Ted Nugent on Gun Control

Some gun enthusiasts will cite studies indicating that gun control laws embolden criminals. Those studies, however, rarely, if ever, distinguish between correlation and causation. Those studies rarely, if ever, account for other factors such as economic conditions, social changes (e.g., drug use), etc.

In any case, to me this debate fundamentally comes down to one issue. Criminals get their guns by either: (1) legally purchasing their firearms; or (2) illegally obtaining weapons that were legally procured. Some think that the way to mitigate the problem of guns falling into criminals' hands is to encourage the proliferation of weapons. Others believe that the proliferation of firearms is the problem, not the solution. I, of course, fall into the latter category.

Some gun enthusiasts will cite studies indicating that gun control laws embolden criminals. Those studies, however, rarely, if ever, distinguish between correlation and causation. Those studies rarely, if ever, account for other factors such as economic conditions, social changes (e.g., drug use), etc.

In any case, to me this debate fundamentally comes down to one issue. Criminals get their guns by either: (1) legally purchasing their firearms; or (2) illegally obtaining weapons that were legally procured. Some think that the way to mitigate the problem of guns falling into criminals' hands is to encourage the proliferation of weapons. Others believe that the proliferation of firearms is the problem, not the solution. I, of course, fall into the latter category.

I don't think that's a fair statement. Those who believe in gun rights don't necessarily believe the answer to solve crime is the "proliferation of weapons". Not all law abiding people have guns. Nobody believes people who don't want guns must have them. Certainly individuals with a criminal history, and those with a history of mental illness shouldn't have access to firearms. So that's quite different from believing in "the proliferation of weapons."

We believe law abiding citizens shouldn't be denied their fundamental right to defend themselves with a gun if they want one. We maintain that the problem would be much worse if the unarmed innocent have to depend on the mercy of the armed thug.

I don't think that's a fair statement. Those who believe in gun rights don't necessarily believe the answer to solve crime is the "proliferation of weapons". Not all law abiding people have guns. Nobody believes people who don't want guns must have them. Certainly individuals with a criminal history, and those with a history of mental illness shouldn't have access to firearms. So that's quite different from believing in "the proliferation of weapons."

We believe law abiding citizens shouldn't be denied their fundamental right to defend themselves with a gun if they want one. We maintain that the problem would be much worse if the unarmed innocent have to depend on the mercy of the armed thug.
Its funny that the same people who site the constitution for other freedoms which they think are important (freedom of speech, gather etc...) seem to dismiss it for other people rights to own guns.

Its funny that the same people who site the constitution for other freedoms which they think are important (freedom of speech, gather etc...) seem to dismiss it for other people rights to own guns.

It's equally funny that people who so easily dismiss issues like wiretapping, gitmo, etc. get so upset when people discuss taking away their guns.

Its funny that the same people who site the constitution for other freedoms which they think are important (freedom of speech, gather etc...) seem to dismiss it for other people rights to own guns.
I have often found it curious (and some other things) that many people seem unconcerned when freedoms go away, if the enjoyment of that freedom is not important to them directly.
It is another freedom gone...........

I think you've just solved both issues with one post. I wonder how many tobacco farmer's own guns in which the purpose is to protect their property? I'll bet 98%. If we restrict their ability to protect their property by taking away their guns then we'd see much, much less tobacco being produced. By ensuring that tobacco farmer's have no way of defending themselves from a home invasion we can assume that their deaths will in fact save nearly 5 million lives.
Yea, there's a big demand for raw tobaco and these farmers have to fight of theives everyday. I bet that maybe 98% probably own guns but they are for hunting not tobaco theives. Now yes they would use them for protection but I don't think thats why they really own guns.

Certainly individuals with a criminal history, and those with a history of mental illness shouldn't have access to firearms. So that's quite different from believing in "the proliferation of weapons."

I never said that gun enthusiasts want EVERYONE to get guns. I said they believe that the spread of guns in society is a good thing. For example, after the VT shootings, we all heard chants "well if the students were armed." I just happen to think that putting more guns out there to combat the guns that are out there is friggin crazy.

Moreover, why did the NRA spend millions to oppose the Brady bill, which merely required people trying to buy handguns to wait 5 days while a background check was conducted? Why does the NRA oppose background checks for guns sold at gun shows? The NRA and gun nuts do a lot of talking when it comes to keeping guns out of criminals' hands, and then turn around and do their best to fight laws designed to stop guns from getting into criminals' hands.

It's equally funny that people who so easily dismiss issues like wiretapping, gitmo, etc. get so upset when people discuss taking away their guns.
I did not know that these people at Gitmo (who by the way would love to cut off your head) had an constitutional rights because they are not in the US nor are US citzens.

I did not know that these people at Gitmo (who by the way would love to cut off your head) had an constitutional rights because they are not in the US nor are US citzens.

Well the high court thinks (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boumediene_v._Bush) they do.

the same people that are ok with the stripping of our rights( wiretapping) voted for this yo yo in office. so its all good