Ted Nugent tells it like it is....

[Kilz]

... or rather how it should be.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T_QjEL0uUgo

[eclyps]

AHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHA... He's so funny

[pancakes? c'est charmant!]

that is effin hot.

[sloppy]

lol he is the man

[hot6]

i like DEAD offenders

[Ginkan]

It's the Nuge, dude.

[Prosthetics]

haha I dont like repeat offenders, I like DEAD offenders
GG

[*dianne*]

ahhhh i miss texas, the one state where if someone comes into your house to try and rob you, they get shot and there are no questions asked... people in ohio don't understand why everyone in Texas has a handgun on them and a rifle under their backseat, I understand :D

[m_d_butler]

Is it me, or does our government continue to outlaw aspects this country was founded upon?

[THRASH]

Is it me, or does our government continue to outlaw aspects this country was founded upon?


just wait until after the election....

buy and bury is all I have to say.

[*dianne*]

im not as pessimistic abou the election, I dont think that the dem's have a chance...

[Timmah!]

I'm going to play devil's advocate here...

The 2nd ammendment is not just: "The right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed". The 2nd ammendment was written with a specific context. The entire wording is: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." A "well regulated militia"...hmm, is there such a thing? Yes... it's called the National Guard. (not that it matters, but I'm in it) In other words, the purpose of the 2nd ammendment is not to guarantee individual rights to self-defense with fire-arms; it is intended to guarantee the individual states a means of self-defence against the federal government. An added measure of checks-and-balances.

Now I'm not advocating one way or the other, I'm actually pretty neutral on the subject. I think people should be allowed to carry guns so long as A) they're not convicted felons, and B) they have attended an acredited gun-safety course. I don't mind some other restrictions like the ban on assault weapons and the Brady Bill, but I'm not a big fan of concealed guns laws. We'd probably have less violent crimes if every potential criminal had to think for a second: "I wonder if this dude's packing?".

[chewy]

lol....dead offenders

[THRASH]

In other words, the purpose of the 2nd ammendment is not to guarantee individual rights to self-defense with fire-arms; it is intended to guarantee the individual states a means of self-defence against the federal government. An added measure of checks-and-balances.


It's says the right of the people, not the militia. As to your militia and the National Guard, the President still has control over the NG, so your beliefs of the states defending themselves from the federal gov't would not work.


James Madison, author of the Second Amendment, wrote that Americans had "the advantage of being armed," that was lacking in other nations, where "the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms." Patrick Henry proclaimed the "great object is that every man be armed. . . . Everyone who is able may have a gun." The Second Amendment was then, as it is today, about freedom and the means to protect it.

[THRASH]

In his popular edition of Blackstone's Commentaries on the Laws of England (1803) (http://www.constitution.org/tb/tb-0000.htm), St. George Tucker (http://www.history.org/Almanack/people/bios/biotuck.cfm) (see also (http://www.history.org/Almanack/people/bios/biotuck.cfm)), a lawyer, Revolutionary War militia officer, legal scholar, and later a U.S. District Court judge (appointed by James Madison in 1813), wrote of the Second Amendment: The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, and this without any qualification as to their condition or degree, as is the case in the British government. In the appendix (http://www.constitution.org/tb/t1d12000.htm) to the Commentaries, Tucker elaborates further:
This may be considered as the true palladium of liberty... The right of self-defense is the first law of nature; in most governments it has been the study of rulers to confine this right within the narrowest limits possible. Whenever standing armies are kept up, and the right of the people to keep and bear arms is, under any color or pretext whatsoever, prohibited, liberty, if not already annihilated, is on the brink of destruction. In England, the people have been disarmed, generally, under the specious pretext of preserving the game: a never failing lure to bring over the landed aristocracy to support any measure, under that mask, though calculated for very different purposes. True it is, their bill of rights seems at first view to counteract this policy: but the right of bearing arms is confined to protestants, and the words suitable to their condition and degree, have been interpreted to authorise the prohibition of keeping a gun or other engine for the destruction of game, to any farmer, or inferior tradesman, or other person not qualified to kill game. So that not one man in five hundred can keep a gun in his house without being subject to a penalty.Not only are Tucker's remarks solid evidence that the militia clause was not intended to restrict the right to keep arms to active militia members, but he speaks of a broad right – Tucker specifically mentions self-defense.

[Halfwit]

Nice find Killz .. i honestly wish in a free country more people would just speak the truth and not hide behind political correctness.. and just do the right thing..

[Otis]

ahhhh i miss texas, the one state where if someone comes into your house to try and rob you, they get shot and there are no questions asked... people in ohio don't understand why everyone in Texas has a handgun on them and a rifle under their backseat, I understand :D

it's finally clear why we could never get along............it's my belief that Texas should be given back to Mexico to prevent anymore anal retentive persons with too much money to infiltrate American politics :)

Teddy is a total douche.............sorry. Anyone who toured in the 60's and early 70's and claims they didn't drink or do drugs is a total liar.

guns suck........plain and simple.

[*dianne*]

wow..... thats all I'm going to say, wow

[THRASH]

it's finally clear why we could never get along............it's my belief that Texas should be given back to Mexico to prevent anymore anal retentive persons with too much money to infiltrate American politics :)

Teddy is a total douche.............sorry. Anyone who toured in the 60's and early 70's and claims they didn't drink or do drugs is a total liar.

guns suck........plain and simple.

written like a 13 year old who's almost forty...

[Timmah!]

In his popular edition of Blackstone's Commentaries on the Laws of England (1803) (http://www.constitution.org/tb/tb-0000.htm), St. George Tucker (http://www.history.org/Almanack/people/bios/biotuck.cfm) (see also (http://www.history.org/Almanack/people/bios/biotuck.cfm)), a lawyer, Revolutionary War militia officer, legal scholar, and later a U.S. District Court judge (appointed by James Madison in 1813), wrote of the Second Amendment:The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, and this without any qualification as to their condition or degree, as is the case in the British government. In the appendix (http://www.constitution.org/tb/t1d12000.htm) to the Commentaries, Tucker elaborates further:This may be considered as the true palladium of liberty... The right of self-defense is the first law of nature; in most governments it has been the study of rulers to confine this right within the narrowest limits possible. Whenever standing armies are kept up, and the right of the people to keep and bear arms is, under any color or pretext whatsoever, prohibited, liberty, if not already annihilated, is on the brink of destruction. In England, the people have been disarmed, generally, under the specious pretext of preserving the game: a never failing lure to bring over the landed aristocracy to support any measure, under that mask, though calculated for very different purposes. True it is, their bill of rights seems at first view to counteract this policy: but the right of bearing arms is confined to protestants, and the words suitable to their condition and degree, have been interpreted to authorise the prohibition of keeping a gun or other engine for the destruction of game, to any farmer, or inferior tradesman, or other person not qualified to kill game. So that not one man in five hundred can keep a gun in his house without being subject to a penalty.Not only are Tucker's remarks solid evidence that the militia clause was not intended to restrict the right to keep arms to active militia members, but he speaks of a broad right – Tucker specifically mentions self-defense.

<s>This makes no sense to me. Then why the preface of "A well regulated militia..." instead of just saying "The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
</s>Nevermind; I've learned that this stems from the fact that (in the hay-day of the Massachusetts Bay Colony in the 1600's) all able-bodied men were actually required to own a firearm in the event that they would need to be called up, since rifles were not supplied by the government at the time.

Still... the opening clause makes it clear that the intent of this amendment is to provide the government with a readily-available defense force, and not for the purpose of self-defense. I'm not saying people shouldn't have a right to self-defense, I'm just debating the interpretation of the 2nd amendment only.<s></s>

<s>And you're wrong about the National Guard. We are under our respective state governor's authority unless the federal government REQUESTS otherwise - and each governor has the right to refuse the federal government's request. There are some grey areas (which have become increasingly hazy), for example, a lot of our funding comes from the feds; we fall under U.S. Army regulations, and the National Guard Bureau has a lot of say in our structure. And the current administration has only blurred the lines more by using us in an offensive capacity (when that's really not our role). But the fact remains that in order for a National Guard unit to be mobilized by the federal government, the governor must approve it.</s><s></s>

I stand corrected. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_National_Guard
The National Guard can be mobilized for federal service by presidential order in times of war or national emergency. And thanks to the John Warner Defense Authorization Act of 2007, the president can even take command of the National Guard during state emergencies, too. I feel so much safer now. After reading up on the subject more, I've learned that the Guard's state mission was primary and the Federal mission was secondary, but various acts and amendments over the years have gradually reversed that logic. Reminds me of a great bumper sticker: "Oh well, I wasn't using my rights anyway." Now even the state governors can pimp that.

[THRASH]

Still... the opening clause makes it clear that the intent of this amendment is to provide the government with a readily-available defense force, and not for the purpose of self-defense. I'm not saying people shouldn't have a right to self-defense, I'm just debating the interpretation of the 2nd amendment only.<S></S>


Depends on how you read it. This amendment is basically the federal version of many of the state's constitutions from back then, which were MUCH more specific about the right to self defense and gun ownership.

The authors probably didn't figure this country would get to the point where it is today, with people not understanding our history. Funny how those clauses don't cloud up the 1st amendment.

[THRASH]

interesting quotes from our founding father's


http://www.largo.org/meaning2.html

[Timmah!]

Depends on how you read it. This amendment is basically the federal version of many of the state's constitutions from back then, which were MUCH more specific about the right to self defense and gun ownership.

The authors probably didn't figure this country would get to the point where it is today, with people not understanding our history. Funny how those clauses don't cloud up the 1st amendment.

Reading the quotes (I'll assume their legit), I have to say you win. :) So let's move on to the subject of infringing vs regulation. Seems to me there is so much grey area here that it's impossible to convince either side to find a compromise. For example, is requiring a gun safety course infringing one's right to bear arms? Or just common sense? And the concealed weapons laws, as I understand it, do not prohibit anyone from having a holstered weapon (in plain sight) on their belt or having a firearm in their house. So again... regulation, but not infringement? I can definitely understand the viewpoint, however, that the Brady Bill is unconstitutional. Hard to deny that it's temporary infringement.

And why is it funny that there are no clauses clouding up the 1st amendment?