Ted Nugent discusses the 2nd Amendment

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

Forgot to add:

Everyone's firearms handling skills suk

The bolts are closed ... magazines are inserted ... and it appears you are indoors and the muzzles are facing in the general direction of the photographer.

(where is your safe direction?)

Real nice photo exhibiting why you and others in the picture really don't know how to be safe.

You guys have a lot to learn about firearm safety ... (one of the persons a police officer ? that's pathetic ... he should be an example with all his SWAT training)

And with so much information available on the internet about safe firearm handling skills .....

Example: Basic Safety

Nice detective work there, Natty. LOL...my brother has spent over 20 + in law enforcement and 4 yrs. as an MP - he's highly skilled and qualified. We posed with the guns on the side of his house, but we had taken them out into the desert and fired them earlier that day. But really, this isn't about the picture or about me. It's just that somebody implied that I've never had experience firing a weapon (because I must be a granola eating liberal from Kaliforneeya).

When I was working on a video game based on Dirty Harry, the whole crew went to a shooting range and we rented a whole slew of handguns to really get a feel for how to fire, how to load them, etc. I got a chance to target practice with a .50 caliber handgun, a .38 revolver, a 9mm, just to name a few. But again, this is really beside the point.

Do you agree that interpretation of the 2nd Amendment is open for debate? We're not going to get past this circular type of arguing until we find common ground. I support the 2nd Amendment and as I've stated before, I plan on owning a handgun in the near future - would like to even try and qualify for a concealed weapons permit. However, I'm not going to go along with the NRA's attitude that the 2nd Amendment is clear when it isn't.

Edited October 14, 2007 by Mister Fancypants

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

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.

Multiple rounds a second? You don't know the first thing about semi-automatic weapons. Are you talking fully automatic weapons? Do you know the difference?

The fully automatic is the only gun I ever held. You said that you were looking for the common sense not from someone that never held a gun but from a man that has held a gun. So there you have it.

Fully auto is not common and I'll agree not something for everyone.

[natty bumppo 297]

Nice detective work there, Natty. LOL...my brother has spent over 20 + in law enforcement and 4 yrs. as an MP - he's highly skilled and qualified. We posed with the guns on the side of his house, but we had taken them out into the desert and fired them earlier that day. But really, this isn't about the picture or about me. It's just that somebody implied that I've never had experience firing a weapon (because I must be a granola eating liberal from Kaliforneeya).

The picture clearly shows closed bolts and magazines inserted ... this is not difficult detective work. Just a clear example of poor safe firearm handling skills.

Notice: Muzzle direction down and towards the photographer ... not good either.

Sorry ... it is what it is ... the picture shows poor skills of someone who should know better.

I'm not saying he doesn't "qualify" (hit his target/ good marksmanship) ... I'm saying this picture doesn't prove his safety skills.

In my 10+ years as a being a firearms instructor ... my worst students were LEO, ex-military, and know-it-all good 'ol boys.

Oh, so you rented a few guns for what ... a day or two? For the whole office at the same time? Steven, sorry to say this, but you are still just a newbie. Give it more time ... shoot more ... and you will learn more.

On the other thing ... everything with you is open for debate

Edited October 14, 2007 by Natty Bumppo

[natty bumppo 297]

Do you agree that interpretation of the 2nd Amendment is open for debate? We're not going to get past this circular type of arguing until we find common ground. I support the 2nd Amendment and as I've stated before, I plan on owning a handgun in the near future - would like to even try and qualify for a concealed weapons permit. However, I'm not going to go along with the NRA's attitude that the 2nd Amendment is clear when it isn't.

You just made your position statement.

Did you really mean ...

I support ... yet I don't

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

Do you agree that interpretation of the 2nd Amendment is open for debate? We're not going to get past this circular type of arguing until we find common ground. I support the 2nd Amendment and as I've stated before, I plan on owning a handgun in the near future - would like to even try and qualify for a concealed weapons permit. However, I'm not going to go along with the NRA's attitude that the 2nd Amendment is clear when it isn't.

You just made your position statement.

Did you really mean ...

I support ... yet I don't

Denial isn't a river in Egypt. Sigh...do we have to go start over again? Oooookay....where in the 2nd Amendment does it say I can't own a bazooka or grenade launcher, nuclear weapon? Or mount a .50 calibur machine gun on the top of my car? Where does it say I can't keep a handgun stashed in the glove box of my car? Or conceal one in my clothes? Where does it say I can't use hollow points? You can bury your head in the sand and pretend that you're not intrepreting the 2nd Amendment, but your own argument (using common sense) demonstrates you are.

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

Nice detective work there, Natty. LOL...my brother has spent over 20 + in law enforcement and 4 yrs. as an MP - he's highly skilled and qualified. We posed with the guns on the side of his house, but we had taken them out into the desert and fired them earlier that day. But really, this isn't about the picture or about me. It's just that somebody implied that I've never had experience firing a weapon (because I must be a granola eating liberal from Kaliforneeya).

The picture clearly shows closed bolts and magazines inserted ... this is not difficult detective work. Just a clear example of poor safe firearm handling skills.

Notice: Muzzle direction down and towards the photographer ... not good either.

Sorry ... it is what it is ... the picture shows poor skills of someone who should know better.

I'm not saying he doesn't "qualify" (hit his target/ good marksmanship) ... I'm saying this picture doesn't prove his safety skills.

In my 10+ years as a being a firearms instructor ... my worst students were LEO, ex-military, and know-it-all good 'ol boys.

Oh, so you rented a few guns for what ... a day or two? For the whole office at the same time? Steven, sorry to say this, but you are still just a newbie. Give it more time ... shoot more ... and you will learn more.

On the other thing ... everything with you is open for debate

LOL...I'll be sure to relay the message to my brother. I'm sure he'll get a kick out of this one.

[Ban Hammer 13,637]

Do you agree that interpretation of the 2nd Amendment is open for debate? We're not going to get past this circular type of arguing until we find common ground. I support the 2nd Amendment and as I've stated before, I plan on owning a handgun in the near future - would like to even try and qualify for a concealed weapons permit. However, I'm not going to go along with the NRA's attitude that the 2nd Amendment is clear when it isn't.

You just made your position statement.

Did you really mean ...

I support ... yet I don't

Denial isn't a river in Egypt. Sigh...do we have to go start over again? Oooookay....where in the 2nd Amendment does it say I can't own a bazooka or grenade launcher, nuclear weapon? Or mount a .50 calibur machine gun on the top of my car? Where does it say I can't keep a handgun stashed in the glove box of my car? Or conceal one in my clothes? Where does it say I can't use hollow points? You can bury your head in the sand and pretend that you're not intrepreting the 2nd Amendment, but your own argument (using common sense) demonstrates you are.

steven, what's your fixation with a .50 cal on your car hood or having a bazooka?

btw, i've fired full auto before, i don't see a need (personally) to have a firearm that is capable of that.

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

Do you agree that interpretation of the 2nd Amendment is open for debate? We're not going to get past this circular type of arguing until we find common ground. I support the 2nd Amendment and as I've stated before, I plan on owning a handgun in the near future - would like to even try and qualify for a concealed weapons permit. However, I'm not going to go along with the NRA's attitude that the 2nd Amendment is clear when it isn't.

You just made your position statement.

Did you really mean ...

I support ... yet I don't

Denial isn't a river in Egypt. Sigh...do we have to go start over again? Oooookay....where in the 2nd Amendment does it say I can't own a bazooka or grenade launcher, nuclear weapon? Or mount a .50 calibur machine gun on the top of my car? Where does it say I can't keep a handgun stashed in the glove box of my car? Or conceal one in my clothes? Where does it say I can't use hollow points? You can bury your head in the sand and pretend that you're not intrepreting the 2nd Amendment, but your own argument (using common sense) demonstrates you are.

steven, what's your fixation with a .50 cal on your car hood or having a bazooka?

btw, i've fired full auto before, i don't see a need (personally) to have a firearm that is capable of that.

Is it really that difficult to understand the point I'm making? Interpretation of the 2nd Amendment is open for debate because of its obvious ambiguity. Heck, even bgreed (sp) got into talking about the 'intent' of the framers of the amendment. Can we all agree that interpration of the 2nd Amendment is open for debate? (I feel like a broken record)

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

Actually, I missed this post by Rich way back there...

http://www.visajourney.com/forums/index.ph...t&p=1254948

I get your point Steven. No, we can't drive a fully armed tank down the street... so where's the line? Right now the line is high capacity semi-autos (full auto with $$ and paperwork-BECAUSE THE LINE MOVED). I don't want the line to move at all so we have to fight every law that tries to move the line. A cliche but true..... If you outlaw guns only outlaws will have guns.

That is understandable. I agree that there must be common sense and reason, and careful consideration that we're not destroying the integrity of the 2nd Amendment with legislation.

Speaking of which - does anybody know of a case where a gun law was challenged as being unconstitutional? If so, what was the outcome?

[Scott & Lai 12]

Nice detective work there, Natty. LOL...my brother has spent over 20 + in law enforcement and 4 yrs. as an MP - he's highly skilled and qualified. We posed with the guns on the side of his house, but we had taken them out into the desert and fired them earlier that day. But really, this isn't about the picture or about me. It's just that somebody implied that I've never had experience firing a weapon (because I must be a granola eating liberal from Kaliforneeya).

The picture clearly shows closed bolts and magazines inserted ... this is not difficult detective work. Just a clear example of poor safe firearm handling skills.

Notice: Muzzle direction down and towards the photographer ... not good either.

Sorry ... it is what it is ... the picture shows poor skills of someone who should know better.

I'm not saying he doesn't "qualify" (hit his target/ good marksmanship) ... I'm saying this picture doesn't prove his safety skills.

In my 10+ years as a being a firearms instructor ... my worst students were LEO, ex-military, and know-it-all good 'ol boys.

Oh, so you rented a few guns for what ... a day or two? For the whole office at the same time? Steven, sorry to say this, but you are still just a newbie. Give it more time ... shoot more ... and you will learn more.

On the other thing ... everything with you is open for debate

Looks to me like the muzzles are pointed at the ground, angled off to the photographer's right. And I'm not familiar with automatic rifles like these, but is it only possible to close the bolt with a round in the chamber? Or could the bolt be closed without a round in the chamber? If the latter, then must we assume that the presence of the magazines (I thought they were called "clips" on auto-rifles....) indicates the guns are indeed loaded and ready to fire?

[DeadPoolX 9]

Of course. But can you admit that some tools our more deadly than others? I think you did when you made fun of my deadly butter knife!

Depends on the use ...

butter knife vs powered toaster into water ...

butter knife vs fertilizer + fuel

butter knife vs chefs knife

spit ball vs rubberband + paperclip

wasn't trying to make fun of it or hurt your feelings ... just trying to say everyone fixates on guns and not the other part ... responsibility and respect for life

Bringing your earlier comment here :

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

Just food for thought ... a dangerous brain can be more dangerous than a gun. remember 9/11 ? Where were the guns?

I really don't understand why the whole concept of "designer intent" and "usage" are so difficult to get. Everything you described there was not intended for use as a weapon. That does not mean it can't be used as one. Anything (and we've been over this a hundred times already) can be turned into a weapon. That doesn't mean it is a weapon -- at least not until it's used as such. Something developed for the specific use as a weapon is only a weapon and that's that!

I could potentially crack someone's skull with a book. Is that a weapon? Normally, it wouldn't be. A book is for reading. I think we all can agree on this, right? We tend to read books. However, if someone were to use this book (let's say it's a hardback, which makes the scenario a little more plausible) to bash a person's face in, then -- and only then -- could it ever be classified as a weapon. The reason for this would be the usage; it was not developed with the purpose in mind to harm anyone, but to deliver a story or information.

Something such as a gun does not have a purpose other than harming or killing another living creature. It will not cook your food or play a movie or keep you cool during the summer or calculate equations or allow you to communicate with those living halfway across the world. It will, however, shoot a nice, clean bullet hole into your target, causing severe damage and possibly death. Please tell me how this is anything but a weapon?

Nice detective work there, Natty. LOL...my brother has spent over 20 + in law enforcement and 4 yrs. as an MP - he's highly skilled and qualified. We posed with the guns on the side of his house, but we had taken them out into the desert and fired them earlier that day. But really, this isn't about the picture or about me. It's just that somebody implied that I've never had experience firing a weapon (because I must be a granola eating liberal from Kaliforneeya).

The picture clearly shows closed bolts and magazines inserted ... this is not difficult detective work. Just a clear example of poor safe firearm handling skills.

Notice: Muzzle direction down and towards the photographer ... not good either.

Sorry ... it is what it is ... the picture shows poor skills of someone who should know better.

I'm not saying he doesn't "qualify" (hit his target/ good marksmanship) ... I'm saying this picture doesn't prove his safety skills.

In my 10+ years as a being a firearms instructor ... my worst students were LEO, ex-military, and know-it-all good 'ol boys.

Oh, so you rented a few guns for what ... a day or two? For the whole office at the same time? Steven, sorry to say this, but you are still just a newbie. Give it more time ... shoot more ... and you will learn more.

On the other thing ... everything with you is open for debate

I don't really have a lot to say about this particular post (or see much wrong with it either), but I'm just wonder about one section. Natty commented that the muzzle was "pointed down towards the photographer" and that wasn't good. As far as I could tell, it didn't look like it was directed at the photographer and where else was the muzzle going to be pointed? At their heads? Those guns were a little too large to holster (or shove into their pants, which probably wouldn't have been a smart move), so where were they going to put them so they could still hold them for an "action shot" in the scene?

Edited October 14, 2007 by DeadPoolX

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

Looks to me like the muzzles are pointed at the ground, angled off to the photographer's right. And I'm not familiar with automatic rifles like these, but is it only possible to close the bolt with a round in the chamber? Or could the bolt be closed without a round in the chamber? If the latter, then must we assume that the presence of the magazines (I thought they were called "clips" on auto-rifles....) indicates the guns are indeed loaded and ready to fire?

I guarantee, Scott, those clips are empty as well as the chambers. My brother is very careful. BTW, he's a Libertarian and our political views are quite different from each other....but we're still brothers.

Edited October 14, 2007 by Mister Fancypants

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

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?

Custer was an idiot. He would have done his men a favour if he'd just shot himself in the head.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Of course. But can you admit that some tools our more deadly than others? I think you did when you made fun of my deadly butter knife!

Depends on the use ...

butter knife vs powered toaster into water ...

butter knife vs fertilizer + fuel

butter knife vs chefs knife

spit ball vs rubberband + paperclip

wasn't trying to make fun of it or hurt your feelings ... just trying to say everyone fixates on guns and not the other part ... responsibility and respect for life

Bringing your earlier comment here :

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

Just food for thought ... a dangerous brain can be more dangerous than a gun. remember 9/11 ? Where were the guns?

I've never seen anyone here deny personal responsibility or in any way try to claim that guns fire themselves and there is no person behind the finger on the trigger.

Why do you feel the need to own a gun when a butter knife would be just as effective?

Maybe you missed the "drunk driver" issue yesterday. There was lots of denial about responsibility there. Some consider being drunk, driving, and killing someone is an accident. The drunk had no responsibility ... the drunk did not intend to kill someone.

Please don't mix protecting yourself with a premeditated attack on an unsuspecting person.

To answer your question ... if I'm attacked by bigger ... stronger person(s) I want the ability to have the upper hand and survive the issue, I'll take the gun and let the attacker wish they had stayed home and watched Opra. I want to live and enjoy my wife and child.

Which would you rather have when attacked? A gun or butter knife?

Note: It's you or the other person ... there are only two choices here. 911 only arrives after the fact .. if you lived to call them

Bull$hit. Noone said the drink driver wasn't responsible - only that his act of killing was fundamentally unintentional (i.e. he didn't intend to kill people with his car). Can you say the same about the kid who perpetrated the Virginia Tech shooting? Did his crime arise out of grotesque negligence or deliberate, malicious intent?

You seem unwilling to make any distinction between the two, a distinction that to my mind at least - is blindingly clear.

[eric&gen 0]

My tool is more deadly than Ted Nugents tools and all the rest on here. I know how to use my tool very well lol.