I want the bad guys dead. No court case.

[earthshell]

im not suprised i feel the exact opposite as ted nugent. he's a psycho.

 

[financeguy]

This is one of the reasons why I would never, every consider living in the USA. I could not even contemplate living anywhere where I know that any old tom, dick or harry could have a gun

That's a little bit over the top, in my view. There are safe and dangerous neighbourhoods in the US, as in the UK or Ireland or any other country. There are parts of Dublin with significant gun crime, as in London and Manchester, etc. (Not that I agree with the NRA)

 

[coemgen]

NRA:

Ted Nugent:

 

[Macfistowannabe]

I don't know how I feel about gun control. I don't see any reason for assault weapons. I have no problem with hunting rifles. I'm divided on handguns, although I certainly understand the desire for homeowners and shopowners to feel they have a level playing field.

What I do know is that the NRA makes a lousy poster child for gun rights. If I didn't know better, I would think they were spoofing. But then I know they are not.

I agree with you on your points made. I don't agree with assault weapons, they're rather unneccesary. Responsible hunters are not a concern of mine. I find myself in favor of a limited amount of gun control, such as background checks and waiting periods. Criminals should never be allowed to own any kind of weapon in my opinion. As far as complete disarmment goes, I agree with the constitution. I do however find Ted and the NRA a tad out of whack to say the least. I certainly don't idolize gun fanatics, that's for sure.

 

[Macfistowannabe]

What other assumption is there? It's a gun. They only have one purpose.

As my post said, guns are used to protect people, property, and business. Also, for recreational purposes, mainly hunting. It is wrong to assume that the vast majority who purchase firearms have criminal intent. The exact opposite holds true.

 

[bammo2]

but you miss the point of Anna's post. guns DO have only ONE purpose - to maim or kill, whether criminal or not.

 

[Macfistowannabe]

but you miss the point of Anna's post. guns DO have only ONE purpose - to maim or kill, whether criminal or not.

Really? Is that why all gun owners made that purpose? Because they all want to maim or kill? Sweeping generalization if you ask me.

 

[bammo2]

why else would anyone have a gun?

To put flowers down the end of it and use it as an unusual vase?

To use to open beer bottles?

To use instead of a hole punch when doing the filing?

 

[Macfistowannabe]

why else would anyone have a gun?

To put flowers down the end of it and use it as an unusual vase?

To use to open beer bottles?

To use instead of a hole punch when doing the filing?

That's like saying that a woman shouldn't own pepper spray because she wants to spray people with it. A whole different discussion than hole punchers, bottle openers, vases, toilet paper, and other necessities that you WANT to use.

 

[Macfistowannabe]

This is one of the reasons why I would never, every consider living in the USA. I could not even contemplate living anywhere where I know that any old tom, dick or harry could have a gun

I spend 2/3 of my day downtown, and I don't fear for my life. My fiance's next door neighbor had a gun, but he never used it for violent means. I think you're exaggerating. A LOT.

 

[bammo2]

I didn't say that I would fear for my life - you're putting words in my mouth. This isn't a slur on your country. I have spent a lot of time in the USA. When I was there I didn't worry about being shot. I just don't like the idea that random people can keep guns. IMHO, I prefer to live in a country where people aren't allowed by law to keep handguns.

You are arguing that your neighbour never used his gun for violent means, but what other means does a gun have? Any of its uses, including hunting, is, by nature, violent. It has no non-violent uses.

 

[Macfistowannabe]

Any of its uses, including hunting, is, by nature, violent. It has no non-violent uses.

I don't see how hunting could be a violent crime, unless you put animals on a pedestal like a hindu would. Don't get me wrong, I don't like the idea that people wear fur, but they're entitled to be naive. So who is hurt by hunting, besides animals? Hunters only hurt each other on a very rare basis.

 

[bammo2]

I didn't say that hunting was a violent crime, but it is still killing a living thing. My dictionary defines violence as 'using force to hurt or attack'

I'm not trying to get into a debate about the morality of hunting, but my point is that a gun is used to maim or kill, whether by way of hunting, by way of shooting an intruder, or by way of accidently blowing your head off whilst polishing it. Whether you buy it intending to use it or not, and whether it IS used or not, it's end purpose is still the same - to maim or kill.

 

[BVS]

Really? Is that why all gun owners made that purpose? Because they all want to maim or kill? Sweeping generalization if you ask me.

Mac, your logic is falling short today. Guns were invented and designed to kill. That is the purpose of a gun. There is no other PURPOSE for a gun. Yes some use them to shoot at targets, but that's to better themselves at shooting so if they use it for protection or criminal intent they are a better shot. At the end of the day and the end of all the other reasons people will buy guns it comes down to the point that they are specifically designed to kill.

They are like cars that have another first intent in design but can be used to kill, guns first intent is to kill.

Oh and the whole protection thing, it's a pretty crap argument the percentage of deaths from guns due to protection is less than 10%.

 

[Macfistowannabe]

Oh and the whole protection thing, it's a pretty crap argument the percentage of deaths from guns due to protection is less than 10%.

Explain.

 

[Macfistowannabe]

Mac, your logic is falling short today. Guns were invented and designed to kill. That is the purpose of a gun. There is no other PURPOSE for a gun. Yes some use them to shoot at targets, but that's to better themselves at shooting so if they use it for protection or criminal intent they are a better shot. At the end of the day and the end of all the other reasons people will buy guns it comes down to the point that they are specifically designed to kill.

Duh they are a weapon. I'm not arguing that at all. I'm arguing that most people do not buy guns in order to harm others, unless it is a last resort. I don't know how to make it any clearer than that.

 

[BVS]

Duh they are a weapon. I'm not arguing that at all. I'm arguing that most people do not buy guns in order to harm others, unless it is a last resort. I don't know how to make it any clearer than that.

Well you had 2 others debating the same exact fact with you so obviously you didn't make it clear. Especially with comments like this.

Really? Is that why all gun owners made that purpose? Because they all want to maim or kill?

It's exactly why they bought the gun. Even when using for protection it's killing.

It's a tool for killing nothing more nothing less.

 

[deep]

Duh they are a weapon. I'm not arguing that at all. I'm arguing that most people do not buy guns in order to harm others, unless it is a last resort. I don't know how to make it any clearer than that.

one day you could need to use it
but odds are you won't

like that axe behind the glass that has painted on it "Break in Case of Fire"

or that condum I carried in my wallet for 15 years.

 

[Harry Vest]

The Nuge seems to be a bit of a shifty character.
BUT STRANGLEHOLD IS A GREAT ROCK SONG!!!!!!

 

[Angela Harlem]

Macfisto let me clarify. This thread left by talking about hunters, though they were not whom I was talking about. Hunters are a different story. People like you and me who buy a gun only have one purpose. You say to protect proprty etc, but how? By brandishing it? No, I suspect any gun owner will plan on firing it if they see a need, in a break in or other circumstance. Shooting people is illegal. Ownership of guns puts anyone law abiding in the same position as those who use it for illegal activities. To hurt or maim. I'm sure statistically most guns are bought on the basis of not seeking to harm, but if push comes to shove, anyone who says they want one for protection intends fully to use that gun, to fire it, at someone. Better them than you, right? Sure, that is self preservation, no one wants to see themselves shot or hurt by a petty criminal hoping to flog your VCR, but you buy a gun with the intention of protecting your property and yourself and family and WILL shoot it if you ever need.

 

[Anu]

Fact about America is that as long as cops have guns, people will too. And Americans will never ban hunting.

As much as I am personally a pacifist and my stomach churns when people like Nugent open their mouths to spew venom, the 2nd amendment may be why we are not currently living under severe authoritarianism of the extreme left or right wing.

It's not guns that are the problem, it's people like Ted Nugent we should be worried about!!!

love, Anu

 

[Do Miss America]

the 2nd amendment may be why we are not currently living under severe authoritarianism of the extreme left or right wing.

I'm not sure about this. You honestly think you'll be able to take on the government? Sorry but you won't even make it to the second round.

It's not guns that are the problem, it's people like Ted Nugent we should be worried about!!!

And what's scarier is that most NRA members that I've met in my lifetime are like this, they've been fed this crap for so long they believe it. Truth is a "responsible" family man with a gun will not be able to wake up, run to his, and unlock fast enough to "defend" against an intruder. And they definately won't be able to defend against a government. Yet they still always use these lame excuses.

 

[Angela Harlem]

It's not guns that are the problem, it's people like Ted Nugent we should be worried about!!!

love, Anu

Ted Nugents indeed. Why the hell would you want to give some fuck like this a bloody gun????

 

[saltwaterkiss26]

Ted Nugents indeed. Why the hell would you want to give some fuck like this a bloody gun????

Responsible people with guns don't scare me half as much as people like Nuge.

 

[nathan1977]

"Ted Nugent called. He wants his shirt back."

My father-in-law owns a gun. For protection/self-defense for his family.

My grandfather owns a gun. He lives on a farm in rural upstate New York. It's occasionally necessary.

I'm siding with Macf on this one....

I too agree with some gun control measures (waiting periods and background checks). I also agree that assault weapons are ridiculous -- however, I'm not sure though that Bush was the logjam; as I recall from the NPR report I heard on this, Congress was responsible for drafting the legislation, and they simply let it expire. Bush said that he would sign the legislation if it came across his desk, but Congressional leaders never did anything about it...

 

[deep]

Bush said that he would sign the legislation if it came across his desk, but Congressional leaders never did anything about it...

ok,

Just like he did about the 1.7 trillion dollar tax cut?

or

Social Security privatization?

he just sits behind his desk
and waits to see if congress will send a bill.

right?

 

[U2Bama]

I strongly disagree with much of the NRA's position on the right to bear arms. Even more so, I disagree with Ted Nugent on his theories on the use of guns.

That being said, I am going to mention something that happened recently here in my county, one of the safest, lowest-crime rate suburban counties in the U.S.

A guy broke into a couiple's home at night. He had drug problems and was conducting a home invasion to steal items to raise money for his addictive needs, as would be determined later. I have read that he may have been under the influence of drugs when this happened.

During his break-in and detention of the couple who owned and lived in the home, he took them at gun point and seperated them into different parts of the house. Specifically, he detained the wife in a part of the house far from the area where he detained the husband. He then left the husband and went to the area where the wife was.

The husband was able to free himself, locate his firearm (which he was licensed to own) and shot and killed the guy.

This may sound extreme and barbaric, but I think the homeowners, in this case, were the initial victims of an attacker who broke into the secure privacy of their home, with the potential to harm them. He seperated them, which indicates he MAY (I said "MAY" here) have had an intent to harm, rape or murder the wife outside of her husband's presence, then kill the husband in the aftermath. In this case, I am glad that the people had their own firearms and the husband was able to free himself. It is unfortunate that the attacker was killed, but THAT is a risk he took by arming himself, breaking into some peoples' home, and with the force of a firearm, taking them hostage with the potential to harm or kill them. Even the attacker's father was quoted on the news as saying that he holds no ill will towards the couple because if it were him and someone broke into his home and attacked he and his wife, he would have done the same thing.

I personally know people who have been victims of in-home invasions. I also know people who have been raped. Either experience takes something away from people. I believe the individual (and their loved ones) have the right to take WHATEVER measure is necessary to protect their family and yes, even themselves. I am familiar with Jesus' words to "turn the other cheek," but it does not mean that if someone breaks into your house to attack you, you should offer him your wife as well.

In this case, the guy who broke into their house armed with a gun was doing so from a position of power. He took them hostage from a position of power. He had the gun at the time, and they didn't. The homeowner used his gun as a matter of defense.

He should not be charged with any crime (and wasn't and won't be). The attacker knew the risk he faced. Sometimes criminals lose against the odds of the power their gun gives them.

And I agree with the actions of the fictional Carl Lee Hailey in John Grisham's A TIME TO KILL.

~U2Alabama

 

[Angela Harlem]

Hypotheticals are a can of worms. Though they are sometimes reality or later become one. Lets use the hypothetical of petty criminals or drug users a bit more. If America had a Buy Back scheme, a total amnesty on handguns, how many petty crims and drug users and otherwise fringe criminals would use the opportunity of an anonymous quick buck? With a full guarantee from the government that all guns handed in in a Buy Back would be taken with 'no questions asked' and the market value of the gun returned to the owner, would the drug user in your story perhaps have thought one day 'I might take advantage of this'. He and/or an unknown number of others most certainly would. In our Buy Back many guns were given in which were not registered and had come from thousands (hundreds of thousands in total were collected during this period) of people who had acquired their guns in a manner which was not 'entirely legal'. But with the security of knowing they could get rid of it and make a few dollars, it prompted a significant percentage of illegal guns to be taken off the streets. Of course there are still countless more guns out in my society which are not registered and are owned by people who do not have good intentions or protection in mind. But our total number has been greatly reduced. It has lowered the chances of Joe Schmoe who needs heroin breaking in and robbing Mr & Mrs Smith. As Mr Moore gleefully pointed out, we have a rate of approximately 49 (? give or take) deaths per year from guns. What would a Buy Back do for America's 11,000+?

For what it's worth, I too agreed with the outcome in the novel/movie A TIME TO KILL, too Bama.