Ted Nugent on Gun Control

to me, the biggest difference is the actual gun. its sole purpose is to kill. period. guns kill people, plain and simple. but, one of the biggest problems we have today, is all the bickering, and negotiating by lawyers, to get reduced sentences for crimes involving guns. it seems like the laws are OK. they just get manipulated by the legal system. lets review what laws we have, and if they are good enough to stay in the books, then lets enforce them like they were written

Dmek for President in '08!!!!!!!!

You are totally correct. The justice system IS letting us down in many arena's............and we do not need more laws (unless others are taken off the books to make room). We need to enforce what we have.

Hmmm, guns to nuclear arms. Yeah, that's a good comparison.

It's about as appropriate as your comparison of individuals to nations.

That's cause, no offense, but you don't get it. A gun has never, ever, ever killed someone on it's own. You don't walk into a room and see a gun sitting there on the counter and boom, you're dead.

What don't I get? How exactly does that add anything of substance to the gun rights debate? It doesn't and your response did nothing but reiterate the phrase.

sgg, most gun owners are borderline fanatical about their rights. while i applaud their enthusiasm, i believe that guns kill people. its almost like trying to persuade someone to change who they are voting for. its not going to happen

sgg, most gun owners are borderline fanatical about their rights. while i applaud their enthusiasm, i believe that guns kill people. its almost like trying to persuade someone to change who they are voting for. its not going to happen

I realize that I am not going to change anyone's opinion. I would, however, like to hear someone articulate a balanced, sound, and persuasive argument, rather than simply resorting to the same ole' meaningless phrases like "guns don't kill people, people do." What the hell does that mean or add to the debate?

sgg, most gun owners are borderline fanatical about their rights. while i applaud their enthusiasm, i believe that guns kill people. its almost like trying to persuade someone to change who they are voting for. its not going to happen
Most gun owners are not fanatical about their rights. Also if you take a gun and sit it on a table how does it kill a person?

Most gun owners are not fanatical about their rights. Also if you take a gun and sit it on a table how does it kill a person?

Obviously, guns do not kill anyone by themselves. Then again, neither do RPGs, IEDs, or claymores, but no one really thinks they should be legal. That guns do not, by themselves, kill does not IMO alter the debate about gun control/rights.

Obviously, guns do not kill anyone by themselves. Then again, neither do RPGs, IEDs, or claymores, but no one really thinks they should be legal. That guns do not, by themselves, kill does not alter the debate about gun control/rights.


Do you know how many deer I could hit in one shot with a claymore? That would be cool!

JK.

It's about as appropriate as your comparison of individuals to nations.

Alright, it's been a long couple of days, but when and what did I say to compare individuals to nations?

What don't I get? How exactly does that add anything of substance to the gun rights debate? It doesn't and your response did nothing but reiterate the phrase.

I think it adds a lot of substance if you just sit back and think about it, but the problem is, those that do not like guns don't even look at that comment and absorb it.

I asked earlier how you could allow the country to use guns to defend the country, but you made no comment about it. So how can you be OK with the military using guns / rifles / automatic weapons, but it's not OK to use guns in self defense in your own home? (please do not forget to answer this question)
(is this what you were referring to when you asked about the comparison of individuals to nations?? If so, this is a valid question since individuals are the ones using the weapons. Just cause they are fighting for a country instead of family shouldn't disqualify the question)

You ask for substance in this debate, but unfortunately you are not offering any at this point. So let's debate with substance. Keep in mind you have a lot to prove since 1- you are trying to make something legal, illegal. 2- you are trying to convince others to ignore the constitution and ultimately change it. The burden of proof is on you. So what do you have to convince us we need to turn in our guns? (please note this is not sarcasm, I am truly interested in a debate with logical substance)

Didn't we cover all this in the first 15 pages?

I'm not even sure why we're bothering with this discussion. Apparently guns don't kill people, don't you guys get it?