Ted Nugent on Gun Control

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

See your cats argument and your below comments.


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 am lazy and dumb, so please articulate how the phrase "guns don't kill people, people do" is meaningful.

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)

The "burden of proof" is not on anyone. This isn't a court, it is a website. Moreover, I never said that all guns should be illegal. I believe hunting rifles and shotguns should be legal, although they should be regulated like handguns (i.e., background check, waiting period). I believe that many other weapons (e.g., semi-automatic rifles that cab readily be turned into fully automatic weapons and .50 cal sniper rifles) should be illegal.

There are many reasons why I believe firearms should be subject to heavy regulation. First, I believe the NRA and many gun enthusiasts are reading the Second Amendment far too liberally. The Second Amendment was intended to enable the public to protect themselves from government abuses. If you believe (a) you need firearms in case you need to wage war on our government OR (b) a glock is going to stop the 10th Mountain Division, you should probably see your doctor because you are obviously not taking all of your lithium.

Second, many gun enthusiasts believe that gun control advocates are naive and do not realize how many "bad guys" there are out there in the cold world. However, I think those people are naive and do not realize how many "bad guys" there who simply lack the maturity to responsibly handle firearms. If you need to take a written examination and a driving test to operate a vehicle that is indispensible, why do you not need to do anything to purchase an object that is specifically designed to kill, wound, or intimidate? Moroever, the notion that we should respond to the gun problem by proliferating guns seems quite strange.

Third, the "average Joe" cannot be compared to our nation's military. Our men and women in uniform spend countless hours training to use firearms. So, that analogy is totally inappropriate IMO. But, since you think the two are analogous, do you then believe that members of the public should be able to go to the local Walmart and buy M1-A2 tanks, F-22 Raptors, stingers, claymores, etc? After all, many criminals have automatic weapons, so should the average Joe be able to "one up" them?

Fourth, I do not believe guns pass a cost benefit test. We could go on and on citing statistics from various groups that have a vested interest in proving or disproving the utility and cost of firearms. I don't care to do so.

This one is specifically for Jsarno, given his reliance on his constitutional right to own a gun:

In the case I referenced earlier, assume the Supreme Court rules that: 1) the modern incarnation of a "well-regulated militia" constitutes the National Guard and that, as a result: 1) only off-duty, private citizens of the National Guard are permitted to keep guns; AND 2) only the guns retained must be necessary for their duties as part of the National Guard.

Anticipating one of your standard responses: Yes. This is a hypothetical and an unlikely one at that. However, I ask b/c, given your past assertion that the Constitution must be respected, I am curious to see if you would continue to hold that belief if the body of government charged with interpreting the Constitution determined you were not entitled to have a gun.

Less hypothetical - if the ruling in Heller in any way allows for the restriction of personal ownership of guns, will you comply with the restrictions?

Just as an aside, if you REALLY want to see some interesting and scholarly debate on the history of 2A, its original meaing and subsequent interpretation go here:

http://www.supremecourtus.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcripts/07-290.pdf

It's the transcript from the recent oral argument in Heller. It's about 110 pages and, at points, assumes you have read the underlying briefs, but, IMO, it is required reading for any intelligent debate or assertions as to the legal status of a person's right to carry/own guns. Good stuff.

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

Now now, people kill people. Even people with frying pans can kill people. Protect your neck, get a frying pan!

The "burden of proof" is not on anyone. This isn't a court, it is a website.
If you are wanting to change laws, and that is your intent with an argument, then yes, the burden of proof is indeed on you regardless of medium.

Moreover, I never said that all guns should be illegal. I believe hunting rifles and shotguns should be legal, although they should be regulated like handguns (i.e., background check, waiting period). I believe that many other weapons (e.g., semi-automatic rifles that cab readily be turned into fully automatic weapons and .50 cal sniper rifles) should be illegal.
I owe you an apology sir. I thought you were arguing to get rid of all guns. I misunderstood your intent, and points. Fact is, your above comment is right on the money with my thoughts as well. Although a sniper rifle would come in handy when shooting a deer.

There are many reasons why I believe firearms should be subject to heavy regulation.

With the exception of the above mentioned regulations, which I do not consider to be "heavy", what are you referring to?

First, I believe the NRA and many gun enthusiasts are reading the Second Amendment far too liberally. The Second Amendment was intended to enable the public to protect themselves from government abuses. If you believe (a) you need firearms in case you need to wage war on our government OR (b) a glock is going to stop the 10th Mountain Division, you should probably see your doctor because you are obviously not taking all of your lithium.

Agreed. Although, the 2nd amendment's intent wasn't solely to protect from government abuse. Personal protection was a main staple.

Second, many gun enthusiasts believe that gun control advocates are naive and do not realize how many "bad guys" there are out there in the cold world. However, I think those people are naive and do not realize how many "bad guys" there who simply lack the maturity to responsibly handle firearms. If you need to take a written examination and a driving test to operate a vehicle that is indispensible, why do you not need to do anything to purchase an object that is specifically designed to kill, wound, or intimidate? Moroever, the notion that we should respond to the gun problem by proliferating guns seems quite strange.

Well, my gun has only been fired at a gun range. Thankfully there has been no need to use it in my home...although the 1 time someone did try to break in I was waiting around the corner of my french doors with the gun cocked and ready. Lucky for him he couldn't get through my locks, as it is 100% legal here to kill an intruder. That being said, when you drive a vehicle you are a human / mechanical bullet. You do this every day, all the time, and in multiple directions. You also drive this bullet amongst a ton of other bullets. People that own guns do not use them often (minus gun range where there are a lot of regulations). So I do not see the need to make people take classes etc to use a gun. It doesn't take that much intelligence to use a gun, you point and shoot. A car / laws of the road are much more complex. So we disagree on this point, but it's not like it's anything important anyway.

Third, the "average Joe" cannot be compared to our nation's military. Our men and women in uniform spend countless hours training to use firearms. So, that analogy is totally inappropriate IMO. But, since you think the two are analogous, do you then believe that members of the public should be able to go to the local Walmart and buy M1-A2 tanks, F-22 Raptors, stingers, claymores, etc? After all, many criminals have automatic weapons, so should the average Joe be able to "one up" them?

You make a good point, however, I was under the impression you wanted to outlaw guns thus my comparison, since I now see that is not your intent, it makes this point moot.

Fourth, I do not believe guns pass a cost benefit test. We could go on and on citing statistics from various groups that have a vested interest in proving or disproving the utility and cost of firearms. I don't care to do so.

I don't recall talking about the cost benefit...unsure of what triggered this response from you.

All in all, we are on a similar page. Again, I apologize for the confusion.

Sorry to be doing this in bits and pieces. Here is the lower court's finding that has been appealled (by D.C.) to the Supreme Court:

http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/docs/common/opinions/200703/04-7041a.pdf

Lots of good stuff on the history of gun ownership and gun rights in the context of the English common law.

This one is specifically for Jsarno, given his reliance on his constitutional right to own a gun:

In the case I referenced earlier, assume the Supreme Court rules that: 1) the modern incarnation of a "well-regulated militia" constitutes the National Guard and that, as a result: 1) only off-duty, private citizens of the National Guard are permitted to keep guns; AND 2) only the guns retained must be necessary for their duties as part of the National Guard.

Anticipating one of your standard responses: Yes. This is a hypothetical and an unlikely one at that. However, I ask b/c, given your past assertion that the Constitution must be respected, I am curious to see if you would continue to hold that belief if the body of government charged with interpreting the Constitution determined you were not entitled to have a gun.

Less hypothetical - if the ruling in Heller in any way allows for the restriction of personal ownership of guns, will you comply with the restrictions?

Well, I would only become uncompliant if they banned guns altogether. I do not have ANY desire to own semi automatic weapons. My concern is personal safety. My guns of choice are handguns and shotguns. I am not even a hunter, I can't kill an animal like that, but I would not take that right away from hunters. That's just a personal preference.
To me, people that are trying to ban guns are doing so 100% out of fear and never owned a gun in their life, and likely never needed one for any reason. So the people trying to ban guns would be like a virgin nun trying to ban condoms.
Does that answer you question?

This one is specifically for Jsarno, given his reliance on his constitutional right to own a gun:

In the case I referenced earlier, assume the Supreme Court rules that: 1) the modern incarnation of a "well-regulated militia" constitutes the National Guard and that, as a result: 1) only off-duty, private citizens of the National Guard are permitted to keep guns; AND 2) only the guns retained must be necessary for their duties as part of the National Guard.

Anticipating one of your standard responses: Yes. This is a hypothetical and an unlikely one at that. However, I ask b/c, given your past assertion that the Constitution must be respected, I am curious to see if you would continue to hold that belief if the body of government charged with interpreting the Constitution determined you were not entitled to have a gun.

Less hypothetical - if the ruling in Heller in any way allows for the restriction of personal ownership of guns, will you comply with the restrictions?

I know that this was for JSARNO, but I could not resist. This is not always feesable.

1. Would you trust a 21 year old man with only 3 years experience with weaponry vs. a 38 year old retiree with 20 years because the 18 year old is in the guard and the retiree is done with the military alltogether.

2. The weapons used by the National Guard are issued to them and are held at a centralized arms room. If for some reason thase arms rooms were seized by the hypothetical enemy, then what?

I will tell you what; we are in trouble because in your world we either dont have weapons, or we have less experience backing them.

Sorry to be doing this in bits and pieces. Here is the lower court's finding that has been appealled (by D.C.) to the Supreme Court:

http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/docs/common/opinions/200703/04-7041a.pdf

Lots of good stuff on the history of gun ownership and gun rights in the context of the English common law.

Interesting stuff. I strongly suggest others read this decision.

Interesting stuff. I strongly suggest others read this decision.


WOW, That is jacked up considering that DC has a National Guard.

Joint Force HQ DC National Guard (http://dcng.ngb.army.mil/)