The Real Truth From Ted Nugent

[M14 Shooter]

If you are against any sort of gun control...

No, just ineffective gun control that infringes on my right to arms.
Of course, this describes almost ALL gun control laws, but...

 

[M14 Shooter]

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.

Well, its good that you put it that way -- because until the 2nd is amended, the government is still restricted by it.

Never mind the laughable implication that the 2nd is flawed.

 

[M14 Shooter]

When will we outlaw and enforce restrictions on SMAWDS, Shoulder mounted atomic weapons delivery systems?

I asnt aware that these weapons were legal.
In fact, I wasnt aware that these weapons still exist.
Never mind that nukes arent consiered 'arms' as the term is used in the 2nd.

 

[M14 Shooter]

The problem with the Second Amendment (in a nutshell) is that the proscription against infringement does not preclude regulation

That depends entirely on the regulation.
Any regulation that creates a precondition to the exercise of the right to arms not inherent to that right creates an infringement of the right.

which, as the Supreme Court ruled in United States v. Miller, is not restricted by the Second Amendment.

The court ruled as it did because it was not shown that the wepaon in question qaulified as 'arms' and therefore cannot be said to have fallen under the protection of the 2nd. Given their decision, if a weapon -does- fall under the definition of 'arms', then it does fall under the protection of the 2nd.

That's as far as Miler goes as precedent. There's nothing here for the current court to overturn.

 

[M14 Shooter]

No. There are no absolute rights. Your right to own a gun is subject to the law that defines its limitation.

Presuming that said law does not violate the protections afforded that right by the constitution. Generally, these laws will regulate things that fall outside the right, therefore not violating those protections.

 

[eots]

From My Cold Dead Hands

 

[Dr Grump]

Never mind that nukes arent consiered 'arms' as the term is used in the 2nd.

Where in the second does it say they are NOT arms?

 

[Gunny]

No. There are no absolute rights. Your right to own a gun is subject to the law that defines its limitation.

And that law states that those rights are inalienable and endowed by the creator. The implication that Man/the government has no authority to infringe upon those rights is quite clear.

 

[Lookout]

And that law states that those rights are inalienable and endowed by the creator. The implication that Man/the government has no authority to infringe upon those rights is quite clear.

PERIOD. End of story!

 

[Shogun]

sheesh.. the "creator" line works with life, liberty and happiness but it's no panacea fellas. the "creator" didn't write the Constitution; men did. The Constitution is the roadmap here... not the bible.

 

[Alpha1]

No. There are no absolute rights. Your right to own a gun is subject to the law that defines its limitation.

You were doing ok for awhile....but do you not understand the words of the Second Amendment?.....SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED?


Amendment II

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.
-----------------------------------

This IS an absolute right...the only way around it is to redefine the phrase "the people" to mean other than its literal meaning....and that means defining it consistently throughout the Bill of Rights....the phrase cannot mean one thing in one instance and something else in another instance...not justly anyway....but I wouldn't put it past some free wheeling judges to do just that....

 

[liberalogic]

You were doing ok for awhile....but do you not understand the words of the Second Amendment?.....SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED?


Amendment II

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.
-----------------------------------

This IS an absolute right...the only way around it is to redefine the phrase "the people" to mean other than its literal meaning....and that means defining it consistently throughout the Bill of Rights....the phrase cannot mean one thing in one instance and something else in another instance...not justly anyway....but I wouldn't put it past some free wheeling judges to do just that....

Why can we then repeal an amendment?

 

[Dr Grump]

And that law states that those rights are inalienable and endowed by the creator. The implication that Man/the government has no authority to infringe upon those rights is quite clear.

And that law was created by man, not a creator....so there goes that theory down the gurgler. If you can prove to me, beyond a reasonable doubt, that a omnipotent being wrote those words - or got them written for them on his/her behalf - then I stand corrected. As far as I can tell, it's just a snake oil salesperson claiming to be something they're not, in order to sell their brand of Dr Good, and because it comes under the definition of something YOU believe in, then it must be law.


Look, there is no doubt that some of the Founding Fathers of the US had foresight and were pretty bright. Note I said some not all. All democratic nations had such people at their founding, but to put so much stock into such a minute sample of people at a certain time in history is just silly, and only conservative Yanks seem to do this. I think they do it because they think it backs up their argument. To me, all it "proves", is that they are still living in the past and that, being typical ethnocentrics that they are, they think the world revolves around - or should revolve around - the US and its founding document. Sorry folks, your Constitution is OK at best. Given a choice I'd live in NZ, Aussie or Canada before living in the US. If it was such a great document, and your FF were so brilliant, then every person on Earth would want to live there. here's a news flash - we don't. And for this I'd add a qualifier:

Over the past few years I have been on messageboards, US conservatives and neocons have harped on about how great the US is using evidence of the number of people who want to get into the country. That is true. A lot of people do. But don't think for one minute it is to do with your constitution or "freedoms". The only reason people convet to get into the US is because they have been sold the line that you can get rich. That's right folks it's all about money. Not about your Constitution or amendments. Money, money, money and standard of living. If you had your Constitution but not the standard or living, nobody would give a shit. And before you go "well, our standard of living and Constitution go hand in hand" I say bollocks. NZ, Oz and most of Europe have similar standards of living and don't have your constitution. Stop taking that god damned piece of paper so seriously. It is nothing but a piece of paper. If some wing nut decided to take over the US with the overwhelming support of your military, your constitution would mean absolutely nothing. Zip. Zilch. Nada. Take care of your own destiny, and stop wallowing in melancholy of days gone by.

Grow some nads and make your country your own. Not some long-gone dream of some long gone dead guys who wouldn't allow women to vote and owned slaves. On those counts, they weren't THAT bright.

 

[indago]

R. Crookshank wrote:

The problem with the Second Amendment (in a nutshell) is that the proscription against infringement does not preclude regulation; which, as the Supreme Court ruled in United States v. Miller, is not restricted by the Second Amendment. United States v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174 (1939). The Supreme Court will not overturn Miller, which is the controlling precedent

The "ruling" in "Miller" was "We are unable to accept the conclusion of the court below, and the challenged judgment must be reversed. The cause will be remanded for further proceedings." What this means is that the judgment of the Arkansas court, which was a quashing of the indictment against Mr. Miller and Mr. Layton, was unquashed, and that the case was remanded back to the district court for a trial so that evidence could be presented and facts determined. There was no record presented for the Supreme Court to work with, which is what the Justices had noted in their opinion.

 

[trobinett]

And that law was created by man, not a creator....so there goes that theory down the gurgler. If you can prove to me, beyond a reasonable doubt, that a omnipotent being wrote those words - or got them written for them on his/her behalf - then I stand corrected. As far as I can tell, it's just a snake oil salesperson claiming to be something they're not, in order to sell their brand of Dr Good, and because it comes under the definition of something YOU believe in, then it must be law.


Look, there is no doubt that some of the Founding Fathers of the US had foresight and were pretty bright. Note I said some not all. All democratic nations had such people at their founding, but to put so much stock into such a minute sample of people at a certain time in history is just silly, and only conservative Yanks seem to do this. I think they do it because they think it backs up their argument. To me, all it "proves", is that they are still living in the past and that, being typical ethnocentrics that they are, they think the world revolves around - or should revolve around - the US and its founding document. Sorry folks, your Constitution is OK at best. Given a choice I'd live in NZ, Aussie or Canada before living in the US. If it was such a great document, and your FF were so brilliant, then every person on Earth would want to live there. here's a news flash - we don't. And for this I'd add a qualifier:

Over the past few years I have been on messageboards, US conservatives and neocons have harped on about how great the US is using evidence of the number of people who want to get into the country. That is true. A lot of people do. But don't think for one minute it is to do with your constitution or "freedoms". The only reason people convet to get into the US is because they have been sold the line that you can get rich. That's right folks it's all about money. Not about your Constitution or amendments. Money, money, money and standard of living. If you had your Constitution but not the standard or living, nobody would give a shit. And before you go "well, our standard of living and Constitution go hand in hand" I say bollocks. NZ, Oz and most of Europe have similar standards of living and don't have your constitution. Stop taking that god damned piece of paper so seriously. It is nothing but a piece of paper. If some wing nut decided to take over the US with the overwhelming support of your military, your constitution would mean absolutely nothing. Zip. Zilch. Nada. Take care of your own destiny, and stop wallowing in melancholy of days gone by.

Grow some nads and make your country your own. Not some long-gone dream of some long gone dead guys who wouldn't allow women to vote and owned slaves. On those counts, they weren't THAT bright.

A well thought out, and entertaining post Grump.

I agree with some of what you say, the stuff about the creator having a hand in the Constitution is a little over the top for me as well.

I do get the sense though, that you don't much like the United States, is that true?

I've always looked at our Constitution as a living, growing, forever changing document.

It's a guide, it sets standards, it's something to build off of, a way forward. What it isn't, is the final word, the end all of how the people are to interact with the government, themselves, and others.

Constitution law, and the interpretation of the Constitution is very important to the growth of our country. We can't, and don't want to stagnate as a people, and the constant self examination of our Constitution insures that.

Live where you will Mr. Grump, but there isn't a need to cast dispersions on us for how we choose to live, nor on the documents we find helpful in directing the course of our country.

 

[Dr Grump]

A well thought out, and entertaining post Grump.

I agree with some of what you say, the stuff about the creator having a hand in the Constitution is a little over the top for me as well.

I do get the sense though, that you don't much like the United States, is that true?

I've always looked at our Constitution as a living, growing, forever changing document.

It's a guide, it sets standards, it's something to build off of, a way forward. What it isn't, is the final word, the end all of how the people are to interact with the government, themselves, and others.

Constitution law, and the interpretation of the Constitution is very important to the growth of our country. We can't, and don't want to stagnate as a people, and the constant self examination of our Constitution insures that.

Live where you will Mr. Grump, but there isn't a need to cast dispersions on us for how we choose to live, nor on the documents we find helpful in directing the course of our country.

I don't like the US, I love it! A great country, with mostly great people. Just find the current admin, and those that support it, very distasteful.

I feel the same way about your constitution. However, I have met those on some boards who claim the constitution and its first 10 amendments sacrosanct and are inalienable and handed to them by the creator. On one hand they want the constitution to stay exactly as it is and what great foresight the FF's had, but the moment you mention the fact that their foresight also included a way to amend it - albeit a difficult way - they suddenly, almost embarrassingly say, "well, but they meant for the constitution and the first 10 amendments to be left alone".

But outside of that, to put so much stock in a group of gentlemen from a certain period of time in your history, seems kinda weird to me. Take all the good things they said for sure, but it's not gospel by any means IMO..

 

[Lookout]

A well thought out, and entertaining post Grump.

I agree with some of what you say, the stuff about the creator having a hand in the Constitution is a little over the top for me as well.

I do get the sense though, that you don't much like the United States, is that true?

I've always looked at our Constitution as a living, growing, forever changing document.

It's a guide, it sets standards, it's something to build off of, a way forward. What it isn't, is the final word, the end all of how the people are to interact with the government, themselves, and others.

Constitution law, and the interpretation of the Constitution is very important to the growth of our country. We can't, and don't want to stagnate as a people, and the constant self examination of our Constitution insures that.

Live where you will Mr. Grump, but there isn't a need to cast dispersions on us for how we choose to live, nor on the documents we find helpful in directing the course of our country.

According to that way of thinking, who ever has the most money, gets to make the laws. Thats part of the problem we have now. the rich one percent run and rule America. Special interest groups with lots of money backing them from the rich could and are ruining this country. Anyone can be bought. Well almost anyone. The more amendments added to the constitution will only further special interest groups and the wealthy. If you havent noticed lately, one guy with alot of money and an attorney means alot more and can get more changed, (and not for the better) than thousands of poor voices. It isn't "We the people" anymore, it is "We the Wealthy" and "We the unbelievers".

 

[indago]

Regardless all the rhetoric, the fact remains that there never was a trial in the Miller case: no facts presented, and no evidence for a record to be brought before the Supreme Court for a final determination in the case. All that we are left with is conjecture, obiter dictum...

 

[M14 Shooter]

Where in the second does it say they are NOT arms?

US v Miller, 1939.

 

[M14 Shooter]

The Second Amendment provision for the right of the people to keep and bear arms is granted in the context of the maintenance of a “well regulated Militia.” See United States v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174 (1939).

Note that at no time was Miller's involvement or connection to any such militia ever brught into question, or given any relevance. Miller, in total, discusses the weapon and if it qualifies for protection under the 2nd, not the person claiming the 2nd as a defense.

There is nothing in the Second Amendment that would bar regulation of the possession, transportation and sale of firearms.

Except, of course, that any such regulation that infringes on the right of the people is prohibited.