The Real Truth From Ted Nugent

[Lookout]

Boo!!

heh, heh, heh


Ted Nugent is a fag. Like Thunder Thighs tho'

I think I hear your tickle me elmo calling you

 

[Dr Grump]

I think I hear your tickle me elmo calling you

Wasn't Tickle me Elmo <i>based</i> on Ted Nugent? Similar hair styles anyways..

 

[midcan5]

Not only do you want to take away our guns but you want to take away our freedom and the right to protect ourselves.

I'm still trying to figure out who it is you are protecting yourself from? Is there a bogeyman in your closet?

 

[Lookout]

I'm still trying to figure out who it is you are protecting yourself from? Is there a bogeyman in your closet?

Not in my closet..In my neighborhood and in your neighborhood and in everyones neighborhood!

 

[Dr Grump]

Not in my closet..In my neighborhood and in your neighborhood and in everyones neighborhood!

Move neighbourhoods...

 

[M14 Shooter]

Damn that is stupid, does the fool have a clue that if he fell to earth from nothing he'd be even stupider than he appears here. And I love the idiot interviewer, he has this serious look like teddy is saying something interesting. Defend himself! what is he afraid of? And then he mentions women who probably have more balls than he does.

Good to see you can offer something other than personal attacks.

 

[Shogun]

Crime happens. Teddy gave two specific examples. Please argue the issue.


And, is it The NuDge or The Nuge? It seems that the first is what you do to something to push it off of a table...

 

[Lookout]

Crime happens. Teddy gave two specific examples. Please argue the issue.


And, is it The NuDge or The Nuge? It seems that the first is what you do to something to push it off of a table...

I guess it would be Nuge. Oh well.
My point in posting this link was to try to educate the people for gun controll. I guess if someone is dead set in their thinking, there is no way to change their mind. I personally have been in a few situations where a gun was necessary as a deterant. I have also been on the bad end of a gun, that sucks! If we would all start taking care of business there would be less need for the judicial system to be the quagmire that it has become and we would need less prisons. I just agree with everything uncle teddy says in that clip and think there should be more people like him. Problem with that is, the younger generation is being raised to sit in their rooms and listen to their I Pod's and play games on the computer. A gun can be necessary not just for rebuting another person with a gun, but for a stopping someone from beating someone to death. Some people think that they are too intelligent to get in that kind of situation. So were the views of some that are now dead, and would not be had they been carrying a firearm. The world has become more violent and that has nothing to do with guns being legal or illegal. Oh yeah...The White House is on fire. I was going to post the link and the lyrics to speak by queensryche but my wife talked me out of it

 

[midcan5]

Good to see you can offer something other than personal attacks.

If one runs into BS I think it fair to call it BS.

 

[liberalogic]

OMFG. How can anyone see that clip and not get it???
Instead of gun control, what we need is pen control or keyboard control. You and Larkin must have hatched from the same nut. A pen in your or larkins hands is far more dangerous than probably all of the guns in gun owners hands in America!!! Not only do you want to take away our guns but you want to take away our freedom and the right to protect ourselves. Like Teddy said, I don't need you or Larkin or a document to tell me with what or when or if I can protect my God given life with. If you and Larkin want to take away guns so bad, why don't you try starting with mine!!! I'll leave the light on for ya. OOh, thats right, You would need a gun to do that with. No piece of paper with words on it will get my guns!!!

No one is trying to take away your guns or your right to protect yourself. We just want to make sure that a gunholder is psychologically stable and is not using a weapon that can cause massive destruction.

 

[M14 Shooter]

No one is trying to take away your guns or your right to protect yourself. We just want to make sure that a gunholder is psychologically stable and is not using a weapon that can cause massive destruction.

"A weapon that can cause massive destruction".
Gotta love the hyperbole!

 

[Lookout]

No one is trying to take away your guns or your right to protect yourself. We just want to make sure that a gunholder is psychologically stable and is not using a weapon that can cause massive destruction.

No one is trying to take away your guns??? You have to be kidding me!!!!

Is California goes, so goes the nation," is a familiar saying in politics. No one hopes more than gun-control activists that the saying is true. If Congress and other states follow California's increasingly aggressive lead on banning guns and ammunition, and carry it to its extreme conclusion, most or all guns will eventually be illegal to sell, and most or all ammunition will eventually be illegal to shoot.

On October 13, California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger buckled under pressure from gun-ban supporters Sens. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., and Edward Kennedy, D-Mass., and signed into lawA.B. 1471, expanding the state's so-called "unsafe handgun" ban. Urged on by anti-hunting groups, Schwarzenegger also signed A.B. 821, which bans hunting big game or coyotes with center-fire rifle and pistol ammunition that contains lead in territory inhabited by California condors.The laws lay the groundwork for broader bans on guns and ammunition that, if history is any guide, will soon follow in California and elsewhere.
Nothing in politics happens in a vacuum, and A.B. 1471 and A.B. 821 are no exceptions. Even before these bills, California had already banned more rifles, pistols and shotguns than any other state, starting with limited bans and expanding them step-by-step.
In 1999, the California legislature expanded its 1989 "assault weapon" ban to what the Brady Campaign calls a "model for the nation": a ban on possession of not only military-looking semi-automatic firearms, but also of many other detachable-magazine semi-automatic rifles, fixed-magazine semi-automatic rifles, compact center-fire rifles, home-defense shotguns and several categories of handguns.
In 2001, California shifted its focus to conventional handguns and became the only state to ban what it calls "unsafe handguns." California defined that term to mean revolvers and semi-automatic pistols that do not pass a drop test and a functioning test, and that do not have certain types of mechanical safeties. In
2006, the ban was expanded to semi-automatic pistols that do not have a loaded-chamber indicator or a magazine disconnect. And in
2007, the ban was expanded again, this time to
cover semi-automatic pistols that do not have both an indicator and a magazine disconnect. So far, no manufacturer has been able to offer a loaded chamber indicator that meets the California Department of Justice's impossible standards for approval.
Now, A.B. 1471 imposes the state's fourth "unsafe handgun" ban in just six years. As of January 1,2010, California will prohibit the sale of any new model of semi-automatic pistol that is not equipped with two or more internal parts that imprint the fired cartridge case with a microscopic array of characters that identify the make, model and serial number of the pistol. This requirement is based on patented "micro-stamping" technology available from only one company&#8212;which, needless to say, joined gun-ban groups in lobbying hard for the bill. Manufacturers cannot completely redesign their factories to incorporate this unreliable technology and will likely stop introducing new models in California.
According to micro-stamping advocates, the microscopic codes can be entered into a computerized database before the gun leaves the factory. Then, if a gun is used in a crime, police investigators can supposedly pick up a cartridge case left at the scene, identify the markings on the case, run them against the database, and identify the criminal. Parroting one another, Feinstein and the Brady Campaign claim that A.B. 1471 will make it possible for California criminals to be "rapidly identified and arrested."
It's an interesting theory, but not as interesting as reality. Tests published by the Association of Firearm andToolmark Examiners in 2006 found that the vast majority of micro-stamped characters cannot be read on fired cartridge cases.
University of California, Davis, researchers called the technology "flawed," and concluded, "At the current time it is not recommended that a mandate for implementation of this technology in all semiautomatic handguns in the state of California be made." Both studies found that the markings on firing pins were easily removed in seconds with common household tools.
Even if micro-stamping worked as advertised, there are many practical reasons it cannot live up to its advocates' claims. For one thing, three-fourths of violent crimes, including one-third of murders and three-fifths of robberies, are committed without guns. Most crimes involving firearms do not involve shots fired, so there are no fired cases to be recovered by police.
Even if criminals leave cases behind, "micro-stamping" cannot guarantee a link between a gun and its purchaser unless the gun is registered. Criminals do not generally register guns, of course. The Supreme Court has ruled that, under the Fifth Amendment's protection against self-incrimination, felons (prohibited from possessing guns) cannot be required to register guns. And almost nine of every 10 criminals who use guns get them through theft or on the black market. Requiring "micro-stamping" will only encourage thefts and expand the black market.
Criminals can also thwart micro-stamping by leaving previously fired brass (picked up at shooting ranges, for instance) at crime scenes to throw investigators onto the trail of innocent citizens.
Regarding A.B. 821, practical realities were of no greater importance to a majority of California state legislators and Schwarzenegger where the ban on big game and coyote hunting with lead bullets was concerned.
By way of background, the California condor is listed as an endangered species. The birds have long occupied an area northwest of Los Angeles, and are also found in parts of Arizona, Utah and Mexico. Since 1997, one California condor has died of exposure to lead, eight others have been treated to reduce toxic lead levels, and all condors examined have had detectable lead in their blood.
A.B. 821's supporters pointed to a study led by Molly Church of the University of California, Santa Cruz, which concluded that "incidental ingestion of ammunition embedded in carcasses that
While California's lead-ammunition ban applies only to hunting certain game within a portion of the state, it is inconceivable that gun-control supporters will miss the chance to cover non-hunting uses of guns.
condors feed on is the principal source of elevated lead exposure that threatens the recovery of condors in the wild." However, Don Saba, a research scientist in biochemistry and medicine (and a member of the NRA Board of Directors) reviewed the Church study and found that it "knowingly omitted critical data... [that] indicate that the source of lead in the blood of condors is not from ammunition, but rather originates from some other source of lead in the environment."
As other possible sources of lead, a study for the California Department of Game and Fish, conducted at UC Davis, pointed to natural deposits, disposal of items that contain lead (such as batteries), and residue from leaded gasoline exhaust, among others. Similarly, a study commissioned by NRA, and conducted by environmental consultant Dr.Thomas D.Wright and environmental scientist Dr. Richard K. Peddicord, found that "there is no documentation or direct evidence" that condors ingest enough lead from ammunition to account for the lead found in their tissues. Wright and Peddicord concluded that the types of lead found in condors "(1) vary widely, (2) are not different from background lead ratios in the California environment, and (3) are not unique to ammunition."
Before the California legislature approved A.B. 821, the California Game and Fish Commission was studying the issue and receiving input from the public on how best to address it. The Commission was well aware of hunters'concerns. For example, a 2006 survey by Responsive Management found that 73 percent of hunters&#8212;in keeping with the conservationist tradition&#8212;would be willing to take voluntary steps to reduce the amount of lead they leave in the field. On the other hand, 25 percent said they'd hunt out of state, hunt less, or quit big game hunting entirely&#8212;a prospect that could have cost the state hundreds of millions of dollars in
economic losses, and cost over 2,200 jobs supported by hunters.
These hunters' reactions are understandable. While many happily use non-lead bullets and find them effective, ammunition availability is limited for those who don't handload. An average hunter who wants to use dad's old .300 Savage or .35 Whelen is out of luck. Even "non-lead" bullets contain trace amounts of lead&#8212;a fact the Game and Fish Commission warned Schwarzenegger about before he signed the bill.
The Commission is responsible for making management decisions about the state's wildlife resources, and protecting and restoring endangered species within the state. It should have been allowed to do its job. In the end, though, the legislature and governor preemptively imposed the lead ammunition ban, though its benefits to condors are little more than speculative.
When it comes to micro-stamping or ammunition bans, we don't need a crystal ball to predict the future. Proposed federal legislation shows that gun-control supporters will push to expand the micro-stamping law to cover all new semi-automatic pistols, and perhaps more. H.R.I 874, introduced in Congress by Rep. Robert Andrews, D-N.1, proposes to prohibit any firearm available now or in the future&#8212;rifle, shotgun or handgun, semi-automatic or not&#8212;that does not "micro-stamp" effectively with every type of ammunition, every time.
And while California's lead-ammunition ban applies only to hunting certain game within a portion of the state, it is inconceivable that gun-control supporters will miss the chance to cover non-hunting uses of guns. The most radical anti-gun group in the country, the Violence Policy Center, is already on record claiming that "any possible benefits of firearm safety training are outweighed by the risk of lead poisoning," and that "states and localities should consider moratoriums [sic] on the construction of new ranges."
After many victories in gun control battles at the federal, state and local levels in recent years, these two new laws in California foreshadow a new, long-term challenge to our right to keep and bear arms. Gun owners should take note, and prepare for more battles to ensure that these latest ideas don't spread nationwide.
This is an article from American Rifleman January 2008

 

[Shogun]

No one is trying to take away your guns or your right to protect yourself. We just want to make sure that a gunholder is psychologically stable and is not using a weapon that can cause massive destruction.

Where is that standard located in the constitution? just think, conservatives could say the same thing about your right to vote.

 

[liberalogic]

No one is trying to take away your guns??? You have to be kidding me!!!!

Is California goes, so goes the nation," is a familiar saying in politics. No one hopes more than gun-control activists that the saying is true. If Congress and other states follow California's increasingly aggressive lead on banning guns and ammunition, and carry it to its extreme conclusion, most or all guns will eventually be illegal to sell, and most or all ammunition will eventually be illegal to shoot.

On October 13, California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger buckled under pressure from gun-ban supporters Sens. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., and Edward Kennedy, D-Mass., and signed into lawA.B. 1471, expanding the state's so-called "unsafe handgun" ban. Urged on by anti-hunting groups, Schwarzenegger also signed A.B. 821, which bans hunting big game or coyotes with center-fire rifle and pistol ammunition that contains lead in territory inhabited by California condors.The laws lay the groundwork for broader bans on guns and ammunition that, if history is any guide, will soon follow in California and elsewhere.
Nothing in politics happens in a vacuum, and A.B. 1471 and A.B. 821 are no exceptions. Even before these bills, California had already banned more rifles, pistols and shotguns than any other state, starting with limited bans and expanding them step-by-step.
In 1999, the California legislature expanded its 1989 "assault weapon" ban to what the Brady Campaign calls a "model for the nation": a ban on possession of not only military-looking semi-automatic firearms, but also of many other detachable-magazine semi-automatic rifles, fixed-magazine semi-automatic rifles, compact center-fire rifles, home-defense shotguns and several categories of handguns.
In 2001, California shifted its focus to conventional handguns and became the only state to ban what it calls "unsafe handguns." California defined that term to mean revolvers and semi-automatic pistols that do not pass a drop test and a functioning test, and that do not have certain types of mechanical safeties. In
2006, the ban was expanded to semi-automatic pistols that do not have a loaded-chamber indicator or a magazine disconnect. And in
2007, the ban was expanded again, this time to
cover semi-automatic pistols that do not have both an indicator and a magazine disconnect. So far, no manufacturer has been able to offer a loaded chamber indicator that meets the California Department of Justice's impossible standards for approval.
Now, A.B. 1471 imposes the state's fourth "unsafe handgun" ban in just six years. As of January 1,2010, California will prohibit the sale of any new model of semi-automatic pistol that is not equipped with two or more internal parts that imprint the fired cartridge case with a microscopic array of characters that identify the make, model and serial number of the pistol. This requirement is based on patented "micro-stamping" technology available from only one company—which, needless to say, joined gun-ban groups in lobbying hard for the bill. Manufacturers cannot completely redesign their factories to incorporate this unreliable technology and will likely stop introducing new models in California.
According to micro-stamping advocates, the microscopic codes can be entered into a computerized database before the gun leaves the factory. Then, if a gun is used in a crime, police investigators can supposedly pick up a cartridge case left at the scene, identify the markings on the case, run them against the database, and identify the criminal. Parroting one another, Feinstein and the Brady Campaign claim that A.B. 1471 will make it possible for California criminals to be "rapidly identified and arrested."
It's an interesting theory, but not as interesting as reality. Tests published by the Association of Firearm andToolmark Examiners in 2006 found that the vast majority of micro-stamped characters cannot be read on fired cartridge cases.
University of California, Davis, researchers called the technology "flawed," and concluded, "At the current time it is not recommended that a mandate for implementation of this technology in all semiautomatic handguns in the state of California be made." Both studies found that the markings on firing pins were easily removed in seconds with common household tools.
Even if micro-stamping worked as advertised, there are many practical reasons it cannot live up to its advocates' claims. For one thing, three-fourths of violent crimes, including one-third of murders and three-fifths of robberies, are committed without guns. Most crimes involving firearms do not involve shots fired, so there are no fired cases to be recovered by police.
Even if criminals leave cases behind, "micro-stamping" cannot guarantee a link between a gun and its purchaser unless the gun is registered. Criminals do not generally register guns, of course. The Supreme Court has ruled that, under the Fifth Amendment's protection against self-incrimination, felons (prohibited from possessing guns) cannot be required to register guns. And almost nine of every 10 criminals who use guns get them through theft or on the black market. Requiring "micro-stamping" will only encourage thefts and expand the black market.
Criminals can also thwart micro-stamping by leaving previously fired brass (picked up at shooting ranges, for instance) at crime scenes to throw investigators onto the trail of innocent citizens.
Regarding A.B. 821, practical realities were of no greater importance to a majority of California state legislators and Schwarzenegger where the ban on big game and coyote hunting with lead bullets was concerned.
By way of background, the California condor is listed as an endangered species. The birds have long occupied an area northwest of Los Angeles, and are also found in parts of Arizona, Utah and Mexico. Since 1997, one California condor has died of exposure to lead, eight others have been treated to reduce toxic lead levels, and all condors examined have had detectable lead in their blood.
A.B. 821's supporters pointed to a study led by Molly Church of the University of California, Santa Cruz, which concluded that "incidental ingestion of ammunition embedded in carcasses that
While California's lead-ammunition ban applies only to hunting certain game within a portion of the state, it is inconceivable that gun-control supporters will miss the chance to cover non-hunting uses of guns.
condors feed on is the principal source of elevated lead exposure that threatens the recovery of condors in the wild." However, Don Saba, a research scientist in biochemistry and medicine (and a member of the NRA Board of Directors) reviewed the Church study and found that it "knowingly omitted critical data... [that] indicate that the source of lead in the blood of condors is not from ammunition, but rather originates from some other source of lead in the environment."
As other possible sources of lead, a study for the California Department of Game and Fish, conducted at UC Davis, pointed to natural deposits, disposal of items that contain lead (such as batteries), and residue from leaded gasoline exhaust, among others. Similarly, a study commissioned by NRA, and conducted by environmental consultant Dr.Thomas D.Wright and environmental scientist Dr. Richard K. Peddicord, found that "there is no documentation or direct evidence" that condors ingest enough lead from ammunition to account for the lead found in their tissues. Wright and Peddicord concluded that the types of lead found in condors "(1) vary widely, (2) are not different from background lead ratios in the California environment, and (3) are not unique to ammunition."
Before the California legislature approved A.B. 821, the California Game and Fish Commission was studying the issue and receiving input from the public on how best to address it. The Commission was well aware of hunters'concerns. For example, a 2006 survey by Responsive Management found that 73 percent of hunters—in keeping with the conservationist tradition—would be willing to take voluntary steps to reduce the amount of lead they leave in the field. On the other hand, 25 percent said they'd hunt out of state, hunt less, or quit big game hunting entirely—a prospect that could have cost the state hundreds of millions of dollars in
economic losses, and cost over 2,200 jobs supported by hunters.
These hunters' reactions are understandable. While many happily use non-lead bullets and find them effective, ammunition availability is limited for those who don't handload. An average hunter who wants to use dad's old .300 Savage or .35 Whelen is out of luck. Even "non-lead" bullets contain trace amounts of lead—a fact the Game and Fish Commission warned Schwarzenegger about before he signed the bill.
The Commission is responsible for making management decisions about the state's wildlife resources, and protecting and restoring endangered species within the state. It should have been allowed to do its job. In the end, though, the legislature and governor preemptively imposed the lead ammunition ban, though its benefits to condors are little more than speculative.
When it comes to micro-stamping or ammunition bans, we don't need a crystal ball to predict the future. Proposed federal legislation shows that gun-control supporters will push to expand the micro-stamping law to cover all new semi-automatic pistols, and perhaps more. H.R.I 874, introduced in Congress by Rep. Robert Andrews, D-N.1, proposes to prohibit any firearm available now or in the future—rifle, shotgun or handgun, semi-automatic or not—that does not "micro-stamp" effectively with every type of ammunition, every time.
And while California's lead-ammunition ban applies only to hunting certain game within a portion of the state, it is inconceivable that gun-control supporters will miss the chance to cover non-hunting uses of guns. The most radical anti-gun group in the country, the Violence Policy Center, is already on record claiming that "any possible benefits of firearm safety training are outweighed by the risk of lead poisoning," and that "states and localities should consider moratoriums [sic] on the construction of new ranges."
After many victories in gun control battles at the federal, state and local levels in recent years, these two new laws in California foreshadow a new, long-term challenge to our right to keep and bear arms. Gun owners should take note, and prepare for more battles to ensure that these latest ideas don't spread nationwide.
This is an article from American Rifleman January 2008

I can understand your frustration-- you are, I presume, a law-abiding citizen who feels that your right to bear arms should not be abridged in any way just because others may abuse the right. However, I highly doubt that they will ever totally prevent you from having a gun. If that were to happen, I would then disagree with the activists.

 

[liberalogic]

Where is that standard located in the constitution? just think, conservatives could say the same thing about your right to vote.

The constitution is, of course, the law of land. But with that said, times change, technology changes, and the world in general changes. We need to adapt to this. That's why we have an amendment process-- because the constitution is fallible.

 

[Lookout]

I can understand your frustration-- you are, I presume, a law-abiding citizen who feels that your right to bear arms should not be abridged in any way just because others may abuse the right. However, I highly doubt that they will ever totally prevent you from having a gun. If that were to happen, I would then disagree with the activists.

At that point, your disagreement with the activists will not be worth or mean anything. It will, be too late. The WHOLE point, is to do everything possible to not EVER, EVER, EVER get to that point! This whole thing is also about alot more than guns, It is about control. It is about losing our GOD given rights one at a time. It is about our freedom collectively and individually. It is about remaining a free democratic society. It is about each individual being able to protect themselves against murderers, rapists, and drug crazed idiots. To do nothing and stand by and hope others will just take care of it, or just hopeful thinking that it will never happen is not, can not, will not be good enough ever! That kind of thinking is one of the things that got this whole mess tied into a knot to begin with. This issue is not one that can tolerate a point in time in the future where the words "I told you so" are ever said.

 

[liberalogic]

At that point, your disagreement with the activists will not be worth or mean anything. It will, be too late. The WHOLE point, is to do everything possible to not EVER, EVER, EVER get to that point! This whole thing is also about alot more than guns, It is about control. It is about losing our GOD given rights one at a time. It is about our freedom collectively and individually. It is about remaining a free democratic society. It is about each individual being able to protect themselves against murderers, rapists, and drug crazed idiots. To do nothing and stand by and hope others will just take care of it, or just hopeful thinking that it will never happen is not, can not, will not be good enough ever! That kind of thinking is one of the things that got this whole mess tied into a knot to begin with. This issue is not one that can tolerate a point in time in the future where the words "I told you so" are ever said.

If you are against any sort of gun control, then the same people who you seek to protect yourself against are legally entitled to guns. Also, if the issue is about governmental control, then the "drug-crazed idiots" to whom you refer are legally entitled to their drugs.

 

[Ninja]

No one is trying to take away your guns or your right to protect yourself. We just want to make sure that a gunholder is psychologically stable and is not using a weapon that can cause massive destruction.

Definitely

I want to keep guns of massive destruction out of the hands of the psychologically unstable too, dude.

We need to BAN bayonet lugs. I'm sick of opening the paper every morning and reading about yet another drive-by bayoneting. A bayonet lug is designed to do one thing, and one thing only: allow the operator to spray his bolt-action rifle from the hip - indiscriminately - without reloading. I read a newspaper article that talked about this in great detail.

We need to BAN barrel shrouds. Too many of our inner-city youth are being barrel shrouded to death. Why does a civilian need to shroud his or her barrel? What are they trying to hide? If it's supposedly a right as the gun huggers say, then there shouldn't be any need for secrecy, right? Why is the NRA so obsessed with shrouding their barrels?

We need to BAN flash hiders. Too many, uh, flashes are being hidden

No civilian needs a fully-automatic assault revolver. The NRA gun nuts simply don't understand this. I read a news story about a Glock AR-15 shotgun being used to hold up a liquor store, and I for one am sick of it! Who wants to live in a country where Glock AR-15 shotguns are being used to hold up liquor stores?!

And WHO THE HELL NEEDS A MUZZLE-LOADING BLACK POWDER ASSAULT RIFLE? What kind of an unhinged lunatic needs this type of weapon? Who would want a gun that you would load from the muzzle? And it's well known that black powder is much more potent than the more commonly used periwinkle powder. These are dangerous weapons, and no civilian needs one!!!!!

Ugh. I've worked myself into such a frenzy! I'm too pissed to to even broach the topic of collapsible buttstocks!

Bottom line, Liberalogic, if only our elected leaders would listen to people like you and me and not deranged gun-huggers like Wayne LaPierre!

 

[Psychoblues]

How about breaching the topic of firearms in the hands of criminals, loosely guarded firearms that reach the arms of criminals or unregistered firearms that can be sold to anyone with the bucks to purchase them? When will we outlaw and enforce restrictions on SMAWDS, Shoulder mounted atomic weapons delivery systems,?

I guess Ted and the NRA have problems with all that.

 

[Shogun]

The constitution is, of course, the law of land. But with that said, times change, technology changes, and the world in general changes. We need to adapt to this. That's why we have an amendment process-- because the constitution is fallible.

indeed, and I agree. Thus, you may get on your grass roots effort and repeal the second amendment like we did prohibition if you don't like the wrding of the second amendment. I'm fine with it the way it is and will certianly vote against an adapted version but, such is political option. What ISN;T our political options is to willy nilly decide which constitutional amendment we want to observe and which we arbitrarily want to ignore. Until you change the second amendment you will always be wrong about the liberty of owning guns in America.