Ted Nugent on Gun Control

Joeredskin,

Thank you for sharing your thoughts about the Constitution and gun ownership. Most people have no clue what the Second Amendment means.

I would like to add a few more thoughts to the subject:

I think people should be able to purchase a gun and the government has a right to create a set of criterion for who can or can't own a gun. It already does it for every product out there, whether it's the food we consume or the medication we take.

People always talk about protecting yourself and all of that but the truth is if everyone was packing this country would be totally fucked up. I mean, you couldn't turn around and tell the jerk sitting next to you he's being a jerk without fear of getting shot. Talk about emasculating the entire population.

I think the issue of Nuclear proliferation is parallel to gun control. If not having a gun is a disadvantage as some in here have suggested then perhaps those countries that don't have nuclear weapons are in grave disadvantage. Perhaps they are justified in trying to obtain nuclear weapons.

I think the issue of Nuclear proliferation is parallel to gun control. If not having a gun is a disadvantage as some in here have suggested then perhaps those countries that don't have nuclear weapons are in grave disadvantage. Perhaps they are justified in trying to obtain nuclear weapons.

Good analogy. So basically the "pro gun" crowd just believes in the mutually assured destruction theory.

I usually don't assume the person next to me has a gun. Hopefully with everyone having a gun, i can have out of control anxiety, then shoot someone before they can shoot me.

Ted is cool

M8fXMMCuLew

Unfeathered access to guns is definitely a bad Idea. What kind of society would we be if everyone was packing? I mean, how free would people be?

Anywho, people should be allowed to own guns and the laws in the books need to be enforced.

p.s. Early in the video he said that brave families left Europe to be free of tyrants and slave drivers. I didn't know the pilgrims were salves.



We'd be a safer society. The criminals would be scared to mess with anyone because they'd know they'd get killed in the process of a crime...if not by one person...another one watching. They'd probably all turn to cyber crimes and fraud, but no one gets killed that way,

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.



It's not a trap or anything Joe, but I am curious as to what part of the second amendment, or Constitution speaks the the "heavy regulation of gun ownership". I gave it a once over and did not notice that.
The second A also provides for the "the right of the people to keep and bear arms". That is in addition to " a well regulated militia, and not subject to a collective interpretation of any kind, that I can see.

"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"

It's not a trap or anything Joe, but I am curious as to what part of the second amendment, or Constitution speaks the the "heavy regulation of gun ownership". I gave it a once over and did not notice that.

The expectation of heavy regulation is my opinion based on the language of the amendment and a very brief review of some of the cases interpreting it. Given that the language speaks of individual gun ownership being necessary due tothe collective need of a "well-regulated" militia, it is my opinion that a gun owner should expect there to be significant governmental regulations in place to ensure and protect the public's interest in a well regulated militia.

The second A also provides for the "the right of the people to keep and bear arms". That is in addition to "a well regulated militia, and not subject to a collective interpretation of any kind, that I can see.

As I noted above, the individual right springs from and is given its reason d'etre from the collective need. There is substantial caselaw on this and the debate as to personal right v. collective right appears to go to the core of most 2A debates. As I understand it (again, based on a very cursory review of the law), the federal courts have generally held that the right to keep and bear arms is a "collective" right rather than an "individual" right.

Both from the language of the amendment and from the caselaw, I think it is pretty clear that, no matter what else is true about it, the "right to keep and bear arms", does not and was never intended to grant individuals unfettered and unlimited access to and/or owership of guns.

Personally, while I have no problem with lawful gun ownership, I am very comfortable with the government reasonably regulating their use and availability. As with all things subject to regulation, it is the "reasonableness" of it that comes into play.

For the record, I live in downtown Baltimore and, while my neighborhood is fine, some of the surrounding neighborhoods are kinda seedy. I have seen guns fired in public and often heard gunfire throughout the city. Quite frankly, the bad guys are walking around with semi and automatic weapons. Unless I go around with an unconcealed .50 cal., they pretty much got me outgunned. If I get into a situation where they intend me harm, owning or carrying a gun would not stop them from doing so. Further, it might only ratchet up their need to show that they're the big man and cause them to get even bigger guns.

To me, it is appropriate to both ensure that government does not have a monopoly on the use and ownership of guns and to regulate individual ownership of guns to ensure that the government can properly carry out its duty to protect its citizenry.

Enforce the laws on the books. Send anyone using a handgun in the course of a crime to jail for a significant amount of un-paroleable minimum time (to me, "use" includes brandishing the weapon). Send anyone firing an automatic weapon in an unauthorized manner to jail (generally, i got no problem with the ownership of automatic weaponry - it's the use of it that I object to). Send anyone who uses an automatic weapon in the course of a crime to jail w/o parole for a long time.

While it's true that people kill people - guns sure make it a lot easier. For that reason, their use and ownership should be "well regulated" (even if you're not in the militia :) )

The expectation of heavy regulation is my opinion based on the language of the amendment and a very brief review of some of the cases interpreting it. Given that the language speaks of individual gun ownership being necessary due tothe collective need of a "well-regulated" militia, it is my opinion that a gun owner should expect there to be significant governmental regulations in place to ensure and protect the public's interest in a well regulated militia.



As I noted above, the individual right springs from and is given its reason d'etre from the collective need. There is substantial caselaw on this and the debate as to personal right v. collective right appears to go to the core of most 2A debates. As I understand it (again, based on a very cursory review of the law), the federal courts have generally held that the right to keep and bear arms is a "collective" right rather than an "individual" right.

Both from the language of the amendment and from the caselaw, I think it is pretty clear that, no matter what else is true about it, the "right to keep and bear arms", does not and was never intended to grant individuals unfettered and unlimited access to and/or owership of guns.

Personally, while I have no problem with lawful gun ownership, I am very comfortable with the government reasonably regulating their use and availability. As with all things subject to regulation, it is the "reasonableness" of it that comes into play.

For the record, I live in downtown Baltimore and, while my neighborhood is fine, some of the surrounding neighborhoods are kinda seedy. I have seen guns fired in public and often heard gunfire throughout the city. Quite frankly, the bad guys are walking around with semi and automatic weapons. Unless I go around with an unconcealed .50 cal., they pretty much got me outgunned. If I get into a situation where they intend me harm, owning or carrying a gun would not stop them from doing so. Further, it might only ratchet up their need to show that they're the big man and cause them to get even bigger guns.

To me, it is appropriate to both ensure that government does not have a monopoly on the use and ownership of guns and to regulate individual ownership of guns to ensure that the government can properly carry out its duty to protect its citizenry.

Enforce the laws on the books. Send anyone using a handgun in the course of a crime to jail for a significant amount of un-paroleable minimum time (to me, "use" includes brandishing the weapon). Send anyone firing an automatic weapon in an unauthorized manner to jail (generally, i got no problem with the ownership of automatic weaponry - it's the use of it that I object to). Send anyone who uses an automatic weapon in the course of a crime to jail w/o parole for a long time.

While it's true that people kill people - guns sure make it a lot easier. For that reason, their use and ownership should be "well regulated" (even if you're not in the militia :) )

Nice Post Joe,
naturally the interpretation of the 2nd A. has been the debate of sport for lo' these many years.
For the record, I completely agree with the regulation, and control of who gets a weapon in this country. As you alluded to, we have the laws on the books, and they need to be enforced. The justice system is letting us down.