I love Ted Nuggent

Remember what Ted does for a living. He's an entertainer. I thought that vid was pretty entertaining. Thanks for posting it. On the other hand I saw a "homes of the celebrities" show on t.v. recently that had Ted showing off his home and toys. Heavy on the ego and way light on the modesty. Nice spread though. jim

I think the overthrow the govt, while a wonderful and noble idea, as long since passed us by and by in large does not require heavy arms, but a will to stand-up and be noticed. If the govt wants to get me I am going to need way more than some automatic weapons. Things like grenades, landmines, tactical nukes, attack copters and maybe jets come to mind. Frankly I don't trust anyone with that stuff, not even the govt. I think that ship as long since sailed probably sometime around WWII. I mean just watch Wolverines to see how it is really done!   So if you think we should have access to the same arms the US gov has I think I am going to have to respectfully disagree with you there.

Re other countries, I know Canada has a high percentage of gun owners but nowhere near the gun violence. Japan has a high degree of cultural history around killing others. China, well people don't kill each other cause that is the govt job and they do it well   Bowling for Columbine, while way crazy biased against guns and the NRA specifically, does however provide a lot of interesting angles. Our culture generally, and certain segments of it specifically, do not seem to put a high value on human life, violence is glorified in our movies, TV and music, the news is filled with death and mayhem "If it bleeds it leads" all which combine into a rather potent cocktail of high number of deaths do to people shooting other people. I think the NRA does its side of the argument a disservice by taking some way radical positions on things, it makes people in the middle far less likely to side with them. That whole "Pry it from my cold dead hand" deal is just creepy.

The really interesting thing is that my home state of Texas, which has probably the most liberal gun policies of any large state, still has a lot of crime and a lot more of it than other states of similar size. I guess everyone having guns does not really reduce overall crime that much. On the other hand everyone having guns does not increase crime that much either. It appears to have little or no impact.

Ok sorry that was very rambling, I just enjoy having a really good debate about this with no name calling!  

mayhem "If it bleeds it
Ok sorry that was very rambling, I just enjoy having a really good debate about this with no name calling!  

Agree completely but what would be your ideal solution? Where do you draw the line?

We need our police to protect us

Good luck with that.

if you think we should have access to the same arms the US gov has I think I am going to have to respectfully disagree with you there.

I do not think we should, BUT I believe that was the intention originally.  Of course they couldn't imagine machine guns, etc, back then...



I don't have the solutions, but I am convinced that education is key.  When I was a kid in Oregon we took Hunters Safety in middle school, with shotguns and rifles in class during normal school hours and thought nothing of it.  Almost zero crime at the time in that area...  That proves to me guns, in and of themselves, are not the problem.

IMO it's thugs who are mostly repeat offenders.

Get the drug offenders out of jails and into treatment, and maybe we'll have room for the thugs, instead of recycling them.

Good luck with that.

So what's the other options? Give up on the police and do it ourselves?

Z

While I have uptmost respect for Officers and what they do...  I don't think anyone can protect us except ourselves.

Do you seriously think they will be there to protect you someone should break into your house with ill intent?  Or carjack you?  Or rob you at the ATM?  (knock on wood)

They will be there afterwards to sort out the mess, sure!  But noone can "protect" you 24/7 but yourself.

Now do I think everyone should be packing heat 24/7??  no way...  but I think we should have the option, (after taking instruction courses and background checks, of course).

Diane Feinstein has a concealed carry permit, btw!  Did you know that?  But she is against anyone else having one.  wtf?

I have not met a gun owner who KNEW what the nra stood for and didn't agree with them. The NRA has NOT tried to get fully auto weapons back, Thay have been outlawed since 1934!

I have several relatives that are policemen, and they all say WE (law abiding citizens) should have firearms!
Just because you don't agree or own your own firearms, don't take mine away! BTW the gun issue is like the MLPA's; too many people not worried about somebody else loosing their rights cause it won't effect them.

I don't have the answers either...

As a side note, living outside the city, I hear what appears to be target practice kind of regularly. My question for the hunters out there...do you typically fire 8-10 consecutive rounds when hunting deer or other animals? Or is that just someone with a hard-on for acting macho?

Jay

BTW-I have liked his music all along and still do.

Nobody fires 8-10 rounds at a deer, but only an idiot would pull a gun out of the safe and fire a shot at an animal . There is no way you could hope to make a clean kill without sighting and practicing with that gun. You would not enter a bowling compitition without practice first.
Also for some it is entertaining to shoot targets just like fishing c&r is for some.
One last thing Uncle Ted may have extreme views but so does the other side peta for example .
He is not an idiot He loves his country and gives a lot to it. He has children programs, disabled vets, feed the hungry and so on.
When everyone was walking around with guns people had a little more respect for each other.
When, not if,guns are outlawed the criminals will always have them . They are willing to do what it takes to get them.
Thanks for your view, Brian

I think the overthrow the govt, while a wonderful and noble idea, as long since passed us by and by in large does not require heavy arms, but a will to stand-up and be noticed. If the govt wants to get me I am going to need way more than some automatic weapons. Things like grenades, landmines, tactical nukes, attack copters and maybe jets come to mind. Frankly I don't trust anyone with that stuff, not even the govt. I think that ship as long since sailed probably sometime around WWII. I mean just watch Wolverines to see how it is really done!   So if you think we should have access to the same arms the US gov has I think I am going to have to respectfully disagree with you there.

Re other countries, I know Canada has a high percentage of gun owners but nowhere near the gun violence. Japan has a high degree of cultural history around killing others. China, well people don't kill each other cause that is the govt job and they do it well   Bowling for Columbine, while way crazy biased against guns and the NRA specifically, does however provide a lot of interesting angles. Our culture generally, and certain segments of it specifically, do not seem to put a high value on human life, violence is glorified in our movies, TV and music, the news is filled with death and mayhem "If it bleeds it leads" all which combine into a rather potent cocktail of high number of deaths do to people shooting other people. I think the NRA does its side of the argument a disservice by taking some way radical positions on things, it makes people in the middle far less likely to side with them. That whole "Pry it from my cold dead hand" deal is just creepy.

The really interesting thing is that my home state of Texas, which has probably the most liberal gun policies of any large state, still has a lot of crime and a lot more of it than other states of similar size. I guess everyone having guns does not really reduce overall crime that much. On the other hand everyone having guns does not increase crime that much either. It appears to have little or no impact.

Ok sorry that was very rambling, I just enjoy having a really good debate about this with no name calling!  

Ditto , I do agree

i'm with headshot (bill) on this one, as i don't really see the need for having weapons that could defend yourself from the govt.  I think we are well beyond the point in our society where we need to worry about the govt coming down upon us in an oppressive state, and i sure hope that when future generations grow up they would not have that concern either.  

I dont ever consider the need for a weapon like an uzi, BAR, rocket launcher, etc - how that would defend me from oppression i'm not sure.  its not like the govt would be afraid of me unless i held some sort of WMD.  

i also understand that our current enforcement of law in the US is weak - the other countries i mention have rather draconian gun laws and i'm not sure if i agree with them 100%.  

i also dont have the answers - i think part of it is that violence seems to be ingrained into a certain minority of our society and no one appears to have an answer to this.  some want more enforcement, some want stronger laws, some want more penalties, but no one wants to lose the freedoms associated with these laws.

as for brian's comment about dc - no guns are not outlawed there, the mayor tried and it was rejected by a court battle (which of course the NRA supported).  Guns by themselves are not the problem - it is the bad people who use the guns. I understand that and so do most gun control advocates (regardless of what the NRA may think).

take all the guns away from the bad people and they may find another way to kill/maim - but it would definitely not be as efficient.  problem is - how do we take all the guns away from bad people without draconian efforts of enforcement?  It would be impossible without quite crazy gun control laws that would never pass with the gun lobby out there.

as for calling anyone names, bill you deserve that for that one facebook pic you put up   and plus i think that's a rather flattering nickname!

In a way the whole gun thing is a red herring...

The real problem is the very small minority that is responsible for the vast majority of all crime.

Look at those tiger taunting punks, for instance.  The toll that have taken on society cannot be underestimated.  Think of the court costs alone!

Again...  stop prosecuting victimless crimes and maybe we can lock up the real menaces to society.

Diane Feinstein has a concealed carry permit, btw!  Did you know that?  But she is against anyone else having one.  wtf?

Didn't know that. Interesting considering she's from SF, where it's IMPOSSIBLE to get a permit to carry.

The main problem with handguns in the home is that they are nothing more than expensive weights for throwing unless they are easily accessible and loaded. It is these conditions that make them inherently unsafe in a home with anyone that can't act 'responsibly' at all times. Unfortunately we all make mistakes in judgement at times.

This is exactly my main, overly-reasonable & rational argument against everyone having access to firearms. Personally, I would not carry a gun with me all the time because there have been times (especially while driving) that I'm pretty sure I would have used it, and I know there are a lot of people out there who are way more quick & hot-tempered than I!

Just like Zee said here: 

For example, if we simplify our problem of protection, if every person had a gun in their pocket, how free would we be? If we made a simple comment, yelled at our friend behind some man or woman, "assh*le" and that man or woman mistook that comment as going to them, had a bad day, made a quick judgement they could end our lives. The thought of death would hover over our head every hour of every day we lived. Some may think that's freedom but I can't agree.

Now the dilemma for me is about the right to own and/or carry weapons. Even with the judgment factor & personal anecdote, I have a real problem with legislating, banning, & all the other Big Brother regulations. A real conundrum!

The solution is to move to Montana! Open beer in the cup holder in your truck, a 38 on the dash, cruisin 75 down the highway towing your drift boat. All acceptable All legal

Aaron, it's true, and that's why I mention it...  the hypocricy is staggering.

I wouldn't carry either...  but I think I should have the right to...  say while carrying large sums of cash, or if I know I'm traveling thru some sketchy areas, why shouldn't a citizen have a right to defend themselves?

That said, the best defense is to be aware of your surroundings, imo.

can some mod please change the title of this thread? i'm so tired of seeing the name Ted "Nuggent"