the whole" i have a gun, I'm macho" thing. in this area, there are thousands of people that are hunters. explain to me the enjoyment of shooting Bambi, or Bambi's dad? i just don't get it

Well in this area its not a big deal if someone owns a gun and they don't go around waving it around to be a big shot. Now yes we have thug's in some areas who donot respect guns but most people do and like I said its no big deal. when I was in high scholl back in the 80's kids had trucks with gun racks with guns in them. It was not an issue as they where used for hunting and target shooting. I do not hunt but the deer population in our area is growing every year and hunting helps control there numbers. If a person who hunts eats what they kill it does not bother me its when someone shoots something just to kill it is when I get ticked. I have several friends who hunt and respect the wild as much as anyone I know and they only shoot what they consume. I enjoy fishing how about you?

[jsarno]

Originally Posted by Hog1

Because taking the guns from gun owners implies legal owners? That will not stop people from getting killed by pistol toting thugs. Legal owners do not kill others.
Are we going to ban aircraft because of the 9-11 attacks?
Are we going to ban alcohol? If you believe what you read, it is the greatest killer in vehicular death.
Are we going to ban steaks because they are responsible for over a thousand choking deaths annually?
It's not the steaks fault, or the cars, or the drink or the etc.
In this country banning things has nothing to do with the actual disappearance of the banned item. Look at what a wonderful success story the war on drugs has been for............ever.
We have a justice system problem. When we get serious about crime, punishment, and prevention, these things will cease to be an issue

"When guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns"

Exactly...great post.

[saden1]

Originally Posted by Hog1

Because taking the guns from gun owners implies legal owners? That will not stop people from getting killed by pistol toting thugs. Legal owners do not kill others.
Are we going to ban aircraft because of the 9-11 attacks?
Are we going to ban alcohol? If you believe what you read, it is the greatest killer in vehicular death.
Are we going to ban steaks because they are responsible for over a thousand choking deaths annually?
It's not the steaks fault, or the cars, or the drink or the etc.
In this country banning things has nothing to do with the actual disappearance of the banned item. Look at what a wonderful success story the war on drugs has been for............ever.
We have a justice system problem. When we get serious about crime, punishment, and prevention, these things will cease to be an issue

"When guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns"

You're in essence saying:

Airplanes and alcohol are dangerous.
Airplanes and alcohol are not banned.
Therefore we shouldn't ban guns either.

What an absurd and fallacious argument.

[jsarno]

Originally Posted by dmek25

yeah, yeah, yeah. if someone in law enforcement came up to you, and said you could save a child's life by turning in your gun, would you? i don't get the whole" i have a gun, I'm macho" thing. in this area, there are thousands of people that are hunters. explain to me the enjoyment of shooting Bambi, or Bambi's dad? i just don't get it

How would that even be a feasible scenario? Did micheal moore say that or something, cause in no way would it be true in giving up your gun you could save a child.
However, for the sake of argument, if it could be proven that it would save a child, then absolutely. To me, I own guns because 1- my self protection, 2- to save the lives of those that deserve saving. (by deserving, I am referring to those that do not use gun as a fear device or as an actual weapon against fellow human beings)
It has nothing to do with being "macho", it has to do with taking my own safety in my own hands. You can believe that you will never face a scenario that would require a gun, I don't believe it. I know that break-ins are on the rise, I prefer to be protected from that. If you don't, more power to you, but don't tell me I can't.
About killing "bambi". Being an animal rights activist, I have a HUGE problem with people that kill for the sport of it, or the trophy. However, animals were put on this earth for us to eat them, deer being one of those that is good to eat. I personally like Elk better than Deer, but I understand it's tastey to people. I can't kill another animal like that. I can't kill a cow, but I can eat the product. I'm betting you eat cow right? So while I'm sure you can't understand killing Ms. Milky Milkerson, you reap the rewards by eating her flesh.