Ted Nugent on Gun Control

[jsarno]

Originally Posted by jdlea

If anything ever escalated to a point where I were going to pull out a gun, the only way that person would leave would be in a body bag...especially if it was in my home. There won't be any chance for retaliation. If/when I buy a gun, it will be kept in my home and if my home is ever invaded and I feel I need to get my gun, it's probably going to have to be me or them. No chance I wave around a gun with no intention of using after you've broken into my home...none.

That's the way i feel it should be.
If someone is dumb enough to try to break in to your home, they are taking a huge chance with their life. I'll shoot first and ask questions later.

A few years back, my wife and I heard some rustling in the back yard, we peeked out the blinds and saw a man back there. I grabbed the gun and went to the back door and hid behind the wall. My wife called the cops. He was messing with the nob and trying to jimmy it. He must have heard the sirens (and the cops were VERY fast), and he ran off...he likely has no idea how close he came to death.

[jsarno]

Originally Posted by angryssg

What your are failing to realize is that when you regulate guns you are only regulating the Law obiding citizens. If I guy wants to use a gun against the law, then a Reulation or a Law is certainly not going to stop him. All your gun laws do is hinder me "the honest law obiding buyer" from attaining one.

Bye the way you are not the only one with children. I would never be packing anywhere near where children are playing. Will I cary one with me in downtown D.C. You are dog on right I will.

I don't think that those that are againts guns care angry. While the regular, law abiding, gun carrying citizens understand this, they don't cause they are just against guns. They feel that the fewer guns the better.
I know and you know that's not how it will work, but they don't. We've made similar comments a ton of times, yet they are still not listening.

[JoeRedskin]

Originally Posted by angryssg

What your are failing to realize is that when you regulate guns you are only regulating the Law obiding citizens. If I guy wants to use a gun against the law, then a Reulation or a Law is certainly not going to stop him. All your gun laws do is hinder me "the honest law obiding buyer" from attaining one.

Bye the way you are not the only one with children. I would never be packing anywhere near where children are playing. Will I cary one with me in downtown D.C. You are dog on right I will.

Originally Posted by jsarno

I don't think that those that are againts guns care angry. While the regular, law abiding, gun carrying citizens understand this, they don't cause they are just against guns. They feel that the fewer guns the better.
I know and you know that's not how it will work, but they don't. We've made similar comments a ton of times, yet they are still not listening.

Preliminarily, this is mostly just a restatement of the 1000 posts that gone on before and so I am just summarizing previously made arguments.

FIRST: I believe it is unconstitutional to completely ban the personal ownership of guns and, quite frankly, I do not advocate that position. There is an important public interest in preventing a government from having an absolute monopoly on the use of force. Preventing such a monopoly was the crux of and the intent behind the Second Amendment's guarrantee of the individual right to own guns.

SECOND: I don't "fail" to realize anything about your assertion AngrySS. In fact, I agree that regulating guns only affects those who follow regulations. I am okay with this BECAUSE:
- As I argued earlier, those who will illegally own a gun are not necessarily going to be deterred by the possibility of you carrying a concealed weapon; and, thus,
- Carrying a concealed weapon in public does not necessarily increase ur personal safety; but
- A proliferation of concealed weapons in public places, IMO, does create a greater risk to the public.
- Balancing the public's right to safety against your personal right to own a gun requires a balancing process and the regulation of who can own guns, how many they can own, and where they can carry them is both appropriate and well within the the constitutional guidelines set up bythe second amendment.

I and others have said all this before and, at this point, if you can't agree that the public at large has a right to reasonably regulate the availability and ownership of guns and to place restrictions on where they may carried, then we are simply going to have to agree to disagree.
- The 2A DOES NOT guarrantee you the unfettered right to own an arsenal and to go armed anywhere you want.
- As to gun ownership, there is a public interest which must be balanced against any private right you have.
- And, (this one is my personal opinion) while fewer guns may not necessarily make us individually safer, a proliferation of weaponry is not guarantee to greater public safety. Again, IMO - a proliferation of weaponry is more likely to decrease public safety than to increase it.

And with that - I will refer you back to my previous posts 'cause I think I am now just pretty much rehashing what has already been said about dozen times and about a dozen different ways.

[dmek25]

joe, i agree with you. nice post

[firstdown]

Originally Posted by jdlea

If anything ever escalated to a point where I were going to pull out a gun, the only way that person would leave would be in a body bag...especially if it was in my home. There won't be any chance for retaliation. If/when I buy a gun, it will be kept in my home and if my home is ever invaded and I feel I need to get my gun, it's probably going to have to be me or them. No chance I wave around a gun with no intention of using after you've broken into my home...none.

If you buy a gun get a pump shot gun. That distenct sound of pumping a shell into the chamber is enough to make most theives run for there life.

[jdlea]

Originally Posted by firstdown

If you buy a gun get a pump shot gun. That distenct sound of pumping a shell into the chamber is enough to make most theives run for there life.

I was thinking more about purchasing a handgun.

[jsarno]

Originally Posted by jdlea

I was thinking more about purchasing a handgun.

And if you don't keep a bullet in the chamber (which I don't keep a bullet in the chamber) then the sound of cocking the gun is just as familiar to a pump action shotgun.

[firstdown]

Originally Posted by jsarno

And if you don't keep a bullet in the chamber (which I don't keep a bullet in the chamber) then the sound of cocking the gun is just as familiar to a pump action shotgun.

Yea but a shot gun gives you a better chance on a dark night.

[firstdown]

Originally Posted by JoeRedskin

Preliminarily, this is mostly just a restatement of the 1000 posts that gone on before and so I am just summarizing previously made arguments.

FIRST: I believe it is unconstitutional to completely ban the personal ownership of guns and, quite frankly, I do not advocate that position. There is an important public interest in preventing a government from having an absolute monopoly on the use of force. Preventing such a monopoly was the crux of and the intent behind the Second Amendment's guarrantee of the individual right to own guns.

SECOND: I don't "fail" to realize anything about your assertion AngrySS. In fact, I agree that regulating guns only affects those who follow regulations. I am okay with this BECAUSE:
- As I argued earlier, those who will illegally own a gun are not necessarily going to be deterred by the possibility of you carrying a concealed weapon; and, thus,
- Carrying a concealed weapon in public does not necessarily increase ur personal safety; but
- A proliferation of concealed weapons in public places, IMO, does create a greater risk to the public.
- Balancing the public's right to safety against your personal right to own a gun requires a balancing process and the regulation of who can own guns, how many they can own, and where they can carry them is both appropriate and well within the the constitutional guidelines set up bythe second amendment.

I and others have said all this before and, at this point, if you can't agree that the public at large has a right to reasonably regulate the availability and ownership of guns and to place restrictions on where they may carried, then we are simply going to have to agree to disagree.
- The 2A DOES NOT guarrantee you the unfettered right to own an arsenal and to go armed anywhere you want.
- As to gun ownership, there is a public interest which must be balanced against any private right you have.
- And, (this one is my personal opinion) while fewer guns may not necessarily make us individually safer, a proliferation of weaponry is not guarantee to greater public safety. Again, IMO - a proliferation of weaponry is more likely to decrease public safety than to increase it.

And with that - I will refer you back to my previous posts 'cause I think I am now just pretty much rehashing what has already been said about dozen times and about a dozen different ways.

One thing that you assume is that a person carring a gun becomes a danger to everyone else. The facts show just the opposite is true as they have a very low crime rate with people who have a concealed permit and they have safty to take safty classes to carry a gun. I'll see if I can find a link to back this up. I think that your post is your personal thought and is not backed by facts.

[firstdown]

Here is two links which one is the NRA but they do use facts and numbers to back them up. The other one is very, very, long but with a quick scan i did see some numbers like theNRA used.
The truth is everything on the issue of firearms.

Gun Control Paper

One other thing that I saw was in the NRA page and it did talk about this wild west argument and they showed numbers back from then and the murder rate was very low.

[JoeRedskin]

Originally Posted by firstdown

One thing that you assume is that a person carring a gun becomes a danger to everyone else. The facts show just the opposite is true as they have a very low crime rate with people who have a concealed permit and they have safty to take safty classes to carry a gun. I'll see if I can find a link to back this up. I think that your post is your personal thought and is not backed by facts.

Some of my post is, absolutely, my opinion and, yes, it is a gut reaction in some respects. In that I actually support gun ownership, I haven't generally researched the reasons for limiting it. I USUALLY am the one arguing that gun ownership is okay. It's just the "I have a right to have a gun, as many guns as I want, and it's nobody's business but mine" attitude I take issue with. As I said, and as with all constitutionally guaranteed rights, gun ownership requires a balancing of the public interest against the private right.

For example, I have heard few gun owners argue that people should have the right to carry a concealed weapon in schools (Angry even opposed this). BUT:
- If guns encourage safety and all gun owners are concerned with safety (as the NRA article asserts), why not allow them in schools? Aren't they just as safe at a playground as they are on the sidewalk in front of my house? If they inherently pose a danger to kids when carried in schools and playgrounds, dont they inherently pose a danger to adults in other public places? Further, based on the "fewer guns don't make us safer" argument, don't we make schools the targets for armed predators b/c they know no one is armed?

[dallass-blows 2]

i agree with ted nugent 1000000000%

[Sheriff Gonna Getcha]

All I have to say is that, JoeRedskin, you often have some of the most thoughtful, articulate, and interesting posts.

[JoeRedskin]

Originally Posted by Sheriff Gonna Getcha

All I have to say is that, JoeRedskin, you often have some of the most thoughtful, articulate, and interesting posts.

Awwwww, shucks. <kicks dirt>

[KLHJ2]

Originally Posted by JoeRedskin

Preliminarily, this is mostly just a restatement of the 1000 posts that gone on before and so I am just summarizing previously made arguments.

FIRST: I believe it is unconstitutional to completely ban the personal ownership of guns and, quite frankly, I do not advocate that position. There is an important public interest in preventing a government from having an absolute monopoly on the use of force. Preventing such a monopoly was the crux of and the intent behind the Second Amendment's guarrantee of the individual right to own guns.

SECOND: I don't "fail" to realize anything about your assertion AngrySS. In fact, I agree that regulating guns only affects those who follow regulations. I am okay with this BECAUSE:
- As I argued earlier, those who will illegally own a gun are not necessarily going to be deterred by the possibility of you carrying a concealed weapon; and, thus,
- Carrying a concealed weapon in public does not necessarily increase ur personal safety; but
- A proliferation of concealed weapons in public places, IMO, does create a greater risk to the public.
- Balancing the public's right to safety against your personal right to own a gun requires a balancing process and the regulation of who can own guns, how many they can own, and where they can carry them is both appropriate and well within the the constitutional guidelines set up bythe second amendment.

I and others have said all this before and, at this point, if you can't agree that the public at large has a right to reasonably regulate the availability and ownership of guns and to place restrictions on where they may carried, then we are simply going to have to agree to disagree.
- The 2A DOES NOT guarrantee you the unfettered right to own an arsenal and to go armed anywhere you want.
- As to gun ownership, there is a public interest which must be balanced against any private right you have.
- And, (this one is my personal opinion) while fewer guns may not necessarily make us individually safer, a proliferation of weaponry is not guarantee to greater public safety. Again, IMO - a proliferation of weaponry is more likely to decrease public safety than to increase it.

And with that - I will refer you back to my previous posts 'cause I think I am now just pretty much rehashing what has already been said about dozen times and about a dozen different ways.

After reading this post we pretty much see eye to eye. Our differences are so small that it is not even worth further debate. I bid you a good day sir.