Ted Nugent Jumps In On Gun Control

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Mystery Squid @ Apr 20 2007, 11:53 AM) [snapback]426810[/snapback]</div>

OH PLEASE !!!!!!

 

Sounds to me like Nugent's America would have everyone armed. I don't buy it.

AFAIK, Statistics from countries that have tough gun control laws show substantially less gun related violence than the US. I guess, though, that the US, as a country, has something to be proud of in that guns kill 30,000 human beings every year on US soil.

More guns! Yes, that's the answer.

The context in which the second amendment was written and ratified has long since disappeared, IMHO. Then again, the US is a free country and if the supporters of things like Intelligent Design can live in the past, I suppose gun rights advocates can live there, too.

Yes, I know. I'm sure that these words will not resound with some readers. IMHO, we have a well-regulated militia that protects the US. The need for everyone in the US to have guns has long passed.

[Edit]
To add some balance to this, here's an opposing viewpoint.

 

BTW--he's f'ed up. Tech doesn't have a law school. What law students brandishing guns to stop Cho is he talking about? Cho killed himself.

Ted Nugent did a few too many drugs in the 70s. Seriously.

 

The Militia Act of 1903 defines what the National Guard is and what a militia is.

(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.
(B) The classes of the militia are—

(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and
(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.

The National Guard is no longer really the militia in that in the 1930s they became annexed by the US govt as an extension of the army.

So explain to me how the founding fathers, who knew the difference between a standing army and militia, meant arms are only for the governmental entities such as law enforcement and the military?

The 2nd amendment has always been about the common people having the right to keep and bear arms.

It has never been solely about HUNTING ever. Do people make militias to hunt? Does the common definition of a militia have anything to do with hunting?

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Wiyosaya @ Apr 20 2007, 01:19 PM) [snapback]426825[/snapback]</div>

Yes, in the U.K. they have more blunt trauma. We send our military doctors to the U.K. to train on blunt trauma injuries, they send theirs here for gunshot wounds. It makes for a nice balance.

I leave it to other posters to argue about the most efficient method of killing.

Tom

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(desynch @ Apr 20 2007, 03:36 PM) [snapback]426960[/snapback]</div>

THANK GOD you are way over there on that little island !!!!

 

Scary

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Mystery Squid @ Apr 20 2007, 03:28 PM) [snapback]426955[/snapback]</div>

Change the constitution first. I know a lot of people would like to ignore it, but if we only enforce those parts that are currently in favor and ignore those that are not we will be heading down the road to ruin.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(B Rad @ Apr 20 2007, 04:17 PM) [snapback]426987[/snapback]</div>

Come on over and we can go fishing with my AR!

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(desynch @ Apr 20 2007, 05:00 PM) [snapback]427012[/snapback]</div>

Last time I went fishing in the ocean it was with a spear gun....Now that's sport, sport

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Mystery Squid @ Apr 20 2007, 01:28 PM) [snapback]426955[/snapback]</div>

Well the first problem with your post is the second sentence! The Consitution means more now than ever. It is the document by which we keep ourselvves free. It is the framework that allows us, as opposed to most of the rest of the world, to resolve our differences without violence.

As far getting hit by a random bullet, I do not fear getting shot by a citizen who goes through the proper channels to buy a gun and may happen to be sitting next to me on the bus. (while recent events show that is possible) The VAST majority of gun crime is committed by unlicensed gun possesors, who will always have a gun no matter what laws are imopsed!

The only thing you will do is restrict my ability to protect me, my family and maybe even you.

 

Countries with strict gun laws are not immune from gun violence. Many people present Canada as an example. Strict gun laws, no gun crime, right? Wrong. Montreal has the WORST record for school shootings IN THE WORLD. There have been four in the past 20 years. Four violent gun shootings in one city! Gun control did not work.

England and Australia both have a no gun policy. Yet somehow it failed to eliminate gun violence. Hmmm. That's strange. No guns yet people are still getting shot. How is that happening? Maybe they are throwing the bullets really hard at each other.

Japan also has a no gun policy. And let's see what has happened lately in the news... The mayor of Nagasaki was SHOT TO DEATH last Tuesday! How did that happen with no guns in the country?

And on a different note:

Kennesaw, Georgia mandated back in 1981 that all households must have at least one firearm. And what happened. Well, in 1982 crimes dropped by 74%. in 1983 crime dropped another 45%.

Now why do you think that happened? While most criminals may be idiots, they don't have a death-wish. Knowing that everyone in town had a weapon meant that criminal suddenly had a pretty good chance of getting shot or killed. So crime dropped greatly. Now this is just a small town (population about 30k), and is by no means scientific proof, but the results seem pretty obvious.

Link to the Kennesaw PD website: http://www.kennesaw.ga.us/index.asp?NID=137



Now here is a question for all the anti-gun nuts.

How would a complete gun ban actually work? How in the hell would you actually disarm the US population? There are over 80 million gun owning Americans. For arguments sake lets say that somehow you ARE able to disarm the entire gun owning US population. How do you propose we disarm the criminals, who would have no incentive to get rid of their guns? Most criminal acts are already committed with illegally acquired firearms. How is a gun ban making these illegal guns illegal going to change things?

Simple answer: IT ISN'T.

And now there is an entirely defenseless population ripe for the criminals picking.


I know all the anti-gun arguments.

Protection is the responsibility of the police. Yes, that is 100% correct.

But when there is a madman with an axe coming through your front door to kill you, your children, and your spouse. What are you going to do? Call 911 and then ask him to wait until the police arrive? Of course this is an extreme and silly example, but it shows my point quite well. The police do a phenomenal job of keeping us safe. Fact is though that sometimes they take just a few minutes too long to get there. In my house, that axe murderer would take three steps in and that's it. Then I'd call the police. Anyone comes into MY house with bad intentions WILL be shot. Period.


The Constitution is not valid anymore.

100% certified grade A BULLSHIT. You are able to post your feelings here because of the Constitution. This country exists, and has become the best, most powerful, and most prosperous becuase of hte Constitution. It is the highest law in the land. It has not been changed since it's adoption for one simple reason. IT WORKS. It's as valid today as it was back in the 1700's. Some of the terms may be different, but the principles are still completely applicable. The amendments had ADDED things to it, but nothing has been taken away.


I could go on, but the arguments for gun control simply aren't convincing.



You know, I remember after 9/11 there was this thing called the Patriot Act. The Left screamed bloody murder because they said it infringed upon some of our Constitutional rights. Yet here they are ready and willing to get rid of a right, a right the founders considered so important it was made #2 on the Bill of Rights. Just throw it right out the window because that part of the Constitution they disagree with. How convenient. How hypocritical.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Mystery Squid @ Apr 20 2007, 09:53 AM) [snapback]426810[/snapback]</div>

I don't have much of an opinion re:gun control, but Ted Nugent is an idiot. I heard him on some radio show going off on how he only eats wild meat and that's what everyone needs to do to stay healthy. Sure Ted that'll scale real nicely.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(San_Carlos_Jeff @ Apr 20 2007, 07:49 PM) [snapback]427056[/snapback]</div>

Wild game meat is higher in protein, lower in fat, and lower in cholesterol. Plus it has no hormones or antibiotics.

It's the ultimate in organics.

Plus, it just tastes really, really good.

Venison, buffalo, boar, ostrich, llama, kangaroo, rattlesnake, turtle, alligator, quail, pheasant, rabbit, grouse, goose, duck, caribou, and so on... I've eaten them all, and they all taste better than beef, pork, and chicken. Yum.

Oh, and to answer the post title, Ted Nugent has been an ardent gun rights advocate and NRA spokesman for decades. He is not "jumping in" by any definition.