Ted Nugent on Gun Control

If you buy a gun get a pump shot gun. That distenct sound of pumping a shell into the chamber is enough to make most theives run for there life.

I was thinking more about purchasing a handgun.

I was thinking more about purchasing a handgun.

And if you don't keep a bullet in the chamber (which I don't keep a bullet in the chamber) then the sound of cocking the gun is just as familiar to a pump action shotgun.

And if you don't keep a bullet in the chamber (which I don't keep a bullet in the chamber) then the sound of cocking the gun is just as familiar to a pump action shotgun.
Yea but a shot gun gives you a better chance on a dark night.

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.

Here is two links which one is the NRA but they do use facts and numbers to back them up. The other one is very, very, long but with a quick scan i did see some numbers like theNRA used.
The truth is everything on the issue of firearms. (http://www.savetheguns.com/the_truth_is_everything.htm#Concealed%20Carry)

Gun Control Paper (http://www.mcsm.org/lott1.htm)

One other thing that I saw was in the NRA page and it did talk about this wild west argument and they showed numbers back from then and the murder rate was very low.

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?

i agree with ted nugent 1000000000%

All I have to say is that, JoeRedskin, you often have some of the most thoughtful, articulate, and interesting posts.

All I have to say is that, JoeRedskin, you often have some of the most thoughtful, articulate, and interesting posts.

Awwwww, shucks. <kicks dirt>

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.