Ted Nugent discusses the 2nd Amendment

[Ban Hammer 13,342]

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.

i wasn't aware mind reading was one of your many talents.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

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.

You're argument sort of breaks down there unless you're suggesting that the country has limited what citizens can own and bear against the provisions of the second amendment. Certainly the standing army has more powerful gear to show than any single citizen would be allowed to have. So, have you taken your grief to court yet? Results? Face it: You're not just some piece of work, you're an outright nut.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

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.

i wasn't aware mind reading was one of your many talents.

Well its not exactly a 'likely' scenario that he would have done it intentionally is it.

Edited October 15, 2007 by Number 6

[natty bumppo 297]

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.

i wasn't aware mind reading was one of your many talents.

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.

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.

Wow .. still fixated on Custer.

Dude … let Custer RIP ... and the fixation on a drunk driver not being responsible ... well I pray you never experience this.

I'll repeat this one last time ... there was a comment about a firearm being only suitable for attacking (offense) and having no purpose for defense. Here is simple proof that a firearm can be used for defensive reasons. What more do you want?

Go back and review the original comment .. otherwise you are simply typing words.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

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.

i wasn't aware mind reading was one of your many talents.

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.

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.

Wow .. still fixated on Custer.

Dude … let Custer RIP ... and the fixation on a drunk driver not being responsible ... well I pray you never experience this.

I'll repeat this one last time ... there was a comment about a firearm being only suitable for attacking (offense) and having no purpose for defense. Here is simple proof that a firearm can be used for defensive reasons. What more do you want?

Go back and review the original comment .. otherwise you are simply typing words.

None of which changes the basic operation or intended use of the firearm. You use it to shoot things, either people or animals - you do not use it as a paperweight, bottle opener or door stop. Well... you may...

And again - I never said the drunk driver wasn't responsible. I said he was negligent, and there is a pretty big difference between negligence and malicious intent.

And yes - we talk in words. You know... form of communication for many thousands of years...

[natty bumppo 297]

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.

You're argument sort of breaks down there unless you're suggesting that the country has limited what citizens can own and bear against the provisions of the second amendment. Certainly the standing army has more powerful gear to show than any single citizen would be allowed to have. So, have you taken your grief to court yet? Results? Face it: You're not just some piece of work, you're an outright nut.

wow calling people names now ... do you realize you've just shown true colors?

what more powerful gear? Planes, tanks, bombs? Is this what you mean?

Edited October 15, 2007 by Natty Bumppo

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

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.

You're argument sort of breaks down there unless you're suggesting that the country has limited what citizens can own and bear against the provisions of the second amendment. Certainly the standing army has more powerful gear to show than any single citizen would be allowed to have. So, have you taken your grief to court yet? Results? Face it: You're not just some piece of work, you're an outright nut.

wow calling people names now ... do you realize you've just shown true colors?

what more powerful gear? Planes, tanks, bombs? Is this what you mean?

guess you have no clue what a dedicated armed populace can do to a superior force ... and history wasn't your best subject.

Well the previous poster did basically label him a cookie cutter liberal with twisted thought processes. Why single out the nut comment to the exclusion of the preceding post?

[natty bumppo 297]

Well the previous poster did basically label him a cookie cutter liberal with twisted thought processes. Why single out the nut comment to the exclusion of the preceding post?

sorry ... does name calling make your point better? stronger? He wasn't right either. sorry ... just that your comment stood out a little stronger (end of sentence).

Just trying to help ... and I welcome you to do the same for me. Not harm intended ... we cool ?

Edited October 15, 2007 by Natty Bumppo

[Cantankerous 0]

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.).

Parents should be held responsible for keeping their firearms out of the hands of children. This brings us back to the common sense discussion. I am not a big fan of trigger locks being mandated as they may impede access to the firearms when needed. There are a variety of methods available for securing firearms. I agree the point is that they be kept away from children.

An important note, at least for me; more children, almost 3 times as many, die from poisoning than from firearm accidents – why are parents not required to lock up poisons? Almost 3 times as many children die from bicycle and tricycle accidents than from firearm accidents – why are all children not required to wear helmets?

It is sad that we seem to have to have laws to make people have common sense.

Sometimes I think we get off into these political and emotional debates and we seem to forget there are a lot of dangers out there that are killing more of our children. How are we setting our priorities? Just wondering out loud…

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

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.

You're argument sort of breaks down there unless you're suggesting that the country has limited what citizens can own and bear against the provisions of the second amendment. Certainly the standing army has more powerful gear to show than any single citizen would be allowed to have. So, have you taken your grief to court yet? Results? Face it: You're not just some piece of work, you're an outright nut.

wow calling people names now ... do you realize you've just shown true colors?

what more powerful gear? Planes, tanks, bombs? Is this what you mean?

That's what the guy I responded to quite obviously suggested. He claims that the founding fathers would have wanted the citizens to be no less equipped than the standing army so that the citizenry could presumably take on the standing army as an enemy. I suppose to try to take on today's standing army with a bunch handguns would be fairly nutty, no? It would be equally nutty to suggest that the founding fathers would - in this day and age - want the citizenry to be armed well enough to take on the standing army. There's a bit of a conflict in his argument that I would like some clarification on.

As for the nut, I only returned fire.

[Ban Hammer 13,342]

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.

You're argument sort of breaks down there unless you're suggesting that the country has limited what citizens can own and bear against the provisions of the second amendment. Certainly the standing army has more powerful gear to show than any single citizen would be allowed to have. So, have you taken your grief to court yet? Results? Face it: You're not just some piece of work, you're an outright nut.

wow calling people names now ... do you realize you've just shown true colors?

what more powerful gear? Planes, tanks, bombs? Is this what you mean?

That's what the guy I responded to quite obviously suggested. He claims that the founding fathers would have wanted the citizens to be no less equipped than the standing army so that the citizenry could presumably take on the standing army as an enemy. I suppose to try to take on today's standing army with a bunch handguns would be fairly nutty, no? It would be equally nutty to suggest that the founding fathers would - in this day and age - want the citizenry to be armed well enough to take on the standing army. There's a bit of a conflict in his argument that I would like some clarification on.

As for the nut, I only returned fire.

so you were defending yourself against a hostile act

[natty bumppo 297]

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.

You're argument sort of breaks down there unless you're suggesting that the country has limited what citizens can own and bear against the provisions of the second amendment. Certainly the standing army has more powerful gear to show than any single citizen would be allowed to have. So, have you taken your grief to court yet? Results? Face it: You're not just some piece of work, you're an outright nut.

wow calling people names now ... do you realize you've just shown true colors?

what more powerful gear? Planes, tanks, bombs? Is this what you mean?

That's what the guy I responded to quite obviously suggested. He claims that the founding fathers would have wanted the citizens to be no less equipped than the standing army so that the citizenry could presumably take on the standing army as an enemy. I suppose to try to take on today's standing army with a bunch handguns would be fairly nutty, no? It would be equally nutty to suggest that the founding fathers would - in this day and age - want the citizenry to be armed well enough to take on the standing army. There's a bit of a conflict in his argument that I would like some clarification on.

As for the nut, I only returned fire.

please find my earlier post about the words "keep and bear arms". I don't think a tank, plane, or Nuke meet the definition.

Earlier Post Could this be what the FF envisioned?

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

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.

You're argument sort of breaks down there unless you're suggesting that the country has limited what citizens can own and bear against the provisions of the second amendment. Certainly the standing army has more powerful gear to show than any single citizen would be allowed to have. So, have you taken your grief to court yet? Results? Face it: You're not just some piece of work, you're an outright nut.

wow calling people names now ... do you realize you've just shown true colors?

what more powerful gear? Planes, tanks, bombs? Is this what you mean?

That's what the guy I responded to quite obviously suggested. He claims that the founding fathers would have wanted the citizens to be no less equipped than the standing army so that the citizenry could presumably take on the standing army as an enemy. I suppose to try to take on today's standing army with a bunch handguns would be fairly nutty, no? It would be equally nutty to suggest that the founding fathers would - in this day and age - want the citizenry to be armed well enough to take on the standing army. There's a bit of a conflict in his argument that I would like some clarification on.

As for the nut, I only returned fire.

please find my earlier post about the words "keep and bear arms". I don't think a tank, plane, or Nuke meet the definition.

Earlier Post Could this be what the FF envisioned?

That is not what bgreed suggested. I took issue with that particular interpretation not with yours.