Ted Nugent on Gun Control

[love them hogs]

[QUOTE=JoeRedskin

I do believe, however, that those who argue they are necessary for increased safety are assuming the bad guys think and act like they themselves would. I suggest to you that this is not true. People who are willing to use deadly force to impose their will upon others - either out of a specific intent to do whatever it takes to do so or out of a complete disregard for the destruction they may cause are not likely to concern themselves with how easy or difficult a target, in the first case, their prey or, in the second, anyone around them actually is.[/QUOTE]

While I agree with most of what you posted this statement is just plain wrong.Predators always pray on the weakest and pay very close attention to whom they prey upon.If you need proof just observe every living creature on the planet.

[JoeRedskin]

Originally Posted by jsarno

While I agree, it is a good post...don't you agree that from 1776 to the when the first person started wanting gun control (I'll say 1929), that the country would have stopped all those people from owning guns? Are we so arrogant as to think that our society should change was has been generally accepted for over a century, and what this country was founded on? Why is it we seem to think we're better than what the ideals of the country stated?

The founders were also okay with slavery, not letting women or men without property vote and, BTW, they were none to keen on that whole "standing army" thing. Are we arrogant to think those things are wrong?

The men of 1776 were radicals in there day b/c they refused to accept what they saw as Britain's betrayal of its own principles. We would be betraying them if we didn't look past the words and into the purpose.

As time goes by and society changes, the standards and realities of life change. In 1776, they didn't have automatic weapons or cities with multi-million populations.

Also, let's be clear - the "ideal" protected by the concept of "right to bear and keep arms" was protecting the citizenry from government's monopoly of power. In light of the events of their recent history, the founder's were concerned with the imposition of tyranny by a government and the citizenries inability to respond. Lexington and Concord occurred b/c the Brits were going to seize the public arsenal not b/c they were taking people's personal weapons(Hmmmm, last I checked, there isn't a "public arsenal" in Baltimore - well, except for a couple of street corners but that's just 'cause the clientele is armed to the teeth). While I respect this ideal, the world has changed significantly, and the specific threat that the 2A was intended to protect against does not exist in the same manner as it did two hundred years ago.

BTW - gun control didn't start in the 20 century. It existed from the beginning of this country and was prominent in the "Wild West". Many towns had strict gun contro (a' la "The Unforgiven"). Many towns were much more lax and the specific regulations varied from town to town but whoa unto you if you violated the local gun regs.

It is not arrogant to re-examine our governing principles, it is essential to do so. Otherwise, we end up like the arabian culture of the 17th and 18th centuries - A once progressive culture that was a beacon of human ingenuity, art and science that refused to reexamine itself and ended up betraying the very tenets it was founded upon.

It is not arrogant to reexamine our founding fathers actions, it is essential to uphold their ideals.

BTW - anybody see where I left my glock?

[jsarno]

Originally Posted by Hog1

I do not disagree with you Jsarno.
I also believe in the 2nd A as it is stated. I believe it clearly guarantee's the right to individual gun ownership in this country in plain language.
I do think additional......common sense must apply when determining that some people may not qualify for that privilege. Ex. violent criminals, etc. And, no I do not believe that we know better today, than the signers of the Constitution, what is right for this country.
Are you saying sometjhing different?

OK, now you're starting to scare me. We have been on the exact same side of the argument over and over again.
I 100% agree with you. To me, once you do something completely moronic like kill someone, you should lose your rights in prison, and be given a certain amount of rights when you get out (if you even get out). I fully believe that if you are a violent criminal you should not be allowed to have a gun. But that doesn't have anything to do with the Tom, Dick or Harry that keeps their nose clean.
I agree with you about the plain language as well, but somehow someone is always thinking to change it or "interpret" it in a wierd way. That was my point.

[saden1]

The founders were astute folks but I highly doubt they envisioned citizens sporting silencers, hollow point bullets, and AK-47's.

[jsarno]

Originally Posted by JoeRedskin

Yes. Absolutely true.

For that very same reason, however, gun ownership does not guarrantee safety nor does it neccessarily enhance one's personal safety.

I am not saying it guarentees safety, just that it should not be taken out of my hands. If I think it makes me safer, then it does. I have an alarm system and it makes me feel safe, and I have a .45 automatic next to my bed...those two make me feel incredibly safe. To this point I haven't had to use either of them, and I hope it stays that way, but the point still remains those laws were put in place to allow me that safety...it shouldn't be taken away.

As others have pointed out, however, it seems unlikely to me that someone intent on doing you harm by waylaying you will be deterred by thought you might be carrying a gun. It seems to me that, if someone is intentionally carrying a gun with intent to cause harm despite the possibility of governmental reprecussion, those people are unlikely to be deterred by the possibility of you being armed. Rather, they will be more careful in their actions and, essentially, kill you before you have a chance to retaliate.
I do believe, however, that those who argue they are necessary for increased safety are assuming the bad guys think and act like they themselves would. I suggest to you that this is not true. People who are willing to use deadly force to impose their will upon others - either out of a specific intent to do whatever it takes to do so or out of a complete disregard for the destruction they may cause - are not likely to concern themselves with how easy or difficult a target, in the first case, their prey or, in the second, anyone around them actually is.

Well, I do think it would deter the simple criminals...the "rookies" if you will. The harden criminals it won't deter, you are right. But when it comes to the guy that has no intention of using the gun other than to use it as a "fear" device, it will be a great deterant. But that's my opinion. Again I say, don't take the thought of safety or actual ability for me to be safe out of my hands by taking a gun out of my hand.

[jdlea]

Originally Posted by skinsfan_nn

Agreed. I'm skilled at street fighting, and have no problem with that. Futhermore, enjoy it from time to time, just to make sure the skills are up to snuff when need be.

However, for the crybaby's that really don't get it.....there are many times in life you can be out numbered in the streets (of course we are not talking about a controled match in a controled setting), a .45 Cal. GLOCK can be a nice influencer, of some FOOLS not making there worst mistake!

This can very easily be the DIFFERENCE BETWEEN LIFE OR DEATH! Anyone that doesn't get that has lived a very sheltered life or had momma & daddy wide there ass all their life.

Unlike UNCLE TED!

You're very correct that one could find himself outnumbered in a street fight and face being beaten to death and a gun may prove to be advantageous. However, in your support of this "everyone should have a gun" notion you'd also find yourself facing more guns than what you're going to pull out, so how is that everyone carrying guns is an advantage?

Ideally, a gun would be a deterrent, however, in this instance (that of everyone packing) I think it would just lead to more killing. Sure, more potential victims would have a fighting chance, but the problem is, just because you carry a gun doesn't mean you can shoot it/be able to pull the trigger and kill someone else. Trying to flood the market with guns in order to counterbalance the criminals possession of them will not solve anything.

[jsarno]

Originally Posted by JoeRedskin

The founders were also okay with slavery, not letting women or men without property vote and, BTW, they were none to keen on that whole "standing army" thing. Are we arrogant to think those things are wrong?

You make some very valid points.
Well, we are a country that beleives every man should be free. While they were "OK" with it, it was not a constitutional right such as the right to bear arms. I'm honestly not saying that what they believed in 1776 should 100% apply...just what the country was founded on IE: the constitution.

BTW - gun control didn't start in the 20 century. It existed from the beginning of this country and was prominent in the "Wild West". Many towns had strict gun contro (a' la "The Unforgiven"). Many towns were much more lax and the specific regulations varied from town to town but whoa unto you if you violated the local gun regs.

Well I am referring to the "gun control" part as in, you shouldn't have a gun. In the wild west they all had guns and liked it, although they requested certain areas be gun free (ie: leave them at the door) etc.

It is not arrogant to re-examine our governing principles, it is essential to do so. Otherwise, we end up like the arabian culture of the 17th and 18th centuries - A once progressive culture that was a beacon of human ingenuity, art and science that refused to reexamine itself and ended up betraying the very tenets it was founded upon.

While I agree, I disagree to a point as well. They put a lot of thought into our country and we've made it this far with them. The people of now-a-days would like to change a lot of things. Hell, what if we get a gay president and he decides to make a law that saws all heterosexual sex is illegal punished by death? The whole country couldn't reproduce and we would die. So just cause our society might feel it's right, doesn't mean it is. We are colored by our experiences, and we are a country of "reactors", not visionaries.

It is not arrogant to reexamine our founding fathers actions, it is essential to uphold their ideals.

I absolutely agree. We need to be careful though.

[JoeRedskin]

Originally Posted by love them hogs

While I agree with most of what you posted this statement is just plain wrong.Predators always pray on the weakest and pay very close attention to whom they prey upon.If you need proof just observe every living creature on the planet.

Human predators may or may not be animalistic in their pursuit. But I would agree with you that predators pay very close attention to there prey. It is for this reason that gun ownership likely does not prevent an attack.

For example, if the human predator is simply looking to waylay a weakling for a quick score, certainly they would chose someone who "appears" weak. In such a situation, only an unconcealed weapon will prevent an attack. Otherwise, the predator will likely pick based on the appearance and may be unlucky to draw someone who has a gun.

Even in the "prey upon those who appear weak" situation, however, a concealed weapon does not guarrantee safety. As long as we are doing the animal analogy here - How many predators announce their presence to the prey prior to the strike? Not many successful ones. (The cheetah stands up and shouts across to plain to the gazelle "Hey buddy - I'm on my way and your dead meat"). The "prey on the weak" type of human predators will use stealth and will likely have some type of weapon for intimidation purposes. Again, by the time the predator is upon you, you may or may not have time to draw your weapon and disable them. I would suggest that, generally, this is not a given and, depending on the situation, may result in the serious injury of those you are trying to protect. Okay, you killed the bad guy but he managed to kill/maim your wife/child during the exchange. A risk you're willing to take? Maybe. It all depends on how "good" a "predator" he is.

Quite frankly, the only way to ensure protection from this kind of "find a weakling" predator is to permit people to openly carry weapons. Not sure how I feel about that.

Also, I would suggest to you that not all human predator's seek the weak. Many are very human with very human desires and capabilities for thought. Thus, many human predators, the truly dangerous ones, seek a specific thing (money, to rape your wife or daughter, to exact revenge, to inflict pain upon you, etc.). These predators are more along the lines of hunters and they know that they need not attack the weak to succeed, attacking the strong at a weak moment will work just as well. You have a gun? Or you may have a gun? I don't care if you have a gun b/c I will attack you (again with surprise) at a point in time when you will be unable to use it. Hell, I will assume you are armed and plan my attack accordingly. (Your putting your wife's coat on her, I can see both your hands and will kill your wife if you move them out of my sight). In such a case, the fact that you may be armed has already been factored into my attack and is of no deterrent value.

In each of these scenarios, the only time a gun offers protection is when the predator is looking for a weakling, surprises someone who, instead, has a gun, AND the predator was dumb enough to let the prey access and use the gun. In this situation, if you do kill the predator, you are actually reducing the long term effectivenes of your gun by culling out the dumb predators and leaving more of the smart ones out there.

[jsarno]

Originally Posted by saden1

The founders were astute folks but I highly doubt they envisioned citizens sporting silencers, hollow point bullets, and AK-47's.

While that is absolutely true, they did carry rifles and shotguns. Our technology has just evolved. Just like I'm sure Henry ford didn't see the automobile going over 200mph with A/C, satellite radio, and a top that can be converted into the trunk.
FYI- I do not see a need to go "hunting" with an AK-47, so you won't actually see me defend that. But I will scream from the roof tops that I should be able to have a rifle, a shot gun, and hand guns. (the scope just makes picking off people a lot easier. JK)

[jsarno]

Originally Posted by jdlea

You're very correct that one could find himself outnumbered in a street fight and face being beaten to death and a gun may prove to be advantageous. However, in your support of this "everyone should have a gun" notion you'd also find yourself facing more guns than what you're going to pull out, so how is that everyone carrying guns is an advantage?

But people are naturally petrified of death, so if you pull the gun first, it may give you the time to flee the scene. If they reach for one, and you pick one of them off, the others aren't going to reach in fear for their life.

[Beemnseven]

Originally Posted by saden1

The founders were astute folks but I highly doubt they envisioned citizens sporting silencers, hollow point bullets, and AK-47's.

They also never envisioned internet porn. Should there be limits to freedom of expression and speech in light of that?

[JoeRedskin]

Originally Posted by jsarno

You make some very valid points.
Well, we are a country that beleives every man should be free. While they were "OK" with it, it was not a constitutional right such as the right to bear arms. I'm honestly not saying that what they believed in 1776 should 100% apply...just what the country was founded on IE: the constitution.

Well, actually, the constitution had to be amended to permit blacks, women and unpropertied white men to vote.

Please trust me when I tell you that I am a firm believer in the Rule of Law and the Constitution as the touchstone of our society. Because of that, and b/c the founders were, in fact, a diverse collection of brilliant men, it is important to discern and "interpret" what they were trying to say and why they said it. The english language is a wonderful tool and can be very precise and clear. Unfortunately, some of its beauty is found in its flexibility and this can lead to confusion and misunderstanding. What seems plain to you may not seem so plain to others even though they are reading the same sentence. ("The car is quiet" - Does that mean its running quietly? That people in the car are quiet? Could be either - don't know out of context).

In the Bill of Rights the founders identified and succintly stated many timeless truths and guides. They did so, however, based on the world view of upper class propertied white men and used the english language in a manner in a particular way inherent to their education and class. Further, they made these statements in response to particular things going on around them. To say "it means what it says" about the Constitution and Bill of Rights is to emasculate the brilliance of our founders.

Originally Posted by jsarno

Well I am referring to the "gun control" part as in, you shouldn't have a gun. In the wild west they all had guns and liked it, although they requested certain areas be gun free (ie: leave them at the door) etc.

I believe, but am not certain, that the "everybody had guns and carried em everywhere" is a myth perpetuated by a variety of sources. My curiosity is peaked. Certainly, many towns had an armed populace (the Dalton Gang was shot to shreds by the locals). At the same time, I have read a couple sources that suggest the majority of western towns had pretty strict rules on gun ownership.

Originally Posted by jsarno

While I agree, I disagree to a point as well. They put a lot of thought into our country and we've made it this far with them. The people of now-a-days would like to change a lot of things. Hell, what if we get a gay president and he decides to make a law that saws all heterosexual sex is illegal punished by death? The whole country couldn't reproduce and we would die. So just cause our society might feel it's right, doesn't mean it is. We are colored by our experiences, and we are a country of "reactors", not visionaries.

First, I am going to assume your gay president, sex punishable by death example is hyperbole based on the ridiculousness of the statement to demonstrate your statement that "just cause our society might feel its right doesn't mean it is". Such a scenario is simply not going to happen for any number of reasons. Essentially, it would require either the vast majority of the population aquiescing to trashing the Constitution, all judicial precedent and the imposition of martial law to suppress any dissenters.

In response to the argument that "just cause we think its right doesn't make it is" assertion - I pose the timeless question asked by Pontious Pilate - "What is truth?". Ultimately, as a society, we choose what is right for us. You say that just b/c we choose it, that doesn't make it right. Again, who does get to decide what is "right"? Part of the beauty of the Constitution is that it set forth a government in which "We the People" choose what is right for us. The checks and balances contained within it, the ability to modify it, and the basic governmental structure set out in it create a system that is not subject to rampant change but that can (and has) grown. In turn, the system thus created both allows and ensures that, ultimately, it is the people of this country who decide "what is right" for them.

GOD SAVE THE QUEEN
(just a little plug for the monarchist party)

[JoeRedskin]

Originally Posted by jsarno

But people are naturally petrified of death, so if you pull the gun first, it may give you the time to flee the scene. If they reach for one, and you pick one of them off, the others aren't going to reach in fear for their life.

Okay, I think you have watched one to many 1950's westerns. Again, your imposing your thought process on the thugs. If your surrounded by a bunch of armed thugs who are attacking you knowing you may have a deadly weapon, it is more likely that they have a pack mentality and draw at the same time and pretty much turn you into lead based swiss cheese.

On an unrelated note: Ever watch WWII movies of the 50's and 60's? Don't you wonder how the Germans beat anybody? I mean they got machine guns, tanks, artillery and 40 guys with rifles. Yet a squad of Americans/British guys armed with rifles, 3 handgrenades, a jar of ear wax and an old sock wipe em out without losing a guy.

[jsarno]

[QUOTE=JoeRedskin;329356][QUOTE=jsarno;329329]You make some very valid points.
Well, we are a country that beleives every man should be free. While they were "OK" with it, it was not a constitutional right such as the right to bear arms. I'm honestly not saying that what they believed in 1776 should 100% apply...just what the country was founded on IE: the constitution.[Quote]

Well, actually, the constitution had to be amended to permit blacks, women and unpropertied white men to vote.

Please trust me when I tell you that I am a firm believer in the Rule of Law and the Constitution as the touchstone of our society. Because of that, and b/c the founders were, in fact, a diverse collection of brilliant men, it is important to discern and "interpret" what they were trying to say and why they said it. The english language is a wonderful tool and can be very precise and clear. Unfortunately, some of its beauty is found in its flexibility and this can lead to confusion and misunderstanding. What seems plain to you may not seem so plain to others even though they are reading the same sentence. ("The car is quiet" - Does that mean its running quietly? That people in the car are quiet? Could be either - don't know out of context).

In the Bill of Rights the founders identified and succintly stated many timeless truths and guides. They did so, however, based on the world view of upper class propertied white men and used the english language in a manner in a particular way inherent to their education and class. Further, they made these statements in response to particular things going on around them. To say "it means what it says" about the Constitution and Bill of Rights is to emasculate the brilliance of our founders.


[QUOTE=jsarno;329329]Well I am referring to the "gun control" part as in, you shouldn't have a gun. In the wild west they all had guns and liked it, although they requested certain areas be gun free (ie: leave them at the door) etc.[Quote]

I believe, but am not certain, that the "everybody had guns and carried em everywhere" is a myth perpetuated by a variety of sources. My curiosity is peaked. Certainly, many towns had an armed populace (the Dalton Gang was shot to shreds by the locals). At the same time, I have read a couple sources that suggest the majority of western towns had pretty strict rules on gun ownership.

[QUOTE=jsarno;329329]While I agree, I disagree to a point as well. They put a lot of thought into our country and we've made it this far with them. The people of now-a-days would like to change a lot of things. Hell, what if we get a gay president and he decides to make a law that saws all heterosexual sex is illegal punished by death? The whole country couldn't reproduce and we would die. So just cause our society might feel it's right, doesn't mean it is. We are colored by our experiences, and we are a country of "reactors", not visionaries.

First, I am going to assume your gay president, sex punishable by death example is hyperbole based on the ridiculousness of the statement to demonstrate your statement that "just cause our society might feel its right doesn't mean it is". Such a scenario is simply not going to happen for any number of reasons. Essentially, it would require either the vast majority of the population aquiescing to trashing the Constitution, all judicial precedent and the imposition of martial law to suppress any dissenters.

In response to the argument that "just cause we think its right doesn't make it is" assertion - I pose the timeless question asked by Pontious Pilate - "What is truth?". Ultimately, as a society, we choose what is right for us. You say that just b/c we choose it, that doesn't make it right. Again, who does get to decide what is "right"? Part of the beauty of the Constitution is that it set forth a government in which "We the People" choose what is right for us. The checks and balances contained within it, the ability to modify it, and the basic governmental structure set out in it create a system that is not subject to rampant change but that can (and has) grown. In turn, the system thus created both allows and ensures that, ultimately, it is the people of this country who decide "what is right" for them.

GOD SAVE THE QUEEN
(just a little plug for the monarchist party)

Again, you make good arguments. My initial point was about the slavery comment, not the voting comment. I actually feel that our founding fathers only wanted intelligent people to vote, and felt that not every person was smart enough to choose correctly. (IE: the electoral college was founded) I actually believe this to be true. South Park thinks that 25% of the world is "retarded", I think that percentage is slightly higher. So while we should all be considered equal, we all are not equal, some of us don't deserve to vote. Of course I expect that to met with a ton of resistance.

My homosexual president scenario is just an over the top scenario to help understand that not every idea is a good idea.

[jsarno]

Originally Posted by JoeRedskin

Okay, I think you have watched one to many 1950's westerns. Again, your imposing your thought process on the thugs. If your surrounded by a bunch of armed thugs who are attacking you knowing you may have a deadly weapon, it is more likely that they have a pack mentality and draw at the same time and pretty much turn you into lead based swiss cheese.

Well, how many times does this actually occur? If it does, usually the guy sees it coming and could pull out his weapon before he gets to that point.
Also, my very good friend Kenny (my friend in Florida that I have talked about here) actually had 2 guys jump him, he pulled his gun and scared the crap out of the guys and they fled. They wanted his wallet and didn't get it cause he was packing. This is the scenario that would happen more often than not.

On an unrelated note: Ever watch WWII movies of the 50's and 60's? Don't you wonder how the Germans beat anybody? I mean they got machine guns, tanks, artillery and 40 guys with rifles. Yet a squad of Americans/British guys armed with rifles, 3 handgrenades, a jar of ear wax and an old sock wipe em out without losing a guy.

It was the ear wax. I mean, if someone is that crazy to carry their ear wax, what else are they capable of?