MR

PS... Nugent, while radical and extreme is also a kick-ass dude with some killer conviction.

I saw Uncle Ted on Fox News over the weekend. The dude nailed this topic perfectly. He went on to mention how cities that have hand gun bans have out of control crime. Must be comforting for the criminals to know that they're the only ones with weapons when they break into your house!!!

Angiekay wrote:

Like we didn't know this was coming!!

Outspoken guitar legend Ted Nugent reacted to Thursday's (June 26th) Supreme Court 5-4 ruling that individual Americans have the right to own guns for personal use by stating in a release, "...not only does a lunatic fringe of anti-freedom Americans dismiss our founding fathers' clear declaration of independence and succinct enumeration of our God-given individual rights, but some Americans have the arrogance and audacity to question whether the right to self-defense is indeed one of these individual rights." He then goes on to claim that four out of the nine "so-called Supreme justices" are among those "soulless" people.

As a fifth-term member of the Board of Directors of the NRA and an avid hunter and gun collector, Nugent has strong feelings about the right to keep, bear and own guns and was clearly outraged that the decision handed down was not unanimous. He further said that keeping a gun "means the gun is mine and you can't have it. This does not mean I will register it with a government agency. The goverment works for 'we the people,' not the other way around, regardless of what Hillary Clinton, Ted Kennedy, Hitler, MaoTse Tung, Pol Pot, Saddam Hussein or Barack Hussein Obama or four supreme justices may try to tell you."

He also stated that his definition of "bearing arms" means, "I've got it right here, on me, either in my grasp or damn near. This does not mean locked away in a safe, trigger-locked or stored at the local sporting club."
Nugent signed off by saying, "Now is the time to fortify America, and we better inform the Supreme Court just who truly is the 'Supreme' Court of America -- We the people. Individual people with individual, God given rights. The real America. Live free or die."

Yes Ted, God wants you to have a gun. LMFAO!!

I own a gun, but no control in America is beyond stupid.

Ted Nugent is a fuckin' nut. He really shouldn't be around guns or sharp objects.

Rhiannon wrote:PS... Nugent, while radical and extreme is also a kick-ass dude with some killer conviction.

I disagree, he's mainstream as one could get.

BobbyinTN wrote:I own a gun, but no control in America is beyond stupid.

Ted Nugent is a fuckin' nut. He really shouldn't be around guns or sharp objects.

Do you live in Tennessee or Massachusetts?

BobbyinTN wrote:Ted Nugent is a fuckin' nut.

If being a good American makes you a "nut" then he's the whole sack.

BobbyinTN wrote:He really shouldn't be around guns or sharp objects.

That dude has his shit together. He's an avid hunter with respect for the laws of this land as well as a sportsman that exemplifies safety as well as personal responsibility.

BobbyinTN wrote:I own a gun...

Based on your subsequent statements, I highly doubt that! Oh, I get it....water gun, right?

BobbyinTN wrote: but no control in America is beyond stupid.

Why is that? Support your lame ass comments...

BobbyinTN wrote:Ted Nugent is a fuckin' nut. He really shouldn't be around guns or sharp objects.

I'm sure he's a safer, more level headed gun owner than you would ever be. Crawl back into your hole...with your imaginary gun....and play dead.

Tito wrote:

Rhiannon wrote:PS... Nugent, while radical and extreme is also a kick-ass dude with some killer conviction.

I disagree, he's mainstream as one could get.

Not radical and extreme in a political sense, I mean personality... he's crazy as hell. I personally like him and his music. I also like guns.

BobbyinTN wrote:

Angiekay wrote:

Like we didn't know this was coming!!

Outspoken guitar legend Ted Nugent reacted to Thursday's (June 26th) Supreme Court 5-4 ruling that individual Americans have the right to own guns for personal use by stating in a release, "...not only does a lunatic fringe of anti-freedom Americans dismiss our founding fathers' clear declaration of independence and succinct enumeration of our God-given individual rights, but some Americans have the arrogance and audacity to question whether the right to self-defense is indeed one of these individual rights." He then goes on to claim that four out of the nine "so-called Supreme justices" are among those "soulless" people.

As a fifth-term member of the Board of Directors of the NRA and an avid hunter and gun collector, Nugent has strong feelings about the right to keep, bear and own guns and was clearly outraged that the decision handed down was not unanimous. He further said that keeping a gun "means the gun is mine and you can't have it. This does not mean I will register it with a government agency. The goverment works for 'we the people,' not the other way around, regardless of what Hillary Clinton, Ted Kennedy, Hitler, MaoTse Tung, Pol Pot, Saddam Hussein or Barack Hussein Obama or four supreme justices may try to tell you."

He also stated that his definition of "bearing arms" means, "I've got it right here, on me, either in my grasp or damn near. This does not mean locked away in a safe, trigger-locked or stored at the local sporting club."
Nugent signed off by saying, "Now is the time to fortify America, and we better inform the Supreme Court just who truly is the 'Supreme' Court of America -- We the people. Individual people with individual, God given rights. The real America. Live free or die."

Yes Ted, God wants you to have a gun. LMFAO!!

I own a gun, but no control in America is beyond stupid.

Ted Nugent is a fuckin' nut. He really shouldn't be around guns or sharp objects.

TYPICAL LIBERAL... I CAN DO IT BUT YOU CANT.

Angiekay wrote:

Like we didn't know this was coming!!

Outspoken guitar legend Ted Nugent reacted to Thursday's (June 26th) Supreme Court 5-4 ruling that individual Americans have the right to own guns for personal use by stating in a release, "...not only does a lunatic fringe of anti-freedom Americans dismiss our founding fathers' clear declaration of independence and succinct enumeration of our God-given individual rights, but some Americans have the arrogance and audacity to question whether the right to self-defense is indeed one of these individual rights." He then goes on to claim that four out of the nine "so-called Supreme justices" are among those "soulless" people.

As a fifth-term member of the Board of Directors of the NRA and an avid hunter and gun collector, Nugent has strong feelings about the right to keep, bear and own guns and was clearly outraged that the decision handed down was not unanimous. He further said that keeping a gun "means the gun is mine and you can't have it. This does not mean I will register it with a government agency. The goverment works for 'we the people,' not the other way around, regardless of what Hillary Clinton, Ted Kennedy, Hitler, MaoTse Tung, Pol Pot, Saddam Hussein or Barack Hussein Obama or four supreme justices may try to tell you."

He also stated that his definition of "bearing arms" means, "I've got it right here, on me, either in my grasp or damn near. This does not mean locked away in a safe, trigger-locked or stored at the local sporting club."
Nugent signed off by saying, "Now is the time to fortify America, and we better inform the Supreme Court just who truly is the 'Supreme' Court of America -- We the people. Individual people with individual, God given rights. The real America. Live free or die."

Sounds like old uncle Ted got it right again. It is time for "We the People of the Unites States of America" to mean something again and for are elected officials to listen to us one and all.

i wonder if that fucker can still sing Cat Scratch Fever

When asserting the second amendment "right to bear arms" let's not forget that the Constitution was <b>meant to be flexible</b> (hence the ability to be amended). This is a good thing indeed. If it were not, then African-Americans and women would still be denied basic freedoms. When our forefathers designed the bill of rights, fresh in their experience was a tyranny at the hands of the British. Being fired upon by the British (who were still their countrymen at the time) reminded them of the need to and benefits of "maintaining, a well-regulated militia". I doubt Nugent is a member of the national guard, but this is beside the point .

Far from denegrating the Constitution, it's time to recognize that the Constitution has worked remarkably well. The very Republican experiment that our forefathers worried about, has been a resounding, although far from immediate or perfect, success. We have a strong federal system, with a government based on the will of the people (rule of the majority, anyway). In other words, most of the other protections have worked so well that <b>we no longer need an absolute right to bear arms</b> to protect ourselves from our own government or an invading imperial power.

However, we <b>do need</b> restrictions on guns for the following reasons:

1) <b>Legally-obtained</b> guns often fall into the hands of criminals who could not themselves purchase guns through legitimate channels.
2) Many <b>police officers are killed</b> with these guns. Recruiting and keeping qualified police officers is becoming more difficult...if we don't control the gun situation in big cities, the crisis could grow. Losing qualified cops is a bigger threat to our own safety and our liberty is than a ban on handguns. What good is a law if there is no order?
3) We have a culture that <b>glorifies violence</b>. Children are exposed to gun violence before they are honestly mature enough to understand the responsibility and consequences associated with its ownership and use. We are fooling ourselves by thinking that storing a gun in a locked drawer is enough to keep it out of the hands of kids. However, storing guns in a gun-safe or in a non-operable condition undermines the stated need for a gun in these modern times...that owning a gun and having it available at a moment's notice is necessary for self-defense. How can this contradiction be resolved in a way that will <b>protect children and other victims of gun violence</b>?
4) We live in a communal society. Even if we ourselves are careful, law-abiding gun owners who teach responsibility to our children and educate them about gun ownership, there will always be those that don't do this. Consequently, our children go to school with the <b>scary, but real</b> possibility of being shot by another student for whom, tragically, a gun was all too-easily accessible.
5) <b>Handguns are a greater danger than rifles</b>, because of their size and firing capabilities. (Rifles have mostly been regulated effectively, so the privilege to hunt is not in jeopardy.)

Compromise is necessary if we are to have order in modern society. I believe that we need to weigh what we do as individuals against the public good. In tough cases such as these, when the lives of others are at risk, we must have enforceable laws to help keep us safe. Unfortunately, not everyone is responsible, and it is impossible to legislate common sense (if it were there would be no DUI/DWI manslaughter cases).

Calbear94 wrote:1) <b>Legally-obtained</b> guns often fall into the hands of criminals who could not themselves purchase guns through legitimate channels.

Absolute hogwash...support your rediculous assertion with some fact before trying to present it as such. This is the hingepin on every liberal anti-gun logic pattern. However, there isn't a liberal out there that can support such rediculousness with anything other than doctored statistics or worse-off, they just fucking make it up. Is that what you did?

I would sure like to know your silly source. Make sure it's a reputable one and not one bankrolled by some anti-gun, fact-dreaming dipshit organization. (i.e. not move-on.org or media matters )

Then once you've tried to explain your bullshit, explain the *fact* that gun-related violence is often *greater* in municipalities/cities/states with *severe* or *increased* gun control? Do me a favor and research your shit before you try to present it like it's fact!!

stevew2 wrote:i wonder if that fucker can still sing Cat Scratch Fever

he can.. BUT you have to wait until the very last song to hear it..

if you can sit through 6 Crave Man songs , its a real treat to hear

CSF..

strangegrey wrote:

Calbear94 wrote:1) <b>Legally-obtained</b> guns often fall into the hands of criminals who could not themselves purchase guns through legitimate channels.

Absolute hogwash...support your rediculous assertion with some fact before trying to present it as such. This is the hingepin on every liberal anti-gun logic pattern. However, there isn't a liberal out there that can support such rediculousness with anything other than doctored statistics or worse-off, they just fucking make it up. Is that what you did?

I would sure like to know your silly source. Make sure it's a reputable one and not one bankrolled by some anti-gun, fact-dreaming dipshit organization. (i.e. not move-on.org or media matters )

Then once you've tried to explain your bullshit, explain the *fact* that gun-related violence is often *greater* in municipalities/cities/states with *severe* or *increased* gun control? Do me a favor and research your shit before you try to present it like it's fact!!

Thank you for the coherent counter-argument. Nicely done!

Calbear94 wrote:Thank you for the coherent counter-argument. Nicely done!

You'll have to forgive me for not extending you the same courtesy for your made-up list of points above...

If I show you a sophisticated, detailed 2007 study by the US Department of Justice and the University of Pennsylvania on crime gun recovery statistics in the Baltimore/Washington, D.C. area would you be open-minded enough to consider the evidence and conclusions presented? Would this be a credible enough source for you?

http://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/grants/221074.pdf

Calbear94 wrote:If I show you a sophisticated, detailed 2007 study by the US Department of Justice and the University of Pennsylvania on crime gun recovery statistics in the Baltimore/Washington, D.C. area would you be open-minded enough to consider the evidence and conclusions presented? Would this be a credible enough source for you?

http://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/grants/221074.pdf

Wow, changing things already...Thats not a study *by* the US dept of justice...it's a report *to* the US department of justice (fucking HUGE difference) and it was done by a University...sorry, not drinking the koolaid on that...given the source!

It was an NIJ grant, so it was paid for by the government. I knew you wouldn't bother to check out the study. I don't know why I even bothered. Hopefully, other more rational individuals may be able to derive some benefit from it though.

btw, I'm reading the report already...and your "assertions" are already inconsistent with the university report. If so many legally obtained guns result in gun crime, why does the report say 14% of legally obtained guns eventually become used in crime?

Quite an imaginative stretch from your ironclad assertion That 14% could easily be represented in mostly legitimately stolen or lost firearms...and even so, it's hardly a majority.

Go back to your hole...

http://youtube.com/watch?v=617eK2XIaLk&feature=related
48 second mark. It's quick so start it at 46 second mark.

I said:

1) Legally-obtained guns often fall into the hands of criminals who could not themselves purchase guns through legitimate channels.

14% equates to 1 out of 7! One out 7 "legal" guns used in crimes! To me this is the meaning of often, and is totally unacceptable in a modern society.

Calbear94 wrote:I said:

1) Legally-obtained guns often fall into the hands of criminals who could not themselves purchase guns through legitimate channels.

14% equates to 1 out of 7! One out 7 "legal" guns used in crimes! To me this is the meaning of often, and is totally unacceptable in a modern society.

Often? Often? 14% is not often....it's not even a majority!!?!?!?!?!
Sorry, Often in my estimation, needs to be a majority before you can start using it with credibility.

You're distorting your own so-called sources to fake your point.


Let me ask you a dumb ass question.....how exactly do guns get into circulation to begin with? Because last I checked, Remington, Glock and Winchester dont have back alley warehouse sales to the criminal public.....

So while 14% might be too much for you, legally obtained firearms finding their way into the hands of criminals is clearly a small minority. However, I'd like to see you find some ironclad statistics (not from a liberal university book report, either) of how legally obtained firearms actually get into the hands of criminals. I'd be willing to bet your left foot, that most of the time, they're stolen through little or no fault of the owner. So while, background checks in some way shape or form, do prevent criminals from buying guns out right, they do nothing to prevent law-abiding citizens from having their guns stolen by criminals.

The alternative, which is to stop selling guns period, doesn't work because guns still make their way into circulation without the 14% help from law abiding citizens.....there's still another 86% you need to account for, genius!

Sorry....you're losing this. that hole is beckoning.

Just found this on Yahoo, didn't check the stats:

Vermont... no gun laws lowest crime rate in US. Anyone can concealed carry, with no permit.

DC...strictest gun laws in US. Virtually no ownership yet HIGHEST crime rates in US. That goes for NY, California, NJ (Newark and Camden are war zones, yet NJ has strict gun laws.)

Mostly/all white areas=hardly any crime/gun crimes.
Mostly/all black areas=fucking chaos and killing.

The Nuge is 100% dead on right! Fkin eh!

Calbear94 wrote:we no longer need an absolute right to bear arms</b> to protect ourselves from our own government or an invading imperial power.

.

Totally disagree with this statement. In fact, this is one of the main reasons we still need the right to bear arms. When "our" government finally denies law abiding citizens to own guns, that is when "our" government will find it very easy to become dictatorial. In many ways, the US government is already no longer "our" government. At least as far as heeding the majority of the people's wants and desires pertaining to issues both foreign and domestic.

As Charlton Heston said. "Out of my cold dead hands". I live in South Dakota, where i can carry not only concealed ( I have a permit) I can also carry openly without a permit. Give the GOOD people in DC a chance to defend their homes, families and property LEGALLY. And honestly, if someone wants to commit a gun crime, i dont think they really give a shit if the law says they can or not. But give the law abiding people some leverage against these shitstains.

Since 78 wrote:Just found this on Yahoo, didn't check the stats:

Vermont... no gun laws lowest crime rate in US. Anyone can concealed carry, with no permit.

DC...strictest gun laws in US. Virtually no ownership yet HIGHEST crime rates in US. That goes for NY, California, NJ (Newark and Camden are war zones, yet NJ has strict gun laws.)

It's probably fairly acurate. You can walk into a gas station in Burlington, Vermont (or any other city in VT) with a somewhat concealed, holstered hand gun. In fact, I've seen a customer in a gas station with a holstered 38. He wasn't a cop.

There's one thing that the liberals don't want you to conceptualize....would-be criminals don't like the possibility that someone's going to return fire. Simple as that.

SF-Dano wrote:

Calbear94 wrote:we no longer need an absolute right to bear arms</b> to protect ourselves from our own government or an invading imperial power.

.

Totally disagree with this statement. In fact, this is one of the main reasons we still need the right to bear arms. When "our" government finally denies law abiding citizens to own guns, that is when "our" government will find it very easy to become dictatorial. In many ways, the US government is already no longer "our" government. At least as far as heeding the majority of the people's wants and desires pertaining to issues both foreign and domestic.

Agree with you Dano, whoeheartedly. Thomas Jefferson said the safest and surest way to enslave the people is to disarm them. The fact of the matter is that the second amendment interpreted correctly, is a way to ensure that the government stays honest. The 'militia' was a people's army, during revolutionary times. We also had an 'american' army during the revolution. The militia was not part of that. The concept here, is that a militia is not the 'national guard' as nancy pelosi or harry reid would try to have you believe....the modern day equivalent of the 'militia' is your tom's, dick's and harry's across america protecting themselves, their families and their liberty.


Someone that doesn't believe in the second amendment, is not a patriot. I would go on further as to say that someone who wants to argue it's validity in today's day and age or worse, subvert it (like our friend above who picks and choses his/her stats from liberal university book reports) is guilty of high treason.