Ted Nugent discusses the 2nd Amendment

[Ban Hammer 13,349]

Sure it is. But he initiated the situation that got him and his men killed - by attacking a vastly superior force. That it went tits up on him doesn't change the fact that he could have avoided that by not attacking in the first place.

um he was in hostile territory, it's rather silly to make that statement when he could have been attacked at a later date.

[bgreed 0]

Big Dog, If anyone is a piece of work it is you trying to bend historic fact to reflect your view. And yes most leberal do the same thing because they react out of their fer and emotions not by using common sense. Look at most any legislation penned by a liberal. And yes the founding fathers did recognize that technology marches forward which is the exact reason why they would want the citizens to have the exact same arms as the standing army. Pretty tough to fight back against a better armed enemy than when you are on a more even footing. Face it you are busy shooting your mouth off trying to make yourself and your twisted thought process fell good (another liberal trait) by putting others who may have a more informed yet opposite view down. Maybe when you have studied a little you should come back and tell us what you found out.

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

One particular issue that I have is with guns in homes where there are children. I think it's perfectly reasonable and can be proven way of prevention, to require trigger locks for the guns. It would a be preventable measure, not to keep some criminal from using your gun, but to keep children from gaining access to guns.

for children present ...

first there is education ... just like teaching about power outlets, knives, running with scissors, hot stove tops, knives in toasters ... etc. if YOU don't teach/ educate then YOU are a huge part of the problem.

if a firearm is for home/ personal protection it needs to be secured in a fashion that enables the firearm to be quickly accessed and enabled by authorized users.

(I left this a little vague on purpose as every home has a different set of circumstances that requires a slightly different approach to securing the firearm ... eg. stay-at-home mom ... latch-key-children ... etc)

long term storage ...

I see nothing wrong with a structured storage method. Examples: locked in a secured room, secured closet, safe, etc. with ammunition stored in a different location. After all, firearms are expensive items and nobody wants a B&E to result in the loss of them.

as I mentioned before ... trigger locks can be easily defeated with basic tools and are not 100% reliable. I think most determined teenagers will have no problem defeating a trigger lock.

This topic has been discussed at lenght between my wife and I in regards to children in the home. Our solution will probably be a little different than yours would be and our child will be safe.

I can see your point, but the reality is there have been numerous examples of gross negligence from gun owners where children used the gun. A comparison would be the laws regarding pools in backyards. In Arizona, after having numerous accidental drownings from children falling into pools, they made it a law requiring pools have a fence with a self latching gate. If the gun owner is not home, the guns should be unaccessible to children - so maybe the law could be defined that way? (keeping it open for each household to do what works best for them). It's unfortunate that we have to have some laws to modify behavior when it comes to safety, but some people need coaxing or direction before they'll employ common sense (wearing a seatbelt, wearing a helmet when riding a motorcycle, etc.).

[Ban Hammer 13,349]

One particular issue that I have is with guns in homes where there are children. I think it's perfectly reasonable and can be proven way of prevention, to require trigger locks for the guns. It would a be preventable measure, not to keep some criminal from using your gun, but to keep children from gaining access to guns.

for children present ...

first there is education ... just like teaching about power outlets, knives, running with scissors, hot stove tops, knives in toasters ... etc. if YOU don't teach/ educate then YOU are a huge part of the problem.

if a firearm is for home/ personal protection it needs to be secured in a fashion that enables the firearm to be quickly accessed and enabled by authorized users.

(I left this a little vague on purpose as every home has a different set of circumstances that requires a slightly different approach to securing the firearm ... eg. stay-at-home mom ... latch-key-children ... etc)

long term storage ...

I see nothing wrong with a structured storage method. Examples: locked in a secured room, secured closet, safe, etc. with ammunition stored in a different location. After all, firearms are expensive items and nobody wants a B&E to result in the loss of them.

as I mentioned before ... trigger locks can be easily defeated with basic tools and are not 100% reliable. I think most determined teenagers will have no problem defeating a trigger lock.

This topic has been discussed at lenght between my wife and I in regards to children in the home. Our solution will probably be a little different than yours would be and our child will be safe.

I can see your point, but the reality is there have been numerous examples of gross negligence from gun owners where children used the gun. A comparison would be the laws regarding pools in backyards. In Arizona, after having numerous accidental drownings from children falling into pools, they made it a law requiring pools have a fence with a self latching gate. If the gun owner is not home, the guns should be unaccessible to children - so maybe the law could be defined that way? (keeping it open for each household to do what works best for them). It's unfortunate that we have to have some laws to modify behavior when it comes to safety, but some people need coaxing or direction before they'll employ common sense (wearing a seatbelt, wearing a helmet when riding a motorcycle, etc.).

which occured because parents didn't teach their kids to stay the f*** outta other people's yards.

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

One particular issue that I have is with guns in homes where there are children. I think it's perfectly reasonable and can be proven way of prevention, to require trigger locks for the guns. It would a be preventable measure, not to keep some criminal from using your gun, but to keep children from gaining access to guns.

for children present ...

first there is education ... just like teaching about power outlets, knives, running with scissors, hot stove tops, knives in toasters ... etc. if YOU don't teach/ educate then YOU are a huge part of the problem.

if a firearm is for home/ personal protection it needs to be secured in a fashion that enables the firearm to be quickly accessed and enabled by authorized users.

(I left this a little vague on purpose as every home has a different set of circumstances that requires a slightly different approach to securing the firearm ... eg. stay-at-home mom ... latch-key-children ... etc)

long term storage ...

I see nothing wrong with a structured storage method. Examples: locked in a secured room, secured closet, safe, etc. with ammunition stored in a different location. After all, firearms are expensive items and nobody wants a B&E to result in the loss of them.

as I mentioned before ... trigger locks can be easily defeated with basic tools and are not 100% reliable. I think most determined teenagers will have no problem defeating a trigger lock.

This topic has been discussed at lenght between my wife and I in regards to children in the home. Our solution will probably be a little different than yours would be and our child will be safe.

I can see your point, but the reality is there have been numerous examples of gross negligence from gun owners where children used the gun. A comparison would be the laws regarding pools in backyards. In Arizona, after having numerous accidental drownings from children falling into pools, they made it a law requiring pools have a fence with a self latching gate. If the gun owner is not home, the guns should be unaccessible to children - so maybe the law could be defined that way? (keeping it open for each household to do what works best for them). It's unfortunate that we have to have some laws to modify behavior when it comes to safety, but some people need coaxing or direction before they'll employ common sense (wearing a seatbelt, wearing a helmet when riding a motorcycle, etc.).

which occured because parents didn't teach their kids to stay the f*** outta other people's yards.

Actually, most of the deaths occurred with their own pool and the children were usually under the age of 5.

[Fandango 1,439]

so how would having a fence around the pool solve anything?

[natty bumppo 297]

which occured because parents didn't teach their kids to stay the f*** outta other people's yards.

Actually, most of the deaths occurred with their own pool and the children were usually under the age of 5.

The parents didn't teach their children rules … and the parents didn't watch the children or take basic preventative measures.

Parents can also be extremely negligent with kids around water ... especially if there is a lifeguard anywhere near. I can't tell you the number of times I pulled a child who was in trouble out of the water ... and had to search for the parents(s). Call it 7 summers of personal experience as a lifeguard at a reservoir during H.S. and college. (kinda like those people who would fire up a grill ... and later dump the hot coals on the ground … then leave. Guess who 19 out of 20 times got 2nd or 3rd degree burns … you guessed it the bottom of children’s feet)

Steven .. please don't be a parent like some of the others I interacted with. Especially when it comes to your child and water safety. Please pay attention and teach your child to go nowhere near the water unless a parent/ adult is with them.

Now that we've been to the pool ... back to firearms. The same rules apply. Teach/ educate, and take preventative measures. It is YOUR responsibility !

Edited October 14, 2007 by Natty Bumppo

[natty bumppo 297]

so how would having a fence around the pool solve anything?

One last comment on the pool ...

Supervision ... where was the supervision or "inattentive parents" ? ... you know the one(s) responsible for the child?

Parental Responsibility

When will people learn to take responsiblity for their actions and the safety of their children?

[natty bumppo 297]

bump ....

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Sure it is. But he initiated the situation that got him and his men killed - by attacking a vastly superior force. That it went tits up on him doesn't change the fact that he could have avoided that by not attacking in the first place.

um he was in hostile territory, it's rather silly to make that statement when he could have been attacked at a later date.

'Could' sure. He made it a certainty.

He and his men were killed by his gross incompetence.

[natty bumppo 297]

Sure it is. But he initiated the situation that got him and his men killed - by attacking a vastly superior force. That it went tits up on him doesn't change the fact that he could have avoided that by not attacking in the first place.

um he was in hostile territory, it's rather silly to make that statement when he could have been attacked at a later date.

'Could' sure. He made it a certainty.

He and his men were killed by his gross incompetence.

so what does this have to do with offensive or defensive use of a firearm ?

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Sure it is. But he initiated the situation that got him and his men killed - by attacking a vastly superior force. That it went tits up on him doesn't change the fact that he could have avoided that by not attacking in the first place.

um he was in hostile territory, it's rather silly to make that statement when he could have been attacked at a later date.

'Could' sure. He made it a certainty.

He and his men were killed by his gross incompetence.

so what does this have to do with offensive or defensive use of a firearm ?

Nothing - its a tangent based on Charles' reply above. BTW you brought it up.

[natty bumppo 297]

Nothing - its a tangent based on Charles' reply above. BTW you brought it up.

sorry maybe you missed something ... read back a few pages as I'm tired of bringing it forward ... someone else said a firearm was only good for attacking (offense) ... I merely provided examples of firearms being used for defensive purposes. fwiw: these same actions mentioned used firearms for both defense and offense (attack).

so the premise that a firearm is only suited for attacking (offense) is totally and utterly false.

[Ban Hammer 13,349]

Sure it is. But he initiated the situation that got him and his men killed - by attacking a vastly superior force. That it went tits up on him doesn't change the fact that he could have avoided that by not attacking in the first place.

um he was in hostile territory, it's rather silly to make that statement when he could have been attacked at a later date.

'Could' sure. He made it a certainty.

He and his men were killed by his gross incompetence.

but according to the other thread, he didn't intentionally kill them, just like a drunk driver.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Nothing - its a tangent based on Charles' reply above. BTW you brought it up.

sorry maybe you missed something ... read back a few pages as I'm tired of bringing it forward ... someone else said a firearm was only good for attacking (offense) ... I merely provided examples of firearms being used for defensive purposes. fwiw: these same actions mentioned used firearms for both defense and offense (attack).

so the premise that a firearm is only suited for attacking (offense) is totally and utterly false.

Well defense and offense is really only a semantic distinction as far as that particular example goes. None of it changes what the gun does - you're still shooting it. At other people.

Sure it is. But he initiated the situation that got him and his men killed - by attacking a vastly superior force. That it went tits up on him doesn't change the fact that he could have avoided that by not attacking in the first place.

um he was in hostile territory, it's rather silly to make that statement when he could have been attacked at a later date.

'Could' sure. He made it a certainty.

He and his men were killed by his gross incompetence.

but according to the other thread, he didn't intentionally kill them, just like a drunk driver.

He didn't intentionally kill them - I'm sure the guy had some sense of preservation. But as far as that goes - the example isn't that far off. He got his men killed through his own stupidity. He didn't wake up one morning and think "Life is $hit. To hell with this - I want to get myself and my men killed today". So no the example isn't that much different from the hypothetical drunk driver.