# Ted Nugent being a lunatic shitbag



## Randy (Apr 17, 2012)

> *Ted Nugent says he'll be 'dead or in jail' if Obama wins again*
> 
> _By Kurt Schlosser_
> 
> ...



msnbc.com Entertainment - Ted Nugent says he'll be 'dead or in jail' if Obama wins again


----------



## Guitarman700 (Apr 17, 2012)

Somewhere, in the infinity of the multiverse, there is a world exactly like our own, only Ted Nugent only plays guitar, never speaks. It is that much better for it.


----------



## Bigsby (Apr 17, 2012)

i think he should stick to hunting but i like how they added the bit about wango tango  i wonder if he will die from cat scratch fever harhar


----------



## Pooluke41 (Apr 17, 2012)

Guitarman700 said:


> Somewhere, in the infinity of the multiverse, there is a world exactly like our own, only Ted Nugent Never Existed. It is that much better for it.



Fixed


----------



## TRENCHLORD (Apr 17, 2012)

Yeah I've heard Ted make several statements in the past infering violence on politicians.
I like Huckabee, but I was a bit suprised he'd even have him as a guest on the show with Ted's history of wild-talk.

I'm a pro gun rights kinda guy, but never liked Ted's music or his show.


----------



## Blake1970 (Apr 17, 2012)

Never much cared for the guy or his music. This is just icing on the cake for me.


----------



## highlordmugfug (Apr 17, 2012)

> Ted Nugent not surprising anyone at this point


Thread title fix'd.


----------



## renzoip (Apr 17, 2012)

Now I know what Dave Mustaine will be like when he is 62


----------



## Randy (Apr 17, 2012)

"If you can't get a couple of hundred people, each..."

_*talking to two empty chairs_


----------



## vampiregenocide (Apr 17, 2012)

Just checked out his music. Never again.


----------



## wlfers (Apr 17, 2012)

Doesn't sound that out of line given our modern political rhetoric.


----------



## pink freud (Apr 17, 2012)

The problem with Ted Nugent is that people still pay attention to Ted Nugent.


----------



## Adam Of Angels (Apr 17, 2012)

What did Obama do, again?


----------



## Guitarman700 (Apr 17, 2012)

Adam Of Angels said:


> What did Obama do, again?



Be black. Be a moderate conservative. Have Hussein as a middle name.
Three strikes and you're out of the wingnuts good graces.


----------



## Jakke (Apr 17, 2012)

Am I the only one here who enjoys Nugent's (or uncle Ted, as he is colloquially known) music?

I mean, he's a righwing nutjob, but he makes some really solid rock music. The same with Mustaine actually...
He has a great guitar tone as well.


This is very relevant:


----------



## Gothic Headhunter (Apr 17, 2012)

The only real flaw I found in his speech was the gun part. We still have a right to bear arms, but in most states fully automatic assault rifels are banned, and if you _need _assault rifels to defend yourself, you're a pussy. Other than that, he's just expressing his pollitical views, and last time I checked, that's one of the things you're allowed to do here.


----------



## Pooluke41 (Apr 17, 2012)

Gothic Headhunter said:


> Other than that, he's just expressing his pollitical views,



And implying that he'd kill a certain someone if Obama stays as president....

EDIT: The joys of being a ninja..


----------



## Adam Of Angels (Apr 17, 2012)

And saying that Obama is a criminal. The sort of things that are left to opinion and what not.


----------



## VBCheeseGrater (Apr 17, 2012)

your thread title made me LOL, it basically sums it up


----------



## JamesM (Apr 17, 2012)

'MURICA


----------



## Necris (Apr 17, 2012)

He and many other conservatives seem to believe the United States Constitution is carved in stone and unable to be changed and that any attempt to do so is some massive attack on personal freedoms. "We the people" includes the people who hold a viewpoint that is the polar opposite of yours.


----------



## TRENCHLORD (Apr 17, 2012)

Obama (the constitutional terrorist) will get just what he deserves on my birthday Nov 6th, which is a ticket back to Chicago, 
(would someone please offer him a sweet deal on another home which is out of our state) and a fleet of Ryder trucks at the White House door for their belongings.

What we don't need is people encouraging our vast supply of lunatics to take matters into their own greasy hands lol.


----------



## Guitarman700 (Apr 17, 2012)

TRENCHLORD said:


> Obama (the constitutional terrorist) will get just what he deserves, which is a ticket back to Chicago,
> (would someone please offer him a sweet deal on another home which is out of our state) and a fleet of Ryder trucks at the White House door for their belongings.
> 
> .




You have no idea what you're talking about, it's becoming more and more obvious.


----------



## Jakke (Apr 17, 2012)

I am no scholar, but does not the second amendment regulate the right for each state to have a militia, and not that every citizen can carry an automatic rifle and have a misile silo in the backyard?


Yeah yeah, I exaggerate, but I couldn't help myself


----------



## Jakke (Apr 17, 2012)

TRENCHLORD said:


> Obama (the constitutional terrorist) will get just what he deserves on my birthday Nov 6th, which is a ticket back to Chicago,
> (would someone please offer him a sweet deal on another home which is out of our state) and a fleet of Ryder trucks at the White House door for their belongings.
> 
> What we don't need is people encouraging our vast supply of lunatics to take matters into their own greasy hands lol.



Could you please define what a constitutional terrorist is?


----------



## TRENCHLORD (Apr 17, 2012)

Guitarman700 said:


> You have no idea what you're talking about, it's becoming more and more obvious.


 
Well, so far the polling numbers are in aggreance with my views .
He got elected the same way most politicians do, he lied.


----------



## SenorDingDong (Apr 17, 2012)

pink freud said:


> The problem with Ted Nugent is that he was born.



Fixed.


----------



## Guitarman700 (Apr 17, 2012)

TRENCHLORD said:


> Well, so far the polling numbers are in aggreance with my views .
> He got elected the same way most politicians do, he lied.



It must be nice, living in a bubble no facts can penetrate.


----------



## TRENCHLORD (Apr 17, 2012)

Jakke said:


> Could you please define what a constitutional terrorist is?


 
Kinda self explainatory isn't it?


----------



## TRENCHLORD (Apr 17, 2012)

Guitarman700 said:


> It must be nice, living in a bubble no facts can penetrate.


 
brand new polling by rassy

Daily Presidential Tracking Poll - Rasmussen Reports


----------



## Pooluke41 (Apr 17, 2012)

TRENCHLORD said:


> Kinda self explainatory isn't it?



I don't keep up with american news. But what has Obama done to make him a "constitutional traitor"?


----------



## Cancer (Apr 17, 2012)

TRENCHLORD said:


> Kinda self explainatory isn't it?



No. I, for one, would love to hear/read more about this, sounds rather intriguing.


----------



## Guitarman700 (Apr 17, 2012)

TRENCHLORD said:


> brand new polling by rassy
> 
> Daily Presidential Tracking Poll - Rasmussen Reports



 
Rasmussen is incredibly biased. Try actually researching your opinions before blindly swallowing the conservatives talking points. Besides, you supported Santorum, you haven zero credibility in my book.


----------



## Waelstrum (Apr 17, 2012)

Is constitutional terrorist someone that terrifies people into thinking that the constitution is under attack, even though Obama has never once mentioned reducing the right to bear arms?


----------



## Guitarman700 (Apr 17, 2012)

Waelstrum said:


> Is constitutional terrorist someone that terrifies people into thinking that the constitution is under attack, even though Obama has never once mentioned reducing the right to bear arms?



Pretty much. Just more fearmongering from shitbags who have an agenda.


----------



## Pooluke41 (Apr 17, 2012)

Waelstrum said:


> Is constitutional terrorist someone that terrifies people into thinking that the constitution is under attack,



Ron Paul?


----------



## TRENCHLORD (Apr 17, 2012)

Guitarman700 said:


> Rasmussen is incredibly biased. Try actually researching your opinions before blindly swallowing the conservatives talking points. Besides, you supported Santorum, you haven zero credibility in my book.


 
Well fortunatly most Americans aren't reading your book .


----------



## Guitarman700 (Apr 17, 2012)

TRENCHLORD said:


> Well fortunatly most Americans aren't reading your book .



I guess we'll find out come November, won't we?


----------



## renzoip (Apr 17, 2012)

*con·sti·tu·tion·al&#8194; &#8194;[kon-sti-too-shuh-nl, -tyoo-]*
adjective
1.
of or pertaining to the constitution of a state, organization, etc.
2.
subject to the provisions of such a constitution: a constitutional monarchy.
3.
provided by, in accordance with, or not prohibited by, such a constitution: the constitutional powers of the president; a constitutional law.
4.
belonging to or inherent in the character or makeup of a person's body or mind: a constitutional weakness for sweets.
5.
pertaining to the constitution or composition of a thing; essential.


*ter·ror·ist&#8194; &#8194;[ter-er-ist] *
noun
1.
a person, usually a member of a group, who uses or advocates terrorism.
2.
a person who terrorizes or frightens others.
3.
(formerly) a member of a political group in Russia aiming at the demoralization of the government by terror.
4.
an agent or partisan of the revolutionary tribunal during the Reign of Terror in France.


No hablo Conservative


----------



## Adam Of Angels (Apr 17, 2012)

TRENCHLORD said:


> Kinda self explainatory isn't it?




What did Obama do? I want to hear about that, rather than just inflammatory remarks about him.


----------



## Jakke (Apr 17, 2012)

TRENCHLORD said:


> Kinda self explainatory isn't it?



No it isn't. A terrorist is someone who uses violence and intimidation to influence others. When has Obama done so? If you can't give me examples, then why did you say so in the first place?

The tea-baggers made a fatal mistake. They called Obama a terrorist. 
Terrorist has a strict legal definition, so when Obama does not qualify for that definition, one understands that the tea-baggers only talks out of their asses (if that has not been made abundantly clear already).


----------



## Waelstrum (Apr 17, 2012)

Also, as an outsider looking in, why is the American constitution considered this immutable thing? The second amendment wasn't in the original thing, in fact it is an AMENDMENT. There are plenty of good amendments, like the thirteenth which abolished slavery, or the nineteenth which gave women the vote. I don't think it would be controversial to say that these were good changes to the constitution, and made America a better place. Is it really such a bad idea to look at the constitution from a modern perspective and consider any changes or updates there might be needed?


----------



## Jakke (Apr 17, 2012)

Waelstrum said:


> Also, as an outsider looking in, why is the American constitution considered this immutable thing? The second amendment wasn't in the original thing, in fact it is an AMENDMENT. There are plenty of good amendments, like the thirteenth which abolished slavery, or the nineteenth which gave women the vote. I don't think it would be controversial to say that these were good changes to the constitution, and made America a better place. Is it really such a bad idea to look at the constitution from a modern perspective and consider any changes or updates there might be needed?



NO! Because that would let dem queerosexuals in, and people could marry animals, and their muslim president would convert everyone by the sword, and the New World Order would rise, and the bible would be removed from schools, and those dam mexicans would take all the jobs. Not to mention that all the UN and chinese troops hidden in the national parks would annect the capital, therefore it is of vital importance that every american owns a high powered automatic weapon with incendiary ammo.

Everything would just go to hell literally.


----------



## Adam Of Angels (Apr 17, 2012)

I want TRENCHLORD, or any other like-minded fellow, to explain what Obama has actually done.


----------



## Jakke (Apr 17, 2012)

Adam Of Angels said:


> I want TRENCHLORD, or any other like-minded fellow, to explain what Obama has actually done.



I am waiting for the same courtesy from him.


----------



## VBCheeseGrater (Apr 17, 2012)

Pooluke41 said:


> I don't keep up with american news. But what has Obama done to make him a "constitutional traitor"?



It's a Michael Savage-ism

From Websters ...
Michael Savage-ism - (n) - Descriptive terms that use the worlds worst moments in history to demonize any non-radical conservative.
e.g "_That obama is no different than Josef Megele, you've all been brainwashed!!"
_

The worst excuse i've ever heard for not changing something is "That's the way we do it in America, the constitution says so."


----------



## Waelstrum (Apr 17, 2012)

Adam Of Angels said:


> I want TRENCHLORD, or any other like-minded fellow, to explain what Obama has actually done.



Well, he's increased the military's budget, he hasn't closed Guantanamo bay (yet), hasn't done anything about gay marriage (yet) and he orders assassinations of alleged terrorists without trial. Sounds a bit like Bush in those regards, so that's why I don't care for Obama. However, in a country that considers him to be a lefty, I don't much care for what they consider right wing.


----------



## Edika (Apr 17, 2012)

When you guys in US let loose the crazy (not pointed to SSO members but to Ted Nudget and company) I always remember this clip!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lyHSjv9gxlE


----------



## Waelstrum (Apr 17, 2012)

^ To post a youtube video, just copy and paste the url, it automatically embeds.


----------



## Edika (Apr 17, 2012)

^ I did but it only gives the link and doesn't embed the video


----------



## Jakke (Apr 17, 2012)

Edika said:


> When you guys in US let loose the crazy (not pointed to SSO members but to Ted Nudget and company) I always remember this clip!




You can do like this.

Hugh Laurie is awesome BTW


----------



## makeitreign (Apr 17, 2012)

It's ok to express your dissatisfaction for Obama.

It's ok to be in the NRA.

It's even ok to be Ted Nugent.

Under no circumstances are you ever allowed, without a doubt, to do all 3.

Ever.


----------



## TRENCHLORD (Apr 17, 2012)

Adam Of Angels said:


> I want TRENCHLORD, or any other like-minded fellow, to explain what Obama has actually done.


 
Just to name a couple quickies;
He ordered Eric Houlder to sue Arizona for applying a law which most Arizona people (including THEIR OWN democratically elected governer) support.
The law requires people to be able to show I.D., citizenship papers, or work permit visa when pulled over or stopped for LEGITIMATE offenses.
If they can't, then they are to be detained awaiting proper status confirmation. 
Is that so evil really? We've always been required to do so here in Illinois since I can remember. Makes good sense to me.
Obama wants none of that good logic, so he stomps on state rights to get HIS way.
That's alright though, because Arizona and it's citizens will win that one.

Another thing I personally hate is his mafia like tactic of;
You either buy what I tell you to buy (meaning federally required health insurance (think he might be getting some political kickback on that one?))
OR
pay fines and face jail time.
That is nothing more than;

You pay for protection, you buy it off our freinds, or we make you pay and/or put you in jail.

I'll chest him up on that one , because no one makes me buy anything by telling me I have to. 
It won't stand anyway, as won't most of his policys.
We Americans are too rebel  to have the government tell us how to eat, shit, and breath.


----------



## Guitarman700 (Apr 17, 2012)

TRENCHLORD said:


> Just to name a couple quickies;
> He ordered Eric Houlder to sue Arizona for applying a law which most Arizona people (including THEIR OWN democratically elected governer) support.
> The law requires people to be able to show I.D., citizenship papers, or work permit visa when pulled over or stopped for LEGITIMATE offenses.
> If they can't, then they are to be detained awaiting proper status confirmation.
> ...


----------



## highlordmugfug (Apr 17, 2012)

^^So he took steps against what was widely regarded as a racist and unconstitutional law in Arizona, and tried to make it where everyone in the country had healthcare so as to take the burden of the uninsured off of the rest of us?

What an asshole.


----------



## Jakke (Apr 17, 2012)

TRENCHLORD said:


> Another thing I personally hate is his mafia like tactic of;
> You either buy what I tell you to buy (meaning federally required health insurance (think he might be getting some political kickback on that one?))
> OR
> pay fines and face jail time.
> ...



Yeah, it's terrible having to help people who can't pay themselves, right? I mean, if they were fit to survive, god would not have made them poor in the first place!


----------



## highlordmugfug (Apr 17, 2012)

TRENCHLORD said:


> because no one makes me buy anything by telling me I have to.


You mean like taxes?


----------



## Guitarman700 (Apr 17, 2012)

highlordmugfug said:


> You mean like taxes?



Like car insurance?


----------



## TRENCHLORD (Apr 17, 2012)

Actually I just seen new polling data showing Obama leading by a decent margin among women,
and Romney leading by a decent margin among men.

Take that any way you want, but many pollsters are showing the same at the moment.

Also by the way, Rasmussen and Pew polling has been proven time and time again to be the MOST accurate (based off post election statistical facts).
People can bash FOX all they want, but who's number one rated cable news network?

And isn't MSNBC sitting right near the bottom where they belong?


----------



## Jakke (Apr 17, 2012)

TRENCHLORD said:


> It won't stand anyway, as won't most of his policys.
> We Americans are too rebel  to have the government tell us how to eat, shit, and breath.



It always amazes me how some americans think they are independent from the national government...

Trying to assert your independence from Washington did not go very well the last time

Rebels? You'd have to look a long time before finding a more over-all conservative and set-in-their-ways people than the americans. (not necessarily a bad thing, but the rebel stuff is just fiction)


----------



## Hollowway (Apr 17, 2012)

TRENCHLORD said:


> Another thing I personally hate is his mafia like tactic of;
> You either buy what I tell you to buy (meaning federally required health insurance (think he might be getting some political kickback on that one?))
> OR
> pay fines and face jail time.



Well, if you don't buy health insurance I have to pay your medical bills if anything happens. It's called cost shifting, and that's why it's needed. I agree that I don't want to have to be forced to pay for something - and I don't want to have to pay for TRENCHLORD's ER bill because he didn't buy himself medical insurance.

Also, regarding Obama being voted out of office, the average of the polls suggests currently that this isn't the case: RealClearPolitics - Election 2012 - General Election: Romney vs. Obama. It's misleading to quote one poll and call it representative of the whole.

FWIW, I'm not saying I like Obama, or that I approve of the health care mandate, or think he's going to win. I just think that if you want people to take you seriously you should provide thoughtful arguments rather than just rant. And that includes Ted.


----------



## Guitarman700 (Apr 17, 2012)

TRENCHLORD said:


> Actually I just seen new polling data showing Obama leading by a decent margin among women,
> and Romney leading by a decent margin among men.
> 
> Take that any way you want, but many pollsters are showing the same at the moment.
> ...



You are so biased it's almost unbelievable. Popularity now equals factual reporting? Your argument is made up entirely of logical fallacies.


----------



## Jakke (Apr 17, 2012)

TRENCHLORD said:


> People can bash FOX all they want, but who's number one rated cable news network?



Because there are more stupid people than smart people?

Sorry, I just coudn't help myself


I wouldn't dream about calling you stupid, I haven't even met you.


----------



## TRENCHLORD (Apr 17, 2012)

Guitarman700 said:


> Like car insurance?


 
Exactly, but that's a state law, not federal.


----------



## TRENCHLORD (Apr 17, 2012)

highlordmugfug said:


> You mean like taxes?


 
Good point, but there's no law requiring income or product purchace for tax collection.
They don't make you pay fines or jail you for not working (as evidenced by obama's welfare encouraging policies).


----------



## Hollowway (Apr 17, 2012)

TRENCHLORD said:


> They don't make you pay fines or jail you for not working (as evidenced by obama's welfare encouraging policies).



You mean TRENCHLORD's welfare encouraging policies, because you think it's OK to live in this country and get free healthcare without paying anything. That sounds pretty socialist to me.


----------



## renzoip (Apr 17, 2012)

TRENCHLORD said:


> Just to name a couple quickies;
> He ordered Eric Houlder to sue Arizona for applying a law which most Arizona people (including THEIR OWN democratically elected governer) support.
> The law requires people to be able to show I.D., citizenship papers, or work permit visa when pulled over or stopped for LEGITIMATE offenses.
> If they can't, then they are to be detained awaiting proper status confirmation.
> ...




From what you posted, the connection between his actions and terrorism is still not apparent.

The fact that he had Eric Holder sue Arizona is not terrorism. For one, the enforcement of immigration law is one that the Federal Government is in charge of, so if the states try to unilaterally take matters into their own hands, then they are at fault. Also, the implications of the SB1070 are very grave as it greatly facilitates racial profiling and civil/human right abuses for people who have no real means of representation or defense. But that's ok for states rights advocates, as they are usually not one's to worry about civil and human rights.

Also, if you think this is about detaining people without proper ID's, then you should really do some research about the Private Prison Complex that is financing and writing these laws (along with drug laws) in order to arrest and detain more defenseless people and increase their profits. If you really think this is about logic, common sense, or about good guys putting bad guys in detention, then I'm sorry for you, man. 

The government is deeply involved people's life already, and it does use coercion and violence to get you to buy stuff already. It always has (I'm sure you have car insurance), now matter which party is in power. I will agree with you in disliking too much government involvement, but the private industry is no better. Private industry is not there to make you free, it is there to profit, and it will not hesitate to conspire with government to take away people's freedom and civil/human rights if they find that profitable.


So, if by terrorism you mean the use government coercion to advance one's own agenda, then every president would be a terrorist.


----------



## TRENCHLORD (Apr 17, 2012)

Hollowway said:


> Well, if you don't buy health insurance I have to pay your medical bills if anything happens. It's called cost shifting, and that's why it's needed. I agree that I don't want to have to be forced to pay for something - and I don't want to have to pay for TRENCHLORD's ER bill because he didn't buy himself medical insurance.
> 
> Also, regarding Obama being voted out of office, the average of the polls suggests currently that this isn't the case: RealClearPolitics - Election 2012 - General Election: Romney vs. Obama. It's misleading to quote one poll and call it representative of the whole.
> 
> FWIW, I'm not saying I like Obama, or that I approve of the health care mandate, or think he's going to win. I just think that if you want people to take you seriously you should provide thoughtful arguments rather than just rant. And that includes Ted.


 
Actually I never made reference to an Obama vs Romney poll.
The poll I linked was a Obama job approval poll.
Either way your point is well made and taken .


----------



## TRENCHLORD (Apr 17, 2012)

renzoip said:


> From what you posted, the connection between his actions and terrorism is still not apparent.
> 
> The fact that he had Eric Holder sue Arizona is not terrorism. For one, the enforcement of immigration law is one that the Federal Government is in charge of, so if the states try to unilaterally take matters into their own hands, then they are at fault. Also, the implications of the SB1070 are very grave as it greatly facilitates racial profiling and civil/human right abuses for people who have no real means of representation or defense. But that's ok for states rights advocates, as they are usually not one's to worry about civil and human rights as long as they can a racial/class hierarchy.
> 
> ...


 
Of course I wasn't meaning he is a literal terrorist ,.
I was figurativaly pointing out that Obama reguards the constitution as a piece of toilet paper that's only use is to wipe his ass.


----------



## Jakke (Apr 17, 2012)

TRENCHLORD said:


> Of course I wasn't meaning he is a literal terrorist ,.
> I was figurativaly pointing out that Obama reguards the constitution as a piece of toilet paper that's only use is to wipe his ass.



And what part of the revered 300 year old document did the president wipe his behind with? I.e. what has he done that is so terribly unconstitutional?


Also, with regards to my previous post, terrorist is a very defined word, there are no figurative terrorists.


----------



## Hollowway (Apr 17, 2012)

Man, the thing I hate about threads like these is I find myself defending points of view I don't necessarily have. Depending on the conversation I can look like I'm leaning strongly right or left.


----------



## signalgrey (Apr 17, 2012)

who honestly gives a fuck what that retard has to say? I hope he get gored by a thirty point buck.


----------



## Adam Of Angels (Apr 17, 2012)

Renzoip essentially said what I'd have responded with.


Trenchlord:

What part of the constitution has Obama disgraced? 


Also, it is quite obvious that you do not see the ways in which you are successfully manipulated - both Fox and MSNBC are biased media sources, completely funded and backed by special interest on either/both sides of the field. To take this a step further, it has always been pointed out that it is much easier to keep people under control when they are divided. You are an example of that concept, at least in-so-far as your comments in this thread are concerned.

I have no qualm with you, by the way, I just think you've perhaps believed what the TV has to say a little too much. I don't really approve of any politician, because they've all been more or less compromised before they've landed their selves in an important position.


----------



## Adam Of Angels (Apr 17, 2012)

And, I meant to tag this onto the end: these media sources take the truth (sometimes they even completely fabricate a story) and spin/edit it so that you get a very biased and potentially dangerous version of the truth, and the whole point is to get you behind one groups' interest or the others'.


----------



## groph (Apr 17, 2012)

signalgrey said:


> who honestly gives a fuck what that retard has to say? I hope he get gored by a thirty point buck.



Who, Ted Nugent?


----------



## wlfers (Apr 17, 2012)

Jakke said:


> NO! Because that would let dem queerosexuals in, and people could marry animals, and their muslim president would convert everyone by the sword, and the New World Order would rise, and the bible would be removed from schools, and those dam mexicans would take all the jobs. Not to mention that all the UN and chinese troops hidden in the national parks would annect the capital, therefore it is of vital importance that every american owns a high powered automatic weapon with incendiary ammo.
> 
> Everything would just go to hell literally.



I like how you made an entire thread to broadcast ways to improve argument on a forum then use one of the fallacies yourself

http://www.sevenstring.org/forum/po.../192847-illustrated-rhetorical-fallacies.html


----------



## Adam Of Angels (Apr 17, 2012)

^ If you didn't catch that he was joking..... well... nevermind.


----------



## wlfers (Apr 17, 2012)

You can utilize humor to make a point. If you can't catch that... well... nevermind.


----------



## groph (Apr 17, 2012)

TRENCHLORD said:


> Exactly, but that's a state law, not federal.



So you don't have an issue with the states governing you, but you have a problem with the federal government doing so. Conservative viewpoints are pretty underrepresented on this board however my mother shares a lot of similar views with you so I hear about them. The issue really is what a government can and cannot do IE you're not against birth control if you just think that the federal government shouldn't tell the state governments to enact legislation X Y or Z promoting or prohibiting birth control - you merely think that such laws should be controlled by the states and not the feds, you want the states to be as autonomous as possible, right? Otherwise, liberals and conservatives end up talking past each other when in reality the debate is about the role of government, not whether or not such a practice (like using birth control) is acceptable or not.

I'm just trying to decode the rhetoric here.



TRENCHLORD said:


> Good point, but there's no law requiring income or product purchace for tax collection.
> They don't make you pay fines or jail you for not working (as evidenced by obama's welfare encouraging policies).



Well yeah but you're kind of fucked if you don't work, aren't you? I doubt welfare is REALLY enough to live on.


----------



## TRENCHLORD (Apr 18, 2012)

groph said:


> So you don't have an issue with the states governing you, but you have a problem with the federal government doing so. Conservative viewpoints are pretty underrepresented on this board however my mother shares a lot of similar views with you so I hear about them. The issue really is what a government can and cannot do IE you're not against birth control if you just think that the federal government shouldn't tell the state governments to enact legislation X Y or Z promoting or prohibiting birth control - you merely think that such laws should be controlled by the states and not the feds, you want the states to be as autonomous as possible, right? Otherwise, liberals and conservatives end up talking past each other when in reality the debate is about the role of government, not whether or not such a practice (like using birth control) is acceptable or not.
> 
> I'm just trying to decode the rhetoric here.
> 
> ...


 
Yeah that's about right on all counts. 
At least with the feds staying out of most shit we can just move to one of the states that suite our individual needs or desires the best,
if it's an important enough issue to justify moving.
Although I personally just ignore bullshit legaslstion, so I'm staying put. 


Also, I'd say you have a very smart mom .


----------



## Adam Of Angels (Apr 18, 2012)

athawulf said:


> You can utilize humor to make a point. If you can't catch that... well... nevermind.




He was joking.


----------



## groph (Apr 18, 2012)

TRENCHLORD said:


> Yeah that's about right on all counts.
> At least with the feds staying out of most shit we can just move to one of the states that suite our individual needs or desires the best,
> if it's an important enough issue to justify moving.
> Although I personally just ignore bullshit legaslstion, so I'm staying put.
> ...



Well I'm not conservative in the least and I think she's just trying to counter liberal bias with conservative bias and it really makes my head hurt. She is smart but I have an exorbitantly hard time agreeing with/debating with staunch conservatives on almost anything.

I'm just tired of dumb liberals (usually young and impressionable like myself) arguing past conservatives (of varying intelligence) over points that aren't even being argued IE whether or not GOP candidate A is actually against people using birth control when in reality GOP candidate A might be personally against birth control but he believes _it's not in his jurisdiction to decide whether or not_ such a practice should be made into law or not - that's if I'm understanding things correctly. I don't read up on political debates as much as I probably should.

As far as your typical "liberal" and typical "conservative" are concerned, while I agree more with the liberal, I hate them both .


----------



## Necris (Apr 18, 2012)

athawulf said:


> I like how you made an entire thread to broadcast ways to improve argument on a forum then use one of the fallacies yourself
> 
> http://www.sevenstring.org/forum/po.../192847-illustrated-rhetorical-fallacies.html





Adam Of Angels said:


> ^ If you didn't catch that he was joking..... well... nevermind.





athawulf said:


> You can utilize humor to make a point. If you can't catch that... well... nevermind.



Jakkes post was a good example of Reductio Ad Absurdum which is a rhetorical fallacy. I think Athawulf was aware that he wasn't serious about what he was actually posting though.


----------



## Adam Of Angels (Apr 18, 2012)

Maybe I gave Jakke too much credit? I took his post as being intentional for the sake of a joke. I understand what athawulf is saying, haha


----------



## Jakke (Apr 18, 2012)

It was very much intentional for the sake of joking, and to be frank, I did not think anyone could take it literally. I tried to be as absurd as a I possibly could, but short of screaming about the Soviet Union, that is pretty much what I could muster late in the evening. The people I made fun of, in this case the consvervative crazies with Nugent as their leader, are experts of reductio ad absurdum and the slippery slope-argument, thererfore my post of course reflected that. 

Athawulf, glad you like my thread


----------



## vampiregenocide (Apr 18, 2012)

TRENCHLORD said:


> People can bash FOX all they want, but who's number one rated cable news network?



If you support a network that has been shown to be biased and outright lie to it's viewers, then that doesn't say a lot of good about your opinion. 

Popularity has no bearing on the credibility of something. The UK has no equivalent really of FOX news and we're all the better for it. That network manipulates America and in my opinion is closer to a terrorist than you describe Obama to be.


----------



## Scar Symmetry (Apr 18, 2012)

I fucking hate Ted Nugent.


----------



## Scar Symmetry (Apr 18, 2012)

Guitarman700 said:


> Be black. Be a moderate conservative. Have Hussein as a middle name.
> Three strikes and you're out of the wingnuts good graces.


----------



## Jakke (Apr 18, 2012)

vampiregenocide said:


> Popularity has no bearing on the credibility of something.



Because if it where so, Justin Bieber would be the greatest thing ever.


----------



## highlordmugfug (Apr 18, 2012)

vampiregenocide said:


> If you support a network that has been shown to be biased and outright lie to it's viewers, then that doesn't say a lot of good about your opinion.
> 
> Popularity has no bearing on the credibility of something. The UK has no equivalent really of FOX news and we're all the better for it. That network manipulates America and in my opinion is closer to a terrorist than you describe Obama to be.





Jakke said:


> Because if it where so, Justin Bieber would be the greatest thing ever.


Argumentum ad populum - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Oh TRENCHLORD


----------



## VBCheeseGrater (Apr 18, 2012)

Hollowway said:


> ...because you think it's OK to live in this country and get free healthcare without paying anything. That sounds pretty socialist to me.



That's the one thing OK with people getting something for nothing. just make it across the board free health care, like the Police and Fire Dept. Yep, its socialism, so what?

As a musician, it would have been nice to be able to follow that career path without worrying about being employed solely for the health insurance. The way i see it, socialized health care actually breeds more occupational freedom, because otherwise you're tied down to a 9-5 job in order to keep that healthcare.

As far as forcing folks to buy it, nah, just cut some of the other welfare programs that encourage laziness.


----------



## highlordmugfug (Apr 18, 2012)

vbshredder said:


> As far as forcing folks to buy it, nah, just cut some of the other welfare programs that encourage laziness.


So because maybe a few thousand people around the US abuse welfare/foodstamps, we should get rid of them and let all the people who seriously need them for the time being to starve/live in the street?

Ignorant and uncaring comment is ignorant and uncaring.


----------



## Jakke (Apr 18, 2012)

highlordmugfug said:


> Argumentum ad populum - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> Oh TRENCHLORD



Five billion flies can't be wrong; eat shit.


----------



## ghostred7 (Apr 18, 2012)

Don't like Nugent, don't listen to him (music or rhetoric). He has every right in the world to be as lunatic as he wants without infringing on the rights of others. No need for people to wish him dead & shit.


----------



## Adam Of Angels (Apr 18, 2012)

So.. he can wish people dead and call them every terrible thing in the book, and you'll defend his right to do so, but if other people do the same in regards to him, you speak up?


----------



## BIG ND SWEATY (Apr 18, 2012)

Gothic Headhunter said:


> The only real flaw I found in his speech was the gun part. We still have a right to bear arms, but in most states fully automatic assault rifels are banned, and if you _need _assault rifels to defend yourself, you're a *bad shot*. Other than that, he's just expressing his pollitical views, and last time I checked, that's one of the things you're allowed to do here.


 Fixed and i agree with this though, ill still love his music no matter how crazy he gets


----------



## ghostred7 (Apr 18, 2012)

Adam Of Angels said:


> So.. he can wish people dead and call them every terrible thing in the book, and you'll defend his right to do so, but if other people do the same in regards to him, you speak up?


I don't support ANYONE having that mindset. One human being shouldn't wish another dead unless they're defending themselves from immenent bodily/lethal harm. In the end....I will always support someone's right to free speech as well as other RIGHTS we, as citizens, are given...no matter if I agree with the stance or not, but won't wish them dead for it.


----------



## ScottyB724 (Apr 18, 2012)

The 'Nuge went to my high school and was expelled from there as well haha. True story.

And that is my useless contribution to this thread, carry on.


----------



## Adam Of Angels (Apr 18, 2012)

ghostred7 said:


> I don't support ANYONE having that mindset. One human being shouldn't wish another dead unless they're defending themselves from immenent bodily/lethal harm. In the end....I will always support someone's right to free speech as well as other RIGHTS we, as citizens, are given...no matter if I agree with the stance or not, but won't wish them dead for it.



So then, really, if priorities were straight, you would have first spoken out against Ted's ill-wishes on others, then addressed those who spoke poorly of him. 

I don't support anybody wishing another person dead, or any form of violence. I haven't said anything terrible about Ted here, I'm just saying that you're accusing others of doing one thing, when they're merely reacting to Ted having done the same thing first.


----------



## BlackMesa (Apr 18, 2012)

highlordmugfug said:


> So because maybe a few thousand people around the US abuse welfare/foodstamps, we should get rid of them and let all the people who seriously need them for the time being to starve/live in the street?
> 
> Ignorant and uncaring comment is ignorant and uncaring.



WRONG. You have absolutely no idea at all just how many people abuse the system. A few thousand? Yea maybe in a small city. Try millions all over the U.S. There are whole generations of families that do this. That's all they do. Why work when the gubment gives me a check, pays for your housing, etc. See it every single day at my job. It makes me sick.


----------



## Randy (Apr 18, 2012)

People gaming the system is nothing new and it will never go away.

Welfare/food stamps are administered and fraud is managed at the local level. If you don't like how things are going down, blame your local DSS. The fact is, there are people legitimately in need of assistance (especially children) and just villainizing the whole program because of the people who abuse the system is the absolute absence of human compassion.

The "piece of the pie" (federal, state, local budgets) that go to those programs, as a whole, isn't much. I work, I pay taxes, I have a roof over my head, I feed myself, I clothe myself, I can fill my gas tank, I can afford to have hobbies and I still have some money left over. I'd be an idiot to voluntarily get scammed but if given the choice between the way things are vs. NO money for social services and letting these people turn to robbery, murder, starving in the streets, eating out of garbage cans, prostituting themselves for money or lord knows what else, I'll take the way things are.

And you know what else... who am I to judge those people? It's not exactly a glamorous lifestyle. I don't envy anything about getting stuff for free, not being able to feed/clothe your kids on your own and (even if they don't work out of sheer laziness), sitting around all day doing nothing. I mentioned it in a thread before... my income afforded me the ability to get free health insurance and I opted to either have nothing (paying 100% per visit) or eat Ramen dinners to afford an insurance policy out of my pocket. I have honor. Most people who have a life that I'd consider anything more than a living hell do as well.


----------



## BlackMesa (Apr 18, 2012)

Randy said:


> People gaming the system is nothing new and it will never go away.
> 
> Welfare/food stamps are administered and fraud is managed at the local level. If you don't like how things are going down, blame your local DSS. The fact is, there are people legitimately in need of assistance (especially children) and just villainizing the whole program because of the people who abuse the system is the absolute absence of human compassion.
> 
> ...



But that's part of the problem. Look I'm not saying let them starve to death etc. What I want is to see the damn thing restructured and start kicking the shitbags off of the tit. I'm just tired of people being lazy or just corrupt fucks living off my tax dollars. Its time people start acting like god damn adults and taking care of themselves.


----------



## Randy (Apr 18, 2012)

As I said, that's administered at the local level. If you don't like it, report them. If the authorities don't act on it, report it at the state level. If nothing happens, work on getting those authorities replaced.

EDIT: And my previous point still stands... the vitriol against these people who have a life that's clearly not worth much. If you hate the life you live and the job you work so much that every dime your tax dollars is spent on bothers you so much, maybe you need to consider problems in your own life.


----------



## BlackMesa (Apr 18, 2012)

Randy said:


> As I said, that's administered at the local level. If you don't like it, report them. If the authorities don't act on it, report it at the state level. If nothing happens, work on getting those people replaced.
> 
> EDIT: And my previous point still stands... the vitriol against these people who have a life that's clearly not worth much. If you hate the life you live and the job you work so much that every dime your tax dollars is spent on bothers you so much, maybe you need to consider problems in your own life.



Umm never said anything about me hating my life or my job. Not sure where you even got that at. Anyway the reason I care soo much about where my tax dollars goes is the damn government spends waay too much of my tax dollars on stuff they are not even supposed to be involved in.


----------



## Randy (Apr 18, 2012)

Sorry if I came off as accusing you personally. I take that back, then.

All I was trying to get at was, the government spends money on everything from wars I didn't agree with, bailouts I didn't agree with (federal), down to PILOT agreements, giving contracts to specific companies (state and local) that I don't agree with. If I expend energy being frustrated about each of those things, I'd have no hair left in my head. That doesn't mean I'm totally apathetic... I choose my battles but at the end of the day, you don't get to itemize what your taxes are used for so... eh.

And with the life/job statement, I'm just saying... I'm not financially well off but I pay my bills and I enjoy what I'm doing. I don't think fighting over one specific tax item or the other is all of the sudden going to make me wealthy. I guess, past taking care of the essentials, I don't put a lot of value on money; that's probably mostly a personal thing.


----------



## Philligan (Apr 18, 2012)

This might be kinda OT, but the talk of constitutional terrorism got me thinking. Is changing the Constitution really a bad thing? Everything else has changed since 1776.


----------



## Randy (Apr 18, 2012)

Philligan said:


> This might be kinda OT, but the talk of constitutional terrorism got me thinking. Is changing the Constitution really a bad thing? Everything else has changed since 1776.



Fuck you and your crazy thinking! Slavery FTW


----------



## highlordmugfug (Apr 18, 2012)

BlackMesa said:


> WRONG. You have absolutely no idea at all just how many people abuse the system. A few thousand? Yea maybe in a small city. Try millions all over the U.S. There are whole generations of families that do this. That's all they do. Why work when the gubment gives me a check, pays for your housing, etc. See it every single day at my job. It makes me sick.


Okay, so I didn't get the number right  I'm still sure the number of people that legitimately need the assistance is drastically higher than the number that are scamming it.


----------



## Mordacain (Apr 18, 2012)

Philligan said:


> This might be kinda OT, but the talk of constitutional terrorism got me thinking. Is changing the Constitution really a bad thing? Everything else has changed since 1776.



Of course its not; however there is a significant portion of people in this country that view the Constitution as some sacrosanct artifact that should never be modified which is directly incompatible with how the document was intended to be used by its creators. 

Obviously, the Constitution itself was made to be modifiable with the addition of amendments that enable the Constitution to remain the living document that Jefferson envisioned. 

The sad truth is that the bulk majority of people that decry changing the constitution are the ones that purport the majority of laws that violate the original spirit of the document and directly violate the Bill of Rights. The Patriot Act violates the Bill of Rights and more than 1 amendment to the constitution is the most obvious example of this that I can think of. Rather ironically, the "constitutional scholars" that started cropping up on TV at the start of the Tea Party movement are guilty of spreading the most misinformed and overall incorrect views on the Constitution (both historically and in its current iteration).


----------



## BlackMesa (Apr 18, 2012)

I think alot of you guys need to read The Federalists Papers to understand why alot of us dont think the constitutional should be changed all that much. Yes there has been some good amendments added but the interpretation of alot people these days is WAAAY too open ended. I think if we went back to interpreting it the way the father's really made it it would get rid of a WHOLE lot of government problems.


----------



## Jakke (Apr 18, 2012)

To me, as a godless, heathen european (or viking, whatever you prefer), the constitution seems to be reverad as the bible in some circles.

What I fail to see however is how 18th century people could know about and forsee problems arising now now as products of our time. They had no idea what the internet is, and to bear arms to them was having a smoothbore musket, a weapon that was: 1. Wildly inaccurate, and 2. Had to be reloaded for a long time after each shot.


----------



## renzoip (Apr 18, 2012)

Jakke said:


> To me, as a godless, heathen european (or viking, whatever you prefer), the constitution seems to be reverad as the bible in some circles.
> 
> What I fail to see however is how 18th century people could know about and forsee problems arising now now as products of our time. They had no idea what the internet is, and to bear arms to them was having a smoothbore musket, a weapon that was: 1. Wildly inaccurate, and 2. Had to be reloaded for a long time after each shot.



I agree, some circles here in the US revere the Constitution like a holy book, when it's convenient to them. And much like holy book adherents, they have a very convenient interpretation that disproportionately benefits their interests over those of people who are getting the short end of the political and socio-economic stick.


----------



## viesczy (Apr 18, 2012)

He runs his yap like he's some god of guitar and paragon of virtue but he was railing teenagers (Pele Massa) and getting bl0wn by Courtney Love when she was 12. 

He's a douche.

Derek


----------



## Jakke (Apr 18, 2012)

renzoip said:


> I agree, some circles here in the US revere the Constitution like a holy book, when it's convenient to them. And much like holy book adherents, they have a very convenient interpretation that disproportionately benefits their interests over those of people who are getting the short end of the political and socio-economic stick.



Pretty much, I would say that the constitution of the US is probably the best founding document of its age. However, all the other founding documents has since then evolved.

free speech is a classic double edged sword as the ones you mention. It is very convenient to claim free speech when you want to say something, when someone else says something you don't agree with.. Ehh, not so much


----------



## Mordacain (Apr 18, 2012)

Jakke said:


> To me, as a godless, heathen european (or viking, whatever you prefer), the constitution seems to be reverad as the bible in some circles.
> 
> What I fail to see however is how 18th century people could know and forsee about problems arising now. They had no idea what the internet is, and to bear arms to them was having a smoothbore musket.



It is revered as the Bible in some circles (and often held up in connection with), which is sad since the chief architects of the document were far from the good, honest god-fearing Christians so many Christians in this country believed them to be. 

Now, my comment there is really only relevant in the context of the Christian right trying to justify the establishment of an intolerant Christian Theocracy in place of the original goal, a tolerant, Secular Democracy.

With regards to the 2nd Amendment: the Supreme Court recently upheld the right to bear arms without connection to state or local organized Militia (District of Columbia v. Heller (2008)), which is important since the original verbiage of the 2nd Amendment clearly makes that distinction for a reason. That being said, the Supreme Court upheld in the same ruling that previous established restrictions on personal arms ownership were also legal restrictions given the rather undefined generalized use of "arms" in the verbiage. The AWB (Assault Weapons Ban) also ended in 2004, so in reality, gun restriction laws are laxer than they have been since 1994 so Ted Nugent and all his NRA cronies are full of shit.


----------



## Jakke (Apr 18, 2012)

Mordacain said:


> It is revered as the Bible in some circles (and often held up in connection with), which is sad since the chief architects of the document were far from the good, honest god-fearing Christians so many Christians in this country believed them to be.



THE USA WAS FOUNDED AS A NATION UNDER GAWD!



Wasn't it Jefferson who took the bible and stripped out everything supernatural from it?


*EDIT* Also, please note that I am not kicking christians, there are christian members here, and I like them immensely (however I could give you a run for the money debating religion if that is what you would desire). I kick scumbag idiots, who also happen to be intolerant, ignorant christians.


----------



## Mordacain (Apr 18, 2012)

Jakke said:


> THE USA WAS FOUNDED AS A NATION UNDER GAWD!
> 
> 
> 
> ...



 Much as I might disagree with many of them I personally want them to be able to practice whatever religion floats their boat... right
up to the point said religion commands them to start wars with and demonize atheists, deists, pagans and other Abraham-based religions and impose their worldview on everyone else.

Personally I'm all for an amendment to make "Freedom of Religion" legally the right to practice any religion you want personally, but disallow you or your religion meddling in anyone Else's ability to do the same.


----------



## Jakke (Apr 18, 2012)

Mordacain said:


> Much as I might disagree with many of them I personally want them to be able to practice whatever religion floats their boat... right
> up to the point said religion commands them to start wars with and demonize atheists, deists, pagans and other Abraham-based religions and impose their worldview on everyone else.
> 
> Personally I'm all for an amendment to make "Freedom of Religion" legally the right to practice any religion you want personally, but disallow you or your religion meddling in anyone Else's ability to do the same.



Exactly, freedom from religion is a concept some people does not seem to have grasped yet (well, it has only been 300 years).


----------



## Jakke (Apr 18, 2012)

And mister Nugent now has the Secret Service on his ass.


----------



## Waelstrum (Apr 18, 2012)

That sort of fits with his paranoid statements about Barak wanting to kill or imprison him. I hate when people say that something bad is going to happen and then make it happen to prove themselves right.


----------



## wlfers (Apr 18, 2012)

Jakke said:


> It was very much intentional for the sake of joking, and to be frank, I did not think anyone could take it literally. I tried to be as absurd as a I possibly could, but short of screaming about the Soviet Union, that is pretty much what I could muster late in the evening. The people I made fun of, in this case the consvervative crazies with Nugent as their leader, are experts of reductio ad absurdum and the slippery slope-argument, thererfore my post of course reflected that.
> 
> Athawulf, glad you like my thread




I just find it funny that when either side uses a mechanism or fallacy of the other side it becomes legitimate merely because you're playing "their game"- similar how to when limbaugh called the law student a prostitute. When the media fired up a shitstorm about it conservatives were excusing it by saying "it was entertainment, just how you liberals do all the time with your entertainment/satire shows".

It just ends up in a circle fuckfest and nothing ever gets actually done or anything worthwhile said.

And that isn't even reductio ad absurdum


----------



## ST3MOCON (Apr 18, 2012)

Gothic Headhunter said:


> The only real flaw I found in his speech was the gun part. We still have a right to bear arms, but in most states fully automatic assault rifels are banned, and if you _need _assault rifels to defend yourself, you're a pussy. Other than that, he's just expressing his pollitical views, and last time I checked, that's one of the things you're allowed to do here.



Actually there are far more gun restrictions than "fully auto" restrictions in most states. The reason people don't like giving up some gun right is because when you give in some the government takes a mile. Also something someone wrote in a very important document about not infringing on this right. Being a pussy doesn't really have anything to do with it.


----------



## Jakke (Apr 18, 2012)

athawulf said:


> I just find it funny that when either side uses a mechanism or fallacy of the other side it becomes legitimate merely because you're playing "their game"- similar how to when limbaugh called the law student a prostitute. When the media fired up a shitstorm about it conservatives were excusing it by saying "it was entertainment, just how you liberals do all the time with your entertainment/satire shows".
> 
> It just ends up in a circle fuckfest and nothing ever gets actually done or anything worthwhile said.
> 
> And that isn't even reductio ad absurdum



Ok, man. 
1. I was showing the absurdity of some reasoning I have heard myself from ignorant paleo-conservatives.
2. how many times do I have to say it? It was not a legitimate argument, it was merely an attempt of humour (that people seems to have gotten as well).
3. How can I commit a rhetorical fallacy if I did not present an argument? 

Yes, it is Reductio ad Absurdum. Reductio ad Absurdum is to disprove an argument by using a chain of far-fetched and/or impossible outcomes of that argument. In this case changing the constitution would bring on all these ridiculous consequences, and then ending in the end of the world.


----------



## Mordacain (Apr 18, 2012)

ST3MOCON said:


> Actually there are far more gun restrictions than "fully auto" restrictions in most states. The reason people don't like giving up some gun right is because when you give in some the government takes a mile. Also something someone wrote in a very important document about not infringing on this right. Being a pussy doesn't really have anything to do with it.



Ah the old slippery slope argument which has been proven both rhetorically and historically invalid.

That being said, there are fewer overall gun restrictions now than in years past. Fully Automatic restrictions have been in effect ever since the National Firearm Act of 1934 in an effort to combat the prolific gang violence so there is nothing new there. Some states allow the ownership of Class 3 weapons with the proper permits (firearms regulated by the NFA). 

Of real interest here is The Nuge's endorsement of Mitt Romney, who signed a permanent Assault Weapons Ban in 2004 for Massachusetts. This is where you see the absolute bat-shit crazy right-wing mentality hard at work in my opinion. The way I understand that idea is something like this: "any conservative candidate, regardless of what that candidate actually endorses or signs into law, must be better than the liberal candidate simply because he/she _says _he/she is a conservative."


----------



## Necris (Apr 18, 2012)

athawulf said:


> I just find it funny that when either side uses a mechanism or fallacy of the other side it becomes legitimate merely because you're playing "their game"- similar how to when limbaugh called the law student a prostitute. When the media fired up a shitstorm about it conservatives were excusing it by saying "it was entertainment, just how you liberals do all the time with your entertainment/satire shows".


I remember that, Limbaugh actually called her a plant by the liberals when making his "apology" which I found hilarious.
Even if she was a plant he's still the jackass who was so easily goaded into making misogynist remarks about a woman who happened to care about having a right to choose. It's like being arrested in a prostitution sting and claiming you shouldn't go to jail because you were set up. 
Take some fucking responsibility for your actions.


----------



## Gothic Headhunter (Apr 18, 2012)

ST3MOCON said:


> Actually there are far more gun restrictions than "fully auto" restrictions in most states. The reason people don't like giving up some gun right is because when you give in some the government takes a mile. Also something someone wrote in a very important document about not infringing on this right. Being a pussy doesn't really have anything to do with it.


I know that they're are other restrictions, in my state you need a separate liscens for each hand gun, even pellet guns have similar restictions. But that is the biggest one that I know of. And yes, being a pussy has something to do with it. Anyone can kill something with an M4, it takes some more skill to use a shot gun (using slugs) or similar weapon. If some one shys away fom challenges like that, then to me, they are a pussy.


----------



## vampiregenocide (Apr 18, 2012)

Jakke said:


> And mister Nugent now has the Secret Service on his ass.



I had a feeling they'd have a word with him. Perhaps it will teach him to keep his mouth shut. You never know who's listening.


----------



## BlackMesa (Apr 18, 2012)

Gothic Headhunter said:


> I know that they're are other restrictions, in my state you need a separate liscens for each hand gun, even pellet guns have similar restictions. But that is the biggest one that I know of. And yes, being a pussy has something to do with it. Anyone can kill something with an M4, it takes some more skill to use a shot gun or similar weapon. If some one shys away fom challenges like that, then to me, they are a pussy.



LOL. How does using a shotty take more skill than a M4? Shotgun is just point and pull the trigger. Aim in their general direction. With a rifle, whether assualt or hunting, you actually have to look down the sights. Your logic is really screwed on this. I own one of these "assualt" rifles. Its not my main defense gun for my house. My .45 pistol or shotgun are for that. But if it comes down to it I'll use it in a second if I have too. Nothing to do with being a pussy. It's not a pissing contest.

Edit: Sorry I saw you wrote M4, I was thinking AR15. Yea an M4 would be alittle easier to kill something in close quarters using select fire. But I'm not sure any easier than a shotgun.


----------



## Jakke (Apr 18, 2012)

vampiregenocide said:


> I had a feeling they'd have a word with him. *Perhaps it will teach him to keep his mouth shut*. You never know who's listening.



Man, I love your optimism


----------



## Philligan (Apr 18, 2012)

Jakke said:


> Man, I love your optimism



+1 

That guy blows my mind. I knew he liked hunting, but I never knew he was that crazy. I remember him on Penn & Teller: Bullshit on their episode about gun control, and thought I need to start hunting haha. He seemed a bit too into gun ownership haha but this is just ridiculous. Hopefully they make his life more of a hassle.

I remember when Iceland rewrote their constitution. They had random citizens elected (it was a pretty legitimate voting process but most of them were Joe Blows) and they had them sit down in a circle and write/talk about a new constitution. They streamed the whole thing live so the rest of the citizens could comment on what they liked or didn't like. It would be cool to see the US even just try that and see what comes out.


----------



## wlfers (Apr 18, 2012)

Jakke said:


> Ok, man.
> 1. I was showing the absurdity of some reasoning I have heard myself from ignorant paleo-conservatives.
> 2. how many times do I have to say it? It was not a legitimate argument, it was merely an attempt of humour (that people seems to have gotten as well).
> 3. How can I commit a rhetorical fallacy if I did not present an argument?
> ...



I'm not disagreeing with the absurdity of modern politics at all, you have to catch that. You seem to understand the definition of it: you use a logical process based off an initial claim to find out that the conclusion doesn't follow- yet you didn't do that. You merely just took ridiculous things they said and repeated it with exaggeration to appeal to ridicule. 

A good portion of America's political climate deserves mocking. That's not what I'm pointing out. 



Necris said:


> I remember that, Limbaugh actually called her a plant by the liberals when making his "apology" which I found hilarious.
> Even if she was a plant he's still the jackass who was so easily goaded into making misogynist remarks about a woman who happened to care about having a right to choose. It's like being arrested in a prostitution sting and claiming you shouldn't go to jail because you were set up.
> Take some fucking responsibility for your actions.



His apology was one of those times where you have to stop listening because you try to reach your open palm through the tv/computer to slap the voice you're hearing.


----------



## highlordmugfug (Apr 18, 2012)

Jakke said:


> Wasn't it Jefferson who ook the bible and stripped out everything supernatural from it?


Yes. The Life and Morals of Jesus of Nazareth.

Obligatory wiki link:
Jefferson Bible - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## Gothic Headhunter (Apr 18, 2012)

BlackMesa said:


> LOL. How does using a shotty take more skill than a M4? Shotgun is just point and pull the trigger. Aim in their general direction. With a rifle, whether assualt or hunting, you actually have to look down the sights. Your logic is really screwed on this. I own one of these "assualt" rifles. Its not my main defense gun for my house. My .45 pistol or shotgun are for that. But if it comes down to it I'll use it in a second if I have too. Nothing to do with being a pussy. It's not a pissing contest.
> 
> Edit: Sorry I saw you wrote M4, I was thinking AR15. Yea an M4 would be alittle easier to kill something in close quarters using select fire. But I'm not sure any easier than a shotgun.


 I meant for hunting, not for self-defense, probably should've made that more clear. I would think it depends on what you're shooting, but to each his own.


----------



## wlfers (Apr 18, 2012)

People are really using auto M4s for hunting? It sounds like you pulled that out of your ass. There are different caliber AR15s like a 308 which is better as a hunting round than a .223 but littering an animal with an automatic assault rifle does not make for good eating nor for a quick and humane kill.


----------



## flint757 (Apr 18, 2012)

BlackMesa said:


> WRONG. You have absolutely no idea at all just how many people abuse the system. A few thousand? Yea maybe in a small city. Try millions all over the U.S. There are whole generations of families that do this. That's all they do. Why work when the gubment gives me a check, pays for your housing, etc. See it every single day at my job. It makes me sick.



Actually the only thing you can receive permanently from the government is food stamps (if you have children). Or if you are on disability, which not everyone is hurt enough on it to deserve it IMO. I know people who work with no legs and then you got people on disability for a bummed leg. how does that make sense? I have family members who fit the scumbag category and still think that it is a good thing that it exists.

TANF or whatever it may be called today is temporary and only a one time thing angled in favor for single mothers. T stands for temporary. 

Yes people get certain services from the government that they probably shouldn't, but usually it is medical insurance and food stamps that are more permanent (and not technically welfare although all services for the poor get lumped together). Official welfare is meant to get people on there feet, but since it isn't easy the long term users don't do it. (that and our ironic way of doing things) In our country we have a way of saying yeah you can do this, but you must come within this time frame, on this day, take this much time off, etc. Which is unfeasible in somewhere like Houston. If my family were on welfare for instance, but working a 9-5 job that payed minimum I would not be able to get to those appointments since I probably wouldn't drive, no money, and I'd get fired if I did. (public transportation here for outer lying city is terrible as well).

We as a nation have a habit of making people terminal and broken even our justice system does this (pot to felon) . Then the well off bitch and moan about it later.


----------



## flint757 (Apr 18, 2012)

athawulf said:


> People are really using auto M4s for hunting? It sounds like you pulled that out of your ass. There are different caliber AR15s like a 308 which is better as a hunting round than a .223 but littering an animal with an automatic assault rifle does not make for good eating nor for a quick and humane kill.



Everyone I know who have tons of guns have somewhat of an obsession to just own them and unload them at gun ranges every once in awhile. I do think though that that is a dangerous hobby to have.

Yes not all gun owners are bad, but in places with harsh gun laws you don't have Columbine shootings and what not. It is like the reverse of giving someone the benefit of the doubt because who are you going to trust, the guy with the gun or without. People who own guns don't wish to lose them though which is why they fight and fail to see why someone wants to tighten things up similar to when people discuss politics or religion. there is a large disconnect because people can't separate themselves from the issue.

Like how people get upset because the government wants to know who has a gun. Really? So you'd like anyone to be able to buy a gun, have no paper work, shoot someone, dispose of it and then have zero connection to who did it. If you keep your nose clean I don't understand the problem. This is coming from someone who likes guns, but is capable of understanding why it least proper logging and purchasing limits is NOT ridiculous. I can understand why you wouldn't want someone to take them from you though..


----------



## wlfers (Apr 18, 2012)

I agree with your sentiment about not understanding why some of the measures taken offend some 2nd amendment guys so much. I think instead of looking at legislation at face value they're seeing everything as a steppingstone for further gun laws.

I would disagree though with harsh gun laws contributing to safer environments. Half my family comes from Switzerland where eligible citizens are all part of the nations "reserve" and have issued rifles. Though I'm not sure if its Switzerland that's the exception, or some of the states over here.


----------



## flint757 (Apr 18, 2012)

athawulf said:


> I agree with your sentiment about not understanding why some of the measures taken offend some 2nd amendment guys so much. I think instead of looking at legislation at face value they're seeing everything as a steppingstone for further gun laws.
> 
> I would disagree though with harsh gun laws contributing to safer environments. Half my family comes from Switzerland where eligible citizens are all part of the nations "reserve" and have issued rifles. Though I'm not sure if its Switzerland that's the exception, or some of the states over here.



US has a disproportionate amount of crazy people though because of our size and since we are bigger and essentially a really tight knit group of "countries" if you will (in terms of space and population) we have less of a hold on who/what's happening most of the time. Not implying that gun owners are crazy, but as a population we are statistically more likely to have more crazy people in general which means more opportunities for said crazies to buy guns. and, well, do something crazy.


----------



## BlackMesa (Apr 18, 2012)

flint757 said:


> Actually the only thing you can receive permanently from the government is food stamps (if you have children). Or if you are on disability, which not everyone is hurt enough on it to deserve it IMO. I know people who work with no legs and then you got people on disability for a bummed leg. how does that make sense? I have family members who fit the scumbag category and still think that it is a good thing that it exists.
> 
> TANF or whatever it may be called today is temporary and only a one time thing angled in favor for single mothers. T stands for temporary.
> 
> ...



I see your point on welfare being temporary. But. Alot of people will stay on it for as long they can then go get a job for a few weeks get themselves fired and get right back on it. Do it again and again. 
You are totally right about disability. I know of a couple of jackoffs that get it for "bad backs". They get a good laugh about it too. Personally if they were on fire I wouldn't piss on them to put it out.


----------



## wlfers (Apr 18, 2012)

flint757 said:


> US has a disproportionate amount of crazy people though because of our size and since we are bigger and essentially a really tight knit group of "countries" if you will (in terms of space and population) we have less of a hold on who/what's happening most of the time. Not implying that gun owners are crazy, but as a population we are statistically more likely to have more crazy people in general which means more opportunities for said crazies to buy guns. and, well, do something crazy.



Totally, and one of the reasons I feel we need aptitude tests similar to a drivers test before being able to purchase firearms. Speaking of a drivers test, we could add a basic intelligence test to that too


----------



## flint757 (Apr 18, 2012)

BlackMesa said:


> I see your point on welfare being temporary. But. Alot of people will stay on it for as long they can then go get a job for a few weeks get themselves fired and get right back on it. Do it again and again.
> You are totally right about disability. I know of a couple of jackoffs that get it for "bad backs". They get a good laugh about it too. Personally if they were on fire I wouldn't piss on them to put it out.



I understand your fire but damn. Some people must have really stepped on your toes.  My sister and uncle are total dead beats who i can't stand so I can relate, it's just that i can see the bigger picture that if say 10 people even abused and one got it (and deserved it and also exaggerated obviously) I'd still say it is worth it.



athawulf said:


> Totally, and one of the reasons I feel we need aptitude tests similar to a drivers test before being able to purchase firearms. Speaking of a drivers test, we could add a basic intelligence test to that too



Agreed, I actually feel like intelligence should be a marker for a lot of things (average intelligence not super genius ).


----------



## BlackMesa (Apr 18, 2012)

flint757 said:


> I understand your fire but damn. Some people must have really stepped on your toes.  My sister and uncle are total dead beats who i can't stand so I can relate, it's just that i can see the bigger picture that if say 10 people even abused and one got it (and deserved it and also exaggerated obviously) I'd still say it is worth it.



Naw no one stepped on my toes. LOL. I just dont have any tolerance for people that are basically just a leach on society. It just pisses me off to no end. Guess its the way I was brought up. If you wanna live, buy toys, have a hobby, feed you kids, etc you better work and pay for it yourself. I do agree we dont need to trash the whole thing. I know there are alot of people out there needing some help. I just want the whole system overhauled from top to bottom so the right people get it and not lead to what we have today.


----------



## flint757 (Apr 18, 2012)

BlackMesa said:


> Naw no one stepped on my toes. LOL. I just dont have any tolerance for people that are basically just a leach on society. It just pisses me off to no end. Guess its the way I was brought up. If you wanna live, buy toys, have a hobby, feed you kids, etc you better work and pay for it yourself. I do agree we dont need to trash the whole thing. I know there are alot of people out there needing some help. I just want the whole system overhauled from top to bottom so the right people get it and not lead to what we have today.



That I can totally agree with. Problem is the funds are federal and the plans are state so there is zero coordination. This is exactly why state by state policies fail IMO. Some states do have good policies though for welfare (not mine )


----------



## caskettheclown (Apr 18, 2012)

The real question is why is anyone taking him seriously anymore?

If I needed a person to help me survive the zombie apocalypse i'd call him but thats about it.


----------



## The Buttmonkey (Apr 18, 2012)

TRENCHLORD said:


> Exactly, but that's a state law, not federal.



Wheeee! We can have big government at a state level but not at a federal level!

Wait what?


----------



## flint757 (Apr 19, 2012)

The Buttmonkey said:


> Wheeee! We can have big government at a state level but not at a federal level!
> 
> Wait what?



Yeah people don't seem to get that there is little difference other than the fact that you can jump ship, but most people are set where they live so that doesn't really apply either. (for most people that is)


----------



## TRENCHLORD (Apr 19, 2012)

The Buttmonkey said:


> Wheeee! We can have big government at a state level but not at a federal level!
> 
> Wait what?


 
Must have mis-understood that I was acknowledging it as fact, not supporting it . Big difference actually.
For the record, I do oppose state required car insurance.
What I do believe in with reguards to all insurance is SELF insurance.
Pay yourself instead of the insurance companies.
Same goes for loans. They're bullshit anyways.
Just pay yourself every month (open a dedicated account) instead of the bank and buy cash only.

Works for me .


----------



## flint757 (Apr 19, 2012)

TRENCHLORD said:


> Must have mis-understood that I was acknowledging it as fact, not supporting it . Big difference actually.
> For the record, I do oppose state required car insurance.
> What I do believe in with reguards to all insurance is SELF insurance.
> Pay yourself instead of the insurance companies.
> ...



In a pleasant world that would work, but assholes don't always carry insurance (and those same people are broke) then I'm footing the bill or having to keep full coverage. 

Lots of things would be nice if we lived in a perfect world, but we don't sadly.


----------



## Adam Of Angels (Apr 19, 2012)

TRENCHLORD said:


> Must have mis-understood that I was acknowledging it as fact, not supporting it . Big difference actually.
> For the record, I do oppose state required car insurance.
> What I do believe in with reguards to all insurance is SELF insurance.
> Pay yourself instead of the insurance companies.
> ...




When you are in a car accident, it's your fault, and somebody else gets hurt, and that person seeks money to compensate for their suffering and medical bills, do you want them to sue you or your insurance company? Mandatory car insurance doesn't only pertain to your needs as a driver.


----------



## TRENCHLORD (Apr 19, 2012)

Adam Of Angels said:


> When you are in a car accident, it's your fault, and somebody else gets hurt, and that person seeks money to compensate for their suffering and medical bills, do you want them to sue you or your insurance company? Mandatory car insurance doesn't only pertain to your needs as a driver.


 
Yeah , I have carried liability from time to time .
It always pisses me off when making that payment though.
IF people would just stop driving like maniacs, it would be very hard to wreck any late model vehicle.


----------



## flint757 (Apr 19, 2012)

TRENCHLORD said:


> Yeah , I have carried liability from time to time .
> It always pisses me off when making that payment though.
> IF people would just stop driving like maniacs, it would be very hard to wreck any late model vehicle.



Dude in Houston i don't know what it is, but if it even just sprinkles expect like 5 accidents. 

When it snows on those super rare occasions it's like the apocalypse. Apparently weather plus angry impatient drivers =pile ups. Hell there were like 3 car accidents on my way home today. 

In other words yes that would be a good solution, but sadly people like my sister and my old asian boss are on the road to reek havoc.


----------



## Necris (Apr 19, 2012)

Ted Nugent&#8217;s Craziest Quotes | Addicting Info


----------



## ghostred7 (Apr 19, 2012)

athawulf said:


> Totally, and one of the reasons I feel we need aptitude tests similar to a drivers test before being able to purchase firearms. Speaking of a drivers test, we could add a basic intelligence test to that too


This isn't directly at you (and I agree...but not just about firearms...MANY things), but I'm glad you used this analogy.

Why is someone owning a bunch of firearms being scrutinized more heavily than someone that has a car collection? When's the last time you heard of a gun accidentally killing a family of 4 on wet roads? Firearms don't kill people..... people kill people. 

As for the registration....my state (GA) doesn't have firearm registration...but I personally have no issue with it as I'm a law-abiding citizen that very much enjoys my 2A freedoms.

Few clarifications...

AR15 is the basis for the M16 and later M4 (which is a shorter M16A2). AR15 was converted from semi-auto by Colt and placed into a 3rnd burst/fully auto variant for the US Military in the form of the M16A1.

You CAN use the .223 round for hunting and not have to unload a bunch. I've known several people that use the .223 round and dropped deer in 1 shot. I personally agree something like the AR10 that's a 7.62mm (.30 cal) round is a better choice.

I have NO problem with someone that can afford it having a full arsenal or whatever they want within the limits of the law. It comes back to the earlier car analogy. I collect firearms and will continue to do so. Only 3 in my home at the moment (none of which are a rifle or shotgun  ). I *WILL* have an AR15 at some point. I *WILL* have a shotgun for home defense. Ya know what?? I'm **STILL** more likely to kill someone driving to work than I am owning all of these. Those that get their permits are required to take classes in several states. Additionally, most people that do ranges and such also practice the safety rules heavily.

Neither "The Nuge" or the NRA speaks for my stance on firearms directly...but the NRA is a heavy proponent in keeping that freedom alive. Nuge is getting old and off his rocker....nothing new there.


----------



## synrgy (Apr 19, 2012)

ghostred7 said:


> Firearms don't kill people..... people kill people.



I hate this (non)argument. 

A vehicle's intended purpose is to transport people/objects from one point to another. Death by vehicle is exception to the rule.

A baseball bat's intended purpose is to hit baseballs. Death by bat is exception to the rule.

A gun's intended purpose is to kill/maim/injure/damage/destroy. Death by gun is the rule; not the exception.


----------



## ghostred7 (Apr 19, 2012)

synrgy said:


> I hate this (non)argument.
> 
> A vehicle's intended purpose is to transport people/objects from one point to another. Death by vehicle is exception to the rule.
> 
> ...


The design is irrelevant as it still takes the human to do it and that's the core of the statement. All 3 are equally deadly in the hands of someone with ill intent and accidental death is caused in much greater quantities with at least one of them.


----------



## Pooluke41 (Apr 19, 2012)

ghostred7 said:


> The design is irrelevant as it still takes the human to do it and that's the core of the statement. All 3 are equally deadly in the hands of someone with ill intent and accidental death is caused in much greater quantities with at least one of them.



You could probably kill someone with a really stale baguette.

You can kill someone with most things.

The reason we have gun permits is because they are designed to kill or injure people. Just because you are a sane individual who safely uses their gun, it doesn't mean that others are.


----------



## synrgy (Apr 19, 2012)

ghostred7 said:


> The design is irrelevant as it still takes the human to do it and that's the core of the statement. All 3 are equally deadly in the hands of someone with ill intent and accidental death is caused in much greater quantities with at least one of them.



I disagree completely. The design is exactly the point.

Somebody could kill you with a crayon if they tried hard enough, but we're not talking about crayon laws, because crayons aren't designed to kill/maim/injure/damage/destroy.

But don't let me stop you from continually circumventing the point.


----------



## ghostred7 (Apr 19, 2012)

Pooluke41 said:


> You could probably kill someone with a really stale baguette.
> 
> You can kill someone with most things.
> 
> The reason we have gun permits is because they are designed to kill or injure people. Just because you are a sane individual who safely uses their gun, it doesn't mean that others are.


Oh, I totally agree with the last sentence. We KNOW the intentions of a weapon is to cause grievous bodily harm, no debate there. Some mentions of collectors having a bunch of firearms somehow makes them less responsible or more of a public threat is what irritates me. 

At the end of the day its all about responsibility when it comes to firearms. I support the right of every individual to have them should they be legally allowed (21 y/o, background check, etc), but above and beyond that, the responsibility and safety to do so weighs more than anything. 

Recently when training at my favorite range, there were a group of kids that where there (legally of course) but operating well below safety guidelines by loading/unloading behind the firing line as well as walking around loaded and not paying attention to muzzle awareness. The kid inadvertantly pointed it at me and my sig other + friends. I diffused the situation, called the range safety, and got them removed and placed into a class. Legally, I *could* have shot the kid (by kid, i mean 21 y/o still operating on a 15 y/o mindset...no offense to any young ppl here...but lack of experience with these things are the norm at those ages), but naturally didn't even though I was briefly in fear of my life. Responsibility and safety above all else.

Your typical badguys don't apply for permits, don't openly carry, and don't show tactical knowledge...they only want one thing. The person at the end of the barrel to die. 

Law abiding citizens that have permits and carry for defense of self or loved ones do so because there are people like in the last paragraph. It doesn't make them rednecks, domestic terrorists, etc....whether or not they have 1 firearm or 10.


synrgy said:


> I disagree completely. The design is exactly the point.
> 
> Somebody could kill you with a crayon if they tried hard enough, but we're not talking about crayon laws, because crayons aren't designed to kill/maim/injure/damage/destroy.
> 
> But don't let me stop you from continually circumventing the point.


 
But doesn't it, at the end of the day, come down to the person handling it? I'm not questioning nor disagreeing that weapons are specific designs....else they wouldn't be called weapons (not circumventing the point in other words).

We're going to keep circling on this. You have your stance, I have mine, neither of us have the right to try & change the others' stance. I will continue to support 2A and carry a concealed weapon b/c if someone tries to attack me while in public or break into my home....those first few seconds are more crucial than the time waiting for law enforcement to show up. I carry, my gf/wife/insert-title-here carries, and we're both well trained on what to do should, Gods forbid, we actually have to. People think that those who carry firearms want to kill someone or be "Mr badass"....farthest from the truth. I **NEVER** want to hurt another individual, but if it comes down to my life, or the lives of loved ones, i'll do what is necessary.

We probably should drop the gun debate or create another thread....b/c we'll just keep going back & forth as we're rightfully stuck in our beliefs. Oh... and yes, Uncle Ted is still a little off his rocker.


----------



## synrgy (Apr 19, 2012)

ghostred7 said:


> But doesn't it, at the end of the day, come down to the person handling it? I'm not questioning nor disagreeing that weapons are specific designs....else they wouldn't be called weapons (not circumventing the point in other words).



I get what you're saying here, but it just leads me to another inquiry: If one doesn't intend to use a gun for it's designed purpose, why do they need it? How is using an object for purposes other than what it was designed for "responsible"? 

Maybe this is going too far, but I personally don't view any _recreational_ use of a gun to be _responsible_. That's just my view/opinion, though, and I don't expect anyone to agree.

I get that "guns don't kill people" in so much as no inanimate object takes any action on its own (glasses don't see, guitars don't play), but my knee-jerk response is "people kill people more easily with guns". 

*edit* and look, I'm not trying to debate 2A, for the most part. I just observe that many Americans take what's in 2A and run absurdly far with it, just like they do most other laws.


----------



## tommychains (Apr 19, 2012)

I love the second amendment. I'm not some lunatic like ted nugent and i keep to myself. I bother noone and am working on becoming a member of the NRA. I may be young, but as a tax paying, hard working American, i want my guns. 

Idiots like Ted Nugent give us all a bad name.


----------



## MikeH (Apr 19, 2012)

I have nothing to add, minus the dude's Constitution shirt at 1:03 in the OP.


----------



## Randy (Apr 19, 2012)

I personally think there's nothing wrong with being a hobbiest shooter or keeping guns for hunting. Same goes for gun collecting as just a hobby; I mean, I collect more guitars than I have time to play so I can understand the appreciation of just having something because you think it's cool. I can also understand keeping a gun on you if you're in a profession that requires it, such as law enforcement, armored car, etc; and even security or taxi drivers, so long as they undergo very serious training, licensing and renewals. 

In my personal opinion, feeling like you need to carry a loaded gun around on you in public just to feel safe is paranoia and an unnecessary danger.


----------



## synrgy (Apr 19, 2012)

I'd also add that having the right under law to do something doesn't necessarily mean that one *should* do it, at least not any more than it would be reasonable to say that all laws are well grounded and make perfect sense.

I mean, sodomy is illegal in most states, but I don't expect that actually stops those inclined from sticking it to their respective partner's brown-eye.


----------



## ghostred7 (Apr 19, 2012)

synrgy said:


> I get what you're saying here, but it just leads me to another inquiry: If one doesn't intend to use a gun for it's designed purpose, why do they need it? How is using an object for purposes other than what it was designed for "responsible"?


The responsibility I'm talking about is the responsibility of using it to defend one's self or a loved one from a force of equivalent nature when necessary and there's no clear path to de-escalation.



synrgy said:


> Maybe this is going too far, but I personally don't view any _recreational_ use of a gun to be _responsible_. That's just my view/opinion, though, and I don't expect anyone to agree.


I cannot speak for the general populace, but the reason I practice at the range is to further ensure, should the need become necessary, than I'm more proficient in doing so. By being more proficient, there is less likelihood of collateral damage. That is also part of a responsibility that I believe all firearm owners should take to heart. Sure, lets not mix words, it does in fact make for more efficient killers in use of an object inteded for killing...but the one being killed will have been intent on doing the same to me, my other half, or one of my children.



synrgy said:


> I get that "guns don't kill people" in so much as no inanimate object takes any action on its own (glasses don't see, guitars don't play), but my knee-jerk response is "people kill people more easily with guns".


Totally agreed.



synrgy said:


> *edit* and look, I'm not trying to debate 2A, for the most part. I just observe that many Americans take what's in 2A and run absurdly far with it, just like they do most other laws.


Again, agreed. There are many that do. I don't perceive myself to be one of those many. I believe with force-in-kind. I'm not going to shoot someone coming at me with anything less than the force I can deliver to them and then claim self-defense. There are several people that take that self-defense too far and give the rest of us bad images, and proper training could improve that. For that reason, I also train martial arts and other hand-to-hand defensive tactics...so that I only have to rely on using my firearm should there be a truely imminent threat to my life or life of a loved one that I can't otherwise resolve. 

I think we're in a general understanding of each other. Thank you for a thorough discussion that has remained generally relaxed.


----------



## Treeunit212 (Apr 19, 2012)

Yeah...


----------



## BucketheadRules (Apr 19, 2012)

ITT bigoted, semi-lunatic idiot rock star makes bigoted, semi-lunatic idiot of self. Trenchlord says things. People say things back to Trenchlord. Randy acts as voice of reason.

Just a tl;dr for anyone who can't be bothered with all 7 pages.


----------



## -42- (Apr 19, 2012)

I wasn't aware anyone took Ted Nugent seriously.


----------



## flint757 (Apr 19, 2012)

ghostred7 said:


> Again, agreed. There are many that do. I don't perceive myself to be one of those many. I believe with force-in-kind. I'm not going to shoot someone coming at me with anything less than the force I can deliver to them and then claim self-defense. There are several people that take that self-defense too far and give the rest of us bad images, and proper training could improve that. For that reason, I also train martial arts and other hand-to-hand defensive tactics...so that I only have to rely on using my firearm should there be a truely imminent threat to my life or life of a loved one that I can't otherwise resolve.



Ya Know I'm a little surprised when people get a concealed carry license that they are not required to take some form of hand to hand combat classes. If your logic is self defense and all you are capable of shooting (even when shooting is just overkill and unjust) then you are going to shoot hence why guns are capable of more harm than good

Point. I think people should be forced to practice shooting (for accuracy) and take other forms of self defense so that they have real options when thinks get dirty. It isn't a last resort if you can't fight, it's the first thing you are going to reach for...



Randy said:


> In my personal opinion, feeling like you need to carry a loaded gun around on you in public just to feel safe is paranoia and an unnecessary danger.





synrgy said:


> I'd also add that having the right under law to do something doesn't necessarily mean that one *should* do it, at least not any more than it would be reasonable to say that all laws are well grounded and make perfect sense.
> 
> I mean, sodomy is illegal in most states, but I don't expect that actually stops those inclined from sticking it to their respective partner's brown-eye.



Agreed


----------



## TRENCHLORD (Apr 19, 2012)

BucketheadRules said:


> ITT bigoted, semi-lunatic idiot rock star makes bigoted, semi-lunatic idiot of self. Trenchlord says things. People say things back to Trenchlord. Randy acts as voice of reason.
> 
> Just a tl;dr for anyone who can't be bothered with all 7 pages.


 
Yes , I do publicly apologize for thread derailment.
Wasn't my original intent.
This whole presidential race already has me worked up into a goofiness .

I stand by my loathing of expanding government though.
When you look at individual issues, there are needs for increased regulation, but when you step back and look at what ussually results from government expansion, it seems like a negative in the big picture.








http://www.businessinsider.com/whats-the-gsa-scandal-2012-4


----------



## Necris (Apr 19, 2012)

I think everyone knows that as a a *self-admitted pedophile* as much as Ted likes to wave his gun around and make empty threats towards government officials for the entertainment of his fans the only time he would conceivably point that gun at another person would be to help "convince" another underage girl to have sex with/preform oral sex on him.
The man is a total bastard and the fact that Mitt Romney would seek his endorsement shows a lack of judgement that I'd rather not see from a presidential nominee.


----------



## Semichastny (Apr 19, 2012)

i just have to say that I really wish I could take conservatives in general seriously... It's just I care to much about facts and reality.


----------



## flint757 (Apr 19, 2012)

Semichastny said:


> i just have to say that I really wish I could take conservatives in general seriously... It's just I care to much about facts and reality.



I'm not a conservative, but in your wording it kind of implies that "liberals" are about fact and reality which isn't by default true either. A good politician wouldn't be so easy to place in one party or another because issues aren't that black and white. Besides conservatism and liberalism are only 2 parts of the political spectrum and by default do not necessarily coincide with Democrat or Republican. 

There are conservatives on this forum who are quite sane and rational so generalization does not apply.

Also, is it just me or are the names of our parties a tad bit ironic in how irrelevant they are to what they support/do.


----------



## Semichastny (Apr 19, 2012)

flint757 said:


> I'm not a conservative, but in your wording it kind of implies that "liberals" are about fact and reality which isn't by default true either."


^
1. I Don't really see how what your saying makes any sense at all, could you explain what you mean by that to me?



flint757 said:


> A good politician wouldn't be so easy to place in one party or another because issues aren't that black and white. Besides conservatism and liberalism are only 2 parts of the political spectrum and by default do not necessarily coincide with Democrat or Republican.


^
2. I'm not sure if your responding to my point because I never brought up politicians, my thoughts on the spectrum, or tried to equate conservatism with republicans.



flint757 said:


> There are conservatives on this forum who are quite sane and rational so generalization does not apply.


^
3. "...Not only were [Tea Party members] the most factually incorrect, but they were also the most overconfident and close-minded." -Chris Mooney, The Republican Brain. The quote is quick example from cited research on the topic. Generalizations frequency come from ignorance or bias, so I will turn this on you and ask is it not a generalation if you strike down my by point by saying some conservatives on this board are rational as this does not discredit the notion that hundreds of millions of people may have the flaws I mentioned. It rather spins another generalization without facts to back it up.



flint757 said:


> Also, is it just me or are the names of our parties a tad bit ironic in how irrelevant they are to what they support/do.


^4. Totally agree with you on that!


----------



## flint757 (Apr 19, 2012)

Semichastny said:


> ^
> 1. I Don't really see how what your saying makes any sense at all, could you explain what you mean by that to me?



Because generally when one makes an assertion that this side who does X it kind of leads to the idea that your implying that the other does Y. Probably makes less sense and you didn't say what I wrote so I concede that it was irrelevant. People use terms like conservative and liberal in too broad of a way is my point and since they do coincide with certain point of views can lead to over generalization which you did do. It did not sound like you were referring to politicians, it sounded more like you calling all conservatives wrong and/or stupid? (couldn't figure out the word I'm looking for here ) 



> ^
> 2. I'm not sure if your responding to my point because I never brought up politicians, my thoughts on the spectrum, or tried to equate conservatism with republicans.



It had nothing to do with you. It was just my addendum to give you my opinion. 



> ^
> 3. "...Not only were [Tea Party members] the most factually incorrect, but they were also the most overconfident and close-minded." -Chris Mooney, The Republican Brain. The quote is quick example from cited research on the topic. Generalizations frequency come from ignorance or bias, so I will turn this on you and ask is it not a generalation if you strike down my by point by saying some conservatives on this board are rational as this does not discredit the notion that hundreds of millions of people may have the flaws I mentioned. It rather spins another generalization without facts to back it up.



My point discredits your oversimplification. Being conservative can mean pretty much anything. Further more there is only like 300 or something million people in the US most in the middle and some on the "liberal" side. The group of "crazy conservatives" who want to control everybody's actions like Santorum or the tea party or anyone else who fits their behavior are most definitely a minority otherwise Santorum and Newt would still be running or Romney would have a landslide victory in November (doubtful). I didn't generalize your post or conservatives as a whole, I did however imply some things and those things can be ignored if you wish.


> ^4. Totally agree with you on that!


----------



## ST3MOCON (Apr 19, 2012)

Mordacain said:


> Ah the old slippery slope argument which has been proven both rhetorically and historically invalid.
> 
> That being said, there are fewer overall gun restrictions now than in years past. Fully Automatic restrictions have been in effect ever since the National Firearm Act of 1934 in an effort to combat the prolific gang violence so there is nothing new there. Some states allow the ownership of Class 3 weapons with the proper permits (firearms regulated by the NFA).
> 
> Of real interest here is The Nuge's endorsement of Mitt Romney, who signed a permanent Assault Weapons Ban in 2004 for Massachusetts. This is where you see the absolute bat-shit crazy right-wing mentality hard at work in my opinion. The way I understand that idea is something like this: "any conservative candidate, regardless of what that candidate actually endorses or signs into law, must be better than the liberal candidate simply because he/she _says _he/she is a conservative."




I don't really see how the "old slippery slope arguement" has ever been proven invalid in and circumstance. Restrictions are always being pushed for and they will never stop. Look at any other country where gun control was pushed for to see this invalid slippery slope arguement at work. Id like to know where you get your information about this subject and it would be wise to do some research on it as well. Are there really less restrictions now then in the past? That is the funniest "fact" in your arguement. people have fallen victim to government and media scare tactics. Gun control does not stop criminals from
Purchasing firearms. you might choose to let one of your freedoms be taken away but I will not. 
Also when did I say I would vote for mitt Romney? Your lack of knowledge and assumptions astound me. That is not a personal attack that is fact. All I did here was defend the second amendment. anyways this is exactly why I stay out of sevenstring politics. All I ever see is people trying to act smart and masturbate their egos. I'll see you somewhere else in this forum that has something we might agree on.


----------



## highlordmugfug (Apr 19, 2012)

ST3MOCON said:


> Also when did I say I would vote for mitt Romney? Your lack of knowledge and assumptions astound me. That is not a personal attack that is fact. All I did here was defend the second amendment. anyways this is exactly why I stay out of sevenstring politics. All I ever see is people trying to act smart and masturbate their egos. I'll see you somewhere else in this forum that has something we might agree on.


Reread his post again: unless you're Ted Nugent, he didn't say you were endorsing Romney.


----------



## ST3MOCON (Apr 19, 2012)

^ maybe I am Ted Nu-djent.


----------



## wlfers (Apr 19, 2012)

^


----------



## Gothic Headhunter (Apr 19, 2012)

synrgy said:


> I hate this (non)argument.
> 
> A vehicle's intended purpose is to transport people/objects from one point to another. Death by vehicle is exception to the rule.
> 
> ...


Technically, a veihical's intended purpose is to be opperated by a person. Same with a basball bat or anything else. Their purpose isn't nessicarialy to transport people or to hit baseball's, its to help the user in whatever they are doing. You could use a car for spare parts and leave nothing but the frame behind, and then sell the parts to make money. You could use a baseball bat as a guitar neck if you were trying to build a schecter replica. The only reason they exist is to be used however the user sees fit, not for what they might be best at doing.


----------



## highlordmugfug (Apr 19, 2012)

Gothic Headhunter said:


> The only reason they exist is to be used however the user sees fit, not for what they might be best at doing.


Bullshit. No one is out there making baseball bats/spoons/cars/hats/umbrellas/etc and thinking "LOL I wonder what kind of crazy shit people are going to do with whatever the fuck this thing we're manufacturing is."

EDIT: Just because they CAN be used for other things, doesn't change the fact that they have intended uses: purposes for which they were designed for. (to the same effect as the first half of this post) When spoons were invented, they didn't just fill the market with then, and when asked what they were for, reply "LOL make it your own maaaaaaaaannnn," or "To be operated by a person. Like, whoa."


----------



## flint757 (Apr 19, 2012)

highlordmugfug said:


> Bullshit. No one is out there making baseball bats/spoons/cars/hats/umbrellas/etc and thinking "LOL I wonder what kind of crazy shit people are going to do with whatever the fuck this thing we're manufacturing is."
> 
> EDIT: Just because they CAN be used for other things, doesn't change the fact that they have intended uses: purposes for which they were designed for. (to the same effect as the first half of this post) When spoons were invented, they didn't just fill the market with then, and when asked what they were for, reply "LOL make it your own maaaaaaaaannnn," or "To be operated by a person. Like, whoa."



I don't know what your talking about

I use my gun as a flower pot

(being sarcastic FYI )

and agree everything has an intended purpose...


----------



## Gothic Headhunter (Apr 20, 2012)

highlordmugfug said:


> Bullshit. No one is out there making baseball bats/spoons/cars/hats/umbrellas/etc and thinking "LOL I wonder what kind of crazy shit people are going to do with whatever the fuck this thing we're manufacturing is."
> 
> EDIT: Just because they CAN be used for other things, doesn't change the fact that they have intended uses: purposes for which they were designed for. (to the same effect as the first half of this post) When spoons were invented, they didn't just fill the market with then, and when asked what they were for, reply "LOL make it your own maaaaaaaaannnn," or "To be operated by a person. Like, whoa."


Yes, they do have an intended purpose, but does that mean that's how they have to be used by every person all the time? Of course not, anyone can use whatever they want for whatever they want. If I was protesting and wanted to buy a CD so I could smash it, I'm sure who ever was selling it wouldn't be bothered by it. I get what you're saying, but it's not 100% right all the time. Also, this thread has nothing to do with Ted Nugent anymore.


----------



## wlfers (Apr 20, 2012)

Gothic Headhunter said:


> Technically, a veihical's intended purpose is to be opperated by a person.





Gothic Headhunter said:


> The only reason they exist is to be used however the user sees fit, not for what they might be best at doing.



If the second statement is true then what if the owner of the vehicle doesn't want to operate it? 

I just find it odd you went out of your way to say the main purpose of a vehicle isn't to transport, it is to be operated by a person.


----------



## TRENCHLORD (Apr 20, 2012)

Gun restrictions make no difference IMO.
People will always find a way to indulge their evil lust.

World Trade Centers were brought down with box cutters and committed evil people.
Look at the shit that goes down in prisons without guns.


----------



## Mordacain (Apr 20, 2012)

ST3MOCON said:


> I don't really see how the "old slippery slope arguement" has ever been proven invalid in and circumstance. Restrictions are always being pushed for and they will never stop. Look at any other country where gun control was pushed for to see this invalid slippery slope arguement at work. Id like to know where you get your information about this subject and it would be wise to do some research on it as well. Are there really less restrictions now then in the past? That is the funniest "fact" in your arguement. people have fallen victim to government and media scare tactics. Gun control does not stop criminals from
> Purchasing firearms. you might choose to let one of your freedoms be taken away but I will not.



With regards to the slippery slop as a logical fallacy:

Cite one example where the slippery slope argument holds? The closest example I can think of is the Patriot Act, but even that was more the republic-controlled government using fear and misinformation to foist a anti-Constitution piece of legislation on the unsuspecting American populace. Specifically though, I said the slippery slope argument (as a whole) has been rhetorically defeated time and again; it's actually a very simple concept. Here are a few scholarly examples high-lighting various logical fallacies ("slippery slope" included):

Fallacies

Purdue OWL: Logic in Argumentative Writing

Logical Fallacies and the Art of Debate

In its simplest terms though, this statement explains it very well:

"Slippery Slope Fallacy *Explanation*

Slippery slope arguments falsely assume that one thing must lead to another. They begin by suggesting that if we do one thing then that will lead to another, and before we know it well be doing something that we dont want to do. They conclude that we therefore shouldnt do the first thing. The problem with these arguments is that it is possible to do the first thing that they mention without going on to do the other things; restraint is possible.
*Example*

(1) If you buy a Green Day album, then next youll be buying Buzzcocks albums, and before you know it youll be a punk with green hair and everything.
(2) You dont want to become a punk.
Therefore:
(3) You shouldnt buy a Green Day album.
This argument commits the slippery slope fallacy because it is perfectly possible to buy a Green Day album without going on to become a punk; we could buy the album and then stop there. The conclusion therefore hasnt been proven, because the arguments first premise is false.


I am referencing that from http://www.logicalfallacies.info/presumption/slippery-slope/; it is not my own work, just the simplest explanation of it as a logical fallacy I could find in 20 seconds. Basically, the initial premise makes a broad-sweeping claim that can't be verified which invalidates all further conclusions derived from it.

With regards to doing research, I keep it simple: GOOGLE the topic & then check the sources' bibliography. Before that I use to go to libraries and actually read published works when I just had to find something out.

If you find something without references cited, then look for something else that has the reference. Despite Wikipedia being "unreliable" because anyone can edit it, the references bear out any information you find there. This is basic grade-school stuff here - you look for the Bibliography and verify the information is valid by cross-referencing the sources.

Specifically, with regard to gun laws, this Wiki article has a nice, easy to follow layout: Gun laws in the United States (by state) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Though that article requires verification, its easy enough to do, just reference the law you want to verify and click on it...most of them are linked to that specific states' .gov address detailing the law itself; for the ones that are not, search for the law's code and the state and you find where its published online.

As far as determining there are _fewer_ gun restrictions today one simply has to research the "Assault Weapons Ban" and compare against current legislation; one will find there is no current Assault Weapons Ban at a Federal level, and only some states have codified their own version of it. The Assault Weapons Ban was the most restricted firearms have ever been in this country, with that legislation expired, it stands to reason gun legislation as a whole is less restrictive. 



> Also when did I say I would vote for mitt Romney? Your lack of knowledge and assumptions astound me. That is not a personal attack that is fact. All I did here was defend the second amendment. anyways this is exactly why I stay out of sevenstring politics. All I ever see is people trying to act smart and masturbate their egos. I'll see you somewhere else in this forum that has something we might agree on.



I never said you would vote for Romney; I said Ted Nugent endorses Romney, which was a mere recognition of words the Nuge himself said.


----------



## Gothic Headhunter (Apr 20, 2012)

athawulf said:


> If the second statement is true then what if the owner of the vehicle doesn't want to operate it?
> 
> I just find it odd you went out of your way to say the main purpose of a vehicle isn't to transport, it is to be operated by a person.


I had not cosidered that, thanks for pointing it out. Anyway,it's purpose is still to do whatever the user (or owner, in this case) wants, even if the user/owner just likes having it and never uses it, or just has it.


----------



## Semichastny (Apr 20, 2012)

TRENCHLORD said:


> World Trade Centers were brought down with box cutters and committed evil people.



for the sake of argument could you give me factual reasons why they decided to engage in those attacks? I agree that it was an evil action, but don't be so naive.


----------



## TRENCHLORD (Apr 20, 2012)

Semichastny said:


> for the sake of argument could you give me factual reasons why they decided to engage in those attacks? I agree that it was an evil action, but don't be so naive.


 
Why? I fail to see why the reason matters. The means by which they assumed control of the planes was/is my point.

They could have broken a toothbrush in two and used it as a dagger for that matter. (good ole prison shank )

The people who intend violence will always find a way (where there's a will there's a way).

I do believe in an entry-level restriction which prohibits those who have already by court of law been shown to have violent behavoral problems.

Beyond trying to keep guns out of the hands of violent crime convicts there lies no advantage IMO.


----------



## Jakke (Apr 20, 2012)

Well, at least he won't have the Secret Service to worry about anymore:

Ted Nugent resolves issue with Secret Service


----------



## Waelstrum (Apr 20, 2012)

EDIT: ^Good, I would hate to see him prove himself right.




TRENCHLORD said:


> Why? I fail to see why the reason matters. The means by which they assumed control of the planes was/is my point.
> 
> They could have broken a toothbrush in two and used it as a dagger for that matter. (good ole prison shank )
> 
> ...



I see gun control to be a bit like car control. Just by making something illegal, you won't stop violent criminals from getting guns. However, if you have a test that must be passed and updated, then you can prevent accidents caused by the stupid, mentally handicapped, and/or untrained. I think we can all agree that there are some important safety precautions that must be taken when dealing with guns (and cars), so anyone who can't follow that must not be allowed the gun (or car). There should also be a competency test. You don't let someone who has no idea how to drive get in a car without a fully licensed person with them, they can't go on the highway, etc. The same should apply with guns until such a time that the novice has proved capable of not seriously damaging someone/thing. This doesn't impede on the freedoms of the responsible gun owners, it just makes sure there aren't (many) irresponsible gun owners. Would I be right in guessing that these sort of measures are already in place?


----------



## Semichastny (Apr 20, 2012)

TRENCHLORD said:


> Why? I fail to see why the reason matters. The means by which they assumed control of the planes was/is my point.
> 
> They could have broken a toothbrush in two and used it as a dagger for that matter. (good ole prison shank )
> 
> ...



1. I think using a terrorist organization that had millions in funding and received training from the CIA as an example is kind of silly, and the reason matters because what you perceive as evil might actually have understandable points backing it up which can change it from an easy cop out of labeling someone evil or a criminal.

2. People who are violent will always find a way true, but owning a handgun raises the persons risk of being killed, gun owners are more likely to kill a family member, there are limited situations where having a gun will prevent a crime, and statistically gun owner ship stopping criminals in break-ins and other acts that involve entering private property is statically minimal.

3. There is actually a plenty of points to extend gun control past entry level rebuff. A person might not be a convict or a criminal but that doesn't mean they wont use it inappropriately. A person can be drunk or on drugs, experience a traumatic event that could compel them to use the weapon, witness a crime or what they believe is a crime and act on it, racism and other social factors as well. There are dozens and dozens of things that can change a otherwise normal persons mental state. Not to mention the 500,000 guns that are stolen every year. Also look whats happening in mexico, the cartels can buy guns easily in Texas with little to no restriction commit the crime and dump them because they are so easy to get.

that being said I still support gun ownership and I am super excited to get my first firearms this summer.


----------



## wlfers (Apr 20, 2012)

Ted Nugent agrees to plead guilty in illegal kill - Yahoo! News


----------



## The Buttmonkey (Apr 25, 2012)

My uncle recently went through a traumatic divorce and as a bi-polar man handled it very poorly. One day he got hammered and high on all matter of drugs and drove his truck to his ex-wife's boyfriend's house with the intent to kill him. His pistol was in his truck. Luckily (?), he wrecked in front of his driveway (flipping his truck) and was seriously injured. Amazingly my parents were randomly there that day and were the first people to identify the wrecked man as my uncle. He was lifelighted to Grady where he recovered. Amazingly, he is in no legal trouble and even still has his driver's license despite the hospital's evidence of multiple hard drugs in his system. 

As somebody neutral to gun control laws, where could they have prevented or enabled him to have a weapon at this time?


On the sad side, last night my aunt left her very good boyfriend (believe me, I've met them both) and went back to her unstable ex-husband.


----------



## flint757 (Apr 25, 2012)

The Buttmonkey said:


> My uncle recently went through a traumatic divorce and as a bi-polar man handled it very poorly. One day he got hammered and high on all matter of drugs and drove his truck to his ex-wife's boyfriend's house with the intent to kill him. His pistol was in his truck. Luckily (?), he wrecked in front of his driveway (flipping his truck) and was seriously injured. Amazingly my parents were randomly there that day and were the first people to identify the wrecked man as my uncle. He was lifelighted to Grady where he recovered. Amazingly, he is in no legal trouble and even still has his driver's license despite the hospital's evidence of multiple hard drugs in his system.
> 
> As somebody neutral to gun control laws, where could they have prevented or enabled him to have a weapon at this time?
> 
> ...



Even though he was going to potentially kill her?? That's nuts. Unfortunately other than limiting gun rights of everyone there is no way to prevent such things. The age old freedom vs security debate that I'm too busy to get involved in at this time


----------



## Waelstrum (Apr 25, 2012)

^That's why I don't really think that having a gun should be a right. It should be a privilege, like owning a car. If you are shown to be irresponsible enough to misuse your gun (or car) then you're not allowed to have it any more.


----------



## flint757 (Apr 25, 2012)

Waelstrum said:


> ^That's why I don't really think that having a gun should be a right. It should be a privilege, like owning a car. If you are shown to be irresponsible enough to misuse your gun (or car) then you're not allowed to have it any more.



Agreed 

He should have lost his license for both and got his weapons confiscated, but our legal system is never that thorough sadly.


----------



## ST3MOCON (Apr 25, 2012)

Gothic Headhunter said:


> I know that they're are other restrictions, in my state you need a separate liscens for each hand gun, even pellet guns have similar restictions. But that is the biggest one that I know of. And yes, being a pussy has something to do with it. Anyone can kill something with an M4, it takes some more skill to use a shot gun (using slugs) or similar weapon. If some one shys away fom challenges like that, then to me, they are a pussy.



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


----------



## flint757 (Apr 25, 2012)

ST3MOCON said:


> 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



Accept that people who are pro gun are usually republican and Bush took away loads of rights for "temporary safety". How is that any different?

In any case I think guns that have ridiculous clip sizes are the only thing that should be regulated (and auto's). Rifles and shotguns you have to reload so if there happens to be some crisis situation where a psycho decides to go on a killing spree he won't get as far. That's my opinion. I do feel like gun ownership is a privilege not a right and that there should be not necessarily more red tape, but more required of someone other than a one day class at the NRA. I think I posted my full opinion on this thread so I'm not going to restate the rest.


----------



## ST3MOCON (Apr 25, 2012)

Mordacain said:


> With regards to the slippery slop as a logical fallacy



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.

[FONT=arial,helvetica][SIZE=+1]Right to keep and bear arms [/SIZE][/FONT] 

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.


----------



## flint757 (Apr 25, 2012)

ST3MOCON said:


> Logical Fallacies and the Art of Debate
> 
> *Slippery slope.* A slippery slope argument is not always a fallacy
> 
> ...



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.


----------



## Mordacain (Apr 25, 2012)

ST3MOCON said:


> Logical Fallacies and the Art of Debate
> 
> *Slippery slope.* A slippery slope argument is not always a fallacy
> 
> ...



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 (Apr 25, 2012)

flint757 said:


> 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 (Apr 25, 2012)

Mordacain said:


> 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 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 (Apr 25, 2012)

ST3MOCON said:


> 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 (Apr 25, 2012)

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 (Apr 25, 2012)

ST3MOCON said:


> 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 (Apr 25, 2012)

ST3MOCON said:


> 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 (Apr 25, 2012)

^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 (Apr 25, 2012)

ST3MOCON said:


> ^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 fuckers running around shooting people without direction because they suspected they were a loyalist (which happened plenty enough as it was).


----------



## highlordmugfug (Apr 26, 2012)

Mordacain said:


> *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 (Apr 26, 2012)

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


----------



## flint757 (Apr 26, 2012)

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


----------



## shredguitar7 (Apr 26, 2012)

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 (Apr 26, 2012)

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 (Apr 26, 2012)

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 (Apr 26, 2012)

this is exactly what happens when you put guns in the hands of extremist right wing fucks. 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 (Apr 26, 2012)

shredguitar7 said:


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


----------



## Gothic Headhunter (Apr 26, 2012)

ST3MOCON said:


> 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 (Apr 26, 2012)

Gothic Headhunter said:


> 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 (Apr 26, 2012)

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 (Apr 26, 2012)

Thanks, I could not find anything on it anywhere.


----------



## Treeunit212 (Apr 28, 2012)

More guns doesn't reduce gun crime.


----------

