Re: Ted Nugent on Gun Control
 

[QUOTE=skinsfan_nn;328419]Agreed. I'm skilled at street fighting, and have no problem with that. Futhermore, enjoy it from time to time, just to make sure the skills are up to snuff when need be.

However, for the crybaby's that really don't get it.....there are many times in life you can be out numbered in the streets (of course we are not talking about a controled match in a controled setting), a .45 Cal. GLOCK can be a nice influencer, of some FOOLS not making there worst mistake!

This can very easily be the DIFFERENCE BETWEEN LIFE OR DEATH! Anyone that doesn't get that has lived a very sheltered life or had momma & daddy wide there ass all their life.

Unlike UNCLE TED![/QUOTE]

You're very correct that one could find himself outnumbered in a street fight and face being beaten to death and a gun may prove to be advantageous. However, in your support of this "everyone should have a gun" notion you'd also find yourself facing more guns than what you're going to pull out, so how is that everyone carrying guns is an advantage?

Ideally, a gun would be a deterrent, however, in this instance (that of everyone packing) I think it would just lead to more killing. Sure, more potential victims would have a fighting chance, but the problem is, just because you carry a gun doesn't mean you can shoot it/be able to pull the trigger and kill someone else. Trying to flood the market with guns in order to counterbalance the criminals possession of them will not solve anything.

Re: Ted Nugent on Gun Control
 

[QUOTE=JoeRedskin;329290]The founders were also okay with slavery, not letting women or men without property vote and, BTW, they were none to keen on that whole "standing army" thing. Are we arrogant to think those things are wrong?[/quote]

You make some very valid points.
Well, we are a country that beleives every man should be free. While they were "OK" with it, it was not a constitutional right such as the right to bear arms. I'm honestly not saying that what they believed in 1776 should 100% apply...just what the country was founded on IE: the constitution.


[quote]BTW - gun control didn't start in the 20 century. It existed from the beginning of this country and was prominent in the "Wild West". Many towns had strict gun contro (a' la "The Unforgiven"). Many towns were much more lax and the specific regulations varied from town to town but whoa unto you if you violated the local gun regs.[/quote]

Well I am referring to the "gun control" part as in, you shouldn't have a gun. In the wild west they all had guns and liked it, although they requested certain areas be gun free (ie: leave them at the door) etc.

[quote]It is not arrogant to re-examine our governing principles, it is essential to do so. Otherwise, we end up like the arabian culture of the 17th and 18th centuries - A once progressive culture that was a beacon of human ingenuity, art and science that refused to reexamine itself and ended up betraying the very tenets it was founded upon.[/quote]

While I agree, I disagree to a point as well. They put a lot of thought into our country and we've made it this far with them. The people of now-a-days would like to change a lot of things. Hell, what if we get a gay president and he decides to make a law that saws all heterosexual sex is illegal punished by death? The whole country couldn't reproduce and we would die. So just cause our society might feel it's right, doesn't mean it is. We are colored by our experiences, and we are a country of "reactors", not visionaries.

[quote]It is not arrogant to reexamine our founding fathers actions, it is essential to uphold their ideals.[/quote]

I absolutely agree. We need to be careful though.

Re: Ted Nugent on Gun Control
 

[QUOTE=love them hogs;329284]While I agree with most of what you posted this statement is just plain wrong.Predators always pray on the weakest and pay very close attention to whom they prey upon.If you need proof just observe every living creature on the planet.[/QUOTE]

Human predators may or may not be animalistic in their pursuit. But I would agree with you that predators pay very close attention to there prey. It is for this reason that gun ownership likely does not prevent an attack.

For example, if the human predator is simply looking to waylay a weakling for a quick score, certainly they would chose someone who "appears" weak. In such a situation, only an unconcealed weapon will [I]prevent[/I] an attack. Otherwise, the predator will likely pick based on the appearance and may be unlucky to draw someone who has a gun.

Even in the "prey upon those who appear weak" situation, however, a concealed weapon does not guarrantee safety. As long as we are doing the animal analogy here - How many predators announce their presence to the prey prior to the strike? Not many successful ones. (The cheetah stands up and shouts across to plain to the gazelle "Hey buddy - I'm on my way and your dead meat"). The "prey on the weak" type of human predators will use stealth and will likely have some type of weapon for intimidation purposes. Again, by the time the predator is upon you, you may or may not have time to draw your weapon and disable them. I would suggest that, generally, this is not a given and, depending on the situation, may result in the serious injury of those you are trying to protect. Okay, you killed the bad guy but he managed to kill/maim your wife/child during the exchange. A risk you're willing to take? Maybe. It all depends on how "good" a "predator" he is.

Quite frankly, the only way to ensure protection from this kind of "find a weakling" predator is to permit people to openly carry weapons. Not sure how I feel about that.

Also, I would suggest to you that not all human predator's seek the weak. Many are very human with very human desires and capabilities for thought. Thus, many human predators, the truly dangerous ones, seek a specific thing (money, to rape your wife or daughter, to exact revenge, to inflict pain upon you, etc.). These predators are more along the lines of hunters and they know that they need not attack the weak to succeed, attacking the strong at a weak moment will work just as well. You have a gun? Or you [I]may[/I] have a gun? I don't care if you have a gun b/c I will attack you (again with surprise) at a point in time when you will be unable to use it. Hell, I will [I]assume[/I] you are armed and plan my attack accordingly. (Your putting your wife's coat on her, I can see both your hands and will kill your wife if you move them out of my sight). In such a case, the fact that you may be armed has already been factored into my attack and is of no deterrent value.

In each of these scenarios, the only time a gun offers protection is when the predator is looking for a weakling, surprises someone who, instead, has a gun, AND the predator was dumb enough to let the prey access and use the gun. In this situation, if you do kill the predator, you are actually reducing the long term effectivenes of your gun by culling out the dumb predators and leaving more of the smart ones out there.

Re: Ted Nugent on Gun Control
 

[QUOTE=saden1;329310]The founders were astute folks but I highly doubt they envisioned citizens sporting silencers, hollow point bullets, and AK-47's.[/QUOTE]

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)

Re: Ted Nugent on Gun Control
 

[QUOTE=jdlea;329320]You're very correct that one could find himself outnumbered in a street fight and face being beaten to death and a gun may prove to be advantageous. However, in your support of this "everyone should have a gun" notion you'd also find yourself facing more guns than what you're going to pull out, so how is that everyone carrying guns is an advantage?[/quote]

But people are naturally petrified of death, so if you pull the gun first, it may give you the time to flee the scene. If they reach for one, and you pick one of them off, the others aren't going to reach in fear for their life.

Re: Ted Nugent on Gun Control
 

[QUOTE=saden1;329310]The founders were astute folks but I highly doubt they envisioned citizens sporting silencers, hollow point bullets, and AK-47's.[/QUOTE]

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

Re: Ted Nugent on Gun Control
 

[QUOTE=jsarno;329329]You make some very valid points.
Well, we are a country that beleives every man should be free. While they were "OK" with it, it was not a constitutional right such as the right to bear arms. I'm honestly not saying that what they believed in 1776 should 100% apply...just what the country was founded on IE: the constitution.[/QUOTE]

Well, actually, the constitution had to be amended to permit blacks, women and unpropertied white men to vote.

Please trust me when I tell you that I am a firm believer in the Rule of Law and the Constitution as the touchstone of our society. Because of that, and b/c the founders were, in fact, a diverse collection of brilliant men, it is important to discern and "interpret" what they were trying to say and why they said it. The english language is a wonderful tool and can be very precise and clear. Unfortunately, some of its beauty is found in its flexibility and this can lead to confusion and misunderstanding. What seems plain to you may not seem so plain to others even though they are reading the same sentence. ("The car is quiet" - Does that mean its running quietly? That people in the car are quiet? Could be either - don't know out of context).

In the Bill of Rights the founders identified and succintly stated many timeless truths and guides. They did so, however, based on the world view of upper class propertied white men and used the english language in a manner in a particular way inherent to their education and class. Further, they made these statements in response to particular things going on around them. To say "it means what it says" about the Constitution and Bill of Rights is to emasculate the brilliance of our founders.


[QUOTE=jsarno;329329]Well I am referring to the "gun control" part as in, you shouldn't have a gun. [B]In the wild west they all had guns and liked it, although they requested certain areas be gun free (ie: leave them at the door) etc[/B].[/QUOTE]

I believe, but am not certain, that the "everybody had guns and carried em everywhere" is a myth perpetuated by a variety of sources. My curiosity is peaked. Certainly, many towns had an armed populace (the Dalton Gang was shot to shreds by the locals). At the same time, I have read a couple sources that suggest the majority of western towns had pretty strict rules on gun ownership.

[QUOTE=jsarno;329329]While I agree, I disagree to a point as well. They put a lot of thought into our country and we've made it this far with them. The people of now-a-days would like to change a lot of things. Hell, what if we get a gay president and he decides to make a law that saws all heterosexual sex is illegal punished by death? The whole country couldn't reproduce and we would die. So just cause our society might feel it's right, doesn't mean it is. We are colored by our experiences, and we are a country of "reactors", not visionaries.[/QUOTE]

First, I am going to assume your gay president, sex punishable by death example is hyperbole based on the ridiculousness of the statement to demonstrate your statement that "just cause our society might feel its right doesn't mean it is". Such a scenario is simply not going to happen for any number of reasons. Essentially, it would require either the vast majority of the population aquiescing to trashing the Constitution, all judicial precedent and the imposition of martial law to suppress any dissenters.

In response to the argument that "just cause we think its right doesn't make it is" assertion - I pose the timeless question asked by Pontious Pilate - "What is truth?". Ultimately, as a society, we choose what [I]is[/I] right for us. You say that just b/c we choose it, that doesn't make it right. Again, who does get to decide what is "right"? Part of the beauty of the Constitution is that it set forth a government in which "We the People" choose what is right for us. The checks and balances contained within it, the ability to modify it, and the basic governmental structure set out in it create a system that is not subject to rampant change but that can (and has) grown. In turn, the system thus created both allows and ensures that, ultimately, it is the people of this country who decide "what is right" for them.

GOD SAVE THE QUEEN
(just a little plug for the monarchist party)

Re: Ted Nugent on Gun Control
 

[QUOTE=jsarno;329341]But people are naturally petrified of death, so if you pull the gun first, it may give you the time to flee the scene. If they reach for one, and you pick one of them off, the others aren't going to reach in fear for their life.[/QUOTE]

Okay, I think you have watched one to many 1950's westerns. Again, your imposing your thought process on the thugs. If your surrounded by a bunch of armed thugs who are attacking you knowing you may have a deadly weapon, it is more likely that they have a pack mentality and draw at the same time and pretty much turn you into lead based swiss cheese.

On an unrelated note: Ever watch WWII movies of the 50's and 60's? Don't you wonder how the Germans beat [I]anybody[/I]? I mean they got machine guns, tanks, artillery and 40 guys with rifles. Yet a squad of Americans/British guys armed with rifles, 3 handgrenades, a jar of ear wax and an old sock wipe em out without losing a guy.

Re: Ted Nugent on Gun Control
 

[QUOTE=JoeRedskin;329356][QUOTE=jsarno;329329]You make some very valid points.
Well, we are a country that beleives every man should be free. While they were "OK" with it, it was not a constitutional right such as the right to bear arms. I'm honestly not saying that what they believed in 1776 should 100% apply...just what the country was founded on IE: the constitution.[Quote]

Well, actually, the constitution had to be amended to permit blacks, women and unpropertied white men to vote.

Please trust me when I tell you that I am a firm believer in the Rule of Law and the Constitution as the touchstone of our society. Because of that, and b/c the founders were, in fact, a diverse collection of brilliant men, it is important to discern and "interpret" what they were trying to say and why they said it. The english language is a wonderful tool and can be very precise and clear. Unfortunately, some of its beauty is found in its flexibility and this can lead to confusion and misunderstanding. What seems plain to you may not seem so plain to others even though they are reading the same sentence. ("The car is quiet" - Does that mean its running quietly? That people in the car are quiet? Could be either - don't know out of context).

In the Bill of Rights the founders identified and succintly stated many timeless truths and guides. They did so, however, based on the world view of upper class propertied white men and used the english language in a manner in a particular way inherent to their education and class. Further, they made these statements in response to particular things going on around them. To say "it means what it says" about the Constitution and Bill of Rights is to emasculate the brilliance of our founders.


[QUOTE=jsarno;329329]Well I am referring to the "gun control" part as in, you shouldn't have a gun. [B]In the wild west they all had guns and liked it, although they requested certain areas be gun free (ie: leave them at the door) etc[/B].[Quote]

I believe, but am not certain, that the "everybody had guns and carried em everywhere" is a myth perpetuated by a variety of sources. My curiosity is peaked. Certainly, many towns had an armed populace (the Dalton Gang was shot to shreds by the locals). At the same time, I have read a couple sources that suggest the majority of western towns had pretty strict rules on gun ownership.

[QUOTE=jsarno;329329]While I agree, I disagree to a point as well. They put a lot of thought into our country and we've made it this far with them. The people of now-a-days would like to change a lot of things. Hell, what if we get a gay president and he decides to make a law that saws all heterosexual sex is illegal punished by death? The whole country couldn't reproduce and we would die. So just cause our society might feel it's right, doesn't mean it is. We are colored by our experiences, and we are a country of "reactors", not visionaries.[Quote]

First, I am going to assume your gay president, sex punishable by death example is hyperbole based on the ridiculousness of the statement to demonstrate your statement that "just cause our society might feel its right doesn't mean it is". Such a scenario is simply not going to happen for any number of reasons. Essentially, it would require either the vast majority of the population aquiescing to trashing the Constitution, all judicial precedent and the imposition of martial law to suppress any dissenters.

In response to the argument that "just cause we think its right doesn't make it is" assertion - I pose the timeless question asked by Pontious Pilate - "What is truth?". Ultimately, as a society, we choose what [I]is[/I] right for us. You say that just b/c we choose it, that doesn't make it right. Again, who does get to decide what is "right"? Part of the beauty of the Constitution is that it set forth a government in which "We the People" choose what is right for us. The checks and balances contained within it, the ability to modify it, and the basic governmental structure set out in it create a system that is not subject to rampant change but that can (and has) grown. In turn, the system thus created both allows and ensures that, ultimately, it is the people of this country who decide "what is right" for them.

GOD SAVE THE QUEEN
(just a little plug for the monarchist party)[/QUOTE]

Again, you make good arguments. My initial point was about the slavery comment, not the voting comment. I actually feel that our founding fathers only wanted intelligent people to vote, and felt that not every person was smart enough to choose correctly. (IE: the electoral college was founded) I actually believe this to be true. South Park thinks that 25% of the world is "retarded", I think that percentage is slightly higher. So while we should all be considered equal, we all are not equal, some of us don't deserve to vote. Of course I expect that to met with a ton of resistance.

My homosexual president scenario is just an over the top scenario to help understand that not every idea is a good idea.

Re: Ted Nugent on Gun Control
 

[QUOTE=JoeRedskin;329357]Okay, I think you have watched one to many 1950's westerns. Again, your imposing your thought process on the thugs. If your surrounded by a bunch of armed thugs who are attacking you knowing you may have a deadly weapon, it is more likely that they have a pack mentality and draw at the same time and pretty much turn you into lead based swiss cheese. [/quote]

Well, how many times does this actually occur? If it does, usually the guy sees it coming and could pull out his weapon before he gets to that point.
Also, my very good friend Kenny (my friend in Florida that I have talked about here) actually had 2 guys jump him, he pulled his gun and scared the crap out of the guys and they fled. They wanted his wallet and didn't get it cause he was packing. This is the scenario that would happen more often than not.

[quote]On an unrelated note: Ever watch WWII movies of the 50's and 60's? Don't you wonder how the Germans beat [I]anybody[/I]? I mean they got machine guns, tanks, artillery and 40 guys with rifles. Yet a squad of Americans/British guys armed with rifles, 3 handgrenades, a jar of ear wax and an old sock wipe em out without losing a guy.[/QUOTE]

It was the ear wax. I mean, if someone is that crazy to carry their ear wax, what else are they capable of? :D

Re: Ted Nugent on Gun Control
 

[quote=Beemnseven;329343]They also never envisioned internet porn. Should there be limits to freedom of expression and speech in light of that?[/quote]

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

Re: Ted Nugent on Gun Control
 

Can public and private institutions declare their premises gun free zone (schools, transit stations, etc)?

Re: Ted Nugent on Gun Control
 

[QUOTE=jsarno;329341]But people are naturally petrified of death, so if you pull the gun first, it may give you the time to flee the scene. If they reach for one, and you pick one of them off, the others aren't going to reach in fear for their life.[/QUOTE]

If you want to take that risk, you can be my guest. Also, most people who pull a gun on you don't really mean you much harm, so all putting more guns in people's hands is going to do is get more people shot. People will think they can get a shot off when someone asks for their wallets.

Also, you're not always allowed to carry a gun. As I remember, Steve McNair was charged with something for having a gun in his car when he was intoxicated at one point.

Re: Ted Nugent on Gun Control
 

[QUOTE=saden1;329367]Can public and private institutions declare their premises gun free zone (schools, transit stations, etc)?[/QUOTE]

Yes, Jose Canseco had something in his book about how he was arrested for possessing a legal gun on some school's property. The gun was legal, however, it was illegal for him to have it where he did.

Re: Ted Nugent on Gun Control
 

[QUOTE=jdlea;329536]If you want to take that risk, you can be my guest. Also, most people who pull a gun on you don't really mean you much harm, so all putting more guns in people's hands is going to do is get more people shot. People will think they can get a shot off when someone asks for their wallets.[/QUOTE]

You keep saying "putting more guns in peoples hands". The people who want guns, already have them. There are no proposed laws to give guns to anyone, there are only talks of getting rid of guns.

Re: Ted Nugent on Gun Control
 

[QUOTE=jsarno;329539]You keep saying "putting more guns in peoples hands". The people who want guns, already have them. There are no proposed laws to give guns to anyone, there are only talks of getting rid of guns.[/QUOTE]

I'm saying that skinsfan_nn saying that everyone should have guns is a stupid idea. His point was that everyone should have guns, my point is that not everyone should have/carry guns.

Btw, I'm actually a fan of guns, I don't own one, but I have considered purchasing one for sometime. However, even if I were purchase one, it won't be leaving my home. It will be for protecting my home and that's it. I won't be carrying it around in case I end up outnumbered on the street one day...

Re: Ted Nugent on Gun Control
 

[quote=jdlea;329538]Yes, Jose Canseco had something in his book about how he was arrested for possessing a legal gun on some school's property. The gun was legal, however, it was illegal for him to have it where he did.[/quote]

I guess if you can ban smoking you can ban guns...hoary for the constitution.

Re: Ted Nugent on Gun Control
 

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.

Re: Ted Nugent on Gun Control
 

and what exactly would that accomplish? other then the county that person lives in getting more money? it does nothing to control the amount of guns one person owns.

Re: Ted Nugent on Gun Control
 

[quote=dmek25;329569]and what exactly would that accomplish? other then the county that person lives in getting more money? it does nothing to control the amount of guns one person owns.[/quote]
Huh? Are you talking to me? If so, collector's licenses are issued by the feds, not the state.

Re: Ted Nugent on Gun Control
 

[QUOTE=jdlea;329543]I'm saying that skinsfan_nn saying that everyone should have guns is a stupid idea. His point was that everyone should have guns, my point is that not everyone should have/carry guns. [/quote]

OH, OK, gotcha.

[quote]Btw, I'm actually a fan of guns, I don't own one, but I have considered purchasing one for sometime. However, even if I were purchase one, it won't be leaving my home. It will be for protecting my home and that's it. I won't be carrying it around in case I end up outnumbered on the street one day...[/QUOTE]

I personally think that you should protect yourself with one. But that's my opinion.

Re: Ted Nugent on Gun Control
 

[quote=skinsfan_nn;328320]Gotta LIKE THE WILD MAN, NUG! He's still ROCKIN! And speakin he's F***** MIND![/quote]


spoken very well sir.

Re: Ted Nugent on Gun Control
 

[QUOTE=EARTHQUAKE2689;329831]spoken very well sir.[/QUOTE]

You're kidding right? Please tell me you didn't just use your 3500th post to write that

Re: Ted Nugent on Gun Control
 

[QUOTE=SmootSmack;329839]You're kidding right? Please tell me you didn't just use your 3500th post to write that[/QUOTE]

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.

Re: Ted Nugent on Gun Control
 

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.

Re: Ted Nugent on Gun Control
 

[QUOTE=jsarno;329842]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.[/QUOTE]

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

Re: Ted Nugent on Gun Control
 

[QUOTE=SmootSmack;329847]Good well that last post of his here still sucked...unless it was dripping with irony, in which case it was brilliant[/QUOTE]

Since when have you seen quake post a brilliant post?

(not cutting quake down, just stating the obvious)

Re: Ted Nugent on Gun Control
 

[QUOTE=angryssg;329845]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.[/QUOTE]

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.

Re: Ted Nugent on Gun Control
 

[QUOTE=saden1;329365]You're missing the point. What purpose do silencers, hollow point bullets, and AK-47's serve with respect to the second amendment?[/QUOTE]

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.

Re: Ted Nugent on Gun Control
 

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?

Re: Ted Nugent on Gun Control
 

[quote=dmek25;328350]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[/quote]
If I'm correct it is widely known theTN is clean and does not even drink.

Re: Ted Nugent on Gun Control
 

[quote=dmek25;329894]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?[/quote]

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"

Re: Ted Nugent on Gun Control
 

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

Re: Ted Nugent on Gun Control
 

[quote=firstdown;329928]If I'm correct it is widely known theTN is clean and does not even drink.[/quote]
i talking about the good old days. Nugent is a buffoon, that thinks he lives in 1700's

Re: Ted Nugent on Gun Control
 

[quote=Beemnseven;329886]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.[/quote]

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.

Re: Ted Nugent on Gun Control
 

[quote=dmek25;329934]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[/quote]

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

Re: Ted Nugent on Gun Control
 

[quote=dmek25;329934]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[/quote]
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?

Re: Ted Nugent on Gun Control
 

[QUOTE=Hog1;329929]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"[/QUOTE]


Exactly...great post.

Re: Ted Nugent on Gun Control
 

[quote=Hog1;329929]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"[/quote]


You're in essence saying:
[QUOTE]
Airplanes and alcohol are dangerous.
Airplanes and alcohol are not banned.
Therefore we shouldn't ban guns either. [/QUOTE]

What an absurd and fallacious argument.

Re: Ted Nugent on Gun Control
 

[QUOTE=dmek25;329934]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[/QUOTE]

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.