Ted Nugent on Gun Control

I just wanted to be on record as oppossing unfeathered access to anything including guns.

alright let's calm down with flexing our internet muscles and stay on topic. The pics are funny though

If someone wants to kill you're always at a disadvantage, whether you're packing or not.

So you'd rather be at a bigger disadvantage? You're not making sense.

alright let's calm down with flexing our internet muscles and stay on topic. The pics are funny though
I wasn't picking up on any overly hostile vibe. Might just be me though.

As far as where I stand on the issues of ccw's and gun control I guess I'm on both sides of the fence.

1. Those who have a valid ccw should be able to carry it nationally. Do away with reciprocity agreements. Also, the feds should establish the guidelines on how to transport firearms when travelling from state to state. Each state has their own guidelines about how to transport firearms and somes states have no guidelines at all. Needless to say it creates a lot of confusion for people. Those travelling out of state sometimes have their firearms confiscated due to simple ignorance and I question whether that's fair or not.

2. All gun owners should be required to complete a firearms safety training course. Whether that be for a ccw permit or even the purchase of a firearm. The majority of people who come in my office have no clue of how to properly shoot or store a weapon. It just makes sense that they receive some sort of basic instruction on firearms safety.

3. The federal laws on purchasing firearms are completely adequate, save for the mental health statute. That one needs some work. I'm an advocate of individuals producing some sort of proof as to their mental competence before they are either sold a weapon or issued a purchase permit. Also, it should be mandatory that all states must contribute mental commitment and mental defective files to NICS. Right now, that's not the case.

4. I pretty much believe everything should be handled on the federal level. Contrary to popular belief, it is not the feds that more restrictive on the sale of firearms, it is the states. Those who strongly support the 2nd amendment would be better served if we went by the federal statutes only. Since most state statutes mirror the federal statutes, there is no reason to have two sets of laws governing the sale of firearms. Some state lawmakers use gun laws as a political tool and I believe they overstep their authority when they enact laws on the state level that might conflict with the 2nd amendment.

I don't think anyone is saying that. Crime and murder will always exist, regardless of the availability of firearms.

The question I have for you is, do you have the right to defend yourself?

That's a common argument that I hear, one which seems to be empirically denied.

All I know is I live in a country in which guns are illegal for everyone but police and professional hunters and the only thing that makes me fearful for my life are the spiders.

So you'd rather be at a bigger disadvantage? You're not making sense.


In the context of day to day life I'd rather not carry a gun. If that's a disadvantage, that's a chance I'm willing to take. I think the negatives associated with carrying a gun outweighs the advantages of being able to "protect yourself."

Em027Z8_LG8

I find the "guns are dangerous, people have them, so we need more of them" logic interesting. I also find it interesting that the people most likely to legally purchase guns are the least likely to ever have to use them against a would-be attacker. None of my friends who grew up or hung out in shady areas owned guns, but a fair number of my friends from suburban or rural areas did.

Also, do the "pro-gun" members think it would be okay for people to own grenades or more deadly weapons?

In the context of day to day life I'd rather not carry a gun. If that's a disadvantage, that's a chance I'm willing to take. I think the negatives associated with carrying a gun outweighs the advantages of being able to "protect yourself."

It's your right to not carry a gun, just as well as it is my constitutional right to carry one.
If we ignore the constitution, we better all leave the country, that's a slippery slope that I don't want to be a part of.

It's your right to not carry a gun, just as well as it is my constitutional right to carry one.
If we ignore the constitution, we better all leave the country, that's a slippery slope that I don't want to be a part of.
your not willing to give up your right to a gun.how about someone wire tapping your phone? we need some sort of gun control. and we also need some sort of watchdog over the gun manufactures. there is simply too many guns available. a friend of mine just purchased an AK47. why in the world does anyone need a gun like that? what the heck would you use it for?

It's your right to not carry a gun, just as well as it is my constitutional right to carry one.
If we ignore the constitution, we better all leave the country, that's a slippery slope that I don't want to be a part of.

First, the Constitution does not guarrantee the unfettered, universal and individual right to gun ownership:

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

The federal circuit courts are in a general agreement that this is a collective right, not an individual right. Thus, regulation of gun ownership is constitutionally based and restrictions on ownership are generally well founded in constitution.

Are you part of a "well-regulated militia"? If so, fine. If not, then you don't clear cut constitutional right to gun ownership. Even if you are, it appears from the plain language of the 2nd A that heavy regualtion is the proper constitutional course.