OT-Nugent comments right to bear arms

[AlteredDNA]

Did you know that in Texas along the border, there are "ranchers" with scopes and high-powered rifles who shoot at unarmed, illegal aliens if they happen to cross over their property? They claim they are militia members defending the Constitution and laws of this country!

You are so full of shit on this one. This absolutely does not happen. If it does, let me know so I can go do there.

This is as well-known a fact as any about illegal immigration. They did a piece on it on WABC-AM a few months ago.

Don't think it's "well known" at all...

However this was on the WABC-AM site:

http://www.wabcradio.com/news.asp?c=USN ... %3DDEFAULT

I'm not sure that's the story they're talking about but I have heard about that one.

It's not, but since I couldn't find the "story" in question, I found something that was related...

[Skylorde]

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

I find it interesting that someone with a very accurate assessment of the second amendment is considered a "radical" and "extreme"

Based on that logic, the founding fathers must be "right wing extremeists"

[Rhiannon]

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

I find it interesting that someone with a very accurate assessment of the second amendment is considered a "radical" and "extreme"

Based on that logic, the founding fathers must be "right wing extremeists"

Would you go down a few posts and read where I said I was referring to his personality NOT political views.

[The_Noble_Cause]

The 2nd Amendment is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose. I have no problems with the prohibitions of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions on the commercial sale of arms.

[RossValoryRocks]

The 2nd Amendment is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose. I have no problems with the prohibitions of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.

Actually it is...as it was written and it's implied application...it means ARMS are any weapon citizens could use to defend themselves from a tyrannical government.

So in the strictest, most originalist view of the Constitution ALL gun laws are unconstitutional. PERIOD.

Now there is a bit of common sense and for the most part I agree with your statement above.

[The_Noble_Cause]

Now there is a bit of common sense and for the most part I agree with your statement above.

Good.
It's Scalia's nearly word-for-word.
I just wanted to see the knee-jerk right wing reactionaries decry me as some commie pissbucket.
Color me surprised.

[RossValoryRocks]

The 2nd Amendment is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose. I have no problems with the prohibitions of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.

Actually it is...as it was written and it's implied application...it means ARM are any weapon citizens could use to defend themselves from a tyrannical government.

So in the strictest, most originalist view of the Constitution ALL gun laws are unconstitutional. PERIOD.

Now there is a bit of common sense and for the most part I agree with your statement above.

Good.
It's Scalia's nearly word-for-word.
I just wanted to see the knee-jerk right wing reactionaries decry me as some commie pissbucket.
Color me surprised.

I said I agree with you for the most part...how is that being knee-jerk right wing, and how is that implying you are a commie pissbucket?

Jesus dude...get a grip...

[The_Noble_Cause]

I said I agree with you for the most part...how is that being knee-jerk right wing, and how is that implying you are a commie pissbucket?

Jesus dude...get a grip...

It's not. That's why I said I was surprised.

[AlteredDNA]

The 2nd Amendment is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose. I have no problems with the prohibitions of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.

Actually it is...as it was written and it's implied application...it means ARM are any weapon citizens could use to defend themselves from a tyrannical government.

So in the strictest, most originalist view of the Constitution ALL gun laws are unconstitutional. PERIOD.

Now there is a bit of common sense and for the most part I agree with your statement above.

Good.
It's Scalia's nearly word-for-word.
I just wanted to see the knee-jerk right wing reactionaries decry me as some commie pissbucket.
Color me surprised.

I said I agree with you for the most part...how is that being knee-jerk right wing, and how is that implying you are a commie pissbucket?

Jesus dude...get a grip...

I think TNC is saying he's surprised that you agree with his statement...

FTR, I agree as well...

[RossValoryRocks]

I said I agree with you for the most part...how is that being knee-jerk right wing, and how is that implying you are a commie pissbucket?

Jesus dude...get a grip...

It's not. That's why I said I was surprised.

Ahh sorry I miss read your statement.

Common sense has to prevail with guns laws...D.C.'s was clearly unconstitutional because it not only interfered with the right to bear arms but also in some capacity to even keep them.

Now...I don't want some schizoid nut being able to get a gun...I think a waiting period is good, it gives a time for people to be checked out...however that is only on handguns...a hot head who REALLY wanted to shoot someone could go get a semi-automatic rifle at K-Mart.

[Tito]

The 2nd Amendment is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose. I have no problems with the prohibitions of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions on the commercial sale of arms.

Like RVR, I can agree with most of this (except the first sentence and the last part of your last sentence). Prohibiting felons and mentally ill - I agree with. Forbidding firearms in school and government buildings, I could live with. My rationale for that is simply those are publice buildings (government) owned/run buildings and they can legislate those just like no smoking in those buildings,etc. However, I could definitely live with them deciding if they would want firearms in there. I do qualify that (schools & govt buildings) by also saying those places are owned by the citizen (We the People). But I'm willing to meet you half way on that. Same thing with private owned buildings/homes. The respective owner decides if firearms are allowed in their business or home.

[7 Wishes]

In 2005/06 there were 766 offences initially recorded as homicide by the police in England and Wales (including the 52 victims of the 7 July 2005 London bombings),[18] a rate of 1.4 per 100,000 of population. Only 50 (6.6%) were committed with firearms, one being with an air weapon.[19] The homicide rate for London was 2.4 per 100,000 in the same year (1.7 when excluding the 7 July bombings).[20]

By comparison, 5.5 murders per 100,000 of population were reported by police in the United States in 2000, of which 70% involved the use of firearms.[21] New York City, with a population size similar to London (over 8 million residents), reported 6.9 murders per 100,000 people in 2004.

So, you still want to tell me that restrictive gun laws don't save innoncent lives>? Bullshit. This country is fucked up when it comes to gun control. Four times the murder rate in the U.S. than in the U.K. That says it all.

[7 Wishes]

A handgun in a family home is FIVE TIMES AS LIKELY TO KILL OR INJURE A CHILD than an intruder.

[Rick]

In 2005/06 there were 766 offences initially recorded as homicide by the police in England and Wales (including the 52 victims of the 7 July 2005 London bombings),[18] a rate of 1.4 per 100,000 of population. Only 50 (6.6%) were committed with firearms, one being with an air weapon.[19] The homicide rate for London was 2.4 per 100,000 in the same year (1.7 when excluding the 7 July bombings).[20]

By comparison, 5.5 murders per 100,000 of population were reported by police in the United States in 2000, of which 70% involved the use of firearms.[21] New York City, with a population size similar to London (over 8 million residents), reported 6.9 murders per 100,000 people in 2004.

So, you still want to tell me that restrictive gun laws don't save innoncent lives>? Bullshit. This country is fucked up when it comes to gun control. Four times the murder rate in the U.S. than in the U.K. That says it all.

The US has the highest gun related death rate in the world.

[7 Wishes]

It also has by far the highest murder rate (i.e. per 100,000 civilians) of ANY industrialized, Democratic society in the world. By a long shot. Guns give murderers a much easier way to kill. People who wouldn't kill if they could not get ahold of guns, do kill in the U.S. because they're easier to aquire than an STD.

[7 Wishes]

Suddenly, the thread dies. How surprising.

[Calbear94]

Did you know that in Texas along the border, there are "ranchers" with scopes and high-powered rifles who shoot at unarmed, illegal aliens if they happen to cross over their property? They claim they are militia members defending the Constitution and laws of this country!

Did you know that in Texas along the border, there are "ranchers" with scopes and high-powered rifles who shoot at unarmed, illegal aliens if they happen to cross over their property? They claim they are militia members defending the Constitution and laws of this country!

You are so full of shit on this one. This absolutely does not happen. If it does, let me know so I can go do there.

First, check out this clip on a fringe organization called "Ranch Rescue" from a documentary on life in Texas by well-respected journalist, Christopher Hitchens.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JmSI6eePaeI

Then, check out the links below. The first article, from the New York Times, explains how one such "Ranch Rescue" member lost his ranch in a lawsuit to the illegal immigrants that he terrorized. The second article discusses how in another case a wrongful death suit was sought. This should serve as a strong reminder to gun owners that one is only entitled to use "reasonable force" to "defend" his/her property. Deadly force is only allowable when the life of you or somehow in your care in is in danger or there is the threat of severe bodily injury.

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/08/19/national/19ranch.html
http://lmtonline.com/news/archive/081004/pagea3.pdf
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=te ... by+rancher

[Barb]

ATLANTA - The Supreme Court's landmark ruling on gun ownership last week focused on citizens' ability to defend themselves from intruders in their homes. But research shows that surprisingly often, gun owners use the weapons on themselves.

Suicides accounted for 55 percent of the nation's nearly 31,000 firearm deaths in 2005, the most recent year for which statistics are available from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

There was nothing unique about that year — gun-related suicides have outnumbered firearm homicides and accidents for 20 of the last 25 years. In 2005, homicides accounted for 40 percent of gun deaths. Accidents accounted for 3 percent. The remaining 2 percent included legal killings, such as when police do the shooting, and cases that involve undetermined intent.

Public-health researchers have concluded that in homes where guns are present, the likelihood that someone in the home will die from suicide or homicide is much greater.

Studies have also shown that homes in which a suicide occurred were three to five times more likely to have a gun present than households that did not experience a suicide, even after accounting for other risk factors.

...

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080701/ap_ ... hs_suicide

[Michigan Girl]

ATLANTA - The Supreme Court's landmark ruling on gun ownership last week focused on citizens' ability to defend themselves from intruders in their homes. But research shows that surprisingly often, gun owners use the weapons on themselves.

Suicides accounted for 55 percent of the nation's nearly 31,000 firearm deaths in 2005, the most recent year for which statistics are available from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

There was nothing unique about that year — gun-related suicides have outnumbered firearm homicides and accidents for 20 of the last 25 years. In 2005, homicides accounted for 40 percent of gun deaths. Accidents accounted for 3 percent. The remaining 2 percent included legal killings, such as when police do the shooting, and cases that involve undetermined intent.

Public-health researchers have concluded that in homes where guns are present, the likelihood that someone in the home will die from suicide or homicide is much greater.

Studies have also shown that homes in which a suicide occurred were three to five times more likely to have a gun present than households that did not experience a suicide, even after accounting for other risk factors.

...

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080701/ap_ ... hs_suicide

My opinion on the suicide angel...if someone wants to do themselves in, they are going to find a way gun or no....sad!!!

[7 Wishes]

And the evidence continues to mount...expect a full ground assault by the gun-toting NRA lovers here, vis-à-vis the Polish Cavalry attempting to thwart the advance of Panzer tanks through horse power.

[Barb]

ATLANTA - The Supreme Court's landmark ruling on gun ownership last week focused on citizens' ability to defend themselves from intruders in their homes. But research shows that surprisingly often, gun owners use the weapons on themselves.

Suicides accounted for 55 percent of the nation's nearly 31,000 firearm deaths in 2005, the most recent year for which statistics are available from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

There was nothing unique about that year — gun-related suicides have outnumbered firearm homicides and accidents for 20 of the last 25 years. In 2005, homicides accounted for 40 percent of gun deaths. Accidents accounted for 3 percent. The remaining 2 percent included legal killings, such as when police do the shooting, and cases that involve undetermined intent.

Public-health researchers have concluded that in homes where guns are present, the likelihood that someone in the home will die from suicide or homicide is much greater.

Studies have also shown that homes in which a suicide occurred were three to five times more likely to have a gun present than households that did not experience a suicide, even after accounting for other risk factors.

...

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080701/ap_ ... hs_suicide

My opinion on the suicide angel...if someone wants to do themselves in, they are going to find a way gun or no....sad!!!

I completely agree.

[Tito]

Then, check out the links below. The first article, from the New York Times, explains how one such "Ranch Rescue" member lost his ranch in a lawsuit to the illegal immigrants that he terrorized. The second article discusses how in another case a wrongful death suit was sought. This should serve as a strong reminder to gun owners that one is only entitled to use "reasonable force" to "defend" his/her property. Deadly force is only allowable when the life of you or somehow in your care in is in danger or there is the threat of severe bodily injury.

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/08/19/national/19ranch.html
http://lmtonline.com/news/archive/081004/pagea3.pdf
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=te ... by+rancher

Where did an illegal get shot? The ranch resue people did not shoot anybody. I remember that case. A lot of people were up in arms with the decision. You want to talk about fringe, look at Morris Dees and the SPLC first. Because somebody tresspassed on their property they now get the land. Bullshit decision.

The other case was nothing more than a hunting accident, which was the illegals fault for once again tresspassing. Not to mention hiding behind brush while on hunting grounds.

Getting back on point, where has there been a documented case where as you stated, "that in Texas along the border, there are "ranchers" with scopes and high-powered rifles who shoot at unarmed, illegal aliens if they happen to cross over their property?" I don't see a case yet.

[Tito]

A handgun in a family home is FIVE TIMES AS LIKELY TO KILL OR INJURE A CHILD than an intruder.

And more likely to drown in a pool or car accident. What to ban them to?

Source:
A child is 100 times more likely to die in a swimming accident than in gunplay, writes Steven D. Levitt, University of Chicago economics professor and best-selling author.

Levitt analyzed child deaths from residential swimming pools and guns and found one child under 10 drowns annually for every 11,000 pools. By comparison, one child under 10 each year is killed by a gun for every 1 million guns, according to his research, outlined in a new book "Freakonomics: A Rogue Economist Explores the Hidden Side to Everything," which he co-wrote with journalist Stephen J. Dubner.

[7 Wishes]

Which amounts to 300 children a year who WOULD NOT DIE if there were gun laws.

Get a life, Tito.

[Tito]

A handgun in a family home is FIVE TIMES AS LIKELY TO KILL OR INJURE A CHILD than an intruder.

Also, if you don't want a gun in your house. That's perfectly fine. But don't infringe on my and others right to do so.

[Calbear94]

Accident? Do you really buy that? Twelve ordinary Americans serving as jurors obviously did not. See the $20 million verdict:

http://www.morelaw.com/verdicts/case.as ... 20&d=28711

[Tito]

Which amounts to 300 children a year who WOULD NOT DIE if there were gun laws.

Get a life, Tito.

How many wouldn't die if they didn't swim in pools and lakes? Or drive in a car?

[7 Wishes]

Stop veering off-topic. Look at the statistics. Access to guns means people in this country are four times as likely to commit murder than in Great Britain.

Try to stay on course, Tito, instead of trying to change the course of the thread by delving into the irrelevant.

[Rhiannon]

Which amounts to 300 children a year who WOULD NOT DIE if there were gun laws.

Get a life, Tito.

I see both sides here... but let me say I think big picture the idea is you can't put laws and bans and restrictions on everything to try and prevent every possible thing that can go wrong. There has to be a balance. How about this fact...: everyone who has ever breathed oxygen has died. True story. So using the rationale on "gun control", sounds as if we should be very concerned about air. (I know the ridiculousness of that statement, btw... just trying to put some perspective on thought process.)

[7 Wishes]

It's obviously far too late to forbid gun possession in this country. But the NRA and their fervent supporters also stand in the way of sensible gun control, which makes perfect sense and reduces the crime rate. It's just ignorant and stupid.