Ted Nugent discusses the 2nd Amendment

[Cantankerous 0]

Yes, the 2nd Amendment is open to interpretation; as proven by the thousands of gun laws currently on the books.

Yes, I believe common sense dictates there needs to be limits as to what types of weapons the average Joe on the street should be able to carry around and even what he should be able to posses within his home.

Have a nuke, no; have a .50 cal on your car, no; walk around with a grenade on your belt, no; this is all common sense.

I think the first Sherriff who said “No guns in my town” violated the 2nd Amendment.

What I would rather people spend their time and efforts on is holding people accountable for their actions instead of taking away rights of the common good person.

I’d rather talk about punishing people who drink and drive as that kills over 17,000 people every year. Tell me how many people in the US were murdered by “Assault Weapons” in the past 5 years. Alcohol and cars should be termed an Assault Weapon as used together they have killed 85,000 people in the past 5 years.

[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?

erm...how did this happen?

Edited October 14, 2007 by Scott & Lai

[natty bumppo 297]

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

He was definitively not in the right there ... his men probably didn't shoot him at first because they needed all the help they could get at the time.

doesn't chage the point .. this was a defensive use.

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

Yes, the 2nd Amendment is open to interpretation; as proven by the thousands of gun laws currently on the books.

Yes, I believe common sense dictates there needs to be limits as to what types of weapons the average Joe on the street should be able to carry around and even what he should be able to posses within his home.

Have a nuke, no; have a .50 cal on your car, no; walk around with a grenade on your belt, no; this is all common sense.

I think the first Sherriff who said “No guns in my town” violated the 2nd Amendment.

What I would rather people spend their time and efforts on is holding people accountable for their actions instead of taking away rights of the common good person.

I’d rather talk about punishing people who drink and drive as that kills over 17,000 people every year. Tell me how many people in the US were murdered by “Assault Weapons” in the past 5 years. Alcohol and cars should be termed an Assault Weapon as used together they have killed 85,000 people in the past 5 years.

Well said and a fair argument.

[eric&gen 0]

Throw your horns in the air Ted Nugent rocks.

[natty bumppo 297]

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?

erm...how did this happen?

Yes, the bolts can be closed without a round in the chamber.

They are called magazines

Magazine: is an ammunition storage and feeding device within or attached to a firearm. Magazines may be integral to the firearm (fixed) or removable (detachable). Magazines

Clip: a device that is used to store multiple rounds of ammunition together as a unit, ready for insertion into the magazine. Clips ... different types

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

A few basic things should be kept in mind when handling any firearm … and ... I think your brother will agreee that:

+ There is no such thing as an unloaded gun – it is always assumed to be loaded.

+ All guns are always loaded. Even if they are not, treat them as if they are.

+ Point the muzzle away from non-targets

Given the basic safety rules … you guys should have at least pointed the muzzles up … then if an AD (accidental discharge) occurred … the photographer would not have been in danger of a ricochet.

(Note: you are the ultimate safety ... not the mechanical device).

Accidents can happen. It is the individuals responsibility to do everything possible to prevent accidents.

I don't doubt that your brother was probably being very careful ... validated each and every firearm was unloaded ... twice. And probably had another person validate his findings prior to the photo-op. I only wanted to point out a few things for those who are not in the know that this was not a proper way to handle firearms.

I hope someday, you and your brother can spend some serious time together shooting. That he teaches you good safety skills ... and good marksman skills.

[natty bumppo 297]

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?

erm...how did this happen?

Yes, the bolts can be closed without a round in the chamber.

Sorry bad way to provide the answer.

The bolt can be closed with or without a round in the chamber. It does not matter. Just press the "bolt catch" and the bolt will close.

[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?

erm...how did this happen?

Yes, the bolts can be closed without a round in the chamber.

They are called magazines

Magazine: is an ammunition storage and feeding device within or attached to a firearm. Magazines may be integral to the firearm (fixed) or removable (detachable). Magazines

Clip: a device that is used to store multiple rounds of ammunition together as a unit, ready for insertion into the magazine. Clips ... different types

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

A few basic things should be kept in mind when handling any firearm … and ... I think your brother will agreee that:

+ There is no such thing as an unloaded gun – it is always assumed to be loaded.

+ All guns are always loaded. Even if they are not, treat them as if they are.

+ Point the muzzle away from non-targets

Given the basic safety rules … you guys should have at least pointed the muzzles up … then if an AD (accidental discharge) occurred … the photographer would not have been in danger of a ricochet.

(Note: you are the ultimate safety ... not the mechanical device).

Accidents can happen. It is the individuals responsibility to do everything possible to prevent accidents.

I don't doubt that your brother was probably being very careful ... validated each and every firearm was unloaded ... twice. And probably had another person validate his findings prior to the photo-op. I only wanted to point out a few things for those who are not in the know that this was not a proper way to handle firearms.

I hope someday, you and your brother can spend some serious time together shooting. That he teaches you good safety skills ... and good marksman skills.

Perhaps you can write to the military for training their soldiers the improper way of directing the muzzle down?

[natty bumppo 297]

Perhaps you can write to the military for training their soldiers the improper way of directing the muzzle down?

combat conditions vs. civilian life standing next to the house ???

apples & oranges ...

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

Perhaps you can write to the military for training their soldiers the improper way of directing the muzzle down?

combat conditions vs. civilian life standing next to the house ???

apples & oranges ...

No offense to your expertise, Natty, but seriously, my brother is far more knowledgeable and skilled with firearms than you. That's not an insult but a mere fact. He's been in real combat as well (in Iraq). He's currently an instructor at the Police Academy. While I can see it's hard to take your firearm instructor hat off when discussing guns, in this case, you're way off your mark.

[bgreed 0]

Mr.BigDog, First of all I don't claim to talk to the dead, but I have taken the time to read the things they wrote. (something most liberals don't take the time to do because it wipes out their arguement) So if you read what the framers wrote and read the constitution and understand thebasic meanings and usage of words at the time the full intent of the second amendment is very clear and concise just as I wrote in my earlier post.

It is those of you who are afraid of inanimate objects (known as hoplophobia) That bring up the ludicris arguments of "well does that mean if i want to own I.e. a nuclear weapon, bazooka etc that it's OK?" If you had any understanding of thought and historic evidence this question would not even come to mind.

And I will have to agree with NattyBumpo about a great deal of LEO officers when it comes to firearms handling. The gun club that I belonged to in Michigan ran an annual competition for the area SWAT teams and we were constantly having to remind them about firearms ahndling procedure. Besides that after watching some of these teams in action these are not the guys I would want coming to my rescue. Oh the stories I could tell of not only actions on the range but actions on duty. Oh and by the way a middle of the road competitive combat pistol shooter can go through the same course alone at half the time with double the score.

The debate about the ability and availability of fully automatic weapons. As I stated earlier the intent was for the citizenry to have acces to the same small arms as the standing army. Which would mean the current technology of the day. So for today that means full auto M-16'. However full auto is not all it's cracked up to be in the movies where you see a guy blazing away for minutes without a magazine change. For example with the fire rate of the M-16 a 30 round magazine lasts about three seconds if you depress the trigger and fire until empty. So on the range full auto can be entertaining, but give me semi any day for controlled aimed fire.

And oh by the way all male citizens in Switzerland are issued a fullu automatic rifel magazines and ammunition by the government as they have a small standing army and still use the militia idea. The local governments put on shooting competitions a couple times a year to make sure everyone stays in practice. And Switzerland has one of the lowest crime rates in the industrialized world.

[Hilarious Clinton 452]

Yes, the 2nd Amendment is open to interpretation; as proven by the thousands of gun laws currently on the books.

Yes, I believe common sense dictates there needs to be limits as to what types of weapons the average Joe on the street should be able to carry around and even what he should be able to posses within his home.

Have a nuke, no; have a .50 cal on your car, no; walk around with a grenade on your belt, no; this is all common sense.

I think the first Sherriff who said “No guns in my town” violated the 2nd Amendment.

What I would rather people spend their time and efforts on is holding people accountable for their actions instead of taking away rights of the common good person.

I’d rather talk about punishing people who drink and drive as that kills over 17,000 people every year. Tell me how many people in the US were murdered by “Assault Weapons” in the past 5 years. Alcohol and cars should be termed an Assault Weapon as used together they have killed 85,000 people in the past 5 years.

Well said.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

Mr.BigDog, First of all I don't claim to talk to the dead, but I have taken the time to read the things they wrote. (something most liberals don't take the time to do because it wipes out their arguement) So if you read what the framers wrote and read the constitution and understand the basic meanings and usage of words at the time the full intent of the second amendment is very clear and concise just as I wrote in my earlier post.

Unless the founding fathers had some sort of crystal ball available to them that would have allowed them to look into the future and see what arms are today as opposed to what they were then - I think we can agree that the firepower and destructive capacity of today's guns far outweighs anything the founding fathers would have imagined in their wildest dreams - I don't think that every word written 200+ years ago can or should be taken at face value but rather needs to be taken and seen in context of the society we live in today. However much you seem to think that there's no room for interpretation to the second amendment and what it means and doesn't mean, just look at the various different ways it has been interpreted across the country and across time. But I guess that's all just due to some liberals not having taken the time to read up on the nation's history. You're some piece of work.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

And oh by the way all male citizens in Switzerland are issued a fullu automatic rifel magazines and ammunition by the government ...

... worth mentioning here would be that the government issued ammunition is sealed and inspected regularly to ensure no unauthorized use thereof.

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

This post...

http://www.visajourney.com/forums/index.ph...t&p=1255980

is probably the best argument made here - at least on the side of minimal legislation of gun laws.

While I can see the fear that slowly, the right to bear arms seems to becoming narrower in it's application, looking at each proposed legislation on its own merits, isolated from paranoia coming from all sides, would be the best approach rather than falling back on the rhetoric that the 2nd Amendment gives us immunity from any kind of regulations on bearing arms.

As I asked earlier - and I'm really curious? Has there ever been a gun law that was challenged on its constitutionality?