Huffington Post:
Nugent called President Obama a criminal and denounced his “vile, evil America-hating administration” which is “wiping its ass with the Constitution.” Taking it a step further, he said that “If Barack Obama becomes the president in November, again, I will either be dead or in jail by this time next year.” “If you can’t galvanize and promote and recruit people to vote for Mitt Romney, we’re done,” he continued.Supreme Court justices also came under assault by Nugent, who claims that the court’s more liberal members have signed a declaration against Americans’ right to self-defense:“We’ve got four Supreme Court justices who don’t believe in the Constitution. Does everyone here know that four of the Supreme Court justices not only determined you don’t have the right to keep and bear arms, four Supreme Court justices signed their name to a declaration that Americans have no fundamental right to self-defense.”Nugent concluded with a call to cut off the heads of Democrats in November: “We need to ride into that battlefield and chop their heads off in November. Any questions?”
Ted Nugent is an old rocker has-been who probably would have a difficult time playing Branson. Oh groan….he will be in Manassas on May 18, performing at Jiffy Lube with REO Speedwagon and Styx. I like the latter 2 groups but Nugent is a blow-hard hate monger. Now why are Styx and REO Speedwagon slumming by performing with him?
At any rate, his speech to the crowd at the NRA convention was simply unacceptable. Some conservatives are worried about Bill Maher? He is a Sunday School meek and mild compared to this dude. Meanwhile, Mitt Romney might want to distance himself from this guy.
@Emma
So what’s your answer? Nothing?
@marinm
How many times have those scenarios played out?
@Morris Davis
Thanks for the statistics – but they probably won’t be believed because your link is to that commie, socialist, Obama-loving, liberal, left-wing Brady Campaign with its conspiracy to enslave all gun-toting good old boys and girls.
@Censored bybvbl Sorry, I don’t live in your little fairyland where rapists and murderers magically can’t get hold of guns because of restrictions on law-abiding folks. And if you did manage to disarm everyone, only in fairyland will said criminals suddenly become “nice” and not try to kill you some other way. Besides, as Starry always says, you really should learn to respect the Constitution of the United States of America.
Once again we are having delusions. No one is talking about disarming everyone. Where did that come from?
I know the NRA would have us believe otherwise but there is ground between disarming everyone and the govt confiscating our guns and any old fool from age 0 tto 100 having an arsenal of weapons.
What’s wrong with common sense being employed here? We don’t even use common sense with criminals. Any felon is prevented from having a gun regardless of why they were incarcerated. I can certainly agree with that prohibition if their crime involved a gun or violence. However, not all crimes are violent. Should we apply common sense? Just a thought.
Mo,
DOJ would disagree with you. You can start here and look for neutral sources.
http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_gcdguse.html
“Subsequent to Kleck’s study, the Department of Justice sponsored a survey in 1994 titled, Guns in America: National Survey on Private Ownership and Use of Firearms (text, PDF). Using a smaller sample size than Kleck’s, this survey estimated 1.5 million DGU’s annually.”
But I want to hear/see the words. Would you rather me holster my pistol and use my cell phone rather than help someone in obvious distress? Is public safety enhanced by that action?
@Emma
So, you’ve avoided the question. Where do these criminals get their guns?
@marinm
As bad as rape might be, I suppose it would be preferable to being shot dead by some cowboy with poor aim.
I never knew any law enforcement folks who were saved by John. Q. Cowboy and I’ve know plenty of officers. I have known Harry and Harriet Homeowners who shot their dressers, beds, or floors.
I know lots of people who are gun owners, but none seem to have the need to carry them around and prove their gun is an extension of their manhood. I think it is simply poor manners to open carry so that others can see you have a gun. I always thought that people who open carried must have poor self esteem else why would they have the need to “show” the world they have a gun.
I have to say that it makes me uncomfortable to hear someone state that he will be dead or in jail if an election turns out a certain way. Bedrock principles that separate the US from a banana republic are the freedom to vote without intimidation and the peaceful transition of power. Ted seems to be on the verge of threatening those principles.
However, I always thought that hate speech was threatening language directed toward someone based on race or ethnicity. In that sense, what he said was not really hate speech.
Having said all of that, I basically agree with Ted’s stance on guns. I have the right to own weapons for self defense, and this right should not be restricted due to the misuse of firearms by other people — if people cannot learn proper firearm safety, then human Darwinism tends to come into play.
I am leery of the government trying to “protect” us by passing gun regulation that inevitably becomes more restrictive until it essentially prevents gun ownership, which is what resulted in urban areas for many years. As we have seen from healthcare reform, any benefits provided by the Feds always lead to more government control, greater cost, and less freedom. My preference would therefore be for the government to provide fewer services, but deliver those that remain at much higher quality.
Emma, there is a credible debate as to the origins and intent of the “right to bear arms” and to what extent individual citizens have to ANY weapon and what restrictions are for the common good.
Very interesting article in The Atlantic:http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2011/01/the-geography-of-gun-deaths/69354/#
Obama has done nothing to restrict gun ownership as far as I can see. Its fear pandering and its ridiculous. In a modern world where there are way too many crazies spurred on by the internet you better believe I want some kind of reasonable reguations on guns!
I think most reasonable people want the same thing, Elena.
A lot of them are the same ones who scream “Hey, ladies! Look at me!” with a clever and artistic pair of truck nuts swaying on the trailer hitch of the 4×4.
Well, this is just sexist.
“I know lots of people who are gun owners, but none seem to have the need to carry them around and prove their gun is an extension of their manhood.”
Many women carry. Women are increasingly becoming gun owners and carriers.
Also, I didn’t see if that survey correlated gun ownership to the overall rates of crime or injury/death by other crime than gun crime. Dead is dead. Why limit it to gun crime?
Furthermore, so as to not repeat them here, make sure you read the comments of that survey. Many refute the survey, link to other surveys, and point out inconsistencies.
But all of that aside, ol’ Ted was using his 1st Amendment rights. He did not threaten anyone. He used hyperbole. As for stating that he might be dead or in jail if Obama gets re-elected…… that would depend on the situation at that time.
As for the SCOTUS, four of them decided that the right to BEAR arms does not exist….apparently they have reading comprehension problems.
And while Obama has not signed any bills against firearms….because Congress has not passed any……he has used his DOJ to try and set up the battlefield through the Fast and Furious scandal. The ATF assisted in gun smuggling to make it look like our laws were the cause of guns reaching the cartels. That way the ATF could use executive orders to “crack down.” While doing F&F, they attempted to start an illegal rifle registry. The ATF committed acts of war against Mexico. Hundreds of people are dead because of the weapons that the ATF “walked” across the border.
Sounds like that “under the radar” program that Obama talked about.
So, that’s the 2nd Amendment part of the unconstitutionality and the illegal actions.
That’s a lie. F&F started under President Bush.
Starry – There you go interjecting … what do you call those things that conservatives hate? … oh yeah, facts. Next you’ll probably throw in common sense and they’ll really get agitated. The 2006-2007 Bush-era program out of the same Phoenix FBI office was called Operation Wide Receiver. I’m amazed that after Wide Receiver caused problems that led to an investigation the same office did the same thing again with Fast and Furious, an even bigger gun walking program. Those that want to go after Holder for F&F need to add Gonzalez and Mukassey to the list for OWR during their tenures.
Really, FOUR Supreme Court justices said that Cargo. Can I have the exact quotes that says what you stated.
@Censored bybvbl I haven’t discerned an intelligent question from you. Are you asking how we stop people from killing each other? We can’t. I don’t want to make you break out in hives by quoting the Bible, but remember that Cain killed Abel. Next thing you’ll be asking me where babies come from.
@Starryflights
Nice try, Starry and Mo, but you are both wrong. F&F was initiated under Obama’s watch. There were precursors to F&F under Bush in which a small number of guns ended up in Mexico when guns bought by traffickers were literally followed by agents. Apparently they were lost in the surveillance hand-off to Mexican authorities as the traffickers crossed the border.
That is a very different thing than releasing 2000 weapons to traffickers and then tracking them after the fact by serial number, which is reportedly what happened in F&F.
OH good lord Kelly! Is your tin hat fitting correctly these days?
Emma,
Censored asked where criminals get their guns? Pretty straight forward question I believe.
@Censored,
I found this very interesting PBS story about this very topic. Since Emma was unwilling to engage in this discussion, I will post it for you.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/guns/procon/guns.html
@Starryflights
You are absolutely, positively wrong.
Fast and Furious started as a smuggling program under the Holder regime. They modeled it on a similar, failed program that Bush attempted and that was stopped when they realized that they could not track guns and arrest people. The ATF ENCOURAGED smugglers and forced gun dealers to cooperated with OBVIOUS straw purchasers.
And this info comes from ATF agents.
So, yeah…you’re wrong again. And I’d appreciate it if you kept your remarks more polite. Its wrong to call another commenter a liar. Because if you want to get intemperate, I can go there too. Its only out of courtesy to Moon that I don’t. Perhaps you should do the same.
@Elena
If you can’t have a weapon in a crime ridden area, you have no self defense.
From Wikipedia: Heller case. All nine agreed that you have a right to KEEP arms.
Stevens also stated that the amendment was notable for the “omission of any statement of purpose related to the right to use firearms for hunting or personal self-defense”
Stevens also stated that the amendment was notable for the “omission of any statement of purpose related to the right to use firearms for hunting or personal self-defense”
the Breyer dissent goes on to conclude, “there simply is no untouchable constitutional right guaranteed by the Second Amendment to keep loaded handguns in the house in crime-ridden urban areas.” It proposes that firearms laws be reviewed by balancing the interests (i.e., “‘interest-balancing’ approach”) of Second Amendment protections against the government’s compelling interest of preventing crime.
@Elena
Really, Elena? Kelly has a tin foil hat because she accurately described the Gun Walker scandal?
Go do some actual research and you’ll find the facts of the matter as described by ATF agents involved. What is in dispute is NOT the fact of smuggling but WHY the DOJ did what they did.
@Elena
And because of criminal actions…. lawful people are penalized?
So, in that logic, because Joe speeds, my car should be ticketed because they didn’t catch Joe.
@Cargosquid
Spoken like a true Obama hater. Want to give me the Supreme Court case where 4 of them decided the 2nd amendment didn’t exist? I am specifically interested in 4 currently sitting Justices.
@Emma
Take a couple chill pills. For a Christian your rage is unbecoming. (It’s behavior such as yours that made me run from my church.)
Slap my typing hand, Moon-howler.
Heller. They didn’t decide that the 2nd didn’t exist. 4 of them dissented. Stevens, Breyer, Ginzburg, and Souter, so it wasn’t the current crop.
Again, you bring up the word hate. I said NOTHING about hateful about Obama other than to point out where Obama has acted wrongly, according to many conservatives. Please stop projecting motives onto my statements. You don’t like it when others do it. Please don’t do it to me.
@Moon-howler
I just noticed.
You ask for the Supreme Court case even after I mentioned in my first post. Are you just scanning or ignoring what I write and then attacking/questioning it? You have done this to me quite often.
@Censored bybvbl “Rage”–is that the buzzword for “opinions that differ from the left’s? And I don’t imagine you were missed.
@Emma
No. “Rage” as in “anger”. As in drive-bys that offer nothing of substance except an opportunity to vent your spleen. There are posters here who are 180 degrees different from me in philosophy or political views but they have the ability to formulate an cogent argument.
Oh, sorry. I had no idea you were the Moonhowlings arbiter of poster relevancy. I’ll try to use smaller words next time.
@Emma
Make your next post a whopper size vent and get rid of that anger because you’ll be on ignore from here on.
@Cargosquid
Moon, I apologize. I just saw that it was ELENA that I was talking to.
However, I did mention the cases in my earlier posts. So….were you reading them?
@Cargosquid
Cargo, no projections, just an accumulation of your own words you have used over the eons. I never said you used the word hate. You don’t need to. I can change the word hater to disliker if you would like.
@Cargosquid
I might not have read all the posts. I generally read from the dashboard rather than under each topic.
Nugent mentioned 4 who said it was there was no right to self defense. I sure didn’t think Kagan had been on the court when a 2nd amendment case was even heard.
The others didn’t say there was no right to self defense either but….I take what he says with a grain of salt. I give you a little more credit.
@Cargo
“there simply is no untouchable constitutional right guaranteed by the Second Amendment to keep loaded handguns in the house in crime-ridden urban areas.” It proposes that firearms laws be reviewed by balancing the interests (i.e., “‘interest-balancing’ approach”) of Second Amendment protections against the government’s compelling interest of preventing crime.
This is a reasonable response and not a crazy hair on fire take your guns away fear mongering statement. There is NO untouchable contsitutional right to the second amendment does not sound like “we want to take all your guns”. “balancing interest” is a measured statement. Is it a great point of debate, I would say yes, but I have read many different points regarding the second amendment and I the idea that one can have unfettered access to equal force of the “government” is unreasonable to me. Now, owning handguns, I probably differ, but the idea that there should be regulations IS reasonable to me.
http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2012/01/05/144761413/documents-suggest-bush-administration-used-fast-and-furious-tactics
by Carrie Johnson
We are gun owners, I want to make that clear, but this country has way to many deaths from guns, how do we deal with that? I like solutions, not ideological talking points.
Sorry for slow response. Traveling back to Virginia from a funeral.
Elena, the times we’ve had gatherings I was armed. I don’t see it as an extension of my manhood. Simply a tool to use if ever needed. I carry because bad people do bad things to good people. You haven’t noticed that I carried as I had been requested to conceal by MH and I complied. The only way I can carry concealed is to have a govt issued permit. The only other lawful way to carry is openly. People that carry openly do so for multiple reasons.
MH I can’t copy and paste your previous question and statement but I contend that if you agree with Censored that it’s better to allow a woman to be raped than for me to draw a firearm I really don’t know what to say to that. I obviously disagree.
Again I’ll reiterate. In GUN FREE ZONES where no guns are allowed by law – how do firearm crimes occur? If laws are the answer how do we explain that??
I didn’t say I agreed or disagreed with Censored and I don’t remember what she said.
I am sorry for your loss.
And I thank you for carrying concealed. It makes other people uncomfortable. Now, would you make me uncomfortable? I doubt it. But I seriously don’t want to sit in a coffee shop next to someone armed to the teeth that I don’t know. why? I don’t know that they aren’t some nut burger who plans on mowing us all down in cold blood.
I think I agree with Elena the most. It really is just bad manners. Doing things that make people uncomfortable is just bad manners.
Gun free zones–let’s do that one separately.
Gun Free Zones
schools should be gun free zones except for law enforcement, in my opinion.
Colleges-its up to the college. Hampton Sidney is not gun free. What they do is their business. Let’s put it this way, I would feel far better about BYU being gun free than UVA. Why? Booze. Guns and booze don’t mix.
@Moon-howler
Actually I kind of feel like teachers and other staff should be allowed to pack heat should they so choose.
No they shouldn’t and only an idiot would seriously think that was a smart idea.
Do tell. I consider teachers and other muni governmental employees to be worthy of public trust. All a gun free zone accomplishes is to make it gun free for law-abiding citizens.
Law enforcement can have guns in gun free zones, Cato. You give blanket trust to public employees? I wish that trust translated over into monetary compensation. I don’t know why you would give unlimited trust to be able to handle weapons to anyone who hadn’t demonstrated the abillity, skill, and emotional disposition to do so.
Don’t you think that is a rather over simplification of something? there have been schools where guns weren’t allowed for a long time. Police officers can carry guns and they do.
Tell me what possible sense it makes for teachers and staff to be armed. The only people I have ever heard suggest arming the teachers are people who have never been in the classroom on the business side of the desk.
This is why I support carry by, AT LEAST, teachers and admins….and remember, every CCW is at least 21 and has a background check. From a letter sent to the VCDL. I remember that teacher that blocked the door with his body while his students escaped….if only he had been armed.
On April 16, 2007, my child, Leslie Sherman, was killed by Seung-Hui Cho
during the Virginia Tech massacre. Today is the fifth anniversary of
her death. Always in my memories, every day I wish that this tragedy
was a nightmare and I could wake up to hold my daughter even if it is
just one more time. That opportunity might have been possible if
someone been able to defend and protect my daughter in her classroom
before Cho took 30 precious lives.
There is an unfortunate drive for more gun control and the continuation
of preventing guns on campus by parents whose children lived or survived
during that fatal day. Several family members of those victims have
actively voiced their support for increased gun control measures. As
result, it has been assumed that they speak for all families of the
Virginia Tech victims. I am writing this to make it clear that this is
not the case. They do not represent me and my views.
Speaking for myself, I would give anything if someone on campus; a
professor, one of the trained military or guardsman taking classes or
another student could have saved my daughter by shooting Cho before he
killed our loved ones. Because professors, staff and students are
precluded from protecting themselves on campus, Cho, a student at
Virginia Tech himself, was able to simply walk on campus and go on a
killing rampage with no worry that anyone would stop him.
I ask a simple question: Would the other parents of victims be forever
thankful if a professor or student was allowed to carry a firearm and
could have stopped Seung-Hui Cho before their loved one was injured or
killed? I would be. I also suspect that the tragedy may not have
occurred at all if Cho knew that either faculty members or students were
permitted to carry their own weapons on campus. Cho took his own life
before campus police were able to reach him and put a stop to his
killing spree.
@Cargo, I expect that is probably how Trayvon Martin’s parents felt also. From those I have talked to, it isn’t unusual at all. However, let’s separate the emotion out for a minute. How on earth do you train all those teachers and students you want armed and functioning as vigilantees? I don’t want untrained people running around with guns, especially in an emergency. YOU might think you are well equipped to handle whatever is thrown your way but that doesn’t mean you really are.
It seems more reasonable and safer to hire and train professional security guards who can respond at a moment’s notice.
Not everyone is psychologically equipped to be shooting it out or packing heat. To assume they are is a huge leap of faith that has no part in public safety.
All of this is unproven and untested. Remembrer the guy who came running out of the drug store when Gabby Giffords was shot? He admitted he almost pulled his gun on the wrong guy. The truth is, none of us can say for certain what we will do in an emergency situation.
@Cargosquid
Out of curiosity, how many of you gun-toters have practiced shooting at anything other than stationary targets or have been through the training that LEOs or some factions of the military have been through?
The situation that Mr. Sherman’s daughter found herself in was a free-for-all. Without training the average Joe Blow with a gun would be ineffective or dangerous. People seem to have this naive feeling that because they carry a gun that they’re prepared for a gunfight. Even trained agents who have seconds to decide on a course of action aren’t always prepared for situations in which they find themselves.
“Elena, the times we’ve had gatherings I was armed.”
Amen for that, marin. I think it’s despicable that some would find it preferable to be trapped in a situation where a murderer gets to have an uninhibited free-for-all, rather than to have a fighting chance because of just one armed, law-abiding citizen. Yeah, great, the police are armed. But I wonder how many posters here actually saw some of the security video footage of Columbine? And some might recall that the police didn’t want to go into the school initially, causing delay and even more lives lost. I’ll take my chances any day with the guy carrying while he’s eating barbecue at Red Hot and Blue.
@marinm
Sol tell me Emma, who are you going to say its ok to arm? Dol we do it randomly or how about a lottery?
Or let’s do it by popularity. Homecoming queen? Football captain? Principal? How about having a few cops in the buildings like we do now.
I’m sorry but none of you have answered that question adequately. this isn’t theory after a certain point.
Police tactics have changed totally because of Columbine. Footage is shown there on what not to do. Columbine was sort of the alpha school killings.
I go back to asking the question, who is law-abiding. Now I do believe that jurisdictions get to decide their designated “armed” person or persons. However, that isn’t opening up the situation to any pistol packing good ole boy who comes down the pike.
Emma, you are far more trusting than I am.
@Censored bybvbl
@Moon-howler
Actually, many CCW people practice MORE than the police. Many that compete, go through more varied shooting trials. I do admit that police are better trained to handle confrontation, etc. Police shoot at stationary targets. Unless you’ve been in combat, EVERYONE shoots at stationary targets, since they don’t shoot back. Most police have never fired their guns except in qualification.
Moon’s example of the man that ALMOST pulled his gun is actually proof that many non-LEO’s have the presence of mind to act appropriately. If we’re talking about “mistaken” shootings, I can supply a whole lot of “bad shootings” by law enforcement…so having a badge does not make you magically perfect.
Now, your concerns are valid about the skills of possible carriers. I admit that. But, a) when seconds count, security and police are only minutes away and b) how much of a chance is there WITHOUT a gun in these situations? The best trained security CANNOT act “in a moment’s notice.” They are not there. Having been a state certified security guard, both armed and unarmed, I can tell you that state required training leaves much to be desired. Other than pointing a firearm at a man sized target 25 feet away and scoring most of the rounds in the “body”, twice per year…. there is NO extra training for armed guards.
This is NOT unproven and untested. Many college campuses allow weapons. Some school shootings have been stopped by teachers or students arriving on scene with firearms. I don’t want teachers and students acting as vigilantes. I want them able to react to an armed intruder. Any training they get is what is required by law and by common sense.
Since I’m in a gun free zone every day, I’ve made plans in case of this happening again. I know exactly what I will do. I WILL NOT hide under a desk and wait to get shot or allow others to be shot while I watch, waiting for my turn.
I would just like to give the students a chance.
You can get whatever training you want to get for those you hire. You just have to pay for it. I said nothing about going the cheapest route and getting a meter maid to do the job.
I have never claimed that all police shootings are good shootings. They are human beings like everyone else. However, I believe trained people will generally fare better than untrained people each and every time. I am not speaking of taeget practice. Any of us can take that. However, knowing when and how to handle yourself in a real emergency, that take special training and special people with special tempraments.
Maybe we should have campus sky marshalls. No one knows who they are.
Give me one good reason I should want you armed on a campus in my lit class. How do I know you are stable? How do I know you talk situations down? How do I know you are trained?
There are no easy answers. I will agree with that. However, having no one armed beats having someone unfit to be armed.
@Cargosquid
My concerns are with the skills of the carrier. Most police are taught not only target shooting but also proper stance when confronting suspects as well as skills in analyzing situations. I believe the FBI range and probably many police departments as well have practices involving moving targets.
I’m familiar with an incident involving a SWAT team that entered a house looking for an armed fugitive. A melee broke out and the suspect reached under a sofa. A member of the SWAT team shot and killed him. There ended up being no gun under the sofa. So, even trained agents and police don’t make perfect decisions. Just as they don’t routinely have to fire their weapons at people, Joe or Jane Doe don’t either so I expect as many errors.
Some film about the NRA, I think, showed a study of how an armed student (with a concealed weapon) in a classroom was unable to get the weapon out of his jacket or shirt before someone with an automatic weapon could kill many students. The film and example may have been primarily based on the incident at Virginia Tech.
“Sol tell me Emma, who are you going to say its ok to arm? ”
The Constitution pretty much spells that out.
@Emma, so anyone, regardless of age, mental state or criminal status can carry a gun on any campus?
That really isn’t ok with me.
Doesn’t that alarm you at all? How do you know who are the good guys and who are the bad guys? when I was a kid the good guys all wore white in the westerns. Does that really work in real life?
“so anyone, regardless of age, mental state or criminal status can carry a gun on any campus?”
Is that what I said? The point is that you can try, but you cannot legislate away every bit of risk in society. It doesn’t work. And I refuse to believe it’s preferable to sit passively while someone shoots up a restaurant, rather than have at least half a chance with a lawfully-carrying citizen.