Ted Nugent on Gun Control

I'll admit that state legislators might have a slightly better idea of what I want and how I want to live my life. I just believe that I know better than anyone else what is in my best interests and how I want to live my life. All local, state, and federal governments should stay out of my business. So, for example, if I want to marry a dude (which, for the record, I don't), the government should say, "I might not agree with your lifestyle, but it's not my job or anyone else's to tell you how to live your life."

I agree with your point, but it does cut both ways. Many hippie, pot-smoking liberals want legalized drugs and drive-thru abortion clinics. I'm obviously being absurd, but my main point is that the morals of CA aren't the same as KS and IMO the federal government shouldn't be dictating liberal or conservative morality to the entire country.

Of course, there has to be limits and I don't know why anyone thinks abortion and gay marriage are somehow inside those limits. How far is too far and are bans on abortion and gay marriage too far?

One of the roles of the government is to protect the individual from the government itself (both federal and state). This includes protection from the mob and state sanctioned discriminatory laws based on the values of the mob.


There are obviously limits on what laws a state could pass, but I would trust the people of a particular state to decide what's best for them rather than 535 congress-people or 9 judges in DC. There are plenty of lawyers and advocacy groups on both sides to keep each other in check and the laws pretty reasonable. Yes, there would be conflicts between states' laws and that's where the Supreme Court would make determinations based on their constitutionality. You know I'm not advocating doing away with the federal system, but the federal government has grown far too large and has its fingers in way too many pies.

That's how currently things work...states enact laws, someone challenges those laws and the US Supreme Court decides the constitutionality of these laws. Now, if you want to take the feds out of the picture and let entities within the state fight it out then you are bound to have Brown vs. Board of Education of Topeka (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=349&invol=294) and Loving vs Virginia (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=388&invol=1). In the Loving case the Supreme Court of Virginia in it's infinite wisdom said the law against interracial marriage is constitutional.

I know your position, I'm just asking where do you draw the line? What particular problem exists in our current system whereby the Supreme Court is the Ultimate decider in matters concerning constitutionality of things.

As a libertarian, I don't like government at any level telling me how I should live my life.

The theory is that state and local legislators know better than a politician in Washington how to represent their constituents. Take the federal speed limits for instance. Awhile back, those laws were rescinded in favor of local and state jurisdiction. How would a Washington hack in the House of Representatives know what the best speed limit is for a rural highway in Junction City, Wyoming if that congressman represents the people of Detroit?
Cogress passed speed restrictions back sometime ago to help with the gas shortage we as a nation faced. I would not be surprised if they did not do it again. The libertarian party thinks that the federal, state and city gov. should be very limited on passing any laws concerning morals. But, they say if a person chooses to shoot up everyday it their problem and goverment will not be there to bail them out.

Just got back from vacation and catching up on some threads. It appears one of my favorites is back in play.

Yeah!!!

Well just today in the paper today a man who owned a pizza joint killed a robber who shot at him first. The man was told to open his safe and he tried to convince the robber just to take the money from the cash registar as he had no money in his safe. The robber insisted that he open the safe and as the owner was opening it up was shot at by the robber which missed. He had his gun in the safe and returned fire killing the guy. I guess if he was in DC he and maybe his employees would not be here today. The gun was legally owned and he also had a carry permit so he could have protection when leaving to make deposits.

Well just today in the paper today a man who owned a pizza joint killed a robber who shot at him first. The man was told to open his safe and he tried to convince the robber just to take the money from the cash registar as he had no money in his safe. The robber insisted that he open the safe and as the owner was opening it up was shot at by the robber which missed. He had his gun in the safe and returned fire killing the guy. I guess if he was in DC he and maybe his employees would not be here today. The gun was legally owned and he also had a carry permit so he could have protection when leaving to make deposits.

I'll take your anecdote, and raise you.

Father accidentally shoots and kills baby (http://www.wyff4.com/news/16720869/detail.html)

Man accidentally shoots friend in head (http://www.komonews.com/news/local/22714089.html)

I thought this (http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/06/30/guns.suicides.ap/index.html) was interesting. I would never have guessed 55%. In fact, I would have thought homicides, justified or unjustified, would overwhelmingly dominate the number of gun-related deaths.

I thought this (http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/06/30/guns.suicides.ap/index.html) was interesting. I would never have guessed 55%. In fact, I would have thought homicides, justified or unjustified, would overwhelmingly dominate the number of gun-related deaths.

That's a good link.

But do you know what strikes me more than anything?
There was 31,000 gun related deaths, yet there are approx. 4.9 million tobacco related deaths in the world a year. In the US, there are 438,000 tobacco related deaths (approximately 1 in 5 deaths overall are tobacco related), and even MORE important, 38,000 (that's right 7k MORE deaths than guns) are directly related to SECOND HAND smoke. And people are up in arms about being able to defend yourself while cigarettes provide no defense. :doh:
Interesting that second hand smoke is statistically MORE deadly than guns themselves. WOW.

Tobacco-Related Mortality | OSH | CDC (http://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/data_statistics/Factsheets/tobacco_related_mortality.htm)

STOP Already with the fact-based logic!!

STOP Already with the fact-based logic!!

LOL!

I also don't think gun related suicides should be included in gun related deaths because the would find a way to kill themselves another way if they had no gun. I understand the medium was a gun, but terminally suicidal people will jump off a bridge or slit their wrists or whatever if a gun wasn't the quick and easiest fix to their "problem". So really, only approx. 14k deaths are gun related. Since there are 38k second hand smoke deaths (about 2.5 times more deaths than gun related deaths if you subtract suicides), maybe we should all yell at smokers to "put down the cigarette, and step away"! LOL.