Ted Nugent discusses the 2nd Amendment

[natty bumppo 297]

You mean, I have to surrender my plastic bag until I pass the test?

Unfortunately, yes. The new system will be very much like a role-playing game's graded system. In other words, you'll start off with a "paper bag" and then eventually move to use a "cloth bag" and when you're ready for your license, you'll receive you're officially stamped "Concealed Plastic Bag License."

oh ... this isn't about trying to "bag" someone ... it's about getting them into the sack

[natty bumppo 297]

I can't believe this debate is still going on...

You know, I brought this subject up with my fiancee last night and she brought up, what I think, is an interesting point about the 2nd Amendment. It guarantees the right of all U.S. citizens (and perhaps permanent residents too) to bear arms, right? Well, she said if that right cannot be waived or changed or is a "God-given right" as some have claimed, how can we take away that right from those whom we deem unacceptable in society, such as those with a criminal record or psychological disorder?

I told her that anyone with a criminal record or psychological disorder may prove to be a danger to themselves or those around them and that the U.S. Constitution and Bill of Rights made no provision for criminals or mental illness.

My fiancee replied, "Well, wouldn't someone who was untrained in the use of a firearm be just as much of a danger to themselves and others?" She then went on to say, "Why would the Constitution or Bill of Rights need to make a provision for it? According to what you've said, that document grants every American the undeniable right to own and use a firearm; it never said UNLESS you were a criminal or had a mental disorder. If you can make special exceptions for those issues, then you can make special exceptions for others as well."

I've got say, folks... usually, I'm pretty good at arguing my case, but this time, she beat me, fair and square. I had no way around that. Yes, I feel criminals and those with psychological disorders shouldn't own guns, but why? Because they'd be a danger. But my fiancee is right -- someone who hasn't trained to use a gun would also be a danger, so the "they'd be a danger so they can't be allowed to own and use a gun" argument doesn't hold water.

We need to be consistent here. Either we begin allowing everyone complete access to firearms (as stated by the 2nd Amendment) or we begin making special exceptions, which we have already done in some cases. Since we've already done it, there's really no reason why we can't make a ruling that if you want to own and use a firearm, you must be able to pass a written/practical test, psychological exam and get a license.

basically the exceptions are ... for those who are a proven danger to society.

are you a proven danger to society? do you feel a test is needed to prove your innocence?

[bgreed 0]

Deadpool the answer is really pretty simple you see the framers understood this thing called common sense. That is nobody in their right mind is going to allow someone who is known to have a psychlogical disorder or a violent crimminal record to have a firearm. Gee doesn't that make common sense?

I understand that she was trying to use the "well it says" tact. However the framers worded things in the manner thaey did because at the time there were certain social mores and ideals that were universally unterstood without having to be spelled out. Unlike today where everything is OK if I think so and I shouldn't be constrained from doing anything because it might hurt my poor little psyche.

These were rights for those who were in full control of their faculties and responsible citizens. When you are not mentally right or a crimminal you are outside the norm and there for your rights are forfiet

[one...two...tree 2,762]

I can't believe this debate is still going on...

You know, I brought this subject up with my fiancee last night and she brought up, what I think, is an interesting point about the 2nd Amendment. It guarantees the right of all U.S. citizens (and perhaps permanent residents too) to bear arms, right? Well, she said if that right cannot be waived or changed or is a "God-given right" as some have claimed, how can we take away that right from those whom we deem unacceptable in society, such as those with a criminal record or psychological disorder?

I told her that anyone with a criminal record or psychological disorder may prove to be a danger to themselves or those around them and that the U.S. Constitution and Bill of Rights made no provision for criminals or mental illness.

My fiancee replied, "Well, wouldn't someone who was untrained in the use of a firearm be just as much of a danger to themselves and others?" She then went on to say, "Why would the Constitution or Bill of Rights need to make a provision for it? According to what you've said, that document grants every American the undeniable right to own and use a firearm; it never said UNLESS you were a criminal or had a mental disorder. If you can make special exceptions for those issues, then you can make special exceptions for others as well."

I've got say, folks... usually, I'm pretty good at arguing my case, but this time, she beat me, fair and square. I had no way around that. Yes, I feel criminals and those with psychological disorders shouldn't own guns, but why? Because they'd be a danger. But my fiancee is right -- someone who hasn't trained to use a gun would also be a danger, so the "they'd be a danger so they can't be allowed to own and use a gun" argument doesn't hold water.

We need to be consistent here. Either we begin allowing everyone complete access to firearms (as stated by the 2nd Amendment) or we begin making special exceptions, which we have already done in some cases. Since we've already done it, there's really no reason why we can't make a ruling that if you want to own and use a firearm, you must be able to pass a written/practical test, psychological exam and get a license.

Halelujiah to your fiancee!...this has been my point all along - we ARE interpretating what is quite an ambiguous amendment already. So we either really really take it for face value (the most literal interpretation of the 2nd Amendment), or we realize that there's is plenty of room there for reasonable interpretation without infringing on the spirit of the right to protect oneself.

[natty bumppo 297]

I can't believe this debate is still going on...

You know, I brought this subject up with my fiancee last night and she brought up, what I think, is an interesting point about the 2nd Amendment. It guarantees the right of all U.S. citizens (and perhaps permanent residents too) to bear arms, right? Well, she said if that right cannot be waived or changed or is a "God-given right" as some have claimed, how can we take away that right from those whom we deem unacceptable in society, such as those with a criminal record or psychological disorder?

I told her that anyone with a criminal record or psychological disorder may prove to be a danger to themselves or those around them and that the U.S. Constitution and Bill of Rights made no provision for criminals or mental illness.

My fiancee replied, "Well, wouldn't someone who was untrained in the use of a firearm be just as much of a danger to themselves and others?" She then went on to say, "Why would the Constitution or Bill of Rights need to make a provision for it? According to what you've said, that document grants every American the undeniable right to own and use a firearm; it never said UNLESS you were a criminal or had a mental disorder. If you can make special exceptions for those issues, then you can make special exceptions for others as well."

I've got say, folks... usually, I'm pretty good at arguing my case, but this time, she beat me, fair and square. I had no way around that. Yes, I feel criminals and those with psychological disorders shouldn't own guns, but why? Because they'd be a danger. But my fiancee is right -- someone who hasn't trained to use a gun would also be a danger, so the "they'd be a danger so they can't be allowed to own and use a gun" argument doesn't hold water.

We need to be consistent here. Either we begin allowing everyone complete access to firearms (as stated by the 2nd Amendment) or we begin making special exceptions, which we have already done in some cases. Since we've already done it, there's really no reason why we can't make a ruling that if you want to own and use a firearm, you must be able to pass a written/practical test, psychological exam and get a license.

Halelujiah to your fiancee!...this has been my point all along - we ARE interpretating what is quite an ambiguous amendment already. So we either really really take it for face value (the most literal interpretation of the 2nd Amendment), or we realize that there's is plenty of room there for reasonable interpretation without infringing on the spirit of the right to protect oneself.

steven ... does this mean you are guilty (denied a right) unless proven innocent?

Edited October 14, 2007 by Natty Bumppo

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Deadpool the answer is really pretty simple you see the framers understood this thing called common sense. That is nobody in their right mind is going to allow someone who is known to have a psychlogical disorder or a violent crimminal record to have a firearm. Gee doesn't that make common sense?

I understand that she was trying to use the "well it says" tact. However the framers worded things in the manner thaey did because at the time there were certain social mores and ideals that were universally unterstood without having to be spelled out. Unlike today where everything is OK if I think so and I shouldn't be constrained from doing anything because it might hurt my poor little psyche.

These were rights for those who were in full control of their faculties and responsible citizens. When you are not mentally right or a crimminal you are outside the norm and there for your rights are forfiet

Agreed. That is why common sense comes into play here when we talk about requiring a license, gun locks, certain weapons being banned, etc. I'm glad we can agree on that - that the interpretation of the 2nd Amendment requires some common sense.

[natty bumppo 297]

Deadpool the answer is really pretty simple you see the framers understood this thing called common sense. That is nobody in their right mind is going to allow someone who is known to have a psychlogical disorder or a violent crimminal record to have a firearm. Gee doesn't that make common sense?

I understand that she was trying to use the "well it says" tact. However the framers worded things in the manner thaey did because at the time there were certain social mores and ideals that were universally unterstood without having to be spelled out. Unlike today where everything is OK if I think so and I shouldn't be constrained from doing anything because it might hurt my poor little psyche.

These were rights for those who were in full control of their faculties and responsible citizens. When you are not mentally right or a crimminal you are outside the norm and there for your rights are forfiet

Agreed. That is why common sense comes into play here when we talk about requiring a license, gun locks, certain weapons being banned, etc. I'm glad we can agree on that - that the interpretation of the 2nd Amendment requires some common sense.

the common sense is already applied ... just not enforced by the liberal judges ... and feel good supporters or those who say "its not the persons fault ... it's the fault of that evil piece of material" ... or should I say ... a lack of responsibility

it all comes down to enforcing existing laws ... if someone has the spine to actually do it

Edited October 14, 2007 by Natty Bumppo

[natty bumppo 297]

Agreed. That is why common sense comes into play here when we talk about requiring a license, gun locks, certain weapons being banned, etc. I'm glad we can agree on that - that the interpretation of the 2nd Amendment requires some common sense.

when you actually take the time to research gun locks and hold one ... and think about ways to defeat the lock ... the ways are really quite easy. your basic toolbox contents will normally hold the keys.

ban certain weapons ... like ? those you've claimed to have shot? by caliber? cosmetic appearance? media hype? hollywood? what criteria will be used? and why?

etc, etc ....

[Hilarious Clinton 452]

Agreed. That is why common sense comes into play here when we talk about requiring a license, gun locks, certain weapons being banned, etc. I'm glad we can agree on that - that the interpretation of the 2nd Amendment requires some common sense.

when you actually take the time to research gun locks and hold one ... and think about ways to defeat the lock ... the ways are really quite easy. your basic toolbox contents will normally hold the keys.

ban certain weapons ... like ? those you've claimed to have shot? by caliber? cosmetic appearance? media hype? hollywood? what criteria will be used? and why?

etc, etc ....

Common sense from people who have never held a gun is like men debating abortion.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

Agreed. That is why common sense comes into play here when we talk about requiring a license, gun locks, certain weapons being banned, etc. I'm glad we can agree on that - that the interpretation of the 2nd Amendment requires some common sense.

when you actually take the time to research gun locks and hold one ... and think about ways to defeat the lock ... the ways are really quite easy. your basic toolbox contents will normally hold the keys.

ban certain weapons ... like ? those you've claimed to have shot? by caliber? cosmetic appearance? media hype? hollywood? what criteria will be used? and why?

etc, etc ....

Common sense from people who have never held a gun is like men debating abortion.

I've held a gun. And common sense tells me that the gun I held - and similar pieces - are not of defensive or protective nature but rather built to attack. I don't think that anyone with common sense would advocate the proliferation of such guns. The NRA and it's supporters, however, seem to do just that.

Oh, and for the guy that seems to talk to the dead, I don't think the founding fathers had that type of "arm" in mind for the people to have a right to bear.

Edited October 14, 2007 by Mr. Big Dog

[Hilarious Clinton 452]

Agreed. That is why common sense comes into play here when we talk about requiring a license, gun locks, certain weapons being banned, etc. I'm glad we can agree on that - that the interpretation of the 2nd Amendment requires some common sense.

when you actually take the time to research gun locks and hold one ... and think about ways to defeat the lock ... the ways are really quite easy. your basic toolbox contents will normally hold the keys.

ban certain weapons ... like ? those you've claimed to have shot? by caliber? cosmetic appearance? media hype? hollywood? what criteria will be used? and why?

etc, etc ....

Common sense from people who have never held a gun is like men debating abortion.

I've held a gun. And common sense tells me that the gun I held - and similar pieces - are not of defensive or protective nature but rather built to attack. I don't think that anyone with common sense would advocate the proliferation of such guns. The NRA and it's supporters, however, seem to do just that.

Oh, and for the guy that seems to talk to the dead, I don't think the founding fathers had that type of "arm" in mind for the people to have a right to bear.

Whether a gun is defensive or offensive is subjective. Who says a gun shall be only defensive? A butter knife can be offensive. Anything can be offensive. Humans are dangerous not because of the tools we use but because of the brains that made them.

[Jenn! 918]

Agreed. That is why common sense comes into play here when we talk about requiring a license, gun locks, certain weapons being banned, etc. I'm glad we can agree on that - that the interpretation of the 2nd Amendment requires some common sense.

when you actually take the time to research gun locks and hold one ... and think about ways to defeat the lock ... the ways are really quite easy. your basic toolbox contents will normally hold the keys.

ban certain weapons ... like ? those you've claimed to have shot? by caliber? cosmetic appearance? media hype? hollywood? what criteria will be used? and why?

etc, etc ....

Common sense from people who have never held a gun is like men debating abortion.

I've held a gun. And common sense tells me that the gun I held - and similar pieces - are not of defensive or protective nature but rather built to attack. I don't think that anyone with common sense would advocate the proliferation of such guns. The NRA and it's supporters, however, seem to do just that.

Oh, and for the guy that seems to talk to the dead, I don't think the founding fathers had that type of "arm" in mind for the people to have a right to bear.

Whether a gun is defensive or offensive is subjective. Who says a gun shall be only defensive? A butter knife can be offensive. Anything can be offensive. Humans are dangerous not because of the tools we use but because of the brains that made them.

I don't know about you, but I'd rather come across someone with a dangerous brain wielding a butter knife than a gun.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

Agreed. That is why common sense comes into play here when we talk about requiring a license, gun locks, certain weapons being banned, etc. I'm glad we can agree on that - that the interpretation of the 2nd Amendment requires some common sense.

when you actually take the time to research gun locks and hold one ... and think about ways to defeat the lock ... the ways are really quite easy. your basic toolbox contents will normally hold the keys.

ban certain weapons ... like ? those you've claimed to have shot? by caliber? cosmetic appearance? media hype? hollywood? what criteria will be used? and why?

etc, etc ....

Common sense from people who have never held a gun is like men debating abortion.

I've held a gun. And common sense tells me that the gun I held - and similar pieces - are not of defensive or protective nature but rather built to attack. I don't think that anyone with common sense would advocate the proliferation of such guns. The NRA and it's supporters, however, seem to do just that.

Oh, and for the guy that seems to talk to the dead, I don't think the founding fathers had that type of "arm" in mind for the people to have a right to bear.

Whether a gun is defensive or offensive is subjective. Who says a gun shall be only defensive? A butter knife can be offensive. Anything can be offensive. Humans are dangerous not because of the tools we use but because of the brains that made them.

Common sense tells me that the ability to dispense multiple rounds a second is not exactly a feature of a defensive weapon. That might not be clear to you but it's fairly clear to me.

[natty bumppo 297]

Agreed. That is why common sense comes into play here when we talk about requiring a license, gun locks, certain weapons being banned, etc. I'm glad we can agree on that - that the interpretation of the 2nd Amendment requires some common sense.

when you actually take the time to research gun locks and hold one ... and think about ways to defeat the lock ... the ways are really quite easy. your basic toolbox contents will normally hold the keys.

ban certain weapons ... like ? those you've claimed to have shot? by caliber? cosmetic appearance? media hype? hollywood? what criteria will be used? and why?

etc, etc ....

Common sense from people who have never held a gun is like men debating abortion.

I've held a gun. And common sense tells me that the gun I held - and similar pieces - are not of defensive or protective nature but rather built to attack. I don't think that anyone with common sense would advocate the proliferation of such guns. The NRA and it's supporters, however, seem to do just that.

so a gun is made for offense (attack) ... not defense?

Breed's Hill ... was offensive to the Colonials (or should I say a defensive action) .. it was "offensive" to the redcoats.

guess custer should have just instructed his men to throw their guns away to save injury to the attackers so they could be killed quicker.

and the men of the 101 in bastogne ... their rifles were of no defensive purpose ... "Nuts"

it is about HOW the tool is used .. and the manner in which the person using it acts. So WHO did you attack with the supposed offensive (attack) gun you held?

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

Agreed. That is why common sense comes into play here when we talk about requiring a license, gun locks, certain weapons being banned, etc. I'm glad we can agree on that - that the interpretation of the 2nd Amendment requires some common sense.

when you actually take the time to research gun locks and hold one ... and think about ways to defeat the lock ... the ways are really quite easy. your basic toolbox contents will normally hold the keys.

ban certain weapons ... like ? those you've claimed to have shot? by caliber? cosmetic appearance? media hype? hollywood? what criteria will be used? and why?

etc, etc ....

Common sense from people who have never held a gun is like men debating abortion.

I've held a gun. And common sense tells me that the gun I held - and similar pieces - are not of defensive or protective nature but rather built to attack. I don't think that anyone with common sense would advocate the proliferation of such guns. The NRA and it's supporters, however, seem to do just that.

so a gun is made for offense (attack) ... not defense?

That's why they're commonly referred to as assault weapons. It might have escaped you but assault is nothing defensive.