Ted Nugent on Gun Control

[JoeRedskin]

Originally Posted by angryssg

You missed the point. I am not going to bother trying to argue with you, because you took it to a whole new extreme.

No, I got your point and then used the rhetorical tool of hyperbole to demonstrate the absurdity of it if carried to its logical extreme.

I understand your point - You have a right to carry guns. My point is that the public has the right to regulate inherently dangerous things such as guns.

[KLHJ2]

Originally Posted by JoeRedskin

No, I got your point and then used the rhetorical tool of hyperbole to demonstrate the absurdity of it if carried to its logical extreme.

I understand your point - You have a right to carry guns. My point is that the public has the right to regulate inherently dangerous things such as guns.

What your are failing to realize is that when you regulate guns you are only regulating the Law obiding citizens. If I guy wants to use a gun against the law, then a Reulation or a Law is certainly not going to stop him. All your gun laws do is hinder me "the honest law obiding buyer" from attaining one.

Bye the way you are not the only one with children. I would never be packing anywhere near where children are playing. Will I cary one with me in downtown D.C. You are dog on right I will.

[jsarno]

Originally Posted by angryssg

What your are failing to realize is that when you regulate guns you are only regulating the Law obiding citizens. If I guy wants to use a gun against the law, then a Reulation or a Law is certainly not going to stop him. All your gun laws do is hinder me "the honest law obiding buyer" from attaining one.

Bye the way you are not the only one with children. I would never be packing anywhere near where children are playing. Will I cary one with me in downtown D.C. You are dog on right I will.

I don't think that those that are againts guns care angry. While the regular, law abiding, gun carrying citizens understand this, they don't cause they are just against guns. They feel that the fewer guns the better.
I know and you know that's not how it will work, but they don't. We've made similar comments a ton of times, yet they are still not listening.

[JoeRedskin]

Originally Posted by angryssg

What your are failing to realize is that when you regulate guns you are only regulating the Law obiding citizens. If I guy wants to use a gun against the law, then a Reulation or a Law is certainly not going to stop him. All your gun laws do is hinder me "the honest law obiding buyer" from attaining one.

Bye the way you are not the only one with children. I would never be packing anywhere near where children are playing. Will I cary one with me in downtown D.C. You are dog on right I will.

Originally Posted by jsarno

I don't think that those that are againts guns care angry. While the regular, law abiding, gun carrying citizens understand this, they don't cause they are just against guns. They feel that the fewer guns the better.
I know and you know that's not how it will work, but they don't. We've made similar comments a ton of times, yet they are still not listening.

Preliminarily, this is mostly just a restatement of the 1000 posts that gone on before and so I am just summarizing previously made arguments.

FIRST: I believe it is unconstitutional to completely ban the personal ownership of guns and, quite frankly, I do not advocate that position. There is an important public interest in preventing a government from having an absolute monopoly on the use of force. Preventing such a monopoly was the crux of and the intent behind the Second Amendment's guarrantee of the individual right to own guns.

SECOND: I don't "fail" to realize anything about your assertion AngrySS. In fact, I agree that regulating guns only affects those who follow regulations. I am okay with this BECAUSE:
- As I argued earlier, those who will illegally own a gun are not necessarily going to be deterred by the possibility of you carrying a concealed weapon; and, thus,
- Carrying a concealed weapon in public does not necessarily increase ur personal safety; but
- A proliferation of concealed weapons in public places, IMO, does create a greater risk to the public.
- Balancing the public's right to safety against your personal right to own a gun requires a balancing process and the regulation of who can own guns, how many they can own, and where they can carry them is both appropriate and well within the the constitutional guidelines set up bythe second amendment.

I and others have said all this before and, at this point, if you can't agree that the public at large has a right to reasonably regulate the availability and ownership of guns and to place restrictions on where they may carried, then we are simply going to have to agree to disagree.
- The 2A DOES NOT guarrantee you the unfettered right to own an arsenal and to go armed anywhere you want.
- As to gun ownership, there is a public interest which must be balanced against any private right you have.
- And, (this one is my personal opinion) while fewer guns may not necessarily make us individually safer, a proliferation of weaponry is not guarantee to greater public safety. Again, IMO - a proliferation of weaponry is more likely to decrease public safety than to increase it.

And with that - I will refer you back to my previous posts 'cause I think I am now just pretty much rehashing what has already been said about dozen times and about a dozen different ways.

[firstdown]

Originally Posted by JoeRedskin

Preliminarily, this is mostly just a restatement of the 1000 posts that gone on before and so I am just summarizing previously made arguments.

FIRST: I believe it is unconstitutional to completely ban the personal ownership of guns and, quite frankly, I do not advocate that position. There is an important public interest in preventing a government from having an absolute monopoly on the use of force. Preventing such a monopoly was the crux of and the intent behind the Second Amendment's guarrantee of the individual right to own guns.

SECOND: I don't "fail" to realize anything about your assertion AngrySS. In fact, I agree that regulating guns only affects those who follow regulations. I am okay with this BECAUSE:
- As I argued earlier, those who will illegally own a gun are not necessarily going to be deterred by the possibility of you carrying a concealed weapon; and, thus,
- Carrying a concealed weapon in public does not necessarily increase ur personal safety; but
- A proliferation of concealed weapons in public places, IMO, does create a greater risk to the public.
- Balancing the public's right to safety against your personal right to own a gun requires a balancing process and the regulation of who can own guns, how many they can own, and where they can carry them is both appropriate and well within the the constitutional guidelines set up bythe second amendment.

I and others have said all this before and, at this point, if you can't agree that the public at large has a right to reasonably regulate the availability and ownership of guns and to place restrictions on where they may carried, then we are simply going to have to agree to disagree.
- The 2A DOES NOT guarrantee you the unfettered right to own an arsenal and to go armed anywhere you want.
- As to gun ownership, there is a public interest which must be balanced against any private right you have.
- And, (this one is my personal opinion) while fewer guns may not necessarily make us individually safer, a proliferation of weaponry is not guarantee to greater public safety. Again, IMO - a proliferation of weaponry is more likely to decrease public safety than to increase it.

And with that - I will refer you back to my previous posts 'cause I think I am now just pretty much rehashing what has already been said about dozen times and about a dozen different ways.

One thing that you assume is that a person carring a gun becomes a danger to everyone else. The facts show just the opposite is true as they have a very low crime rate with people who have a concealed permit and they have safty to take safty classes to carry a gun. I'll see if I can find a link to back this up. I think that your post is your personal thought and is not backed by facts.

[JoeRedskin]

Originally Posted by firstdown

One thing that you assume is that a person carring a gun becomes a danger to everyone else. The facts show just the opposite is true as they have a very low crime rate with people who have a concealed permit and they have safty to take safty classes to carry a gun. I'll see if I can find a link to back this up. I think that your post is your personal thought and is not backed by facts.

Some of my post is, absolutely, my opinion and, yes, it is a gut reaction in some respects. In that I actually support gun ownership, I haven't generally researched the reasons for limiting it. I USUALLY am the one arguing that gun ownership is okay. It's just the "I have a right to have a gun, as many guns as I want, and it's nobody's business but mine" attitude I take issue with. As I said, and as with all constitutionally guaranteed rights, gun ownership requires a balancing of the public interest against the private right.

For example, I have heard few gun owners argue that people should have the right to carry a concealed weapon in schools (Angry even opposed this). BUT:
- If guns encourage safety and all gun owners are concerned with safety (as the NRA article asserts), why not allow them in schools? Aren't they just as safe at a playground as they are on the sidewalk in front of my house? If they inherently pose a danger to kids when carried in schools and playgrounds, dont they inherently pose a danger to adults in other public places? Further, based on the "fewer guns don't make us safer" argument, don't we make schools the targets for armed predators b/c they know no one is armed?

[firstdown]

Originally Posted by JoeRedskin

Some of my post is, absolutely, my opinion and, yes, it is a gut reaction in some respects. In that I actually support gun ownership, I haven't generally researched the reasons for limiting it. I USUALLY am the one arguing that gun ownership is okay. It's just the "I have a right to have a gun, as many guns as I want, and it's nobody's business but mine" attitude I take issue with. As I said, and as with all constitutionally guaranteed rights, gun ownership requires a balancing of the public interest against the private right.

For example, I have heard few gun owners argue that people should have the right to carry a concealed weapon in schools (Angry even opposed this). BUT:
- If guns encourage safety and all gun owners are concerned with safety (as the NRA article asserts), why not allow them in schools? Aren't they just as safe at a playground as they are on the sidewalk in front of my house? If they inherently pose a danger to kids when carried in schools and playgrounds, dont they inherently pose a danger to adults in other public places? Further, based on the "fewer guns don't make us safer" argument, don't we make schools the targets for armed predators b/c they know no one is armed?

You say play grounds but to carry a gun you have to be over the age 18 so I don't think "kids" will be packing at school. Now if maybe each school had a few trained people to carry a gun it maybe a good idea. The argument was made that if one of the VT students just had a gun they may have stopped that guy from killing all of those people. I really don't think we will see the day when students will be packing a gun but we could see the day when teachers and or the administration is allowed to carry a gun. The crazy part of this is that we even have to talk about arming our schools and it would be nice if we knew what has gone wrong for this to be even an issue.

[jsarno]

Originally Posted by firstdown

One thing that you assume is that a person carring a gun becomes a danger to everyone else. The facts show just the opposite is true as they have a very low crime rate with people who have a concealed permit and they have safty to take safty classes to carry a gun. I'll see if I can find a link to back this up. I think that your post is your personal thought and is not backed by facts.

Well, and another little known fact out there in the cities, is that A LOT, and I do mean A LOT of people out in Texas and New Mexico etc have concealed weapons on them 24/7. You just never know. They make holsters for the inner pant, and you could never tell they had a gun.

[KLHJ2]

Originally Posted by JoeRedskin

Preliminarily, this is mostly just a restatement of the 1000 posts that gone on before and so I am just summarizing previously made arguments.

FIRST: I believe it is unconstitutional to completely ban the personal ownership of guns and, quite frankly, I do not advocate that position. There is an important public interest in preventing a government from having an absolute monopoly on the use of force. Preventing such a monopoly was the crux of and the intent behind the Second Amendment's guarrantee of the individual right to own guns.

SECOND: I don't "fail" to realize anything about your assertion AngrySS. In fact, I agree that regulating guns only affects those who follow regulations. I am okay with this BECAUSE:
- As I argued earlier, those who will illegally own a gun are not necessarily going to be deterred by the possibility of you carrying a concealed weapon; and, thus,
- Carrying a concealed weapon in public does not necessarily increase ur personal safety; but
- A proliferation of concealed weapons in public places, IMO, does create a greater risk to the public.
- Balancing the public's right to safety against your personal right to own a gun requires a balancing process and the regulation of who can own guns, how many they can own, and where they can carry them is both appropriate and well within the the constitutional guidelines set up bythe second amendment.

I and others have said all this before and, at this point, if you can't agree that the public at large has a right to reasonably regulate the availability and ownership of guns and to place restrictions on where they may carried, then we are simply going to have to agree to disagree.
- The 2A DOES NOT guarrantee you the unfettered right to own an arsenal and to go armed anywhere you want.
- As to gun ownership, there is a public interest which must be balanced against any private right you have.
- And, (this one is my personal opinion) while fewer guns may not necessarily make us individually safer, a proliferation of weaponry is not guarantee to greater public safety. Again, IMO - a proliferation of weaponry is more likely to decrease public safety than to increase it.

And with that - I will refer you back to my previous posts 'cause I think I am now just pretty much rehashing what has already been said about dozen times and about a dozen different ways.

After reading this post we pretty much see eye to eye. Our differences are so small that it is not even worth further debate. I bid you a good day sir.