You're not helping, Ted

[Roadtoad]

I realize that Ted Nugent is free to express his thoughts any way he chooses. But sometimes, a more reasoned response is called for. (http://www.capoliticalnews.com/s/spip.php?breve2928)

In the video, which has made the rounds online and on television, Nugent stands onstage with an AR-15 semiautomatic rifle in each hand. First he tells of his recent visit to Chicago, during which he claims he said to Sen. Barack Obama, "Hey, Obama! You might want to suck on one of these [guns], you punk!" Nugent adds, "Obama, he’s a piece of s---, and I told him to suck on my machine gun. Let’s hear it for him!"

Nugent then relays details of a recent visit to New York, during which he putatively conveyed a similar message to another Democratic presidential candidate, Sen. Hillary Clinton: "Hey, Hillary! You might want to ride one of these [guns]into the sunset, you worthless b----!" Then he shares similar messages he said he was planning to deliver to California Democratic Sens. Dianne Feinstein and Barbara Boxer during his concert tour of the Golden State.

In the video, the crowd seems wholly receptive to Nugent’s ideas. He knows his audience, and no doubt reasonably expected that people who like to hear him sing "Wang Dang Sweet Poontang" and watch him make a guitar explode by shooting it with a flaming arrow would also appreciate the form and content of his political message.

Let me state this clearly: I support the Second Amendment rights of our nation's citizens, within reason. At present, I'm not a gun owner. I chose years ago to not own a gun, simply because at that time I had a tendency to confuse firearms with a certain portion of my anatomy.

The key to maintaining gun ownership within this nation is remembering that with your liberties come incredible responsibilities. At present, I have no place where I can safely secure a rifle or pistol. I now have a grandson, and I'm not so weak in my masculinity that I have to have some surrogate phallus tucked away so my grandson can find it and blow his own brains out.

In general, I'm opposed to people trying to take firearms out of the hands of citizens. Obama isn't entirely wrong when he wants to take guns out of major cities. Sorry, but I don't see how having a gun is necessarily going to guarantee that a crime will be prevented, nor is there any guarantee that it won't be taken from me and used against me. If we can get guns out of the hands of the crooks, great. That ought to be the goal.

We have one of the highest murder rates within the first world. Guns are only a part of the equation; we lack respect for life in this country, and have zip respect for authority and rule of law. That John Muhammed could engage in his killing spree and actually engender a degree of either a.) sympathy, or b.) admiration from some in this nation is disturbing.

This is not the way to convey Nugent's message. I don't want Obama sucking on the end of an AR-15, but I'd like to see how his proposal would limit crime in Chicago. Show me how that works, and I'm willing to listen. (So far, it really hasn't, for the reasons I've stated.) It scares me senseless that some nutcase could take the Nuge a little too literally and start popping off rounds into those who want to end gun ownership in this country.

Yes, I know Ted's an entertainer. Unfortunately, not all people see it that way. And it's the kooks and the destroyers who will kill the Second Amendment, not people like Feinstein and Boxer.

[Ian Osborne]

The best argument against the Second Amendment is it gives lunatics like Ted Nugent access to firearms.

[CFLarsen]

The best argument against the Second Amendment is it gives lunatics like Ted Nugent access to firearms.

Which criteria should people fulfill, before they should be allowed to own guns?

How will that correspond to the second amendment?

[Ian Osborne]

Which criteria should people fulfill, before they should be allowed to own guns?

How will that correspond to the second amendment?

Where did I suggest private citizens should be allowed to own guns?

ETA: But since you ask, a background check to make sure they haven't threatened to kill air marshals might be a start...

[qayak]

ETA: But since you ask, a background check to make sure they haven't threatened to kill air marshals might be a start...

What? A mental ward ID bracelet won't be enough to get me a handgun anymore?

You Commie Pinko!

[CFLarsen]

Where did I suggest private citizens should be allowed to own guns?

You don't, then? You don't need "lunatics like Ted Nugent" to ban private citizens to own guns?

Then, please explain what is the purpose of your post.

ETA: But since you ask, a background check to make sure they haven't threatened to kill air marshals might be a start...

I haven't seen anyone do that.

[Ian Osborne]

I haven't seen anyone do that.

I have (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=16055)...

[Roadtoad]

Just a bit more to consider:

Under the US Constitution, the right to bear arms is part of our duty as citizens to be the Militia. In other words, it's to provide for the defense of the nation in a time of war. At no point is hunting, target shooting, or any other reason listed.

The role of the Militia has varied at times. A friend of mine who was deeply into Western heritage, particularly the settlement of the West, will point out to you that the defense of Northfield, MN, against the James-Younger Gang was an example of the Militia at work. When the thieves tried to leave town, empty handed because the bank had a newfangled timed lock on the safe, they were cut to shreds by armed citizens who were shooting at them from every corner, window, water barrel, or any other place where they could take cover. (I'm told the scene in the movie, The Long Riders, where this takes place is brutally accurate.)

The idea behind keeping the role of arms in the hands of the citizens was to prevent the Federal government from becoming too powerful. Further, it was supposed to prevent us from getting into wars where we didn't belong, since if the Militia could figure out that the purpose of the war didn't jibe with what we were told it was, the Militia could simply say to the Feds, "Bite me."

(I'm sure I'll be corrected on this at some point, but I think you get the drift.)

Okay, so since the basic purpose behind the Militia is to provide for national defense, (not unlike Sweden, or many other European nations where at some point, everyone is a part of the military, if only for a short time), who would you not want to have firearms? Simply put, anyone you wouldn't want as a part of the military, someone who's forfeited their rights as a citizen by their own actions.

So, for starters, since a convicted felon loses the right to vote, among other rights, you can pretty much eliminate them from gun ownership. You don't give firearms to crazy people, to those who have demonstrated mental deficiency in some basic areas. I also wouldn't give a gun to someone who's demonstrated they aren't responsible, such as deadbeat non-custodial parents, or people who have a history of doing very stupid things, like getting into drugs or the like.

So, yes, I'm for the Second Amendment... up to a point. (Yes, George Will was right. Those are the four most important words in preserving our liberties.) I don't see any reason for a private citizen to own, for example, a Thompson submachine gun in most cases. A private collector, that's one thing. But when you consider that the Thompson was sold over the counter at hardware stores when it first came out, you can't help but wonder why gun control opponents are so damned dim.

There are reasons for gun control. It's because so many people lack self-control. If you want to keep the Second Amendment, you have to act like an adult and exercise self-control. (Which, obviously, gets back to my earlier statement about confusing a firearm with my d***.)

Just something to think about.

[Gurdur]

I think Ted Nugent and his music is the best argument against prohibiting cruel and unusual punishment.

Seriously, the guy should be made a manacled galley slave in an old Ottoman Empire corsair.

[Roadtoad]

I think Ted Nugent and his music is the best argument against prohibiting cruel and unusual punishment.

Seriously, the guy should be made a manacled galley slave in an old Ottoman Empire corsair.

Oh, come on. The "Wango Tango" wasn't that bad.

[skeptifem]

The best argument against the Second Amendment is it gives lunatics like Ted Nugent access to firearms.

:oldroll: if he was going to **** up using a gun he really would have done it by now.

[CFLarsen]

I have (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=16055)...

Old myth, debunked long time ago.

If you don't need "lunatics like Ted Nugent" to ban private citizens to own guns, what is the purpose of your post?

[Ian Osborne]

:oldroll: if he was going to **** up using a gun he really would have done it by now.

You could say that about anyone who ****s up using a gun, right up to the point just before they do it.

[brodski]

Old myth, debunked long time ago.


Perhaps you would liek to link to the debunking, eceasue as far as i can see, the OP in that trhead ciontains amuch mroe direct threat than Teds. he only asked peopel to ride or suck his guns- he may just ahev an odd fettish- you OTOH said you will kill any armed arimashall (or other armed person on a plane) that you see "no questions asked".

[Ducky]

I realize that Ted Nugent is free to express his thoughts any way he chooses. But sometimes, a more reasoned response is called for. (http://www.capoliticalnews.com/s/spip.php?breve2928)



Let me state this clearly: I support the Second Amendment rights of our nation's citizens, within reason. At present, I'm not a gun owner. I chose years ago to not own a gun, simply because at that time I had a tendency to confuse firearms with a certain portion of my anatomy.

The key to maintaining gun ownership within this nation is remembering that with your liberties come incredible responsibilities. At present, I have no place where I can safely secure a rifle or pistol. I now have a grandson, and I'm not so weak in my masculinity that I have to have some surrogate phallus tucked away so my grandson can find it and blow his own brains out.

In general, I'm opposed to people trying to take firearms out of the hands of citizens. Obama isn't entirely wrong when he wants to take guns out of major cities. Sorry, but I don't see how having a gun is necessarily going to guarantee that a crime will be prevented, nor is there any guarantee that it won't be taken from me and used against me. If we can get guns out of the hands of the crooks, great. That ought to be the goal.

We have one of the highest murder rates within the first world. Guns are only a part of the equation; we lack respect for life in this country, and have zip respect for authority and rule of law. That John Muhammed could engage in his killing spree and actually engender a degree of either a.) sympathy, or b.) admiration from some in this nation is disturbing.

This is not the way to convey Nugent's message. I don't want Obama sucking on the end of an AR-15, but I'd like to see how his proposal would limit crime in Chicago. Show me how that works, and I'm willing to listen. (So far, it really hasn't, for the reasons I've stated.) It scares me senseless that some nutcase could take the Nuge a little too literally and start popping off rounds into those who want to end gun ownership in this country.

Yes, I know Ted's an entertainer. Unfortunately, not all people see it that way. And it's the kooks and the destroyers who will kill the Second Amendment, not people like Feinstein and Boxer.

I think it should be more worrying the dude's an Oakland County Sherriff.

Makes me glad I don't live in Oakland County anymore.

[CFLarsen]

Perhaps you would liek to link to the debunking, eceasue as far as i can see, the OP in that trhead ciontains amuch mroe direct threat than Teds. he only asked peopel to ride or suck his guns- he may just ahev an odd fettish- you OTOH said you will kill any armed arimashall (or other armed person on a plane) that you see "no questions asked".

Unintelligible.

[CFLarsen]

You could say that about anyone who ****s up using a gun, right up to the point just before they do it.

If you don't need "lunatics like Ted Nugent" to ban private citizens to own guns, what is the purpose of your post?

[Ian Osborne]

If you don't need "lunatics like Ted Nugent" to ban private citizens to own guns, what is the purpose of your post?

Unintelligible.

[brodski]

Unintelligible.

Perhaps you would like to link to the debunking, because as far as I can see, the OP in that thread contains a much more direct threat than Ted’s. He only asked people to ride or suck his guns- he may just have an odd fetish, he certainly never directly said that he wished to harm them- you OTOH said you will kill any armed air-marshal (or other armed person on a plane) that you see "no questions asked".

Now we’ve all had a good laugh at my spelling, are you prepared to support your statement? Perhaps it warrants a new thread?

ETA- new thread here http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=2970957#post2970957

[CFLarsen]

Perhaps you would like to link to the debunking, because as far as I can see, the OP in that thread contains a much more direct threat than Ted’s. He only asked people to ride or suck his guns- he may just have an odd fetish, he certainly never directly said that he wished to harm them- you OTOH said you will kill any armed air-marshal (or other armed person on a plane) that you see "no questions asked".

Now we’ve all had a good laugh at my spelling, are you prepared to support your statement? Perhaps it warrants a new thread?

Irrelevant to this thread.

[CFLarsen]

Unintelligible.

No purpose, then.

[brodski]

Irrelevant to this thread.

And now you have a shinny new thread to support your claim in, I wouldn't want to derail this trhead.

[Ian Osborne]

No purpose, then.

Explain.

[Roadtoad]

*Sigh*

Boys, boys...

[Bikewer]

I'm inclined to dismiss Mr. Nugent as well, I can't imagine that his "promotion" of the pro-gun stance does a lot to aid that cause.....

Still, I'm on a couple of weapon-oriented forums as well, and there does seem to be a general opinion among the members that a Democratic president/congress will have "gun control" as part of the agenda.

Clinton in particular is seen as an "anti-gun" type. (Odd that little mention is made of Giuliani...)

Most of the political pundits I listen to seem to think that "gun control" at present is pretty much a dead issue.

[Gurdur]

*Sigh*

Boys, boys...


And you thought I was bad.

[The Central Scrutinizer]

Which criteria should people fulfill, before they should be allowed to own guns?

How will that correspond to the second amendment?

In order to be protected under the 2nd Ammendment, a person would have to be a member of a well regulated militia, i.e. the National Guard.





Here we go again..... :)

[The Central Scrutinizer]

Old myth, debunked long time ago.

Link?

[The Central Scrutinizer]

Clinton in particular is seen as an "anti-gun" type. (Odd that little mention is made of Giuliani...)

I remember the gun nuts claiming that Clinton was going to outlaw private gun ownership and confiscate all guns. I ran into one gun nut who was still making this claim in October of 2000. I mentioned that Clinton only had 3 months remaining, so he better hurry. I humiliated the gun nut. This did not make the gun nut happy. :)

[Zep]

I remember the gun nuts claiming that Clinton was going to outlaw private gun ownership and confiscate all guns. I ran into one gun nut who was still making this claim in October of 2000. I mentioned that Clinton only had 3 months remaining, so he better hurry. I humiliated the gun nut. This did not make the gun nut happy. :)So did he pop a cap in yer ass? (I hope that's the right expression...)

[fishbob]

Yes, I know Ted's an entertainer. Unfortunately, not all people see it that way.

Yeah - me. I am not entertained.
I can't understand how a person that talks that much ever has a chance to think. All output with no input.

[AgeGap]

I don't see any reason for a private citizen to own, for example, a Thompson submachine gun in most cases. A private collector, that's one thing. But when you consider that the Thompson was sold over the counter at hardware stores when it first came out, you can't help but wonder why gun control opponents are so damned dim.

If the Second Amendment is to rein in Government excesses then why should American citizens opt for any weapons laws. If the government was to be overthrown you would want more powerful weapons than the law allows. I can't see the logic of this middle way. To me it's either powerful weapons for citizens or ditch them all in the trash.

[SpaceMonkeyZero]

The best argument against the Second Amendment is it gives lunatics like Ted Nugent access to firearms.

Meanwhile people who can't obtain guns legally (gang members) kill more people with guns than Ted Nugent has.

Go figure.

[slingblade]

So did he pop a cap in yer ass? (I hope that's the right expression...)


On. On yer ass. In would just mess up a perfectly good gun. Ewww.

[Roadtoad]

Yeah - me. I am not entertained.
I can't understand how a person that talks that much ever has a chance to think. All output with no input.

He doesn't think. It would interfere with the diatribe and balderdash.

[CFLarsen]

Yeah - me. I am not entertained.
I can't understand how a person that talks that much ever has a chance to think. All output with no input.

To be a media celebrity, just fill the void with self-absorbed nothings.

[thaiboxerken]

I wouldn't call the National Guard a well regulated militia. I'd call it part of the military. A militia would be comprised of citizens who are not on government payroll and who don't take orders from the government. That's my opinion.

[ponderingturtle]

Meanwhile people who can't obtain guns legally (gang members) kill more people with guns than Ted Nugent has.

Go figure.

You do realize you are comparing a group to an individual?

We can make them look so much better if say we compare street gangs to the Janjawid Militia. Then we are at least comparing a group to a group.

Hey comparing Ted Bundy to the Janjawid Militia makes him look so harmless too.

[ponderingturtle]

I wouldn't call the National Guard a well regulated militia. I'd call it part of the military. A militia would be comprised of citizens who are not on government payroll and who don't take orders from the government. That's my opinion.

Could you support that by the militias in the founding era?

[thaiboxerken]

Do you think the militias that fought off the British were paid by the USA government? The national guard of today is not very different than the army, many are serving in Iraq.

[ponderingturtle]

Do you think the militias that fought off the British were paid by the USA government? The national guard of today is not very different than the army, many are serving in Iraq.

So it is the pay? We should have volunteer militias like volunteer fire fighters, and only they get the guns?

The main issue is your claim that they had no command and where private groups.

[thaiboxerken]

No, I don't think they were enlisted the same way National Guard is enlisted. Militia should be all voluntary, just like fire fighters, with the option of deciding not to partake in particular missions.

[ponderingturtle]

No, I don't think they were enlisted the same way National Guard is enlisted. Militia should be all voluntary, just like fire fighters, with the option of deciding not to partake in particular missions.

And this is significantly different from your first assertion in this thread about the militia needing to be totaly independant from the goverment.

[thaiboxerken]

Who aren't on the gov't payroll and don't take orders from the government. Yep, that would be a militia. Taking orders is different than voluntarily doing what is asked.

[Oliver]

I realize that Ted Nugent is free to express his thoughts any way he chooses. But sometimes, a more reasoned response is called for. (http://www.capoliticalnews.com/s/spip.php?breve2928)


There should be a tiny addition to the second Amendment which
simply says - "f you're threatening people in public, you lose your
right to bear arms on the spot as a result of ones questionable,
psychological circumstances."

Plus they have to make a psychological test before getting a new
license...

[Oliver]

I guess it belongs to the topic as well - even if it may deserve an own thread:


KCRA: Toddler shoots herself to death (http://www.kcra.com/news/14151108/detail.html)

[Darth Rotor]

There should be a tiny addition to the second Amendment which
simply says - "f you're threatening people in public, you lose your
right to bear arms on the spot as a result of ones questionable,
psychological circumstances."

Plus they have to make a psychological test before getting a new
license...
Ted Nugent as a spokesman for gun owners is like Oliver as a spokesman for skeptics.

DR

[Oliver]

Ted Nugent as a spokesman for gun owners is like Oliver as a spokesman for skeptics.

DR


What about a 2 years old girl being a spokesman for the NRA? :
http://www.kcra.com/news/14151108/detail.html

And yes, this is a Strawman - and a very sad one as well...

[Roadtoad]

I guess it belongs to the topic as well - even if it may deserve an own thread:


KCRA: Toddler shoots herself to death (http://www.kcra.com/news/14151108/detail.html)

Unfortunately, I used to drive through Ceres all the time. Practically in my backyard.

Damn.

[CFLarsen]

I wouldn't call the National Guard a well regulated militia. I'd call it part of the military. A militia would be comprised of citizens who are not on government payroll and who don't take orders from the government. That's my opinion.

Who should pay them?

Who should they take orders from?

[ponderingturtle]

Who aren't on the gov't payroll and don't take orders from the government. Yep, that would be a militia. Taking orders is different than voluntarily doing what is asked.

So you would support EMS personel being able to refuse patients then?

[Darth Rotor]

What about a 2 years old girl being a spokesman for the NRA? :
http://www.kcra.com/news/14151108/detail.html

And yes, this is a Strawman - and a very sad one as well...
No, it either a simile or an analogy, but it is not a strawman. It is also an attempt at humor.

DR

[thaiboxerken]

So you would support EMS personel being able to refuse patients then?

It depends on what they volunteered to do. If they volunteered to treat all patients, then no.

Who should pay them?

Who should they take orders from?

No one should pay them. They should take orders only from those they decide to lead them. It's my opinion that militia should be a separate entity from the government, otherwise, who would have the firearms and power to overthrow the government if it gets out of control?

The whole point of the 2nd amendment is to keep the government afraid of it's people, or at least respectful of them.

[ponderingturtle]

It depends on what they volunteered to do. If they volunteered to treat all patients, then no.

It doesn't matter, legaly being on an ambulance puts legal obligations on how you can treat patients and prospective patients. Having an EMT certificate opens you up to all sorts of lawsuits and crimes.

It does not matter if the ambulance I was on was not tied into the 911 system for where I was, if someone asked for help I had to give it.