Ted Nugent: Gun-free zones are a recipe for disaster

[B.O.P.]

Ted Nugent: "Who doesn't get this? Who has the audacity to demand unarmed helplessness? Who likes dead good guys?"

http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/04/19/commentar...gent/index.html

[Erik Sine]

THE NUUUUUUUUGEE!!!

[Batch]

Ted Nuggent gets it.

Laws don't prevent crimes. They outline when one commits a crime.

Police don't prevent crime. They investigate crimes. This is obvious when you listen to some of the horrible tapes of 911 calls where people had time to call about someone breaking into there homes. The police arrive in time to investigate the rape/murders and the whole thing is caught on audio recordings.

As for the last comment at the bottom of the article:

"John Thatamanil, Nashville, Tennessee

"A God-given right to bear guns?" Dear Mr. Nugent, which God, pray tell, are you speaking about? Surely not Jesus, you know, the one who said, "He who lives by the sword dies by the sword." Frankly, I find Mr. Nugent whatever God he claims to worship terribly frightening. Stick to rock, Mr. Nugent, you are terrifically good at that!"

I think Jesus has also been credited with this:

Luke 22:36 "and he that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one."

[YYZ]

I think Jesus has also been credited with this:

Luke 22:36 "and he that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one."

WTF is that supposed to mean!@?

Anyone who says God grants him a right to anything is a crackpot - one way or the other. It amazes me how easily people can twist various religious mythologies to suit their delusions. Christian, Muslim, Branch Davidian - all lacking the ability to reason completely.

[joemomma]

WTF is that supposed to mean!@?

Anyone who says God grants him a right to anything is a crackpot - one way or the other. It amazes me how easily people can twist various religious mythologies to suit their delusions. Christian, Muslim, Branch Davidian - all lacking the ability to reason completely.

I don't believe God grants me rights. Nor do I believe government grants me rights. But I do believe reason does. After all, one of the major things that separates us from the other animals is our ability to reason. Reason dictates that we have the individual rights to life, liberty, and property. Again, it stands to reason that if we have these rights, we have the right to protect them. Guns are one of the ways we can protect them. Thus the second amendment. In a way, it's the most important of our rights. Without it, how do we protect the others. Government? Ha! Government has proven time and time again its inablility to protect, and its ability to refuse to recognize our rights. No thanks. I'll keep my gun.

[neonmaker]

firing at a noise in your dark livingroom can cost you dearly, a wife ,a son ..... or you miss ,and get shot in the head

a good reason to leave the gun in the store

In Europe you have a bigger risk that an accident happens with a gun then you can shoot a burglar,maybe in the states its the same?

[joemomma]

firing at a noise in your dark livingroom can cost you dearly, a wife ,a son ..... or you miss ,and get shot in the head

a good reason to leave the gun in the store

Again, this is the same excuse our nanny government uses to confiscate guns. If you're going to own a gun, make sure you're proficient with it. If you're proficient with it, you're not going to be shooting at noises in your dark livingroom.

I don't have the statistics, but I'd bet that just the presence of a gun or the thought that there might be a gun, will make most criminals think twice about intruding in the first place. First hand proof is the example of Kennesaw GA, as was mentioned in a previous thread on the subject.

If just one person was packing at Virginia Tech the other day, many lives could've been saved.

If just one person was packing at Columbine......well, I don't see how you can't get the message.

[neonmaker]

a bit lame dont you think?,if they know you have a gun ,they shoot first and then rob you

every wacko can shoot the pizzaboy or the nextdoorguy he doesnt like

and a point well made.........

THERE WAS A GUY PACKING IN VIRGINIA,THATS THE PROBLEM

[joemomma]

a bit lame dont you think?,if they know you have a gun ,they shoot first and then rob you

every wacko can shoot the pizzaboy or the nextdoorguy he doesnt like

and a point well made.........

THERE WAS A GUY PACKING IN VIRGINIA,THATS THE PROBLEM

I don't consider the possibility of saving the lives of 32 innocent people lame. Thinking that the government will be there to protect the innocents every time a criminal disregards gun laws (That's what criminals do; they disregard the law.) is what I consider lame.

"THERE WAS A GUY PACKING IN VIRGINIA,THATS THE PROBLEM" I love it when people with a lame argument think it looks better by using all upper case. You're very close to right. The problem at Virginia Tech was that there was only one guy packing.

[neonmaker]

There will always be pros and cons,dont get me wrong,i understand your point of view

my 16 year old boy has been mugged at knifepoint by a muslim at school for his cellphone( no joke )

the same boy cleared the cantineregister and the father had the nerve to go to the police to accuse my boy and

call me names i never heard before,in this moment of torment and pain is for some people easyer to settle the score

by bullets then words,even the kids can

over here its not likely you find yourselve in a fix where you need a gun ( cos few people have one ,not even the villans )

But a freak who loses it,like in verginia, is so random that probably no gun can stop him from doing any harm

its true most of the time the law is one step behind the criminal,but lets not make the world a shootinggallery

[joemomma]

There will always be pros and cons,dont get me wrong....

But a freak who loses it,like in verginia, is so random that probably no gun can stop him from doing any harm

its true most of the time the law is one step behind the criminal,but lets not make the world a shootinggallery

There are pros and cons to liberty. I'll err on the side of liberty.

As I said, if just one civilized human being had been armed at Virginia Tech, the animal that did the shooting would more than likely have ended up as did the shooters in the below instances Mr. Nugent cited, incapacitated before more killings could happen.

"Nearly a decade ago, a Springfield, Oregon, high schooler, a hunter familiar with firearms, was able to bring an unfolding rampage to an abrupt end when he identified a gunman attempting to reload his .22-caliber rifle, made the tactical decision to make a move and tackled the shooter.

A few years back, an assistant principal at Pearl High School in Mississippi, which was a gun-free zone, retrieved his legally owned Colt .45 from his car and stopped a Columbine wannabe from continuing his massacre at another school after he had killed two and wounded more at Pearl.

At an eighth-grade school dance in Pennsylvania, a boy fatally shot a teacher and wounded two students before the owner of the dance hall brought the killing to a halt with his own gun.

More recently, just a few miles up the road from Virginia Tech, two law school students ran to fetch their legally owned firearm to stop a madman from slaughtering anybody and everybody he pleased. These brave, average, armed citizens neutralized him pronto."

Do yourself a favor - go online and visit Kennesaw, GA. See if the citizens are living in fear. See if indeed, Kennesaw has become a shooting gallery in the last 25 years.

[Batch]

WTF is that supposed to mean!@?

Anyone who says God grants him a right to anything is a crackpot - one way or the other. It amazes me how easily people can twist various religious mythologies to suit their delusions. Christian, Muslim, Branch Davidian - all lacking the ability to reason completely.

Well, let me see. I thought it was amusing that a guy that thought a mention of "god" was referring to his GOD and didn't care which god Nuggent meant. He then quoted a biblical passage that refers to a person who makes there living with or uses a weapon with out regard for the consequences as being likely to die from the sword.

I just thought it ironic that the more fitting biblical passage countered his own argument.

I am not religious if that was your guess.

I am very much a proponent of individual self defense. My daily carry habits would usually alarm most folks. I am a strong support of individual rights and more importantly the reason we need those rights. As I posted I alone may stop an aggressor against my self and more importantly my family.

This is a touchy subject (self defense) as is religion for some. It is not for me.

If you reread my post quoting a religious person and then countering their quote with one from their own arsenal. I think you will see my REASON instead of the lack you mention.

Anyway, some times posts convey less or more then intended and some times the wrong point at all. So to clarify. I am not offended or angry about anything. LOL

I am a student of practical unarmed self defense and armed defense. Its hard to get into that with folks you don't know without it coming off wrong. Suffice it to say I believe in being armed at all times and being trained in techniques that require minimal skill and good results in dynamic situations. If you guys want to discuss that and our individual preparedness we can start another thread...

Also Branch Davidians are Christians...

[B.O.P.]

Well, let me see. I thought it was amusing that a guy that thought a mention of "god" was referring to his GOD and didn't care which god Nuggent meant. He then quoted a biblical passage that refers to a person who makes there living with or uses a weapon with out regard for the consequences as being likely to die from the sword.

I just thought it ironic that the more fitting biblical passage countered his own argument.

I am not religious if that was your guess.

I am very much a proponent of individual self defense. My daily carry habits would usually alarm most folks. I am a strong support of individual rights and more importantly the reason we need those rights. As I posted I alone may stop an aggressor against my self and more importantly my family.

This is a touchy subject (self defense) as is religion for some. It is not for me.

If you reread my post quoting a religious person and then countering their quote with one from their own arsenal. I think you will see my REASON instead of the lack you mention.

Anyway, some times posts convey less or more then intended and some times the wrong point at all. So to clarify. I am not offended or angry about anything. LOL

I am a student of practical unarmed self defense and armed defense. Its hard to get into that with folks you don't know without it coming off wrong. Suffice it to say I believe in being armed at all times and being trained in techniques that require minimal skill and good results in dynamic situations. If you guys want to discuss that and our individual preparedness we can start another thread...

Also Branch Davidians are Christians...

I understood your point and what you were trying to say quite well. But then, some of us comprehend such things better than others

[B.O.P.]

Here is something for the anti-gun contingent to consider.

[joemomma]

Here is something for the anti-gun contingent to consider.

LMAO! Almost as funny as it is true. Almost as sad, too.

[YYZ]

It's a tricky question.

Personally, I've handled weapons through the years (army cadets, Croatia during the war, occasional target shooting sessions at a range), but I don't have the desire to keep them in my home or on my person. I'm not talking rifles in rural areas, but there is only one reason to have a handgun or assault rifle and that's to kill. That's the problem. I have no desire to hunt, but think there are lots of people deserving to be shot, so I don't carry a gun. Not all people have the same measure of self control. If everyone were like me, there wouldn't be gun crime - the problem is that there are many less-stable people out there and I don't trust guns in their hands.

joemomma - you like owning/carrying. Fine, but is there not a substantial number of people out there that you would not trust with a deadly weapon? The freedom you desire for yourself must apply to all equally and this is the problem. Are you sure you're OK knowing that any crackpot, religious fanatic or unstable college student has such open access to a weapon that can so easily go from a defensive item to an offensive item?

Granted - criminals don't obey ANY gun laws - that's not what we're talking about here. We're talking about readily available LEGAL guns for almost anyone who wants one.

By your logic - Iran should have every right to nuclear weapons. So should North Korea. If everyone has a gun, others would be less likely to use them - right? Well if every country has nukes, others would be less likely to use them - right? Or do you not trust certain countries with certain weapons?

Larger scale, but same logic. Do you really want your kid going to school, knowing that hundreds or thousands of other students are packing in the classroom? Do you really want to go to a football game, knowing that hundreds or thousands of fans - some from other teams! - are also packing, while pounding back beers watching their team lose?

It's not as simple as you make it sound. Do you REALLY want to get on a plane where dozens of people are packing? Get real. No one on those planes had any idea what was at stake and figured if they co-operated, they'd be let off at some point, safe and sound. Those on the the Pennsylvania plane WERE aware what was at stake and responded, boxcutters be damned. I have every reason to believe that had the passengers of the 2 planes flying into WTC knew what was coming, they would have responded in force too. Now that the stakes are higher and people are aware - you can be sure people will respond, regardless of the weapons being carried by the hijackers. Knives, guns, bombs... people will act.

[joemomma]

I've never understood the term "your logic". Logic is logic, just as A is A and 2+2=4. And yes, in answer to your question, I don't believe that one or a group of Sovereign nations (UN - boy, that group sure has a storied history, doesn't it?) has the right to dictate to another Sovereign nation. So by "my logic", yes both Iran and North Korea have the right to do whatever they want. I don't give a shit, just as I don't give a shit if Iraq blows itself to kingdom come. Just don't mess with US.

Marko, it wasn't that long ago in the US that there were no gun laws. I'll check my history books, but I'm pretty sure that parents weren't letting their kids carry weapons to school; hundreds of thousands of football fans - some from other teams! - weren't packing; and dozens of airplane passengers weren't packing..... or were they?

It's hard to understand this concept of freedom in a world that is so un-free, even in this great nation of the theoretically free. But the things that you are describing are happening in a world that is supposedly being made safer by more and more and more and more laws. Human nature, and logic, dictate that we are not animals to be controlled. When laws are made that go against that part of our nature, it just serves to bring all law into contempt. A couple hundred years ago, a wise man said, "Gone is the old simplicity of our times, the world abounds with laws, and teems with crimes." Boy, would his head be spinning today!

[Travisgt45]

LMAO! Almost as funny as it is true. Almost as sad, too.

Ditto what this guy said!