• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

You're not helping, Ted

I'm inclined to dismiss Mr. Nugent as well, I can't imagine that his "promotion" of the pro-gun stance does a lot to aid that cause.....

Still, I'm on a couple of weapon-oriented forums as well, and there does seem to be a general opinion among the members that a Democratic president/congress will have "gun control" as part of the agenda.

Clinton in particular is seen as an "anti-gun" type. (Odd that little mention is made of Giuliani...)

Most of the political pundits I listen to seem to think that "gun control" at present is pretty much a dead issue.
 
Which criteria should people fulfill, before they should be allowed to own guns?

How will that correspond to the second amendment?

In order to be protected under the 2nd Ammendment, a person would have to be a member of a well regulated militia, i.e. the National Guard.





Here we go again..... :)
 
Clinton in particular is seen as an "anti-gun" type. (Odd that little mention is made of Giuliani...)

I remember the gun nuts claiming that Clinton was going to outlaw private gun ownership and confiscate all guns. I ran into one gun nut who was still making this claim in October of 2000. I mentioned that Clinton only had 3 months remaining, so he better hurry. I humiliated the gun nut. This did not make the gun nut happy. :)
 
I remember the gun nuts claiming that Clinton was going to outlaw private gun ownership and confiscate all guns. I ran into one gun nut who was still making this claim in October of 2000. I mentioned that Clinton only had 3 months remaining, so he better hurry. I humiliated the gun nut. This did not make the gun nut happy. :)
So did he pop a cap in yer ass? (I hope that's the right expression...)
 
I don't see any reason for a private citizen to own, for example, a Thompson submachine gun in most cases. A private collector, that's one thing. But when you consider that the Thompson was sold over the counter at hardware stores when it first came out, you can't help but wonder why gun control opponents are so damned dim.

If the Second Amendment is to rein in Government excesses then why should American citizens opt for any weapons laws. If the government was to be overthrown you would want more powerful weapons than the law allows. I can't see the logic of this middle way. To me it's either powerful weapons for citizens or ditch them all in the trash.
 
Yeah - me. I am not entertained.
I can't understand how a person that talks that much ever has a chance to think. All output with no input.

To be a media celebrity, just fill the void with self-absorbed nothings.
 
I wouldn't call the National Guard a well regulated militia. I'd call it part of the military. A militia would be comprised of citizens who are not on government payroll and who don't take orders from the government. That's my opinion.
 
Meanwhile people who can't obtain guns legally (gang members) kill more people with guns than Ted Nugent has.

Go figure.

You do realize you are comparing a group to an individual?

We can make them look so much better if say we compare street gangs to the Janjawid Militia. Then we are at least comparing a group to a group.

Hey comparing Ted Bundy to the Janjawid Militia makes him look so harmless too.
 
I wouldn't call the National Guard a well regulated militia. I'd call it part of the military. A militia would be comprised of citizens who are not on government payroll and who don't take orders from the government. That's my opinion.

Could you support that by the militias in the founding era?
 
Do you think the militias that fought off the British were paid by the USA government? The national guard of today is not very different than the army, many are serving in Iraq.
 

Back
Top Bottom