Ted Nugent on gun control

[Wheezer]

link

 

[Throckmorton]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-3PriJ31M70

 

[Whoozyerdaddy]

Dude is 100% correct.

 

[chuckywang]

This should go to P&N.

 

[JEDIYoda]

long live ted nugent!!

 

[Canai]

Originally posted by: Whoozyerdaddy
Dude is 100% correct.

edit: I'm no anti-Hillary repub or anything, but I think gun control is not what it should be.

 

[0roo0roo]

not the most persuasive.
simply talk about freedom without the partisan hackery. mind your own business on guns, mind your own business on abortion. have reasonable limits on both.
or perhaps thats just too reasonable.

 

[Mucho]

Too bad he dodged the draft or he could have gone to Viet Nam and prove just how much he's good with guns.

 

[Bateluer]

My speakers are inop at the moment, someone want to post some quotes?

 

[adairusmc]

Originally posted by: JEDIYoda
long live ted nugent!!

:thumbsup:

We need someone like him in the White House.

 

[moshquerade]

Originally posted by: adairusmc

Originally posted by: JEDIYoda
long live ted nugent!!

:thumbsup:

We need someone like him in the White House.

I wish he'd run.

 

[Rage187]

Originally posted by: adairusmc

Originally posted by: JEDIYoda
long live ted nugent!!

:thumbsup:

We need someone like him in the White House.

they need to replace school gym with hunting classes for kids

lets see, jump rope or how to lead a target?

 

[Kirby]

:thumbsup:

 

[Squisher]

Originally posted by: Mucho
Too bad he dodged the draft or he could have gone to Viet Nam and prove just how much he's good with guns.

True.


Even though he and I often share political opinions, I am somewhat put off by his unbearable arrogance.

 

[Skacer]

Ted Nugent is a musician, no more. Definitely no more.

 

[JohnOfSheffield]

If everything was as black and white and simple as he tries to portray it...

People listen to this crap and think "this guy knows what he's talking about"? Seriously?

 

[JeffreyLebowski]

Originally posted by: 0roo0roo
not the most persuasive.
simply talk about freedom without the partisan hackery. mind your own business on guns, mind your own business on abortion. have reasonable limits on both.
or perhaps thats just too reasonable.

Reasonable limits?
That's the issue. People Like Hilary don't want limits, they want to take it all away. Once the people are defenseless, they/ the government has no reason to stop taking away our other rights.

 

[JohnOfSheffield]

Originally posted by: JeffreyLebowski

Originally posted by: 0roo0roo
not the most persuasive.
simply talk about freedom without the partisan hackery. mind your own business on guns, mind your own business on abortion. have reasonable limits on both.
or perhaps thats just too reasonable.

Reasonable limits?
That's the issue. People Like Hilary don't want limits, they want to take it all away. Once the people are defenseless, they/ the government has no reason to stop taking away our other rights.

People like Hillary wants to take away womens rights of their own bodies?

To believe the government couldn't take away your rights by using armed forces because you have handguns is ridiculous, get back to me when you have missiles, attack helicopters, tanks, land mines and bombers, then you'd have an argument about that it's for protection against the government, until then the idiocy about how handguns prevents the government from terrorizing the population is just a load of bollocks. When the second amendment was written those handguns were effective weapons, today they are not.

You can use other arguments and not be as daft as Ted and throw in the second amendment as justification for personal defense (which makes absolutely no sense at all) and i might even agree with it.

 

[ElFenix]

Originally posted by: JohnOfSheffield
To believe the government couldn't take away your rights by using armed forces because you have handguns is ridiculous, get back to me when you have missiles, attack helicopters, tanks, land mines and bombers, then you'd have an argument about that it's for protection against the government, until then the idiocy about how handguns prevents the government from terrorizing the population is just a load of bollocks. When the second amendment was written those handguns were effective weapons, today they are not.

You can use other arguments and not be as daft as Ted and throw in the second amendment as justification for personal defense (which makes absolutely no sense at all) and i might even agree with it.

yeah, because we all know the super modern US military with all its weaponry can stop an insurrection of a few thousand people who can blend into society really easily.



they can't do it in iraq and they've have even more problem here firing on their fellow US americans. do you have any idea the number of defectors there would be alone?

 

[JohnOfSheffield]

Originally posted by: ElFenix

Originally posted by: JohnOfSheffield
To believe the government couldn't take away your rights by using armed forces because you have handguns is ridiculous, get back to me when you have missiles, attack helicopters, tanks, land mines and bombers, then you'd have an argument about that it's for protection against the government, until then the idiocy about how handguns prevents the government from terrorizing the population is just a load of bollocks. When the second amendment was written those handguns were effective weapons, today they are not.

You can use other arguments and not be as daft as Ted and throw in the second amendment as justification for personal defense (which makes absolutely no sense at all) and i might even agree with it.

yeah, because we all know the super modern US military with all its weaponry can stop an insurrection of a few thousand people who can blend into society really easily.

You think that if your governments ass was actually on the line in Iraq they wouldn't stop the insurgency in a heartbeat with enough force to wipe out as many as it would take? The armed forces of the US's firepower is enough to wipe out everyone in Iraq and you can bet your arse that if the governement was actually threatened by the insurgency they would do just that.

they can't do it in iraq and they've have even more problem here firing on their fellow US americans. do you have any idea the number of defectors there would be alone?

The defectors would be there regardless of if the general population owned handguns or not, right? What it would actually come down to was if the military would support the government and follow their orders, the civilian population owning handguns or not isn't an issue in either case.

And come on, a healthy amount of distrust is just that, healthy, but if you do not trust your government to act in the best interest of the population then you elect a different government, it works in every other western democracy, without handguns among the civilian population, why wouldn't it work in the US? Do you only have tyrants that need to be kept on a short leash by an armed population that are electable?

 

[bignateyk]

Originally posted by: JohnOfSheffield

....

People like Hillary wants to take away womens rights of their own bodies?

To believe the government couldn't take away your rights by using armed forces because you have handguns is ridiculous, get back to me when you have missiles, attack helicopters, tanks, land mines and bombers, then you'd have an argument about that it's for protection against the government, until then the idiocy about how handguns prevents the government from terrorizing the population is just a load of bollocks. When the second amendment was written those handguns were effective weapons, today they are not.

You can use other arguments and not be as daft as Ted and throw in the second amendment as justification for personal defense (which makes absolutely no sense at all) and i might even agree with it.

So what you are saying is that the government needs to allow commercial sales of tanks, land mines, and railguns. I like where your head's at :thumbsup:

 

[manowar821]

lol...

 

[theeedude]

He should just shut up and sing.

 

[OneOfTheseDays]

Not everyone can be trusted with a firearm. That's why we have gun control laws in the 1st place. I would rather be transitioning to a society where guns are no longer needed than to what Ted Nugent wants.

 

[Miramonti]

"Moral compass", "God", "brave men", "free man", LOL, please STFU already Teddy boi! :roll:

Its a good thing moron propagandists like him aren't running the country.