Ted Nugent on Gun Control

I've seen several posts in this thread which talk about the need to protect ourselves from government tyranny.
I'm not going to re-read the post but the majority are for having the right to defend themself in general.

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.

See, we're reaching an impasse here, because you seem to think that proponents of gun rights favor "the spread of guns in society" or that we believe in the "proliferation of weapons" when in reality, all we want is the right to own a firearm if we want one to defend ourselves. Personally, I'd like it if only the good guys had guns. Going a step further, I wish we could live in utopian la-la land where weapons of any kind aren't necessary because we are all peace-loving flower children. But I realize that will never be possible. I just don't want a situation where the law abiding are unilaterally disarmed, while the violent predators of society can declare open season on anyone and everyone knowing that they have no way to defend themselves.

As far as the NRA goes, they opposed the 5-day waiting period because our rights should not be subject to a waiting period. Should there be a five day wait for you to voice an opinion, to express yourself politically?

At the most basic level, SGG, don't you have the fundamental, human right to defend yourself against an attacker? If someone tries to punch you in the face, is it your position that you morally have no basic right to punch back? Are you a pacifist?

See, we're reaching an impasse here, because you seem to think that proponents of gun rights favor "the spread of guns in society" or that we believe in the "proliferation of weapons" when in reality, all we want is the right to own a firearm if we want one to defend ourselves.

Proponents of gun rights generally oppose any gun control laws. For example, as you note, the NRA opposes a 5 day waiting period for background checks. Usually the people who need a gun within the next 5 days are the types of people who should be forced to wait an eternity to get a gun. Proponents of gun rights also generally subscribe to the theory that our society would be safer if more people were packing heat (hence their opposition to conceal & carry restrictions). So, if proponents of gun rights are not in favor of the proliferation of weapons, they damn sure are not advocating for restricting access to them.


As far as the NRA goes, they opposed the 5-day waiting period because our rights should not be subject to a waiting period. Should there be a five day wait for you to voice an opinion, to express yourself politically?

The NRA opposes just about any limitations on access to guns. That they oppose a 5 day period for a background check and "cooling off" scares me. As for your free speech analogy, I don't think the two are even in the same ballpark.

At the most basic level, SGG, don't you have the fundamental, human right to defend yourself against an attacker? If someone tries to punch you in the face, is it your position that you morally have no basic right to punch back? Are you a pacifist?

I obviously believe that everyone has the right to defend oneself against attack. However, I don't believe that the right of self-defense is synonymous with the right to have unlimited access to firearms. I also believe that when criminals are buying weapons legally or illegally acquiring weapons that were once purchased legally, you don't solve the problem by making weapons easier to obtain.

Finally, I think shotguns and rifles should be legal. I think almost all other firearms should be illegal.

Proponents of gun rights generally oppose any gun control laws. For example, as you note, the NRA opposes a 5 day waiting period for background checks. Usually the people who need a gun within the next 5 days are the types of people who should be forced to wait an eternity to get a gun. Proponents of gun rights also generally subscribe to the theory that our society would be safer if more people were packing heat (hence their opposition to conceal & carry restrictions). So, if proponents of gun rights are not in favor of the proliferation of weapons, they damn sure are not advocating for restricting access to them.

The NRA opposes just about any limitations on access to guns. That they oppose a 5 day period for a background check and "cooling off" scares me. As for your free speech analogy, I don't think the two are even in the same ballpark.

I obviously believe that everyone has the right to defend oneself against attack. However, I don't believe that the right of self-defense is synonymous with the right to have unlimited access to firearms. I also believe that when criminals are buying weapons legally or illegally acquiring weapons that were once purchased legally, you don't solve the problem by making weapons easier to obtain.

Finally, I think shotguns and rifles should be legal. I think almost all other firearms should be illegal.

As has been pointed out over and over in excruciating detail, gun control doesn't work because it only applies to the law abiding. Criminals will not abide by a five day waiting period or any other form of gun control by virtue of the fact that they are criminals. Therefore, only the innocent, law abiding citizens will have to jump through all the legal hoops, while thugs can run rampant with any type of firearm they want without restriction. Disarming the law abiding, leaving them without any effective means to protect themselves will only make the problem far, far worse.

Intelligent people can disagree, but I see our fundamental rights to speak freely, express ourselves politically, and to safeguard those fundamental rights by force against tyranny, as one in the same.

Every time I read this thread I always ask myself, "What do the people in England think about their gun ban?". Finally, I googled the question and came upon this fairly interesting piece:

qGVAQOUi6ec

As has been pointed out over and over in excruciating detail, gun control doesn't work because it only applies to the law abiding.

As you might expect, I disagree. For example, a 5 day waiting period for a background check burdens the innocent and the guilty. The innocent are burdened with waiting less than one week to obtain a handgun. Felons are burdened because they can't got to the nearest gun store to buy a hangun. Sure the felons can try to buy a gun on the black market, but the innocent can buy a shotgun or a rifle if they desperately need a firearm within a week. So, I fail to see how the innocent are so woefully burdened by the 5 day waiting period; provided they don't desperately need to blow someone away with a 9mm instead of a shotgun slug.

Gun control laws also restrict the sale of fully automatic, high caliber machine guns. Are the innocent really so burdened by not having ready access to anti-aircraft guns like a fully automatic 50 caliber browning machine gun? Those gun control laws seem to have a damn good job keeping heavy machine guns off of the black market.

Criminals will not abide by a five day waiting period or any other form of gun control by virtue of the fact that they are criminals. Therefore, only the innocent, law abiding citizens will have to jump through all the legal hoops, while thugs can run rampant with any type of firearm they want without restriction.

Jump through what legal hoops? Show a driver's license, fill out a form, and wait 5 days to purchase a handgun instead of a 12 gauge? Would you rather there be no background checks whatsoever so a felon can walk into the neighborhood store and buy a uzi?

Disarming the law abiding, leaving them without any effective means to protect themselves will only make the problem far, far worse.

The gun control laws on the books only disarm felons and persons who shouldn't be in possession of firearms. So, I don't know who you think is being unjustifiably disarmed.

Every time I read this thread I always ask myself, "What do the people in England think about their gun ban?". Finally, I googled the question and came upon this fairly interesting piece:

I came up with this (http://www.gallup.com/poll/16990/Britons-Aim-Tougher-Gun-Laws.aspx).

http://www.sfu.ca/~mauser/papers/LondonTower2003/Fig2ViolCrime-EW.xls.pdf

Guns were banned in 1997 and violent crime rates increased dramatically.

http://www.sfu.ca/~mauser/papers/LondonTower2003/Fig2ViolCrime-EW.xls.pdf

Guns were banned in 1997 and violent crime rates increased dramatically.

I bought my first car 12 years ago and my aunt died the next week. The lesson being, your aunt will die if you buy a car.

Sorry to be a smart ass, but those stats don't prove anything.

True. I think a good stat would be showing, as a percentage, whether the number of gun related deaths/injuries went up or down since 1997. Quick. Someone tech savvy find that out and report back.