Ted Nugent on gun control

[JohnOfSheffield]

Originally posted by: 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:

If the second amendment is going to be worth the paper it was originally written on and carry on it's meaning then yes, that would be required.

The original intention was to preserve the peoples ability to beat down an oppressive government and the forces it commandeered, at the time, enough people with handguns would easily do that, today a civilian militia against US armed forces would mean a lot of dead civilians and all it would take would be bombing the crap out of the camp these civilians resided in.

I'm British though, so maybe it's because i'm an outsider i can see how ridiculous the notion of untrained people with handguns could stand up to a well trained military force (Air Force, Navy, Army).

 

[JohnOfSheffield]

Originally posted by: senseamp
He should just shut up and sing.

Shut up AND sing? Yeah, you're a smart mofo, aren't you.

 

[theeedude]

Originally posted by: JohnOfSheffield

Originally posted by: senseamp
He should just shut up and sing.

Shut up AND sing? Yeah, you're a smart mofo, aren't you.

I didn't come up with that line, the rightwing nuts did over Dixie Chicks.

 

[Excelsior]

I'm British though, so maybe it's because i'm an outsider i can see how ridiculous the notion of untrained people with handguns could stand up to a well trained military force (Air Force, Navy, Army).

If the only people standing up to the military/govt were untrained and only had handguns, I'd see your point.

But that most likely wouldn't be the reality. And it actually helps that the masses would't be in a massive organized force. It sure is hard for any military, no matter how good it is, to take on millions of armed "insurgents" scattered around a massive country.

But hey, thats just my opinion.

 

[FoBoT]

this reminds me, i need to buy some guns and ammo , soon

 

[JohnOfSheffield]

Originally posted by: senseamp

Originally posted by: JohnOfSheffield

Originally posted by: senseamp
He should just shut up and sing.

Shut up AND sing? Yeah, you're a smart mofo, aren't you.

I didn't come up with that line, the rightwing nuts did over Dixie Chicks.

You just recycled the line?

I don't know what or who the Dixie Chicks are.

You are faster than lightning with your replies though.

 

[hypn0tik]

"We don't need gun control. We need bullet control. If each bullet cost five thousand dollars, we wouldn't have anymore innocent bystanders!"

 

[Turin39789]

Originally posted by: JohnOfSheffield

Originally posted by: senseamp

Originally posted by: JohnOfSheffield

Originally posted by: senseamp
He should just shut up and sing.

Shut up AND sing? Yeah, you're a smart mofo, aren't you.

I didn't come up with that line, the rightwing nuts did over Dixie Chicks.

You just recycled the line?

I don't know what or who the Dixie Chicks are.

You are faster than lightning with your replies though.

Female country music trio, lead singer made a comment to the effect that she was ashamed that Bush was from Texas. Foxnews leads assault on band, telling them to shut up and sing and not to try to be political backlash/onslaught/boycott/ridiculousness.

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: 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.

What do you think the insurgents in Iraq have? Think they have an armored brigade with mechanized troops or something? Rifles, pistols, and home made IEDs are enough to thwart our militarys ability occupy.

 

[JeffreyLebowski]

Originally posted by: 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.

It's not about hand guns. It's about our rights to own guns. period. But as I see you are from The UK, you wouldn't understand. You gave up your rights long ago. Continuing eating your crumpets and spotted dick.

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: JohnOfSheffield

Originally posted by: 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:

If the second amendment is going to be worth the paper it was originally written on and carry on it's meaning then yes, that would be required.

The original intention was to preserve the peoples ability to beat down an oppressive government and the forces it commandeered, at the time, enough people with handguns would easily do that, today a civilian militia against US armed forces would mean a lot of dead civilians and all it would take would be bombing the crap out of the camp these civilians resided in.

I'm British though, so maybe it's because i'm an outsider i can see how ridiculous the notion of untrained people with handguns could stand up to a well trained military force (Air Force, Navy, Army).

Guns in the hands of people will force the govts hands everytime. The US military is certainly happy to try and bomb out its own civilian population. The result will still be the same. That military and the govt around it will crumble as the costs of the killing its own armed citizens will be too high.

Now in a country like Britain the military and govt will have no problem controlling its population through the use of force because the costs will be very very low.

 

[BoberFett]

Originally posted by: JohnOfSheffield
People like Hillary wants to take away womens rights of their own bodies?

Yes, she does. Men too. She doesn't want people of either sex using drugs.

 

[JohnOfSheffield]

Originally posted by: JeffreyLebowski

Originally posted by: 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.

It's not about hand guns. It's about our rights to own guns. period. But as I see you are from The UK, you wouldn't understand. You gave up your rights long ago. Continuing eating your crumpets and spotted dick.

You're really daft, aren't you? My argument was regarding the second amendment and it's use in todays world, not against the right of owning handguns.

Sure i gave up my righs ago, wth do you think i'm doing in Kabul?

 

[JohnOfSheffield]

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: JohnOfSheffield

Originally posted by: 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:

If the second amendment is going to be worth the paper it was originally written on and carry on it's meaning then yes, that would be required.

The original intention was to preserve the peoples ability to beat down an oppressive government and the forces it commandeered, at the time, enough people with handguns would easily do that, today a civilian militia against US armed forces would mean a lot of dead civilians and all it would take would be bombing the crap out of the camp these civilians resided in.

I'm British though, so maybe it's because i'm an outsider i can see how ridiculous the notion of untrained people with handguns could stand up to a well trained military force (Air Force, Navy, Army).

Guns in the hands of people will force the govts hands everytime. The US military is certainly happy to try and bomb out its own civilian population. The result will still be the same. That military as the govt around it will crumble and the costs of the killing its own armed citizens will be too high.

Now in a country like Britain the military and govt will have no problem controlling its population through the use of force because the costs will be very very low.

Yeah, so you think that plinking your little itty bitty handgun against missiles, tanks and attack choppers would be productive?

You are free to live in your own delusions my friend, but the wake up call might be harsh if you should one day wipe the smudge from your eyes and realize that you owning a gun doesn't make you any more of a threat to your government than you owning a dog without teeth.

Elections and people following their own ideas of right and wrong instead of being sheep following the party lines IS a threat to the government, a bigger threat than any handgun will ever be, it's the ONLY threat that will keep the government serving you instead of the opposite.

This is also known as democracy.

 

[BoberFett]

Originally posted by: senseamp
He should just shut up and sing.

Really?

Originally posted by: senseamp
Unity is not one side shutting up and singing. Unity is a product of honest give and take to reach a common ground. You will not get unity simply by labeling dissenters unpatriotic. Democrats went along with Iraq war for fear of being labeled unpatriotic, but was it real unity? No. It was an illusion of one that fell apart as soon as things went sour.

Hypocrite, they name is senseamp.

 

[JohnOfSheffield]

Originally posted by: BoberFett

Originally posted by: JohnOfSheffield
People like Hillary wants to take away womens rights of their own bodies?

Yes, she does. Men too. She doesn't want people of either sex using drugs.

Well, drugs can be and are detrimental to a well functioning society, outlawing them doesn't work though so i'm kinda stuck between a rock and a hard place on a good solution for it.

This may have something to do with me having to pay for their care when they inevitably wind up in a hospital or put someone else in a hospital.

 

[IronWing]

Originally posted by: Skacer
Ted Nugent is a musician, no more. Definitely no more.

I wonder if the God wing of the Republican party has ever listened to Ted's lyrics? That would have to be a mighty big tent they're living in.


She gave me cat scratch fever BA NA NA NA, cat scratch fever BA NA NA NAA...

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: JohnOfSheffield

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: JohnOfSheffield

Originally posted by: 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:

If the second amendment is going to be worth the paper it was originally written on and carry on it's meaning then yes, that would be required.

The original intention was to preserve the peoples ability to beat down an oppressive government and the forces it commandeered, at the time, enough people with handguns would easily do that, today a civilian militia against US armed forces would mean a lot of dead civilians and all it would take would be bombing the crap out of the camp these civilians resided in.

I'm British though, so maybe it's because i'm an outsider i can see how ridiculous the notion of untrained people with handguns could stand up to a well trained military force (Air Force, Navy, Army).

Guns in the hands of people will force the govts hands everytime. The US military is certainly happy to try and bomb out its own civilian population. The result will still be the same. That military as the govt around it will crumble and the costs of the killing its own armed citizens will be too high.

Now in a country like Britain the military and govt will have no problem controlling its population through the use of force because the costs will be very very low.

Yeah, so you think that plinking your little itty bitty handgun against missiles, tanks and attack choppers would be productive?

You are free to live in your own delusions my friend, but the wake up call might be harsh if you should one day wipe the smudge from your eyes and realize that you owning a gun doesn't make you any more of a threat to your government than you owning a dog without teeth.

Elections and people following their own ideas of right and wrong instead of being sheep following the party lines IS a threat to the government, a bigger threat than any handgun will ever be, it's the ONLY threat that will keep the government serving you instead of the opposite.

This is also known as democracy.

You are failing to grasp the idea that the citizens of this country fighting its govt is not an impossibility. It isnt about winning each battle. It is about winning the war. When the govt's cost of killing its own people is too high, the govt can not oppress its people. In a country of 200 million gun owners. What happens when a military of 1.5 million tries to oppress them? They wont have enough bullets nor guns, nor manpower to do such a thing.

Democracy is maintained by an armed citizen. Without armed citizens, dictators rise and oppression occurs.

 

[JohnOfSheffield]

Originally posted by: BoberFett

Originally posted by: senseamp
He should just shut up and sing.

Really?

Originally posted by: senseamp
Unity is not one side shutting up and singing. Unity is a product of honest give and take to reach a common ground. You will not get unity simply by labeling dissenters unpatriotic. Democrats went along with Iraq war for fear of being labeled unpatriotic, but was it real unity? No. It was an illusion of one that fell apart as soon as things went sour.

Hypocrite, they name is senseamp.

I could hear that bitchslap all the way to Kabul.

 

[IronWing]

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: JohnOfSheffield

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: JohnOfSheffield

Originally posted by: 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:

If the second amendment is going to be worth the paper it was originally written on and carry on it's meaning then yes, that would be required.

The original intention was to preserve the peoples ability to beat down an oppressive government and the forces it commandeered, at the time, enough people with handguns would easily do that, today a civilian militia against US armed forces would mean a lot of dead civilians and all it would take would be bombing the crap out of the camp these civilians resided in.

I'm British though, so maybe it's because i'm an outsider i can see how ridiculous the notion of untrained people with handguns could stand up to a well trained military force (Air Force, Navy, Army).

Guns in the hands of people will force the govts hands everytime. The US military is certainly happy to try and bomb out its own civilian population. The result will still be the same. That military as the govt around it will crumble and the costs of the killing its own armed citizens will be too high.

Now in a country like Britain the military and govt will have no problem controlling its population through the use of force because the costs will be very very low.

Yeah, so you think that plinking your little itty bitty handgun against missiles, tanks and attack choppers would be productive?

You are free to live in your own delusions my friend, but the wake up call might be harsh if you should one day wipe the smudge from your eyes and realize that you owning a gun doesn't make you any more of a threat to your government than you owning a dog without teeth.

Elections and people following their own ideas of right and wrong instead of being sheep following the party lines IS a threat to the government, a bigger threat than any handgun will ever be, it's the ONLY threat that will keep the government serving you instead of the opposite.

This is also known as democracy.

You are failing to grasp the idea that the citizens of this country fighting its govt is not an impossibility. It isnt about winning each battle. It is about winning the war. When the govt's cost of killing its own people is too high, the govt can not oppress its people. In a country of 200 million gun owners. What happens when a military of 1.5 million tries to oppress them? They wont have enough bullets nor guns, nor manpower to do such a thing.

Democracy is maintained by an armed citizen. Without armed citizens, dictators rise and oppression occurs.

Of course the history of Iraq puts the lie to this claim. Iraq, under Saddam, had one of the most heavily armed civilian populations on earth. Yet they lived under a despot.

 

[JohnOfSheffield]

Originally posted by: Turin39789

Originally posted by: JohnOfSheffield

Originally posted by: senseamp

Originally posted by: JohnOfSheffield

Originally posted by: senseamp
He should just shut up and sing.

Shut up AND sing? Yeah, you're a smart mofo, aren't you.

I didn't come up with that line, the rightwing nuts did over Dixie Chicks.

You just recycled the line?

I don't know what or who the Dixie Chicks are.

You are faster than lightning with your replies though.

Female country music trio, lead singer made a comment to the effect that she was ashamed that Bush was from Texas. Foxnews leads assault on band, telling them to shut up and sing and not to try to be political backlash/onslaught/boycott/ridiculousness.

Heh, i miss these things by not watching the telly.

Thank you.

 

[IronWing]

Now ya'all got me to thinkin...

Ted Nugent needs to tour with the Dixie Chicks. It would be better than Willie Nelson and Julio Iglesias. They could work out their harmonies and take turns pitching their politics between sets.

 

[Vic]

The "they got tanks and missiles!" is the most ignorant, cowardly argument of all against gun rights. First, it's irrelevant. The right to gun ownership doesn't have to have its existence defended anymore than the right to free speech. It is an inherent right Second, your position is essentially that we should kow-tow to all government power without a fight. And lastly, it's undemocratic. The odds are 300-to-1 in the people's favor, smart guy, and we're the ones who make their tanks and missiles, feed them, clothe them, and pay them. That's our government and our army. They don't even exist without the people.

 

[JohnOfSheffield]

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: JohnOfSheffield

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: JohnOfSheffield

Originally posted by: 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:

If the second amendment is going to be worth the paper it was originally written on and carry on it's meaning then yes, that would be required.

The original intention was to preserve the peoples ability to beat down an oppressive government and the forces it commandeered, at the time, enough people with handguns would easily do that, today a civilian militia against US armed forces would mean a lot of dead civilians and all it would take would be bombing the crap out of the camp these civilians resided in.

I'm British though, so maybe it's because i'm an outsider i can see how ridiculous the notion of untrained people with handguns could stand up to a well trained military force (Air Force, Navy, Army).

Guns in the hands of people will force the govts hands everytime. The US military is certainly happy to try and bomb out its own civilian population. The result will still be the same. That military as the govt around it will crumble and the costs of the killing its own armed citizens will be too high.

Now in a country like Britain the military and govt will have no problem controlling its population through the use of force because the costs will be very very low.

Yeah, so you think that plinking your little itty bitty handgun against missiles, tanks and attack choppers would be productive?

You are free to live in your own delusions my friend, but the wake up call might be harsh if you should one day wipe the smudge from your eyes and realize that you owning a gun doesn't make you any more of a threat to your government than you owning a dog without teeth.

Elections and people following their own ideas of right and wrong instead of being sheep following the party lines IS a threat to the government, a bigger threat than any handgun will ever be, it's the ONLY threat that will keep the government serving you instead of the opposite.

This is also known as democracy.

You are failing to grasp the idea that the citizens of this country fighting its govt is not an impossibility. It isnt about winning each battle. It is about winning the war. When the govt's cost of killing its own people is too high, the govt can not oppress its people. In a country of 200 million gun owners. What happens when a military of 1.5 million tries to oppress them? They wont have enough bullets nor guns, nor manpower to do such a thing.

Democracy is maintained by an armed citizen. Without armed citizens, dictators rise and oppression occurs.

Look son, if the governments arse was on the line the government would have done what Saddam did and that would quickly end the uprising.

It's either that or the forces will turn against the government, in either case, civilians owning hand guns isn't going to matter what so ever.

Which democracy is the oldest and does it's citizens have the right to bear arms?

I truly believe that if the second amendment would be updated to include the weapons available today compared to the weapons that were available back then your right to bear arms would include missiles, land mines, tanks, attack helicopters, bombers and maybe even nukes.

I don't think you are unaware of that, i think you just like to pretend that it's not true so you can maintain your idealistic viewpoint and spout mouthpieces like "Democracy is maintained by an armed citizen".

Let's get back on track though, concealed permit and the second amendment?

 

[daveymark]

Originally posted by: senseamp
He should just shut up and sing.

Do you feel the same way about the dixie chicks?