The alpha-Male...

[GH2001]

Disagree if you want, you'll be wrong.

Lawyer are ya?

[JR4AU]

A hunter that is willing to compromise on gun rights, is a last generation hunter.


And a beta-male.

Depends on what the compromise is. 

[Snaggletiger]

Here's what I have a problem with. 

"And the inescapable truth - as FBI crime reports and numerous law enforcement and academic studies conclude - is that more guns clearly equal less crime. Where there are more guns per capita, violent crime goes down, particularly crimes of assault, such as rape, burglary and robbery. This is good. This is what the NRA stands for. Anti-gunners, not so much."

Now, let me say first that I have zero anti-gun agenda and in fact have owned (still own) quite a few.  I'm just curious about these "Studies" and what areas they focus own, how they come up, what criteria they use etc. I guess I'm conjuring up this vision of Nugent wanting a wild west type mentality where most law abidin' folk are packing.  Somehow, this is going to deter violent crime. Here's the logic that just boggles my mind.

"It is indeed Chicago Mayor Richard Daley's gun-ban dream of "gun-free zones" that have proved to be the guaranteed slaughter zones, where the most innocent lives are lost every time. Think Columbine, Virginia Tech, Lane Bryant, Northwest Illinois University, New Jersey, Salt Lake City and Omaha malls, Luby's Cafeteria, Calgary University, Toronto, Washington, D.C., Chicago, Boston, Flight 93, the mayor's office in San Francisco, ad nauseam. Peace and love will get you killed, and unarmed helplessness is a welcome matt for evil. It's common sense unless, of course, your anthem goes "baaa ... baaa ... baaa."

Columbine?  Uumm...no. Unless you want every school in America secured with armed guards at every door and expecting some of their very own to plan an unwarranted attack on students... Do you want the students packing.  Sorry, can't prevent this kind of thing.  And where did the kids get the guns in the first place?

Va. Tech?  Same situation.  You can't guard against shit like that.  Who is going to lock down a college campus 24/7 with armed security?  Again, you want the students packing heat in class?  The Professors?

Lane Bryant?  Now why in the hell would anyone feel the need to have armed guards in the Big Girl's store?  And guess what...the majority of these incidents cited were perpetrated by individuals who knew going in they were going to die anyway.  They don't give a rats ass if you're packing or not.  And before you argue that maybe somebody could have gotten them first...well maybe...hardly though.  These things go down in a blink of an eye and the 8-10 popped off in the Mall are gone long before you and I and all other gun totin patrons in the food court can whip em' out and start blasting away.

Look, I have no qualms with the right to bear arms and I agree it is my constitutional and God given right to protect myself.  But this kind of logic is just baffling.  I've taken two trips to Guatemala ove the past few years.  If you go in a store..any store..armed guard.  You go to a hotel..armed guards.  The little fishing resort I went to...away from everything..armed guards on each side of the resort.  Not firearms in a holster, sawed off shotguns, machine guns locked and loaded.  If there is a truck load of sugar cane going down the road for a delivery, armed guards riding along.  Why?  Because everyone else who can afford a gun or get their hands on one...has one too and they WILL attack you and blow your ass away...quick.  No, not comparing apples to apples.  But I picture Nugents' idea of a gun toting America evolving into something similar.
 

[JR4AU]

Here's what I have a problem with.  

"And the inescapable truth - as FBI crime reports and numerous law enforcement and academic studies conclude - is that more guns clearly equal less crime. Where there are more guns per capita, violent crime goes down, particularly crimes of assault, such as rape, burglary and robbery. This is good. This is what the NRA stands for. Anti-gunners, not so much."

Now, let me say first that I have zero anti-gun agenda and in fact have owned (still own) quite a few.  I'm just curious about these "Studies" and what areas they focus own, how they come up, what criteria they use etc. I guess I'm conjuring up this vision of Nugent wanting a wild west type mentality where most law abidin' folk are packing.  Somehow, this is going to deter violent crime. Here's the logic that just boggles my mind.

"It is indeed Chicago Mayor Richard Daley's gun-ban dream of "gun-free zones" that have proved to be the guaranteed slaughter zones, where the most innocent lives are lost every time. Think Columbine, Virginia Tech, Lane Bryant, Northwest Illinois University, New Jersey, Salt Lake City and Omaha malls, Luby's Cafeteria, Calgary University, Toronto, Washington, D.C., Chicago, Boston, Flight 93, the mayor's office in San Francisco, ad nauseam. Peace and love will get you killed, and unarmed helplessness is a welcome matt for evil. It's common sense unless, of course, your anthem goes "baaa ... baaa ... baaa."

Columbine?  Uumm...no. Unless you want every school in America secured with armed guards at every door and expecting some of their very own to plan an unwarranted attack on students... Do you want the students packing.  Sorry, can't prevent this kind of thing.  And where did the kids get the guns in the first place?

Va. Tech?  Same situation.  You can't guard against shit like that.  Who is going to lock down a college campus 24/7 with armed security?  Again, you want the students packing heat in class?  The Professors?

Lane Bryant?  Now why in the hell would anyone feel the need to have armed guards in the Big Girl's store?  And guess what...the majority of these incidents cited were perpetrated by individuals who knew going in they were going to die anyway.  They don't give a rats ass if you're packing or not.  And before you argue that maybe somebody could have gotten them first...well maybe...hardly though.  These things go down in a blink of an eye and the 8-10 popped off in the Mall are gone long before you and I and all other gun totin patrons in the food court can whip em' out and start blasting away.

Look, I have no qualms with the right to bear arms and I agree it is my constitutional and God given right to protect myself.  But this kind of logic is just baffling.  I've taken two trips to Guatemala ove the past few years.  If you go in a store..any store..armed guard.  You go to a hotel..armed guards.  The little fishing resort I went to...away from everything..armed guards on each side of the resort.  Not firearms in a holster, sawed off shotguns, machine guns locked and loaded.  If there is a truck load of sugar cane going down the road for a delivery, armed guards riding along.  Why?  Because everyone else who can afford a gun or get their hands on one...has one too and they WILL attack you and blow your ass away...quick.  No, not comparing apples to apples.  But I picture Nugents' idea of a gun toting America evolving into something similar.
  

Studies can be made to say whatever the agenda of the one creating the study wants to say.  Here's the bottom line, and you touched on it.  It's a GOD GIVEN right to self protection.  The government has some rational basis for limiting how we can do that...within reason.  The right to own guns is a Constitutional right that is actually a limiting aspect of the God given right to self protecton, or we'd all be free to own Atom Bombs to protect ourselves.  The debate comes in as to what's reasonable for one to use for self protection.  But no crime study is needed to show that I can own a gun to protect me and mine.   You know I really believe in the following:

"The society of late twentieth century America is perhaps the first in human history where most grown men do not routinely bear arms on their persons and boys are not regularly raised from childhood to learn skill in the use of some kind of weapon, either for community or personal defense - club or spear, broadsword or long bow, rifle or Bowie knife. It also happens to be one of the rudest and crudest societies in history, having jubilantly swept most of the etiquette of speech, table, dress, hospitality, fairness, deference to authority and the relations of male and female and child and elder under the fraying and filthy carpet of politically convenient illusions. With little fear of physical reprisal Americans can be as loud, gross, disrespectful, pushy, and negligent as they please. If more people carried rapiers at their belts, or revolvers on their hips, It is a fair bet you would be able to go to a movie and enjoy he dialogue from the screen without having to endure the small talk, family gossip and assorted bodily noises that many theater audiences these days regularly emit. Today, discourtesy is commonplace precisely because there is no price to pay for it."

-Samuel Francis


As Heinlein put it,
"An armed society is a polite society."

[GarMan]

Disagree if you want, you'll be wrong.

Talk about black and white...  Seriously, share some of those gray areas that I'm "wrong" about.  Give me some perspective or points to review. 

[GarMan]

Here's what I have a problem with. 

<snip>

Now, let me say first that I have zero anti-gun agenda and in fact have owned (still own) quite a few.  I'm just curious about these "Studies" and what areas they focus own, how they come up, what criteria they use etc. I guess I'm conjuring up this vision of Nugent wanting a wild west type mentality where most law abidin' folk are packing.  Somehow, this is going to deter violent crime. Here's the logic that just boggles my mind. 

It's not the "wild west" that anybody's advocating.  It's more about the ability to defend yourself.  It's a very simple concept taken down to the basic of arguments. 

<snip>

Columbine?  Uumm...no. Unless you want every school in America secured with armed guards at every door and expecting some of their very own to plan an unwarranted attack on students... Do you want the students packing.  Sorry, can't prevent this kind of thing.  And where did the kids get the guns in the first place? 

One armed guard or armed teacher could have changed the course of events that day.  Instead, the victims had no chance.  Oh and, the kids got the guns from their parents, while they weren't home.  They didn't purchase them from gun shows like Moore, Bloomberg and others would have you believe.  Their parents had to purchase them.  By the way, my high school had armed police officers, and that was well over 20 years ago.  Is that such an outrageous idea?  In fact, my coach kept a gun in his office desk drawer.  Nobody thought twice about it. 

Va. Tech?  Same situation.  You can't guard against poop like that.  Who is going to lock down a college campus 24/7 with armed security?  Again, you want the students packing heat in class?  The Professors? 

All of my schools had an armed police force.  Is that a new idea?  They even had police cars, a small police station and holding cells.  And, is it that outrageous to expect a college student or professor to own a gun?  Nobody is saying that you have to own and carry a gun. 

Lane Bryant?  Now why in the hell would anyone feel the need to have armed guards in the Big Girl's store?  And guess what...the majority of these incidents cited were perpetrated by individuals who knew going in they were going to die anyway.  They don't give a rats ass if you're packing or not.  And before you argue that maybe somebody could have gotten them first...well maybe...hardly though.  These things go down in a blink of an eye and the 8-10 popped off in the Mall are gone long before you and I and all other gun totin patrons in the food court can whip em' out and start blasting away.

Fair enough... 

Look, I have no qualms with the right to bear arms and I agree it is my constitutional and God given right to protect myself.  But this kind of logic is just baffling.  I've taken two trips to Guatemala ove the past few years.  If you go in a store..any store..armed guard.  You go to a hotel..armed guards.  The little fishing resort I went to...away from everything..armed guards on each side of the resort.  Not firearms in a holster, sawed off shotguns, machine guns locked and loaded.  If there is a truck load of sugar cane going down the road for a delivery, armed guards riding along.  Why?  Because everyone else who can afford a gun or get their hands on one...has one too and they WILL attack you and blow your ass away...quick.  No, not comparing apples to apples.  But I picture Nugents' idea of a gun toting America evolving into something similar. 

You're taking it to a ridiculous extreme.  I don't see what's baffling about any of these points.  Knowing that these types of things do happen, it's better to have a choice to carry than let someone take that choice away from you. 

[JR4AU]

Talk about black and white...  Seriously, share some of those gray areas that I'm "wrong" about.  Give me some perspective or points to review. 

Would you feel better if I just posted "I strongly disagree" then cited one thing to "prove" I'm right?   On most political issues, guns, hunting, abortion, etc, etc...you either have to give the other side something they want to get ALL you want, or give up something to get the things you hold most sacred.  That's pretty simple.  If you don't think so, name a bill (of any consequence) that passes with the first draft.  I'll wait here holding my breath. 

[GarMan]

Would you feel better if I just posted "I strongly disagree" then cited one thing to "prove" I'm right?   On most political issues, guns, hunting, abortion, etc, etc...you either have to give the other side something they want to get ALL you want, or give up something to get the things you hold most sacred.  That's pretty simple.  If you don't think so, name a bill (of any consequence) that passes with the first draft.  I'll wait here holding my breath. 

Wait a minute...  You're not making any sense here.  You're the one who threw out, absolutes, and "all or nothing" gets you beat every time, and I requested that you share some of those gray areas that I'm "wrong" about.  The way I see it, most gun bans end up getting overturned; D.C., Seattle, University of Colorado, San Fran-sissy, etc...  As I stated previously, those absolutes only seem to lose when you're on the wrong side of the position. 

[wesfau2]

Talk about black and white...  Seriously, share some of those gray areas that I'm "wrong" about.  Give me some perspective or points to review. 

From this article only:

"Peace and love will get you killed, and unarmed helplessness is a welcome matt for evil. It's common sense unless, of course, your anthem goes "baaa ... baaa ... baaa." 

Self-defense is the most powerful, driving instinct in good people everywhere. To deny this is evil personified.


Good people don't want the rapist to succeed. We want him dead. We don't want our homes invaded. We want invaders dead. We don't like carjackers. We like them dead. We don't like armed robbers. We like them dead.

Good guys should live, bad guys, not so much.

I couldn't disagree more with you.  Absolutes are everywhere, and there's nothing wrong with them.  It's just become fashionable, Oprah-esque and Politically Correct to accept moral and socio-economic subjectivism as "justification" for these gray areas.  He car-jacked you because he was economically "disadvantaged", lacked transportation or hungry, and therefore should receive a lighter sentence...  BULLSCHIT!  Cap his ass and do society a favor.

So, all persons convicted of felony grand theft auto should be shot.  That's what you're advocating here, right?

[GarMan]

From this article only:

"Peace and love will get you killed, and unarmed helplessness is a welcome matt for evil. It's common sense unless, of course, your anthem goes "baaa ... baaa ... baaa." 

Self-defense is the most powerful, driving instinct in good people everywhere. To deny this is evil personified.

Good people don't want the rapist to succeed. We want him dead. We don't want our homes invaded. We want invaders dead. We don't like carjackers. We like them dead. We don't like armed robbers. We like them dead.

Good guys should live, bad guys, not so much. 

Are these really gray areas? 

So, all persons convicted of felony grand theft auto should be shot.  That's what you're advocating here, right?

Not that it's a gray area or even requires clarification, we're not talking about simply shooting those arrested and convicted of these crimes.  We're talking about defending ourselves as we are being victimized during the commission of these crimes.  There's a context that goes along with these statements.  You know that. 

[GH2001]

There's a context that goes along with these statements. 

Context being the keyword. Sometimes people will take it out to left field and use the shit out of it.

[wesfau2]

Are these really gray areas? 

Not the way Ted presents them, of course. This, however:

Good guys should live, bad guys, not so much. 

is as gray as the day is long.  "Good" and "bad" are mind-numbingly subjective terms.

Not that it's a gray area or even requires clarification, we're not talking about simply shooting those arrested and convicted of these crimes.  We're talking about defending ourselves as we are being victimized during the commission of these crimes.  There's a context that goes along with these statements.  You know that. 

Pop off anytime you feel threatened?  Peace through superior firepower, Bodi?

[Saniflush]

I believe in ammunition and my own good judgment.

[GarMan]

Not the way Ted presents them, of course. This, however:

Good guys should live, bad guys, not so much. 

is as gray as the day is long.  "Good" and "bad" are mind-numbingly subjective terms.

Of course, the article is referencing car-jackers, muggers, rapists, murderer, etc...  The statement alone, taken out of context, may be subjective, but you're just playing devil's advocate here. 

Pop off anytime you feel threatened?  Peace through superior firepower, Bodi? 

And, I love this one...  Am I supposed to wait until the thug has his knife 1/4" in me?  Does he have to slice all the way through my carotid artery before I use my firearm?  Or, is a woman supposed to wait until her clothes have been torn completely off before she can retrieve her firearm?  Oh wait...  I got it.  How about a time out period for criminals?  No, it's not a time out for the criminals; it's a time out for their victims.  Perhaps, we should wait 30 seconds from the first time we feel threatened during an altercation before we take any action. 

Sorry Wes...  If the immediate facts of any given situation suggest that I may be harmed by another, I'm emptying the clip.  And, I carry a spar clip with both of my automatic handguns just in case I have any doubts. 

[Saniflush]

  If the immediate facts of any given situation suggest that I may be harmed by another, I'm emptying the clip.  And, I carry a spar clip with both of my automatic handguns just in case I have any doubts. 

Judged by 12 in lieu of being toted by 6.

[JR4AU]

Wait a minute...  You're not making any sense here.  You're the one who threw out, absolutes, and "all or nothing" gets you beat every time, and I requested that you share some of those gray areas that I'm "wrong" about.  The way I see it, most gun bans end up getting overturned; D.C., Seattle, University of Colorado, San Fran-sissy, etc...  As I stated previously, those absolutes only seem to lose when you're on the wrong side of the position. 

No, you're being childish.  Here, I'll fix it so it's not an "absolute": "all or nothing" gets you beat most every time in politics".  The NRA has played the give and take game for a long time.  I don't like some of the concessions they've made over the years, but I'm glad the leadership doesn't think like you, or they'd probably have been less successful in preserving my 2nd Amendment rights.  You don't only lose when you're on the wrong side, and I don't care how you see that.   But, you do couch things in "non-absolute" terms with your "the way I see it.." statements.   If you want an intelligent discussion, don't play word games.

[CCTAU]

Judged by 12 in lieu of being toted by 6.

Truer words have never been spoken. Unless you have been trained or brought up with knowledge of safety and responsible use of firearms, you are a product of a victim society. A society where lawyers have everyone afraid of getting sued. At one point in this great country, people were afraid to protect their own homes due to reprisals from the criminal and civil legal system. Thank God we have the right to protect our own without fear of the lawyers. No longer are we homeowners required to by a shovel when we purchase a gun for self defense.

[GarMan]

No, you're being childish.  Here, I'll fix it so it's not an "absolute": "all or nothing" gets you beat most every time in politics".  The NRA has played the give and take game for a long time.  I don't like some of the concessions they've made over the years, but I'm glad the leadership doesn't think like you, or they'd probably have been less successful in preserving my 2nd Amendment rights.  You don't only lose when you're on the wrong side, and I don't care how you see that.   But, you do couch things in "non-absolute" terms with your "the way I see it.." statements.   If you want an intelligent discussion, don't play word games. 

You've got to be kidding me.  If I'm being childish by your standards, you're a belligerent ass.  I can't think of any of these so-called concessions by the NRA, and you can't seem to provide any examples.  Which ones don't you like?  If I'm wrong, please site an example of this "give and take".  You can't get anymore absolute than the cold, dead hands catch-phrase used by Heston.  There are no word games being played here.  The gun bans that I referenced were overturned.  They were on the wrong side of the absolute position, and they lost.  End of story...

[JR4AU]

You've got to be kidding me.  If I'm being childish by your standards, you're a belligerent ass.  I can't think of any of these so-called concessions by the NRA, and you can't seem to provide any examples.  Which ones don't you like?  If I'm wrong, please site an example of this "give and take".  You can't get anymore absolute than the cold, dead hands catch-phrase used by Heston.  There are no word games being played here.  The gun bans that I referenced were overturned.  They were on the wrong side of the absolute position, and they lost.  End of story...

So, Heston's puffery is a no holds barred, absolute political stand by the NRA?  Words my friend, mere words.  A good motto, but in the real world of Washington D.C. it's not what flies. 

I can't tell you you're wrong without you declaring that because you don't see it that way or  b ecause you don't believe that it's not true.  The NRA's compromises have come more in the form of being passive on some issues.  You can read what some think here (on which I agree in part):

http://www.nrawol.net/Compromising_Strategy.html

http://www.defensivecarry.com/vbulletin/second-amendment-gun-legislation-discussion/15731-does-nra-compromise-too-much.html

[JR4AU]

Garman,

Here's the funny thing...it would appear that you and I are on the same side of the 2nd Amendment issue, and are arguing over something that matters little.