# Ted Nugent On Self Defense



## syscom3 (Aug 10, 2009)

Ted is never for a loss of words.


----------



## GrauGeist (Aug 10, 2009)

You know, I've always liked the Nuge...

I say we make him our next President


----------



## wheelsup_cavu (Aug 10, 2009)

It would be an interesting campaign to say the least.


Wheels


----------



## Jester's Dead (Aug 10, 2009)

Nuge is awesome!!! Don't piss him off, parole-boy!


----------



## stona (Aug 10, 2009)

Good old Ted. Maybe he should read the 2nd ammendment.

"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"

The right to bear arms is clearly qualified.It's 2009 for heaven's sake - what militia is necessary today. The US now maintains a huge standing army,something the founding fathers never envisaged. Infact they were very nervous of Washington's "continental army" and couldn't wait to disband it.Seems Ted imagines that the right to bear arms is for personal protection when no such thing was envisaged. Some of his more extreme (yes, it's possible) buddies have even turned the whole thing on its head and claim the right to protect THEMSELVES FROM the state (government).
Aaah, the benefits of a written constitution.

Steve


----------



## RabidAlien (Aug 10, 2009)

He does have a point.


----------



## javlin (Aug 10, 2009)

Can't say I disagree with Ted at all.Just like after Katrina the Jamaican Looters were coming into the subdivison on bikes and empty backpacks they were turned away with shotguns and semi's.One's right to defend life and property.


----------



## lesofprimus (Aug 10, 2009)

The best line is the last one:

"I dont like repeat offenders, I like dead ones..."


----------



## Ivan1GFP (Aug 10, 2009)

According to US Code, all male citizens between the ages of 18 to 45 count as the "unorganized militia".

- Ivan.


----------



## stona (Aug 10, 2009)

Ivan1GFP said:


> According to US Code, all male citizens between the ages of 18 to 45 count as the "unorganized militia".
> - Ivan.



Yes they do but does that equate to "a well regulated militia"?
People interpret these things to suit themselves but the men who wrote the constitution and its ammendments were really very specific. In any case the militia was expressly for the "security of a free state" - the basis of the minute man concept. Not necassary with one of the largest military machines on the planet.
It has nothing to do with the use of disproportionate force, say in murdering an unarmed intruder.
Steve


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Aug 10, 2009)

Ivan1GFP said:


> According to US Code, all male citizens between the ages of 18 to 45 count as the "unorganized militia".
> 
> - Ivan.



US code? Which one?


Code of Federal Regulations: Main Page


----------



## Torch (Aug 10, 2009)

The Nuge has my vote......


----------



## ToughOmbre (Aug 10, 2009)

stona said:


> It has nothing to do with the use of disproportionate force, say in murdering an unarmed intruder.
> Steve



Ted is right on!

To what length do you go to determine if an "intruder" is unarmed? If the intruder is in my home, where my wife and daughter sleep, my action to "neutralize" him will never be considered murder. 

Simple question Steve.....

Do I, or any other law abiding citizen with no criminal record, have the right to keep and bear arms? Yes or no?

TO


----------



## Thorlifter (Aug 10, 2009)

he makes a lot of good points.


----------



## stona (Aug 10, 2009)

TO, yes you do, that's your law. Unfortunately this allows non-law abiding citizens with criminal records as long as your arm access to the same weapons. Compare the number of firearm related deaths in the UK and the US. Bear in mind that your population is roughly four times ours. The figures I have are for 2006. In the UK it was 210 (including suicides) and in the US 30,896 (just over half being suicides).
That's 210 against 30,896!
Food for thought. 
Vote for Nugent - you'll never have to vote again!
Steve
In the hypothetical case of the intruder I believe your law and ours are very similar. It would be up to a jury to decide what was "reasonable force". Having said that I think the self defence argument would be more likely to succeed in a US courtroom!


----------



## drgondog (Aug 10, 2009)

stona said:


> Good old Ted. Maybe he should read the 2nd ammendment.
> 
> "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"
> 
> ...



*We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. That whenever any form of government becomes destructive to these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness. *

"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." 

Why did you choose to igore the last 'little' part of the clause - the funny one emphasizing that the RIGHT shall not be infringed?

If you wish to be better informed regarding the foundation of this Right and its importance in the order of the Bill of Rights, I suggest that you re-read the Federalist and Anti-Federalist debates, the resultant writing of the Bill of Rights forced on the Federalists by the Anti-Federalists before the Constitution could be sent to the States for Ratification, and how closely the Bill of Rights was in parallel to the Virginia Constitution which had already been ratified.

Then you might delve into Emerson vs United Staes and Heller vs United States if you wish to see the precedents enumerated clearly.

Simply, your assertions are incorrect.


----------



## drgondog (Aug 10, 2009)

stona said:


> Yes they do but does that equate to "a well regulated militia"?
> People interpret these things to suit themselves but the men who wrote the constitution and its ammendments were really very specific. In any case the militia was expressly for the "security of a free state" - the basis of the minute man concept. Not necassary with one of the largest military machines on the planet.
> It has nothing to do with the use of disproportionate force, say in murdering an unarmed intruder.
> Steve



They were very specific that the Right to Keep and Bear Arms shall Not be infringed.

It has everything to do with blowing away an armed intruder, or a mob intent in burning your store down.

Neither the 'Largest military machine on the planet' nor the local constabulary are OBLIGATED to protect You from predators - as ruled multiple times in the Supremem Court.

You may choose, in your infinite wisdom, that defense of yourself or your family is not a useful concept - but you have no right to make that determination for me... ditto Congress.


----------



## GrauGeist (Aug 10, 2009)

The fact of the matter is, people attack the Constitution as being "dated" and needing "interpretation for better understanding".

When you approach a stop sign, do you take the words on the sign at face value? Or does it need to be interpreted? "Well, maybe that only applied to people in red cars" or "This is 2009, we should only slow down for the intersection". 

A law abiding citizen will see the sign, and know that they are to stop at the sign and expect others to do the same. 

The only reason people wish to change something, is that they either fear it, or they want to benefit from it's alteration.


----------



## ToughOmbre (Aug 10, 2009)

stona said:


> TO, yes you do, that's your law. Unfortunately this allows non-law abiding citizens with criminal records as long as your arm access to the same weapons.



Criminals, non-law abiding citizens, bad guys, etc. are always going to have access to, and be in possession of firearms.

Bigger problem in this country is that the criminal justice system is a revolving door that puts the bad guys who commit crimes with guns back on the street as fast (or faster) than it convicts them. Tougher laws with long mandatory sentences are needed. 

The right of self defense is basic to all people in all societies.

The ultimate responsibliity to protect myself and my family from these scum falls to me. Strong language will not deter the intruder that breaks into my house. I have the right to take any means necessary to defend my home, up to and including, as a last resort, deadly force. 

TO


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Aug 10, 2009)

stona said:


> TO, yes you do, that's your law. Unfortunately this allows non-law abiding citizens with criminal records as long as your arm access to the same weapons. Compare the number of firearm related deaths in the UK and the US. Bear in mind that your population is roughly four times ours. The figures I have are for 2006. In the UK it was 210 (including suicides) and in the US 30,896 (just over half being suicides).
> That's 210 against 30,896!
> Food for thought.
> Vote for Nugent - you'll never have to vote again!
> ...



This is the law in my state. It's that simple.


18-1-704.5. Use of deadly physical force against an intruder.

(1) The general assembly hereby recognizes that the citizens of Colorado have a right to expect absolute safety within their own homes.

(2) Notwithstanding the provisions of section 18-1-704, any occupant of a dwelling is justified in using any degree of physical force, including deadly physical force, against another person when that other person has made an unlawful entry into the dwelling, and when the occupant has a reasonable belief that such other person has committed a crime in the dwelling in addition to the uninvited entry, or is committing or intends to commit a crime against a person or property in addition to the uninvited entry, and when the occupant reasonably believes that such other person might use any physical force, no matter how slight, against any occupant.

(3) Any occupant of a dwelling using physical force, including deadly physical force, in accordance with the provisions of subsection (2) of this section shall be immune from criminal prosecution for the use of such force.

(4) Any occupant of a dwelling using physical force, including deadly physical force, in accordance with the provisions of subsection (2) of this section shall be immune from any civil liability for injuries or death resulting from the use of such force.

Source: L. 85: Entire section added, p. 662, § 1, effective June 6.

Cross references: For limitations on civil suits against persons using physical force in defense of a person or to prevent the commission of a felony, see § 13-80-119.


----------



## DBII (Aug 10, 2009)

I would love to jump into this but we have a no politics policy. 

DBII


----------



## Messy1 (Aug 10, 2009)

Great posts Bill! Very informative!


----------



## drgondog (Aug 10, 2009)

Messy1 said:


> Great posts Bill! Very informative!



Thx Messy - but time to bow out before it blows up


----------



## Maestro (Aug 10, 2009)

I would feel safer if more peoples in Canada would think like Mr. Nugent... A guy that I didn't know to this day.


----------



## stona (Aug 10, 2009)

I will bow out gracefully and with apologies for any offence caused.It is not for me to tell citizens of another democracy how to run their affairs. The only point I wanted to make was the danger of modern interpretation of old laws. I am aware of several of the cases sited above and this is my point. In the single sentence of that ammendment the first clause qualifies the second. I believe that the original intent of the ammendment was to make the right to bear arms conditional on the necessity of a militia. That is not law, it is the English language. I know that it has not been interpreted that way in US law.
I am happy that, here, we do not have the right to bear arms but in the US it is a matter for her voters and let's be honest,this right will never be forfeited now.
Incidentally I agree that you should be able to protect you and yours with whatever means necassary. Thankfully here that is extremely unlikely to involve firearms.
I am not a pacifist,violence is a legitimate last resort,I would just hate to see 8000 of my fellow subjects becoming the victims of firearms,210 is too many.
Steve


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Aug 10, 2009)

Careful where you step.

This forum does has a no politics policy. Somehow politics keep getting brought up. I will allow it to stay open as long as it stays peaceful. As soon as it gets out of hand *(and it will...)*, the thread will be closed and some repeat offenders will find themselves on vacation.


----------



## ToughOmbre (Aug 10, 2009)

drgondog said:


> time to bow out before it blows up



Right behind you!

Gotta go to the store anyway....

Need to buy ammo. 

TO


----------



## Messy1 (Aug 10, 2009)

Stona, this topic has been discussed on this forum before. Your opinions are right in line with many in the UK, just as you would expect our's to be right inline with those of us living in the States. You would really have needed to live in the US before you would truly understand why we hold the right to bear arms to such a high degree, and why it has been a important part of our history. In no way am I trying to belittle you or your opinion at all, so please do not take me comments as such.


----------



## Butters (Aug 10, 2009)

What constitutes reasonable force in defence of your person, family, and home, is basically the same in all states whose laws are based on English common law. That includes the US, UK, Canada, Austraia, and most Commonwealth nations.

The first fundamental principle is the premise that 'a man's home is his castle'. Outside the home,you are obligated to attempt to leave the scene of a possible physical altercation, but you are not obligated to flee your own home.The second is that the force used to defend oneself must be proportionate to the PERCEIVED threat. If your response is disproportionate to the ACTUAL threat, then you have the burden of making a cogent argument that, in the circumstances, your perception of the level of threat was 'reasonable' in that specific context. For example, if a senile, 80 yr old lady wanders into your house and assails you with her handbag (because she believes that YOU are the intruder in her house) you will have a hard time convincing a judge and jury that blowing her away with your 12 gauge was a reasonable response

OTOH, if you are awoken by the sounds of someone(s) in your house at night, and are surprised at close hand by three dimly seen' men' coming towards you, you can use deadly force. And if it turns out that the three 'dangerous men' were actually unarmed 14 yr old boys, the court would probably accept that in such a situation, your subjective perception of the danger was a reasonable one. And that's how it should be. 

JL


----------



## RabidAlien (Aug 10, 2009)

The criminals will ALWAYS have guns, or have relatively easy access to them. That record "as long as your arm" probably includes a few weapons possessions in there, which are mostly (from my understanding) misdemeanors. Small change. What do they care about those? Weapons are power, and the ability to take what they want from whomever they want. Now....if a criminal is contemplating something nefarious, and is looking at my house, but knows I'm a member in good standing with the NRA, and own at least one working firearm....they're not going to bother my house. Or my family. That would bring a world of hurt down on them that they won't want...too much attention, and too many bloody wounds that really screw up your tennis game. Besides....there's plenty of other unarmed sheep out there to prey upon. Therefore....I want my house to be protected, because there's always one idiot who doesn't get the memo and believes that I'm unarmed.

BTW....who let slip that bit about the senile old lady???? IT WAS THE ONE-ARMED MAN THAT DID IT, NOT ME!!!!


----------



## Amsel (Aug 12, 2009)

I had this video in my sig for awhile. He is a good man, I wish more were like him these days.


----------



## Amsel (Aug 12, 2009)

Butters said:


> OTOH, if you are awoken by the sounds of someone(s) in your house at night, and are surprised at close hand by three dimly seen' men' coming towards you, you can use deadly force. And if it turns out that the three 'dangerous men' were actually unarmed 14 yr old boys, the court would probably accept that in such a situation, your subjective perception of the danger was a reasonable one. And that's how it should be.
> 
> JL



That is why we have the "Castle Laws" in Texas, to address self defense at night. Force, even deadly force can be used much more aggressively at night, in defense of your property, even for the smallest of crimes.


----------



## Coors9 (Aug 12, 2009)

keep them in jail or stick a needle in em' and do away with em' Do that enough and more people will think twice. Just close the Dam revolving door. The police are trained to "Shoot to Kill" not Shoot to wound, I'm pretty sure. I know that i'd do whatever it took to take em' down, if that meant killing em' so be it. Family first....Intruder DEAD. Wouldn't lose a minutes sleep. This comming from a laid back guy.


----------



## vikingBerserker (Aug 12, 2009)

Ted is right.


----------



## Ferdinand Foch (Aug 12, 2009)

Haha, I just saw this, and man do I like Ted now. Still questioning the second amendment a bit, but his argument is sound, and I like is quote about wanting not a repeat offender, but a dead offender. For more insight into Ted Nugent, here is a email that my grandpa send to me a ways back. 

Ted Nugent, rock star and avid bow hunter from Michigan, was being interviewed by a French journalist, an animal rights activist.

The discussion came around to deer hunting. 

The journalist asked, 'What do you think is the last thought in the head of a deer before you shoot him? Is it, 'Are you my friend?' or is it 'Are you the one who killed my brother?'



Nugent replied, 'Deer aren't capable of that kind of thinking. All they care about is, what am I going to eat next, who am I going to screw next, and can I run fast enough to get away. They are very much like the French.'



The interview ended.


----------



## syscom3 (Aug 12, 2009)

Ferdinand Foch said:


> Haha, I just saw this, and man do I like Ted now. Still questioning the second amendment a bit, but his argument is sound, and I like is quote about wanting not a repeat offender, but a dead offender. For more insight into Ted Nugent, here is a email that my grandpa send to me a ways back.
> 
> Ted Nugent, rock star and avid bow hunter from Michigan, was being interviewed by a French journalist, an animal rights activist.
> 
> ...


----------



## vikingBerserker (Aug 12, 2009)

Dam that is funny!


----------



## GrauGeist (Aug 12, 2009)

LMAO


----------



## RabidAlien (Aug 12, 2009)

Ferdinand Foch said:


> Haha, I just saw this, and man do I like Ted now. Still questioning the second amendment a bit, but his argument is sound, and I like is quote about wanting not a repeat offender, but a dead offender. For more insight into Ted Nugent, here is a email that my grandpa send to me a ways back.
> 
> Ted Nugent, rock star and avid bow hunter from Michigan, was being interviewed by a French journalist, an animal rights activist.
> 
> ...


----------



## Maestro (Aug 13, 2009)

"Ze Germans are comming ! Quick, get ze white flags a-out !"


----------



## Messy1 (Aug 13, 2009)

Wow! Damn funny! Nice one Ted!


----------

