Ted Nugent being a lunatic shitbag

[Mordacain]

Originally Posted by ST3MOCON

Logical Fallacies and the Art of Debate

Slippery slope. A slippery slope argument is not always a fallacy

Straight from your link and from the first few things i have read and noticed from your links.

True that just because you give a listen to a green day album doesn't mean your going to dye your hair and go punk. How about if someone who is 100% for gun control and is successful in passing any form of gun control? What is the next step for them? to go for the next logical step for them, use what is in their power to pass more gun control.

Here is a slippery slope, unprotected sex with someone who has HIV leads to HIV leads to AIDS which leads to death.

I know there are instances where this doesn't always happen but for the most part it does.

Right to keep and bear arms

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.

I don't know how much clearer that can be made but apparently the definition of infringed can be debated.

It has been debated recently by the supreme court.

The text clearly states: "A well-regulated militia" as the subject, the implies that all following it is in context with the given subject, meaning the 2nd amendment was meant to give that right for the use of ensuring the presence of a militia in a time that there was not a national defense force sponsored by Federal government.

The supreme court ruling opened the interpretation from simply applying to a regimented militia (governed at the state level) to private civilian ownership. That's a relaxing of the original verbiage, not a strengthening.

With regards to the slippery slope argument again, it has never happened with what you speak of. When gun restrictions pass, there might be follow-up legislation, but overall there has never been any major infringement on the 2nd amendment. The most major was the AWB which: A) is defunct now and B) infringed on civilian use, not military use (which supplanted local state militias at a national level, though state militias still exist and also have access to military-grade weaponry). In this case, it is a logical fallacy as there is no proof of the primary condition having been met (ie: give an inch and they'll take a mile).

[ST3MOCON]

Originally Posted by flint757

200 years ago we didn't need pollution control either.

Constitution has had things removed and added several times over the decades I don't know why people think the constitution is infallible and not editable. It's sad that I have to go this perspective because I'm not anti-gun (I do believe in proper gun control/responsible gun control), but IMO the constitution is an absolutely terrible argument for gun rights.

Because this is the United States of America. Next time you want to protect your freedom of speech dont use the first amendment.

[ST3MOCON]

Originally Posted by Mordacain

It has been debated recently by the supreme court.

The text clearly states: "A well-regulated militia" as the subject, the implies that all following it is in context with the given subject, meaning the 2nd amendment was meant to give that right for the use of ensuring the presence of a militia in a time that there was not a national defense force sponsored by Federal government.

The supreme court ruling opened the interpretation from simply applying to a regimented militia (governed at the state level) to private civilian ownership. That's a relaxing of the original verbiage, not a strengthening.

With regards to the slippery slope argument again, it has never happened with what you speak of. When gun restrictions pass, there might be follow-up legislation, but overall there has never been any major infringement on the 2nd amendment. The most major was the AWB which: A) is defunct now and B) infringed on civilian use, not military use (which supplanted local state militias at a national level, though state militias still exist and also have access to military-grade weaponry). In this case, it is a logical fallacy as there is no proof of the primary condition having been met (ie: give an inch and they'll take a mile).

The right of the PEOPLE to keep and bear arms shall NOT be INFRINGED. That is the second part and is seperate from a militia. Which also has the right to bear arms since they are citizens of the united states of America. It's really simple, it means what it says nothing else nothing less.

[flint757]

Originally Posted by ST3MOCON

Because this is the United States of America. Next time you want to protect your freedom of speech dont use the first amendment.

whatever dude

Being able to protest to some degree is being diminished, you aren't allowed to scream fire in a theater, religion is arguably being forced on the public recently (laws involving personal choices and beliefs) so I'd say that argument is too late there sir.

I didn't say get rid of all the laws and constitutional amendments, I said not all amendments and laws still apply in today's time making it a poor argument for gun rights. Give a better reason other than "it is my right" is my point. Again not anti-gun, but not going to pretend that pro-gunners don't need a good defense to protect what most consider a right which is really just a privilege.

If it was a right you wouldn't need a license and be of a particular age.

[ST3MOCON]

Our rights are always being tested that's why you have to stick up for them and not laugh it off. I'm not about to let any of my or your rights to be taken. I will be vocal about it till the end. I'd never laugh it off and let it be taken without a fight. "peacefully" anyways if that's the way you look at the bill of rights then it might be too late. I'm done you guys can talk amongst yourselfs ive gone off topic from the nuge's comments long enough.

[Mordacain]

Originally Posted by ST3MOCON

The right of the PEOPLE to keep and bear arms shall NOT be INFRINGED. That is the second part and is seperate from a militia. Which also has the right to bear arms since they are citizens of the united states of America. It's really simple, it means what it says nothing else nothing less.

Its not separate, it is in context to the subject. Essentially, the right only exists in connection with the forming of a militia because there was no organized military at that time.

People have chosen to pull it apart in a modern interpretation because it suits their agenda. When read with proper grammatical usage appropriate to the time, the "rights of the people" does not stand on its own.

That being said, personally I don't think unstable Joe asshole down the street should be able to own a nuke. He can own a handgun, or a shotgun and not obliterate an entire city becuase he thinks his god's day of reckoning has come.

Weapons of mass destruction should not = "arms" because it exceed the scope of the original author's imaginations. They wouldn't have wanted a single militiaman having access to a weapon that could wipe out an entire city either. If for some reason they did, then they were bat-shit crazy and we shouldn't be following their doctrine either because its frikkin suicidal.

[flint757]

Originally Posted by ST3MOCON

Our rights are always being tested that's why you have to stick up for them and not laugh it off. I'm not about to let any of my or your rights to be taken. I will be vocal about it till the end. I'd never laugh it off and let it be taken without a fight. "peacefully" anyways if that's the way you look at the bill of rights then it might be too late. I'm done you guys can talk amongst yourselfs ive gone off topic from the nuge's comments long enough.

And i can appreciate that, but that has nothing to do with that since the original Bill of Rights was actually 12 amendments and 2 were removed. The document (constitution) was meant to evolve. I have no problem with people owning guns I just think it is too easy and the idea that people need military grade weapons (and not in the military) is silly. it is a privilege that not everyone deserves: crazies, people with poor aim, people with anger issues, grudges etc. We do not have a system that weeds those out very well.

And I feel like concealed carriers need hand-to-hand combat because concealed is essentially a right to kill humans. Why do I think they should be trained in hand-to-hand? Easy because if you can't defend yourself and someone comes at you, you are going to shoot someone first not last because you can't defend yourself any other way and it is no longer a last resort.

[ST3MOCON]

^lol there's nothing modern about it we have always been given the right to bare arms. Not just in a militia. Use common sense. Its not a recent right given to us because it suits someone's agenda. Man I have to stop this is so funny and doesn't make any sense but ok you do what you have to do. You got green bars! Late.

[Mordacain]

Originally Posted by ST3MOCON

^lol there's nothing modern about it we have always been given the right to bare arms. Not just in a militia. Use common sense. Its not a recent right given to us because it suits someone's agenda. Man I have to stop this is so funny and doesn't make any sense but ok you do what you have to do. You got green bars! Late.

You misunderstood what I said entirely. The modern (incorrect) interpretation is that the 2nd amendment was meant to guarantee civilians the right to keep and bear arms without any restriction without any context to forming a militia.

The original verbiage clearly states that civilians have the right to bear arms, but that right is for the purpose of arming a well-regulated militia. Other uses are not stated.

Regardless, the limitations imposed by current gun restrictions can hardly be called infringing on a persons' right to bear arms (except possibly by those who are so scared of the world that they feel compelled to legally own and use fully automatic weapons or worse to be able to protect themselves).

/EDIT - I should note that "Well-regulated" is emphasized for a reason - that the authors didn't want bat-shit crazy ....ers running around shooting people without direction because they suspected they were a loyalist (which happened plenty enough as it was).

[highlordmugfug]

Originally Posted by Mordacain

*Great post that explains thoroughly what you mean*

"BUT, if I ignore history, context, and just cherry pick what part of the amendment I like: then I'm right. "

[shredguitar7]

This thread makes me remember why i don't give a .... about politics at all.

[flint757]

Understandable, but politics kind of you know shape what you can and can't do (legally) sooo...

[shredguitar7]

Im not saying i disagree with people who are all for them and are current on them. I just prefer staying out of it. To much dick measuring.

[Mordacain]

The great irony here is while I sound completely in favor of gun restriction (and I am within reason) I actually love shooting and am sitting here checking this post while watching American Guns off the DVR.

[flint757]

That is pretty much my positioning as well on gun rights. I love them too, hunting is enjoyable and gun ranges are a lot of fun.

[Whitechapel7]

this is exactly what happens when you put guns in the hands of extremist right wing ....s. i am 100% pro second amendment because an afternoon at my 1000 yard range is always fun, but just becaused you are pissed at the political system doesn't give you the right to say such things.

[synrgy]

Originally Posted by shredguitar7

This thread makes me remember why i don't give a .... about politics at all.

[Gothic Headhunter]

Originally Posted by ST3MOCON

You sound very young to me. Most people don't buy Ar-15's specifically to hunt. More like a hobby and peace of mind. When it comes to life and death in a situation where either you or your loved ones are in danger, there is no such thing as being a pussy with any gun or weapon. If you like shotgun and don't want Ar's cool, I love shotguns. I love all types of fire arms and everyone I know who owns an AR-15 or M4 is definitely no pussy. Also idk what your stance is are you pro gun or pro gun control? Just letting you know if you think you can be in the middle somewhere it is not possible. The government or rather radicals of gun control will not be happy with any guns being legal. That includes shotgun. This happens and people think it won't. I'm not a radical or anything like that I jut enjoy our liberties that we fought for and I believe all citizens of the untitled states should have a chance to experience what was intended for us. I'm not even just talking about the 2nd amendment either.

"People willing to trade their freedom for temporary security deserve neither and will lose both." - Benjamin Franklin

I've said this before, but I might as well elaborate. For some reason, I thought I was talking about hunting, in which case it would be overkill to use a fully automatic assaualt rifle. However, as some people have said, apparently there are specific hunting rounds that are made for this. In a self defense situation, however; I would be the first person to reach for an asault rifle. As for my views on gun control, I think there should be more restrictions than there are in some states. I say "some states" because I don't know all of their laws. Some people here have said that there should be some type of apptitude test (if I'm understanding you correctly), and I also believe that Fully automatic assault rifles should be illegal, for the very reasons you stated. Seeing as how hardly any one uses them for hunting, and like having them only as a hobby (a potentially lethal one as well) they don't serve much of a purpose other than killing multipul people in a short amount of time. Another person here said that they use a pistol to protect there home, and I'm sure that's enough. However, it is interesting to note that in the late 90's in texas, people were alowed to have conceled weapons, and crime went down by a significant percentage. I could not find a source for that, and I'm sure I said something wrong in that statement, so could some one who lives in texas please confirm or disprove it?

Again, this thread has nothing to do with ted nugent anymore. May I suggest a gun control thread?

[flint757]

Originally Posted by Gothic Headhunter

I've said this before, but I might as well elaborate. For some reason, I thought I was talking about hunting, in which case it would be overkill to use a fully automatic assaualt rifle. However, as some people have said, apparently there are specific hunting rounds that are made for this. In a self defense situation, however; I would be the first person to reach for an asault rifle. As for my views on gun control, I think there should be more restrictions than there are in some states. I say "some states" because I don't know all of their laws. Some people here have said that there should be some type of apptitude test (if I'm understanding you correctly), and I also believe that Fully automatic assault rifles should be illegal, for the very reasons you stated. Seeing as how hardly an one uses them for hunting, and lie having them as a hobby (a potentially lethal one as well) they don't serve much of a purpose other than killing multipul people in a short amount of time. Another person here said that they use a pistol to protect there home, and I'm sure that's enough. However, it is interesting to note that in the late 90's in texas, people were alowed to have conceled weapons, and crime went down by a significant percentage. I could not find a source for that, and I'm sure I said something wrong in that statement, so could some one who lives in texas please confirm or disprove it?

Your saying crime went down because of concealed carry?

I haven't noticed a difference. Honestly in places where people are likely to have a lot of guns in Texas live far enough away from civilization, a couple miles to city lengths, that crime was never an issue to begin with. I never heard that before, but I suppose it's possible.

It is also possible that technologies expansion in the 90's led to better monitoring and alarm systems which would also presumably lower crime. The only way that would lower crime is if a descent sized list of incidences occurred with said guns to instill a fear. I'll look i up and see what i can find though.

[flint757]

Okay finding unbiased information (with an agenda) was particularly difficult, but apparently the statistic is true crime is lower in 08 from 94, but since 91 it was already declining. Which means that it had no bearing on the actual decline and apparently it is actually on the rise now. Supposedly we go through a cycle irrelevant to anything else.

That is the problem with articles and people pushing bills or cases; people pick and choose the information that presents the best case for what they are trying to achieve.

Here's the article

Top Of My Head » Blog Archive » Texas Crime Statistics

All the rest were written by the NRA and conservative party (that I saw), in other words biased.

[Gothic Headhunter]

Thanks, I could not find anything on it anywhere.

[Treeunit212]

More guns doesn't reduce gun crime.