syscom3
Pacific Historian
Ted is never for a loss of words.
Ted Nugent On Self Defense
- Thread starter syscom3
- Start date
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
GrauGeist
Generalfeldmarschall zur Luftschiff Abteilung
You know, I've always liked the Nuge...
I say we make him our next President
I say we make him our next President
wheelsup_cavu
1st Sergeant
It would be an interesting campaign to say the least.
Wheels
Wheels
Jester's Dead
Airman
- 13
- Aug 10, 2009
Nuge is awesome!!! Don't piss him off, parole-boy!
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
"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
Last edited:
RabidAlien
1st Lieutenant
He does have a point.
lesofprimus
Brigadier General
The best line is the last one:
"I dont like repeat offenders, I like dead ones..."
"I dont like repeat offenders, I like dead ones..."
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
"THE GREAT GAZOO"
ToughOmbre
Senior Master Sergeant
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
Captain
he makes a lot of good points.
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!
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!
Last edited:
drgondog
Major
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
Major
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
Generalfeldmarschall zur Luftschiff Abteilung
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.
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
Senior Master Sergeant
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
"THE GREAT GAZOO"
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.
Users who are viewing this thread
Similar threads
