posted
If they only associate with other NRA members, how are they going to increase their membership? Oh well, sounds good to me.
Posts: 2010 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
No court case, huh? So, Nugent gets to decide all by himself who the bad guys are?
Great. So much for the Constitution the NRA keeps saying they're there to defend. Apparently, all they're interested in is the Second Amendment.
Posts: 2454 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I liked seeing Nugent shaking hands with DeLay and supporting him at the NRA benefit dinner for DeLay. Evil people SHOULD congregate in one place like that, makes them easier to track and eliminate.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Not agreeing with what Nugent said, biut I think it's just another example of the fanatacism, emphasis, and enthusiasm that have become the hallmark of modern political discussion. Noise and style over substance and reason.
You know, comments like "Evil people SHOULD congregate in one place like that, makes them easier to track and eliminate."
In all seriousness, I see no substantive difference in what Lyrhawn said and what Nugent said. The only thing I think you can argue is that Lyrhawn isn't actually seriously suggesting that NRA members should be rounded up and killed, but I think Nugent isn't either, in the sense you all are taking it. (another difference is that Nugent is identifying criminals where Lyrhawn is identifying political opponents, but that's actually in Nugent's favor, so we'll ignore it).
Neither, BTW, do I see much difference between Goody Scrivner's "let's give them their own state" and white separatism. (edit: or Narrativum's statement)
Just wanted to throw those thougts out there before anyone breaks their arm patting themselves on the back in their enlightenment.
*having tossed the hand grenade, Jim-Me now withdraws back to the shadows*
posted
Sounds kinda like a hard-rock version of Eddie Murphy's satire of Rasta music:
"Kill all the bad guys, Kill all the bad guys, Kill all the bad guys, But let them buy my records first!" Posts: 2473 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I was just being sarcastic. Despite my not liking what Nugent and the NRA stand for, I have no problem really with them actually saying it. I believe in what Voltaire said (well, probably the ONLY thing of Voltaire's I'll buy), 'I may not like what you have to say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.'
Paraphrased because I don't remember the actual quote, but that's a fair approximation.
Besides, the more inflammatory and outlandish the NRA and Nugent get, the more foolish they make themselves look. I don't have to worry about actually trying to undo them, they will undo themselves in time without any help from me.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Look, I believe that Nugent and anyone else in the NRA can say anything they want. And I can point out in return that he sounds like an idiot for saying it, and also that he sounds like he doesn't value the rest of the Constitution the way he apparently does the Second Amendment. I'm afraid that I think that if he said what he is quoted as saying, he is about as unAmerican as they come. I have my problems with the judicial system as well (I've worked in and around it and know it's shortcomings all too well), but I think it works better than summary executions, which is what Nugent seemed to be advocating.
Posts: 2454 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Beanny, were you talking about Nugent, or me?
All I'm saying is that it's entirely possible that he's making the same kind of exaggerations you guys are. Sure, be happy that your political opponent is giving himself a black eye... that's sensible! Just remember that's how *you* might come across, too, on occasion.
posted
You and your psycho 2nd amendment. You should force a referendum to have it repealed, or label the NRA a terrorist organization, or something...
Posts: 1996 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
[Can you imagine if they took an amendment out? In decades to come, they'd always be the missing number. Children would learn to count 1,3,4,5... they would ask about the missing two...]
Posts: 8473 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Does anyone else remember that movie Born Yesterday where she makes up a song about the amendments? It's a parody of the 12 days of Christmas, and all I remember is that number five is "Don't rat on yourself!"
Posts: 285 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I was going to speculate on that, but I thought the "missing amendment" was funnier ... not that the shifting down isn't funny, or anything, but...
posted
I have a quick favor to ask. Can someone copy the article into a post and post it in the thread? I cannot open the link Tom gave on my PC at work. I am on an intranet that runs on an older verion of Netscape and is very buggy, especially when I am not supposed to be on the internet in the first place.
Secondly, I would say more if I could read the link, but sadly, you sometimes have to understand the man to understand more than just soundbites and quotables etc...
Ted used to live near where my parents were raised in rural Northwest PA. Now, 99% of these people drive a full-size truck, with a Leer cap on the bed and an NRA sticker in the back window. I would venture that there are more NRA members than PTO members by far. How do I know? I live here.
I am not in any way defending what Ted said or did. My uncle used to play guitar with him and I know he is a bit on the fringe when it comes to guns, archery, or hunting. But when you hang out in the country, play cards, drink beer, and ride ATVs and 4X4s with the poeple he grew up with, the picture is a bit clearer.
I once heard the scary quote that "One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter". And, again, I am not defending Ted or anything he has said. But for every person that is offended for what he is saying, there are whole bunches of people who think he is spot on.
For example:
In Pennsylvania, public schools are closed for Buck Day and Doe Day where virtually everyone goes hunting. Many of us shoot during archery, musketball, and rifle season. Some hunters also gain landowner tags and bonus tags. They typically have to register for these tags months in advance. Seriously, this is very much a way of life where I live.
My co-worker bought her husband camoflage sheets (Mossy Oak to be exact) out of the Cabelas catalog for their new master bedroom suite. All the curtains, towels etc are all in Mossy Oak camo.
For many of these people, this is a way of life...
HOUSTON (AP) - With an assault weapon in each hand, rocker and gun rights advocate Ted Nugent urged National Rifle Association members to be "hardcore, radical extremists demanding the right to self defense."
Speaking at the NRA's annual convention Saturday, Nugent said each NRA member should try to enroll 10 new members over the next year and associate only with other members.
"Let's next year sit here and say, 'Holy smokes, the NRA has 40 million members now,'" he said. "No one is allowed at our barbecues unless they are an NRA member. Do that in your life."
Nugent sang and played a guitar painted with red and white stripes for the crowd at Houston's downtown convention center.
He drew the most cheers when he told gun owners they should never give up their right to bear arms and should use their guns to protect themselves if needed.
"Remember the Alamo! Shoot 'em!" he screamed to applause. "To show you how radical I am, I want carjackers dead. I want rapists dead. I want burglars dead. I want child molesters dead. I want the bad guys dead. No court case. No parole. No early release. I want 'em dead. Get a gun and when they attack you, shoot 'em."
posted
Thanks for the article. Yes he is a bit frightening, isn't he? Well, truth be told, I do not agree with his stance specifically on killing and being "hardcore", but I do agree with the right to bear arms for several reasons.
As far as congregating with other NRA members, this is already a reality here in PA. There are several hunting lodges where you have to be a member to use the facilities. Nearly all of the shooting ranges are the same way And, I might add, they are quite nice in many cases. We just had a family reunion in one such place, and it was gorgeous.
There is a saying among people who might agree with Ted:
"The only people who should fear honest people with guns are criminals and politicians."
Now, I personally do not belong to the NRA. But I do own rifles etc..., I do hunt, and I do support and appreciate the right to bear arms. Do I need a gun for self-defense? No, not really. But I do appreciate having a loaded rifle in my locked gun cabinet for critter control and in case my dog gets in a fight with something bigger than herself...
Posts: 1870 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
The problem is that alot of dishonest people, including criminals and politicians, own gun because of the 2nd amendment. Also, being honest doesn't mean you are to be trusted with a gun. You can be clumsy, jumpy, or just plain insane. Also, someone can take the gun of an honest gun-owner and do things that he couldn't have done had he not had the gun of the honest gun-owner.
Posts: 1996 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Also, being honest doesn't mean you are to be trusted with a gun.
DH, You are right.
It takes less than that in PA. You need to be 18, have a valid state-issued ID, and money. They do a background check on the spot, but that does not preclude honesty, either.
Also, I am not trying to support or condone Ted's comments or to support my quote about guns. This is a mentality that many people in rural PA hold dear to them. That is all I am saying.
Posts: 1870 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
But none of those are designed purely for killing. There's no peaceful use of a gun.
That said, I'm in favour of everybody being allowed to carry a rifle, as part of a disciplined militia, like Norway has. Handguns, though, are ridiculous. They have zero military power, and very little self-defensive power.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'd like to make the comment that the state of mind in Norway is quite different from that that exists in some parts of the United States.
Posts: 8473 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
What kills more people a year? Guns or motor vehicles?
Also, KOM. I can defend my home with a handgun. Very well, actually. But, to be very honest, I prefer a pump-action pistol-grip shotgun for home defense. I own neither, but I have my preferences.
Posts: 1870 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I wonder how often people get shot in actual, valid self-defense, as opposed to by mistake or in aggression? Anyone have statistics on this?
Also, please note that the 2nd Amendment does not, in fact, provide for self-defense, but for a 'well-regulated militia'.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
mph, just how does a handgun have any military power? It has an effective range of 20 meters at most, it is horribly inaccurate, and there are so many different models that the ammunition supply is going to be just awful. If it comes right to it, even rifles are of doubtful potential against modern units, but at least they have a certain amount of standoff range. With a handgun you need to get up right close, removing any potential for guerilla action.
On a side note, that's the first time I've called someone by an old login. Does this make me a veteran Hatracker?
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I have trouble believing that people actually want to deny people the ability to defend themselves.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
But what exactly is that right? I don't own a gun but no one's denying me the right to fight back when attacked. If my house is broken into I can't shoot the thief, but I can call the police, I can make sure the locks on my house are good.
posted
"I have trouble believing that people actually want to deny people the ability to defend themselves."
Straw man, Dag, unless you believe that there's no conceivable situation in which having a tank, nuclear weapon, or vial of toxic gas would also make an effective deterrent.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
No, not a straw man. A handgun is a weapon that can be carried during day-to-day activities and used against personal attackers. Neither a tank, nuclear weapon, or vial of toxic gas can be used as a defensive weapon. Two of them are actually denied to the majority of nations states in the world.
Equating the three to handguns is in itself a straw man.
When you ban handguns, you are condemning people who lack physical strength to be unable to hold off an attacker.
And KoM, who are you to say what's an effective defense for someone else? Is your incompetence with a handgun the determinative factor here?
posted
"When you ban handguns, you are condemning people who lack physical strength to be unable to hold off an attacker."
By the same token, I cannot lift a car. If you do not allow me to own and drive a personal mech, or require me to get some kind of silly license to own a forklift, you are condemning my wife to death if she ever becomes pinned beneath a car.
Seriously, the "handguns are for self-defense" bull is proved false by the very posts in this thread describing the gun culture, in which the handgun is about everything except self-defense, from macho posturing to an assertion of independence.
When somebody takes karate and comes back bragging about how his black belt makes him a "lethal weapon," able to "rip your eyes out with my chin, mutha...," then you can't help wondering whether he really internalized the whole "this is for self-defense schtick." I apply the same logic to what I see of the gun culture.
quote:By the same token, I cannot lift a car. If you do not allow me to own and drive a personal mech, or require me to get some kind of silly license to own a forklift, you are condemning my wife to death if she ever becomes pinned beneath a car.
Please, Tom. This is even more ridiculous than the nukes comparison. Unless you can have a forklift with you everywhere your wife happens to go, there's no parallel. Further, you're allowed to own a fork lift. And in a life threatening emergency, there would be no crime if you operated it without a license.
quote:Seriously, the "handguns are for self-defense" bull is proved false by the very posts in this thread describing the gun culture, in which the handgun is about everything except self-defense, from macho posturing to an assertion of independence.
When somebody takes karate and comes back bragging about how his black belt makes him a "lethal weapon," able to "rip your eyes out with my chin, mutha...," then you can't help wondering whether he really internalized the whole "this is for self-defense schtick." I apply the same logic to what I see of the gun culture.
That's a nice, logical attitude there. Find an idiot, apply his view to every gun owner, and enjoy your smug self-righteousness. Should I apply KoM's views on religion to you and condemn you for wanting to send us silly theists to reeducation camps?
posted
Reasonable gun control isn't a bad idea. Not outright banning them, just at least keeping them out of the hands of ex-cons and people who have restraining orders against them.
Posts: 9942 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
My Kung Fu instructor regularly states that "self defense never wins a fight... you win with self offense."
We view our art as being much like a handgun-- you don't point it at anything you aren't prepared to break. The fact of the matter is that when someone is intent on harming you, the only real way to *prevent* them from doing so is to harm them first.
As for the Military use of a handgun, Sgt. Alvin York was able to put his Colt 1911 to extraordinarily good use... some conflicts, particularly house to house-type stuff, take place well within the effective range of a pistol. Not that they are the best weapon for these situations, but they are not utterly useless.
And there are firearms with purely peaceful purposes... .22 caliber target rifles come immediately to mind.
Posts: 3846 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote: When you ban handguns, you are condemning people who lack physical strength to be unable to hold off an attacker.
Dagonee, I've been over this ground before with you about the weakness of people and their right to use a gun in defense and our differing beliefs.
Being a weak person who lacks the physical strength to repel an attacker yet would never consider carrying a gun I feel qualified to say why a gun in most cases is completely unnecessary.
If walking alone, I can protect myself in many ways. I know you've said before that having to walk in lighted areas that may not be the quickest direction is giving into those who may attack me, but there are other ways to think of it. If I had a gun and I knew that walking alone through a certain area was entertaining the possibility of being attacked but I forged ahead because I had I gun to shoot my attacker, am I not going out looking to kill or maim or at least threaten? What does that make me?
If I feel I may be tempting danger and there is NO alternative, I can carry keys or a water bottle. I can wear shoes in which I can move quickly. There are a number of options that would work in a pinch.
I do not need to kill to defend my poor weak female self, and without a gun I am in no way "condemned". There are other ways that do not inconvenience me or inhibit my freedoms.
Posts: 8473 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
![[Hail]](graemlins/hail.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
