The Real Truth From Ted Nugent

[Ninja]

Can't get this in California or MA, or a number of other states...Oh yeah...I love Texas...Just incase anyone wants to know just what the hell it is...It is an AP4--LR .308 put out by good old DPMS Panther Arms.

We can get Fulton, POF and Vulcan/Hesse .308 lowers here in California - the first two of which I'd venture to say are the nicest .308 lower receivers on the market - thanks to Harrot v. County of Kings and small but highly efficient grassroots CA gun rights movement.

 

[Steerpike]

On the contrary -- I know exactly what I am talking about.

:yawn:

Sure you do. That's why you are able to back up your arguments so well.

Like I said, anyone can say anything on an internet forum. I could make the statement that gun laws saved 5 million lives last year. Anyone with any sense would ask me where I got that information and whether I had a link or citation to the source. What would I provide then, you're sophmoric reponse: "Yeah because if it doesn't have a link it doesn't exist."

Absurd. If you're making a statement of fact on an internet message board it doesn't count for anything unless you can support it. Making unsupportable claims is what the anti-gun crowd usually does. If you can't do any better than that you're not helping.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Sure you do. That's why you are able to back up your arguments so well.

Whatever, dude.

What you seem to be missing is that you provided for me real-world evidence that backs up what I said, and that said evidence, being real-world evidence as opposed to the cartoon-world fantasy you brought up, shows that delaying a right does indeed deny a right, and that when denying a right, people do, in deed die.

Thanks to you for your hard work and dedication.

 

[Steerpike]

Whatever, dude.

What you seem to be missing is that you provided for me real-world evidence that backs up what I said, and that said evidence, being real-world evidence as opposed to the cartoon world fantasy you brought up, shows that delaying a right does indeed deny a right, and that when denying a right, people do, in deed die.

Still doesn't mean anything unless you have something to contrast it to. People die when you allow people to drive cars. But if you contrast that to the positives the balance comes out in favor of driving. Pointing to cases of people dying when there is a waiting period doesn't mean anything unless you can 1) show the waiting period caused the death (i.e. they would have probably lived if there wasn't one); and 2) contrast it to the benefits, if any, of the waiting period.

If you can't grasp that, then its no wonder you couldn't find the links yourself.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Still doesn't mean anything unless you have something to contrast it to.

Sure it does. You cited 5 innocent people that didnt have to die.

These 5 people dont mean anything?

Whatver happened to "if it saves just one life"?

 

[Steerpike]

Sure it does. You cited 5 innocent people that didnt have to die.

These 5 people dont mean anything?

Whatver happened to "if it saves just one life"?

Sure it means something. But suppose you have 6 lives saved by having the waiting period. Then what? Without having that information to compare it to, you can't make an accurate judgment about it.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Sure it means something.

Yes it does -- especially to them.

And thus, a right delayed is a right denied.

 

[Steerpike]

Yes it does -- especially to them.

And thus, a right delayed is a right denied.

You don't read entire posts, do you? That actually explains this conversation. Thanks

 

[M14 Shooter]

You don't read entire posts, do you?

I dont need to read 'the rest' of your posts when most of what you say doesnt have anything to do with the point.

People HAVE died because their right to keep and bear arms was delayed -- you, yourself, proved this.

And that, on its own, proves my point.

 

[Steerpike]

Jesus...why didn't someone tell me I was arguing with a buffoon? Joke on the new guy, right?

Anyone else want to jump in here? I'll even take M14's point of view if you want. I can argue it more coherently.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Jesus...why didn't someone tell me I was arguing with a buffoon?

Asks the guy who tries to prove a point with the actions of Homer Simpson...

But, to answer your question, how about:
Because an arrogant ass like yourself is too stupid to figure it out on your own?

 

[Steerpike]

Asks the guy who tries to prove a point with the actions of Homer Simpson...

Who was proving a point with it? I merely mentioned it because its funny. If you can find anywhere in this thread where I was supporting that point of view, let me know (hint: it doesn't exist).

 

[Shogun]

hehehehehe...


welcome to the boards, Steerpike!

I told you that we argue politics, dude. I didn't say that we all do so without emotion eclipsing logic. I'm guilty of this on my own pet issues too.


Perhaps this is the point where it is pertinent to find workable solutions and compramises. For instance, there really is no way to determine whose lives will be lost or saved from a waiting period to purchase guns. I tend to side with the broader application of liberty to the second amendment but I could stomach a minimal waiting period if we could all finally agree that the second gives law abiding citizens the right to own, carry and defend themselves with a firearm. Further, there must be a way to decide which cuns should apply to a waiting period besides how scary they look. My suggestion is that the ATF compile a list of all crimes using an identifiable firearm each year and THOSE weapons used in a high frequency of criminal activity can trigger a waiting period. My grandfathers old single shot 20 guage is probably not the kind of gun that needs a waiting period and I think a lot more gun lovers would be quicker to accept restrictions that were based on more than a fear of guns.

 

[Steerpike]

When I look at 2nd amendment issues, I start in the same place I start with any other issue of government control v. personal liberties - from a presumption in favor of personal liberty and freedom.

I've been asked many times "Why shouldn't the government be able to do X." That's the wrong question. The correct question is "Why SHOULD the government be able to do X." If you can't answer that to my satisfaction, then the government shouldn't be able to do it in my opinion.

I believe the 2nd Amendment protects an individual's right to keep and bear arms. So my starting place is with that freedom. If the government wants to act in any way to curtail that right, then my presumption is that the cannot do so unless I hear some compelling reason why they should.

With waiting periods, I am typically against them because I haven't seen any compelling evidence that the government ought to be able to impose a waiting period. That said, I'm more or less with you Shogun in that I can stomach a minimal waiting period because I think the infringement on rights is small, and because it stands to reason that the government has a compelling interest in being able to do at least a basic background check to make sure a violent felon isn't getting the gun. In this day and age, however, I am a bit less sympathetic to waiting periods of even a couple of days because with the technology we have I see no reason why the background check can't be done almost immediately, and once that's done the state's compelling reason to impose a delay is gone.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Who was proving a point with it?

OK then... what point was I trying to prove with my response?