Ted Nugent - Madman for sure

Jäger wrote:

mucker wrote:

I grew up on metal in the 80's...and never saw what people liked in his stuff. Back then seemed like anyone could sell an album.
Even back then he was heavy with the NRA stuff, and ranting.
Sounds like a few other NRA fanatics I've heard before.
I feel bad for the honourable NRA folk...

Well, we just dealt with the "thoughtful argument" claim on another thread, and this comment immediately came to mind (plus I found a little PM in my mailbox asking if I might have a response to it....). Apparently - we're told over on the Men and Women in Black thread - I just can't deal with thoughtful arguments like this one lambasting "NRA fanatics". It's a good day to deal with those claims.

So far, what we have presented to us here, yet again, is just another example of a pronouncement that somebody hopes everyone will be gullible enough to accept as fact based "thoughtful argument", not the tired ranting of dogma the poster is comfortable with. I don't accept it as thoughtful or fact based at all. It seems to me to be little more than a pronouncement based on nothing other than ignorant personal bias.

I suspect I'm one of them life member Neal Knox type "NRA fanatics" you're talking about in this "thoughtful argument" you're presenting here. Why are the people like me not "honourable NRA folk"? Should I take that comment as one of those personal attacks you're moaning on about?

Let's see... who do we know so far is an NRA fanatic in your mind?
Ummm...Ted Nugent for sure.
Charlton Heston, maybe to a lesser extent, but not much...
I'ld have to do some homework to give you a better list.

Given that you pride yourself on what you believe is the presentation of thoughtful argument, how about a thoughtful argument in defense of your NRA "fanaticism" comment as being legitimate? You know: the fanaticism that falls beyond and outside demanding full exercise of the rights recognized by the Second Amendment. What did Nugent and Heston (or me for that matter) demand regarding firearms ownership and possession beyond and outside of the Second Amendment?

After all, how can it be "fanaticism" if what you're defending/demanding is the full exercise of rights recognized and guaranteed by the Second Amendment? Would Martin Luther King be considered a "fanatic" over his civil rights advocacy? Did Nugent or Heston organize marches on Washington, advocate mass demonstrations of civil disobedience as King did in the defense of rights he was concerned with? Can you show us where they advocated the bullet box while the ballet box was still available?

From what I've seen in 40 years of NRA membership, the main fault of the NRA in their political activities is not going far enough in the defense of the Second Amendment - they've never erred on the side of overreach beyond the Second Amendment that I can recall. But perhaps you have some examples to share with us.

So why don't you attempt some of that "thoughtful argument" stuff of yours to point out what you see as NRA fanaticsm from people like Heston, or Nugent, or me and how that comment is justified because what NRA members like us want goes beyond the Second Amendment to the point of fanaticism?

While you're doing so, pay particular attention to that part of the Second Amendment that says "shall not be infringed". After all, it's the only right contained within the Bill of Rights that was felt sufficiently important to have the words "shall not be infringed" added to it. Our other resident socialists/statists have a real problem dealing with the "shall not be infringed" part; maybe you can do better..

Given your recent trend on claiming your posts are "thoughtful argument" and bemoaning unwarranted personal attacks, I really, really, really look forward to your defense of your thoughtful argument of what "NRA fanaticism" is from dishonourable NRA members like me and why that we want falls outside the rights recognized in the Second Amendment.

I look forward to it a whole bunch.

A person speaks in defense of rights guaranteed by the Bill of Rights that are currently politically incorrect and you're a fanatic. Assume powers not provided by the Constitution, ignore Constitutional requirements... no problem. Deny anything that even remotely resembles the exercise of Second Amendment rights, again, no problem. No thread or topic required. Nope, no fanaticism there; nothing to see here folks, move along...

Nugent is dumb in that his choice of dramatics over what his fate would be results in the core message and intent being lost because the attention never gets beyond the words (as though the media has ever paid any attention to violation of Second Amendment rights in the first place). The Second Amendment rights he is speaking in defense of, however, is not "fanaticism".

As far as the cancellation of his concert, well, when you're a public figure who is also a politically incorrect conservative, you have to know your comments can have consequences. Take it like a man; Tim Thomas never acknowledged the crap slung his way when he refused to go to the White House for a photo op with the Prez. He just drove on, ignoring the chattering classes, and Nugent should have done the same.

The troops loved Nugent's music in his heyday - the barracks were full of it. I doubt it would be any different today, so ultimately it's their loss.

First: Let me say, that I'm glad to hear you got some time off with the Missus, I hope that went well.

Now as far as fanatics go...I use that term as politely as I can muster. If there is a term that means, "slightly less than fanatical", I would gladly add that to my repretoire. 'Till then I'll just work with what I got.

I'll just shoot from the hip from here (pun intended).

So if you...

-Proudly/aggressively state, I live by the bible and by the gun...(I've heard it)...
-Feel that you have the right to shoot someone driving away/stealing your bike...
-Feel you have the right to shoot a naked intruder in your home, after he is caught and submits to you. Read:"submits"
-Encourage others to arm themselves in preparation for civil war (in the US and Canada at least)
-Feel war is the only engine that will set things right.
-Refuse to listen to any argument about regulation that might manage public safety and possibly intrude on someones absolute right to remain completely self-regulated, at any and all cost.
-Even just carry on about your concerns beligerantly, without apparent awareness/intelligence, just strict focus, and strict avoidance of concerns of others.

...then yes, If you were promoting the NRA in the same breath...I would consider you an NRA fanatic.

There's a Zimmerman case...o ya...the media probably has distorted that whole truth...nothing went wrong there.

Koresh, he meant well I'm sure...

I think responsible gun ownership is a great thing...teach the kids proper, and practice what you preach.
If you are an honourable citizen, why not register your weapons...then anything, under the table can be dealt with by the number. Unless you feel a civil/personal war is inevitable and regulation will be used against you?

And for the record, I have never called you dishonourable.

We could debate honour sometime, if you wish.


There are a lot of words in your constitution, "shall not infringe", is only 3 of them....not to belittle that...but I'm sure they weren't meant to be taken out of context, and to stand alone.

One thing to have rights, and another to express them.

Lets start with a brief comment on how amusing it is to see the person complaining about lengthy posts yet again turning around and quoting the entire post he is responding to - a quote that is bigger in size than the post he then writes. How about I just quote the specifics that I will address?

mucker wrote:

Now as far as fanatics go...I use that term as politely as I can muster. If there is a term that means, "slightly less than fanatical", I would gladly add that to my repretoire. 'Till then I'll just work with what I got.

So if you...

-Proudly/aggressively state, I live by the bible and by the gun...(I've heard it)...
-Feel that you have the right to shoot someone driving away/stealing your bike...
-Feel you have the right to shoot a naked intruder in your home, after he is caught and submits to you. Read:"submits"
-Encourage others to arm themselves in preparation for civil war (in the US and Canada at least)
-Feel war is the only engine that will set things right.
-Refuse to listen to any argument about regulation that might manage public safety and possibly intrude on someones absolute right to remain completely self-regulated, at any and all cost.
-Even just carry on about your concerns beligerantly, without apparent awareness/intelligence, just strict focus, and strict avoidance of concerns of others.

...then yes, If you were promoting the NRA in the same breath...I would consider you an NRA fanatic.

Really? So where then are your quotes of Nugent, Heston, etc proclaiming that war is the only engine that will set things right? Or is this one of those "well, I heard it from a friend's sister's best friend's mother's aunt that somebody said that".

You have a quote somewhere advocating the right to arms against the possibility of civil war with a tyrannical government? Horrors! Tell us, are these the words you were thinking of on this issue coming from "NRA fanatics"?:

"What country can preserve it's liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance. Let them take arms."

"The strongest reason for people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government."

"Firearms stand next in importance to the Constitution itself. They are the American people's liberty teeth and keystone under independence ... the very atmosphere of firearms everywhere restrains evil interference by rulers - they deserve a place of honor with all that is good"

"As civil rulers, not having their duty to the people before them, may attempt to tyrannize, and as the military forces which must be occasionally raised to defend our country, might pervert their power to the injury of their fellow citizens, the people are confirmed by the article in their right to keep and bear their private arms."

Being as it's pretty obvious you have no knowledge whatsoever of the Second Amendment, the debate that went on regarding its wording, and what the men who wrote and ratified it said they meant, let me help you with that. Those quotes aren't from "NRA fanatics" - they're from the Founders who discussed and chose the wording of the Second Amendment. Not "NRA fanatics" advocating "Encourage others to arm themselves in preparation for civil war" as you put it.

Washington, Cox, Jefferson, Paine, etc. Those - among a lot of other similar quotes that could make up this entire post - make it very, very clear that the intent of the Second Amendment was primarily for the people to own and bear firearms, if necessary, to resist a tyrannical government. They didn't say they were recognizing a right to protect deer rifles and duck guns for hunting - there is not a single mention of protecting firearms for use to put food on the table. Nowhere in the debates. They weren't talking about the concept of "sporting and recreational use only" - that's recent Canadian policy. Personal defense and defense of the nation were secondary to the primary goal of arms to deter and if necessary fight a tyrannical government.

So given that the Founders were very clear that the people should arm themselves to deter tyrannical government, and fight a civil war against a tyrannical government (as they had just finished doing) to preserve their rights and liberties if necessary... just why in your mind is an NRA member a "fanatic" when they simply speak in defense of the core purpose and expressed intent of the Second Amendment? You don't believe the Founders actually said the quotes provided above? Or you simply didn't know the Founders said those things - it's the first time you've ever seen any quotes from the discussion among the men who wrote the Second Amendment?

A right to shoot a thief fleeing with your property? Yes, as a matter of fact you do have that right - not just in the US, but in politically correct Canada as well. Locke, Blackstone, the English Bill of Rights et al proclaim you do indeed have the right to do that, even in politically correct Canada much less America. Did you ever bother reading Locke, or Blackstone, or any of that other boring old stuff that is the foundation and explanation of part of Canada's constitutional documents? You should, because Locke for one provides a very good explanation of the justification for using lethal force against a fleeing thief - and it is one that has been used by way of explanation in Canadian courts when just such a thing occurred.

If you cudgel your memory a bit, you'll probably remember some recent Canadian cases where a pharmacist, a jeweller, and several homeowners in Canada have shot thieves who presented no danger to them but were fleeing with their money/property - to the indignation and outrage of some Canadians who think like you. The Canadian courts, however, have consistently held that they were within their civil rights to do so, and it didn't need to go to the SCC to reach that conclusion. So tell us, where the Canadians who shot those dirtbags "NRA fanatics" as well? Were the courts and Crown Counsels who decided they had a right to use lethal force in defense of their property in Canada "NRA fanatics" as well? Were Locke and Blackstone "NRA fanatics"?

The "problem" here isn't the use of lethal force against fleeing criminals in defense of property - the problem here is people who clearly don't realize that right existed long before the Second Amendment and continues today even in countries like Canada where the right to arms for defense is pretty much ignored. The ignorance of an existing right does not make those who know that right exists "NRA fanatics". We get that you don't like that the right exists, no matter what courts in America and Canada say. You have a right to that opinion. But that doesn't make those who support that existing right "NRA fanatics", and that ignorant, prejudiced opinion that flies in the face of history and documentation is not "thoughtful argument".

We could do the rest of your laundry list of what the you think makes somebody an "NRA fanatic" with quotes taken from the Founders, but the root of the problem is pretty well expressed here:
Refuse to listen to any argument about regulation that might manage public safety and possibly intrude on someones absolute right to remain completely self-regulated, at any and all cost.
Even just carry on about your concerns beligerantly, without apparent awareness/intelligence, just strict focus, and strict avoidance of concerns of others.

Aha... if others don't see the world like modern socialists/statists like yourself, they apparently lack awareness and intelligence. So simple!

Regardless of what the Founders wrote that explains the Bill of Rights they developed, and regardless of the fact your opinions fly in the face of documented history, the mental masterminds that make up the socialist/statist crop of today possess all the awareness/intelligence. And those who demand their rights as recognized and written in the Bill of Rights until such time as that Bill is properly amended, those who won't surrender their rights to the politically correct but historically ignorant like yourself... well, those folks must lack the awareness and intelligence that people like you apparently have a monopoly on. Thus, they're NRA fanatics... and we have your pronouncement to prove it, regardless of what the Founders said and regardless of what the Bill of Rights says.

Aside from the documentation of what the Second Amendment was written to protect, you somehow entertain the idea that the words "shall not be infringed" don't provide a wall against regulations you think the Founders erred in not providing, and what maybe/might happen if people like you were allowed to impose "reasonable" limits on the Second Amendment. What the hell do the words "shall not be infringed" mean to you anyways?

And so, anyone who expects and demands the full exercise of their Second Amendment rights - the same as the full exercise of all the other rights that don't have "shall not be infringed" contained within them - without socialists and statists like you limiting it in their naive belief of what it will do for the common good, becomes an "NRA fanatic". It doesn't matter to the socialists/statists/politically correct out there that the Founders did not provide for rights - any of the basic rights they codified - to be removed from individuals because others were "concerned". They didn't believe that individual rights should be subject to the whims and paranoia of herd mentality. That's why they created America as a republic based on individualism, not as a democracy where the tyranny of the majority would rule. In short, whatever paranoia you develop in the way of "concerns" about an unalienable right does not provide a legitimate reason for reducing or eliminating that right. Your "concerns" about the right to bear arms do not supersede rights, just as we don't let concerns over crime supersede the right of accused criminals to be free from unreasonable search and seizure by police.

I'm left wondering what your response would be if concerns from the "religious right" led to the government just slightly altering the First Amendment instead of the Second Amendment. After all, the First doesn't even contain the words "shall not be infringed", so how bad could it be? Nothing major, mind you: we just require that everyone, just once a year, go to a government approved house of worship to bow down to and worship God. And a simple requirement that there is a religious test to hold government office - any religion will do. Note that we're not expecting you to worship weekly or even monthly. Note that you still retain your First rights of freedom of the press, freedom of expression, freedom of assembly, and the right to petition government. Now isn't that nice and reasonable like expecting NRA members to be nice and reasonable and not be fanatics demanding the full freedom as provided by the First as written? You wouldn't be an unreasonable religious fanatic and oppose that, demanding that your atheism be respected, that you not be forced to worship and bow down to God even once a year, and you shouldn't have to have religious belief to apply for public office, would you?

Or would that be somehow or other... different?

Quote :

There's a Zimmerman case...o ya...the media probably has distorted that whole truth...nothing went wrong there.

So you wrote that while knowing that, in fact, the media did get caught distorting the whole truth (three fired at NBC alone)? You did know that when you wrote the above, right?

So, it's not distortion in your socialist mind when, in just one example, producers and reporters at NBC edited the tape of the 911 call to have Zimmerman seem to be telling the dispatcher part of his complaint about Martin is that he's black, rather than him actually replying to the dispatcher's specific question of what race Martin was?

You don't think it's spin for the media to use pictures of Martin as a cute kid, instead of available pictures of him when he died, four inches taller than Zimmerman, bigger and more muscular than Zimmerman? Or were you utterly ignorant of that as well when you threw us that line?

You don't think any spin or distortion of this being a racial hate crime committed by a white racist by the media when they use "white-Hispanic" to describe Zimmerman? When did that same media ever describe Obama as a "white-African American"? When did you EVER hear them use the term "white-Hispanic" before? And of course, the comments of the Rev Al Sharpton from CNN in covering this story... no, you never saw any distortion in his ranting, did you? All unbiased reporting, no distortion, no spin there at all as far as you're concerned?

Given just that, I can't begin to imagine how ugly and misleading the media would have to get before you'd grudgingly admit "Okay, the media was distorting the truth". Even one network firing three of their news employees after they got caught at it isn't enough for you.

But... onward...

So what went wrong in your mind? If Zimmerman simply hadn't have been armed, then Trayvon Martin would be the one still alive, and Zimmerman would properly be the one dead with his head bashed in? And poor Trayvon would simply be facing manslaughter charges instead of dead (if he didn't get away before the police arrived, of course)? That would have been the way it went down if it had went down right?

You weren't there and neither was I. But aside from the media distortion it's pretty clear you hope nobody else was aware of (why were those reporters and producers fired, anyways?), what do we know?

We know that Zimmerman had multiple deep lacerations on the back of his head, a broken nose, black eyes, and no scuffs or abrasions on his hands. We know that two eyewitnesses to the shooting reported seeing one individual on top of another, beating his head into the ground and punching him "MMA style" while someone cried for help.We know the only injuries found on Martin's body other than the gunshot wound was abrasions on his knuckles. We know that Martin was shot at contact distance. It sort of follows that it wasn't Martin on the bottom, getting his head pounded on the ground and his head punched in. And he wasn't shot even a few meters away while "submitting".

So your socialist/statist mind is right up there with the Black Panthers and Al Sharpton, declaring Zimmerman guilty before even a trial, seeing no media distortion whatsoever. I'll wait for the trial, but on what we know right now, Zimmerman was legally carrying a firearm and shot a bigger male on top of him who was in the process of alternately beating the back of his head into the ground and pounding on his head with "MMA style" punches. Does somebody in that position, being beaten like that, have a reasonable belief they face imminent death or grievous bodily harm? Sure seems like that to me.

We get it that you just don't think somebody should be shot while criminally beating a smaller person's head to a pulp. We get it that you think Zimmerman should have just continued yelling "help, help" and praying somebody was calling the police and they would get there in time. It might even be that you want us to believe that if Zimmerman had never been armed in the first place, he would never have gotten out of his car to try and spot where Martin had disappeared to. He'd have been too scared, and thus poor Trayvon's life would have been spared.

But the law - not to mention the Founders' writings, and John Locke and the English Bill of Rights before them - are pretty clear that, yes indeed, you do have a right to shoot people who are beating your head into a pulp. What went wrong here is Martin forgot he was living in a state which has issued millions of concealed carry permits, and you assault and start beating people in that state at your peril. A state which, incidentally, so far has issued a little over two million concealed carry permits to people like Zimmerman and subsequently revoked only about 160 for cause. What do you see as going wrong there, when only 160 out of two million permits are revoked for cause.?

Now let's compare the Trayvon Martin case - a man who just may have been innocent - with the Luby's massacre, where 23 definitely innocent people were murdered and 20 wounded by a madman who walked among them murdering them, casually stopping to reload as he did so. And murdered in perfect safety, as victims like Dr. Suzanna Hupp had left their handguns in their vehicle as required by "reasonable" state gun laws, and so could do nothing but watch while the murderer walked within a few feet of her while slaughtering her mother and father among others. A roaring success story for "reasonable" victim-disarmament gun laws. Incidentally, that slaughter and the number of people who spoke of being left defenseless because they had left their handguns in their cars as required by state law is what led Texas to change to their laws to "shall issue" permitting carry.

Quote :

I think responsible gun ownership is a great thing...teach the kids proper, and practice what you preach.

I think your idea of responsible gun ownership doesn't include the concept of a right to arms for defense by individuals, much less anything faintly resembling either the English Bill of Rights nor the Second Amendment. It's probably something more along the line that a woman raped and strangled with her own panties is morally superior to a live woman holding a smoking gun, standing over a bleeding would-be rapist. After all, thousands of murders and genocide has pretty much taught us that when you have mere seconds to defend your life against an assailant, the police/the UN are only minutes/months away from making an appearance.

Quote :

If you are an honourable citizen, why not register your weapons...then anything, under the table can be dealt with by the number. Unless you feel a civil/personal war is inevitable and regulation will be used against you?

Why would an honourable citizen suggest people register their firearms without worrying about confiscation, when anyone with the slightest clue - especially from Canada - knows that is inevitably what registration is used for?

We don't have to talk about Germany and the genocide that occurred in countries like that after registration was used to confiscate firearms from the victims. We don't have to even talk about countries like the former Yugoslavia, where I and other Canadians fought at Medak, and saw the bodies of those slaughtered after the firearms confiscations in Bosnia, in the Bihac Pocket, in Srebenicia, etc - while towns and villages who had been able to resist those confiscations were not trifled with.

Let's just talk about current times in Canada, and what comes out of the Firearms Center at Miramachi in New Brunswick, not too far away from you.

Since Canada brought in long gun registration in 1995, it has been consistently used for firearms confiscation ever since. Right up to the present day, as the CFO is confiscating long guns as I write this. We're talking about legally purchased and owned firearms, some of them valuable collectors, many owned and used by law abiding firearms owners for decades prior to the requirement to register them which was then followed by using their registration to confiscate them.

Please, please tell us you are now shocked to your core and didn't know this when you wrote that line above regarding registration and confiscation. You are only just now learning of this ongoing confiscation of legally purchased and owned firearms in Canada for the very first time. Run out of a center not too far from where you live. Like the German's living near the death camps, you had absolutely no idea this was going on in your country when you suggested honourable citizens should register their guns.

Of course, those confiscations don't include the tens of thousands of legally owned handguns that have also been confiscated as being "Saturday Night Specials", based on the prior handgun registry. A "Saturday Night Special" in Canada being any handgun with a barrel length of 4" or less, regardless of quality or cost, and all .32 caliber handguns of any barrel length (oops, that one included all pistols used in Olympic competition... how embarrassing).

All of this without compensation, of course. And yet, Americans should be honourable citizens and just register their firearms, because why should you worry that this registry would be used to confiscate your firearms? Like what is presently going on in Canada? Like England in the last decade? Like Australia in the last decade?

Seriously? We should be naive enough to buy that BS?

Quote :

And for the record, I have never called you dishonourable.

That's true. You just laid out there are the "NRA fanatics" - like me - who defend the Second Amendment as the Founders wrote it and explained it's intent in purpose. And the other, honourable NRA members who apparently are willing to surrender some portion of their Second Amendment rights to socialists/statists like you. Which would imply that those who defend the full exercise of the Second Amendment and will not surrender their rights are not honourable.

Quote :

We could debate honour sometime, if you wish.

Sure. Let's start with debating whether it's honourable to suggest to people that they shouldn't have a problem with registration and the possibility it leads to confiscation, when they're saying that from a country where registration has been used every single year since its inception to confiscate more and more classes and models of firearms. All those firearms confiscations being run out of the Canadian Firearms Center in Miramachi, not too very far from where you live.

But wait. No fair. You're shocked to be learning just now for the very first time that firearms registration has been constantly used in Canada to confiscate firearms without compensation, right?

Quote :

There are a lot of words in your constitution, "shall not infringe", is only 3 of them....not to belittle that...but I'm sure they weren't meant to be taken out of context, and to stand alone.

Let's drop the pretext that the Second Amendment is about the same length as the Communist Manifesto, with assorted parts dealing with the right to bear arms.. The entirety of the Constitution dealing with the right to arms is contained within the Second Amendment, an amendment that is a restriction on the government, not a restriction on the rights of the individual. The Second Amendment is one single sentence, less than thirty words. And "shall not be infringed" is four words, not three.

So what do you claim is being taken out of context when we have this:
"'The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.' The right of the whole people, old and young, men, women and boys, and not militia only, to keep and bear arms of every description, and not such merely as are used by the milita, shall not be infringed, curtailed, or broken in upon, in the smallest degree; and all this for the important end to be attained: the rearing up and qualifying a well-regulated militia, so vitally necessary to the security of a free State. Our opinion is that any law, State or Federal, is repugnant to the Constitution, and void, which contravenes this right."

And this:
"The right of a citizen to bear arms, in lawful defense of himself or the State, is absolute. He does not derive it from the State government. It is one of the "high powers" delegated directly to the citizen, and `is excepted out of the general powers of government.' A law cannot be passed to infringe upon or impair it, because it is above the law, and independent of the lawmaking power."

Where you do you get "taken out of context" and "standing alone" out of that? In fact, how can you realistically claim to be sure of anything on this topic, when you so obviously haven't read anything the Founders who wrote the Second Amendment left in their writings of what it meant, what it was to protect, and why they wrote it the way they did?

We are left, yet again, wondering where we're supposed to find informed argument in this most recent pronouncement of yours that the Second Amendment is being taken out of context by "NRA fanatics". The words "shall not be infringed" are being taken out of context. The comments by the Founders that no government, federal or state, has the power to limit the right to bear arms are not relevant apparently - you believe they actually said somewhere that the kind of regulations you envision were just fine.

Oh, okay. Then why don't you provide us with your explanation of what the Second Amendment really gives as rights, what the Founders intended it to protect. Show us where it is improperly being taken out of the context that it was intended and written in. Please do feel free to use all the quotes you need from the Founders, findings of court decisions over the last two hundred years, better yet, comments from Supreme Court decisions in the last five years to discuss what the Second Amendment intends, etc to support your claims.

Quote :

One thing to have rights, and another to express them.

Let's try fixing that for ya.

It is one thing to discuss rights, and quite another to simply provide personal bigoted pronouncements on something you clearly know nothing about and have never bothered to inform yourself about.

You are utterly ignorant of the Second Amendment, it's history, and what the Founders so clearly said they intended when they composed that Amendment. Your pronouncements put that ignorance on full display. In fact, you're utterly ignorant of the history of the right to bear arms in your own country. You can't discern between what you think the Second Amendment should mean based on your prejudices, and what the Founders say it means.I believe it's a safe bet you've never once read the Federalist Papers, the comments of the Founders regarding the Second Amendment and what they intended to protect, Blackstone's explanation of the English right to arms for defense, Locke, etc. It's an equally safe bet you've never read any of the historical legal decisions in England concerning this right, much less legal decisions both historical and in the last few years in America concerning this right.

So what you give us are your own ignorant, prejudiced opinions (in good faith, I'm sure) that are utterly devoid of any basis in fact. Those who don't see it your prejudiced way are not among the honourable and they are fanatics, and to hell with the facts. Those who don't see it your way are taking the Second Amendment out of context - even though you have never read anything regarding the background of the Second Amendment that would tell you anything of what the Founders intended. Again, to hell with the facts and historical documents - clearly, they mean nothing.

It comes down to this.

If you want really want to discuss the Second Amendment and pronounce others as "fanatics" because of how they see their rights under the Second Amendment, the very least you could do is read the relevant historical documents: the writings of the Founders as to what their intent was to protect with the Second Amendment, the Federalist Papers relating to the Second Amendment, Blackstone's writings on the right to arms, and Locke. There's a lot more on top of that as well, but that at least would be a good start. You have yet to provide a single example from any of the Founders, or the Federalist Papers, or legal decisions supporting your pronouncements. And I doubt you ever will.

I don't for one second believe that some reading would change your mind on what you think the right to arms SHOULD be limited to. You're a socialist/statist, and you're simply never going to think as the Founders did on this issue - your core belief just won't accept the idea of men and women walking around armed when they should leave their defense to the police who are never there when they are attacked. Even when in Canada, not long before your day, it was quite possible to get a permit to carry a handgun for defense, where we even allowed handgun hunting as late as 1977 as I remember best.

But if you did take the time to inform yourself, you wouldn't be writing bigoted, erroneous nonsense about it being fanaticism to think the Second Amendment was intended to support people arming themselves against the possibility of tyrannical governments, or that the words "shall not be infringed" are not inconsistent with the kind of regulatory restrictions on the right to arms that you would like to see.

I expected a little better effort from you. On the other hand, your knowledge of the Second Amendment is so nonexistent that you're pronouncements were never defensible by fact, history, etc to begin with.

And finally, I will apologize in advance for what is no doubt an overly long post in your mind - take some comfort that I didn't follow your lead in quoting every single word of your post I was responding to. But you desperately and obviously are in dire need of a little education insofar as what America's Second Amendment means, and your attempting to shill off your personal prejudices and opinions as educated argument can't be allowed to escape having their failings and irrationality pointed out.

You can take heart that you, at least, have an excuse despite your claims of being a keen student of US matters. You aren't American and weren't taught about the Constitution and Bill of Rights in high school; you were never exposed to the writings of the Founders and the Federalist Papers as part of your education. Others here who share your socialist/statist views of what they think the Second Amendment should be interpreted as can't claim the same excuse.

Heh...well, keep in mind, all them stories they say about me are true.
Though I have been exposed to the documents you speak of, through my education and so on...an expert, I am not. Couldnt claim to be fresh or informed enough to debate your, apparent, knowledge of those details. I'm confident in your details, rather, the interpretation of the contents, spurs my debate...
Again, I appreciate your attention to particular details.
But I can't help forming an opinion on how things should be...right down to the survival of the pack. As ill informed as I may be.
"Necessity is the mother of invention"...your constitution is proof of that.
The founders had a problem at hand...seems they solved it.
Yet, modern problems seem to creep in that they did not address...like the industrial revolution..
Not to take away from their accomplishment...its just that they are not deciding what's best for now...rather what was best for them, and their best estimate.


Maybe all arguments a canadian might have come down to american politlics!?!...seems that way to me.

I won't defend your plural assumptions......every point shouldnt lead to a detailed assumption....unless your mind is already made up...on every detail I will say.

It's important to defend words...Its important to defend humans and their habitat.

It ain't over yet.l

I'm not saying american history isnt important....just that it is another speck in history, like all others.

mucker wrote:

Heh...well, keep in mind, all them stories they say about me are true.

I have no idea what they say about you. I'm fairly certain I don't want to know.

Quote :

Though I have been exposed to the documents you speak of, through my education and so on...

Really?

Odd then that you couldn't dredge up a single point from your education and so on in defense of the pronouncements you made. Unless your exposure to those documents was through walking past them on the book shelves as you headed for the liberal arts section. I do have a good chunk of constitutional law in my background, and your inability to intelligently discuss any aspect of constitutional issues really leads me to wonder what kind of education you're talking about.

Lots of online courses on the US Constitution and its history. You might try a few to patch up some of the gaping holes in that education of yours, being as you claim an interest in American politics and all.

Quote :

But I can't help forming an opinion on how things should be...right down to the survival of the pack. As ill informed as I may be.

Your opinion isn't the problem. It becomes a problem when you substitute your ill-informed opinion of what you think the Second Amendment should be about for what the Founders said it was about - and then call those who support what the Founders intended "NRA fanatics". That isn't "thoughtful argument". That's personal ignorance, bias and bigotry, unsupported by history and fact.

As for the survival of the pack; I'm not sure where you intended to go with that, but a presumption that our survival depends on surrendering freedoms over to big government, heavily restricting the right to bear arms, etc is a fail right from the word go. I'm trying to think of a society that enjoyed a great deal of liberty and freedom that then failed - because they didn't have enough government but too much freedom and liberty.

Quote :

"Necessity is the mother of invention"...your constitution is proof of that.
The founders had a problem at hand...seems they solved it.
Yet, modern problems seem to creep in that they did not address...like the industrial revolution..
Not to take away from their accomplishment...its just that they are not deciding what's best for now...rather what was best for them, and their best estimate.

And here we have yet again another pronouncement, along with an extra helping of assumptions. Which, additionally, is a curious comment for somebody to make who claims to have been "exposed" to America's constitutional history and documents.

It wasn't about what was "best for them". The constitution is a structure that defines how a people see they should govern themselves - not "what's in it for me". The constitution codified a philosophy of recognizing the existence of inalienable rights, and then creating a system that maximized individual liberty and freedom while providing governance that minimally intruded on individual liberty and freedom. That's why they argued and debated like hell over federalism - their almost unanimous fear of a large, overly powerful, overbearing central government. They worked very hard to create a system that would provide that federal government for the states to have a unifying central government representing them as a group, without letting the beast out of its cage. To do that, they reluctantly surrendered things that were best for them as individual states - as very little as possible, they believed - to achieve what they believed was a necessary end.

Most importantly, they did provide for "modern problems" - however you want to define those problems. They provided an amending formula - which has been used many times since - so that people could formally amend the constitution however they wish. Because of that, the Constitution is timeless. If the industrial revolution is actually a modern problem that you believe they did not address, the means to amend the constitution to address the woes of the industrial revolution were provided for. In fact, if you knew much about the history of the Constitution, you'd know that one of the main reasons it took so long to create was the long arguments, debates, and discussions of how it would operate in the future to satisfy the concerns of the ratifying states and what they wanted.

Back to the topic at hand, it's significant that the socialists and statists have yet to try proposing an amendment to the Second Amendment to bring it more in line with what you think it should be.

Quote :

Maybe all arguments a canadian might have come down to american politlics!?!...seems that way to me.

I'm a Canadian citizen and almost certainly spent more time as a Canadian resident than you've been alive. I may have even spent more time in the Canadian military than you've had birthdays. And I don't seem to have a problem with that Canadian inability to make a supported argument that you're throwing out there as an excuse. So the inability to make an argument can hardly be written off due to citizenship.

You aren't the only Canadian who attempts to mask their ignorance of American issues and Americans in some instances by using that excuse. Lots of you out there - just look at the CBC's comment boards any time they cover a US issue. They don't have a clue, so they just blow it off as "American politics". Sort of like saying the magic words "religious right" - beyond question, no further discussion required, the informed argument has been made. Bashing America and Americans is almost a national sport for the socialist segment of the Canadian population.

Quote :

I won't defend your plural assumptions......every point shouldnt lead to a detailed assumption....unless your mind is already made up...on every detail I will say.

What can I say? The sheer volume of your ignorance required a lot of correction.

And when your every point (claims, really) flies in the face of historical facts and records, it isn't an "assumption" to point out that you are woefully, ignorantly wrong. Particularly when the "assumption" you're complaining about is emphasized by direct quotes from the Founders that confirm what their intentions were. Like, for example, your comments about people seeing the Second Amendment as a right to bear arms primarily for defense against the possibility of tyrannical government. Like comments that "shall not be infringed" (I gather that your enjoyment of a challenge doesn't extend to explaining what that means, right?) part is being taken out of context.

None of that is "thoughtful argument" as you claim you make on these topics. These are pronouncements, nothing more. You can't provide quotes to back your claims, references to historical records of any kind, court decisions over the last two centuries, references to constitutional scholars... nothing. Despite some sort of exposure to these documents in your education that you claim to have had.

And so, when your claims do get blown to pieces by something that really is a thoughtful, supported, response, you complain those are just "assumptions", and you shouldn't be subjected to "detailed assumptions". You wouldn't recognize a fact if it walked up wearing a sign and kicked you in the ass.

As I've said before, debating these issues with you is like clubbing baby seals; there really is no debate and no contest because you don't have a leg to stand on and can't provide anything in support of your pronouncements. What it leads to is you being cornered - like now - and falling back to simply complain that you're being subjected to detailed assumptions. No. You're being subjected to facts.

So if you expect you're going to get a pass when you post nonsense like you do here as "informed argument"... no such luck, sunshine.

Quote :

It's important to defend words...Its important to defend humans and their habitat.

Where then, is your defense of your words claiming "NRA fanatics" are saying that war is the only engine that will set things right? How many times have you been challenged to identify who's saying that as you claim?

Where then, is your defense of your words saying that the right to bear arms against tyranny is "NRA fanaticism" and not the expressed intent of the Second Amendment?

No defense so far, just excuses and more pronouncements

But the Founders realized it was important to defend people, their rights, and their liberty. That's why we got the First Amendment, followed by the Second. That's why they went to the additional care of emphasizing only one article in the Bill of Rights with the words "shall not be infringed". Because people living in the real world understand that, ultimately, your personal defense will depend on you, not some cop who's a phone call and twenty minutes away, assuming you even get the chance to make the phone call. Unfortunately, they didn't realize that for some people, even the words "shall not be infringed" would mean nothing.

And that's why "NRA fanatics" like me defend the words of the Founders and what they meant when they crafted the constitutional documents - including the Second Amendment - when socialists like you come along and attempt to twist them into something that in no way resembles what they intended.

The Al Gore version of how we defend the environment... that's another issue you probably won't have much luck with providing an intelligent argument in defense of. Particularly when Obama just attempted to have the EPA gain control of most of the private property in America by declaring ditches "navigable waterways", falling under their powers under the Clean Water Act. When you know the American public will never give you what you want through a constitutional amendment, you attempt to seize the power to do the same thing through regulation. You socialists and your ideas are not only very strange, but you're the natural born enemies of the concepts of property rights, individual rights, and liberty.

Quote :

It ain't over yet.l

If this is the best you can do in defense of your pronouncements and opinions here, obviously it is.

Quote :

I'm not saying american history isnt important....just that it is another speck in history, like all others.

You STILL don't get it.

The Second Amendment (or any other amendment) isn't about American history. It's about principles. We look to the history when, for example, some illiterate thinks the Second Amendment was not primarily about the people having arms to deter and if necessary fight against tyrannical government. The writings of those men show us exactly what they intended. And they took their time crafting their constitutional documents because they spent so much time discussing and debating the history of government. Not just in the Europe they were recently from, but all the way back to Aristotle.

Though I'm not quite sure what to say, feel assured, I do not feel backed in a corner.

I'm not sure how criticising a, ranting, celebrity, led to legal arguments over your constitution...

Maybe i was out of line...but I don't feel so.

I would hate that our lack in manners twisted the topic at hand...but here it is.

...on the argument...

Isn't the fact that Amendments were so well detailed, a sign that the founders knew they were starting something, rather than defining how things should be?

If amendments were anticipated...would that not mean dissent should be considered as well?

Why would one want to amend, if not for dissent?

What to do, with the dissent of today?

Should the way dissent is dealt with be amended as well?...Or do things just work perfect?

Adapting seems a particular strategy in the founders plans...do the methods at hand adapt well/fast enough to meet modern needs?...or maybe those processes need/deserve amending?

mucker wrote:

Though I'm not quite sure what to say, feel assured, I do not feel backed in a corner.

You've done everything and anything other than provide a rational for why those who simply defend the Second Amendment as the Founders intended it to be about are "NRA fanatics" in your eyes. Certainly nothing that faintly resembles one of those "thoughtful arguments" of yours. You can't tell us where you heard those "NRA fanatics" said war was the only way to go as you claimed.

So what we get is an ongoing litany of demonstrated ignorance of the Constitution, interspersed with pronouncements. No rational argument based on fact. It comes to the point when you start flailing around stating that "shall not be infringed" is being taken out of context - but you can't even explain what "shall not be infringed" means under that argument.

When you can't defend your pronouncements with facts, just more pronouncements, that certainly has all the appearances of being backed into a corner - whether you feel that way or not. I get it that people like you on the left are not used to having to defend the pronouncements you make. The way the world is supposed to operate in your eyes is that you say something, and it is supposed to be taken as fact. You shouldn't be expected to defend what you say with fact, or history, or court decisions, or anything else - as has happened here. Unfortunately for you, I don't intend to let you or anyone else get away with that. If and when you say something that is stupid and/or uninformed ignorance, you can expect that I'm going to call you on it.

Quote :

I'm not sure how criticising a, ranting, celebrity, led to legal arguments over your constitution...

How is it that a man who expresses his opinion on what another Obama term will lead to is a ranter, and yet you're running around spouting ignorant comments about "NRA fanatics" and somehow or other are not worse? At least Nugent understands what the Second Amendment was intended to protect - something you've repeatedly demonstrated you don't have a clue about, even after all of this.

But, we got here when you referred to people like me as "NRA fanatics", stating that you felt sorry for the "honourable" NRA members who weren't like us, based on your abject ignorance of the Constitution. Which is when you got called on your BS, particularly when you like to try and blow smoke up everyone's asses and claim your pronouncements and ignorance is actually thoughtful argument. You have yet to defend a single thing you've posted here with even just one historical fact, reference to a court case, a quote from the Federalist Papers, or a quote from one of the Founders regarding the Second Amendment to back up your pronouncements. That says a lot about what you post.

Quote :

Isn't the fact that Amendments were so well detailed, a sign that the founders knew they were starting something, rather than defining how things should be?

That's kind of like saying the laws against drunk driving are just the start of something, not a definition of what the law should be. And for anyone to offer either suggestion would be childish nonsense.

The Constitution laid out a framework for a system of governance, with particular attention paid to enumerating the rights of the individual. It isn't a starting point, with the government having the option of whether they choose to respect the right to vote, or freedom of assembly, or to bear arms, as they so chose, because it didn't go so far as defining how things should be. A constitution the way you suggest it would be viewed would NEVER be authoritative, because the next guy could simply come along and say it was still at a starting point and hadn't yet defined how things should be.

The Founders left a very clear process for amending the Constitution if and when the American people felt that was necessary and desired to do so. That amendment process has been used many times in the past, and for those who feel the Second Amendment should be changed, that is the proper way to do it.

Quote :

If amendments were anticipated...would that not mean dissent should be considered as well?

Absolutely.

But it is ignorance, not dissent, to call people "NRA fanatics" because they expect and defend their rights as provided by the Founders, and you either think the Founders meant something else, or think the Second Amendment should be changed. And that is all the more true when you have consistently demonstrated you are utterly incapable of producing even a single historical fact, quote, period commentary, court decision, constitutional document, etc, to support what you post here. What we get instead is sliding from one uninformed pronouncement to another.

Dissent would be people like you saying that it is your belief that the Founders erred in their drafting of the Second Amendment, or that it was no longer appropriate, or whatever, and thus should be amended in whatever way to address your concerns. Along with a fact based rational supporting your position of what the Second Amendment should be changed to read, of course. But calling people "fanatics" because they expect and demand their rights as they presently exist, accompanied by crap claiming they're running around claiming war is the only way, is not dissent. It's just stupid, bigoted, prejudiced BS.

Quote :

What to do, with the dissent of today?

I'm not aware of any socialist/statist like yourself proposing that the Second Amendment be changed through the process provided by the Founders to do so. Mostly, we just read people saying and posting ignorant BS on the matter and attacking those who demand the full extent of their rights as currently written. Ranting, I suppose you could call it, but it certainly isn't dissent.

Which leads one to wonder why, if their cause is so just, their logic so impeccable, why they just fall back on BS instead of attempting a change which would redefine and remove/restrict some of the rights currently guaranteed by the Second Amendment and make it more to their liking? My best guess is they know they wouldn't stand a hope in hell of getting the American people to approve such a change.

Quote :

Should the way dissent is dealt with be amended as well?...Or do things just work perfect?

You've got as much chance of selling your pronouncements as "dissent" as you have of selling them as informed arguments.

When the very best you can do is label people as "fanatics" because you don't have a clue of what the Amendment means, it isn't dissent.

When you can't reference one single fact, point of history, quote from any of the Founders - especially after having claimed to have been exposed to US Constitutional documents and history during your education - it sure as hell isn't dissent.

Uninformed, ignorant pronouncements of others as "fanatics" simply because they expect their rights as they currently exist is not "dissent". It's just more squirming going on in the corner.

Quote :

Adapting seems a particular strategy in the founders plans...do the methods at hand adapt well/fast enough to meet modern needs?...or maybe those processes need/deserve amending?

Given that not a single socialist/statist like you has even attempted to change the Second to this point, and the amendment process has apparently worked well enough for the last 200+ years on a laundry list of other constitutional items, it appears to work just fine.

I also don't find it particularly intelligent to think we'd be better off these days if we made amendments faster - because apparently, modern times demand we make decisions on how our government works and what are rights are really fast. In my opinion, it should take some time to allow debate and some sober second thought. If we could somehow or other have instantaneous voting on amending the Constitution, I'm sure we could have outlawed the Muslim religion, removed due process - all kinds of neat things - in the first week or so after the attacks of 9/11. How that would have been some kind of modern improvement, I have no idea.

There is no doubt that I stepped on yours and others' toes., To be a health fanatic, would be no less a fanatic. And i will call you on it if I can.
You pick the patterns you choose to defend and repeat, as do I.
Maybe I should throttle my sense of humour a bit...untill you catch up with the rest of us.
But, till then I feel free to express myself...as well as re-invent myself, as I see fit.

I realize you defend your, written, rights...I'm just not convinced you are concerned beyond that.

If you are just out for "your" team, especially in debates, expect to be treated so.
If you do have concern for the rest of us, then we are waiting for your heartfelt support of our ignorance...to say the least.

After all, we are on a wr site, in the off topic section.

Try tellin a skunk you can catch more flies with honey...he aint listening.

Quote :

"I'll tell you this right now: If Barack Obama becomes the president in November, again, I will either be dead or in jail by this time next year," Nugent said.

So - is Ted a man of his word, or a big fat liar?


I going with big fat liar, but there's still time for him to "man up".