James Madison’s initial proposal for a bill of rights was brought to the floor of the House of Representatives on June 8, 1789, during the first session of Congress. The initial proposed passage relating to arms was: “The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; a well armed and well regulated militia being the best security of a free country but no person religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to render military service in person.”
Samuel Adams proposed that the Constitution:
“Be never construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the press, or the rights of conscience; or to prevent the people of the United States, who are peaceable citizens, from keeping their own arms; or to raise standing armies, unless when necessary for the defence of the United States, or of some one or more of them; or to prevent the people from petitioning, in a peaceable and orderly manner, the federal legislature, for a redress of their grievances: or to subject the people to unreasonable searches and seizure.”

Here’s the biggest difference between you and me and every other law abiding gun owner in the US. You, as a liberal, hate guns. Therefore, guns should be removed from the hands of all law abiding Americans. As a conservative, if I don’t like guns, I don’t buy one. Apparently, rationality never invades your or any other liberal’s thinking processes. By your rationale, guns are pure evil because they can be used to kill people. After all, there is no other way to kill a human being than with a gun, right?
By that rationale, we should be removing all vehicles from the roadways, because FAR more people are killed by morons in cars than are killed by guns. Why should private citizens be able to keep and own cars? After all, most motor vehicle deaths are because of the actions of individual drivers, not government transportation. If we forced everyone to give up private ownership of vehicles we would automatically increase fitness, clean up the environment and limit the deaths from motor vehicles. Since there are around 6,000 people per year killed by guns (and there are 300,000,000 privately owned weapons, giving a death rate per privately owned weapon of 0.00002% = 1/5000′ths of 1%) and at least 40,0000 people are killed by cars (254,212,610 registered vehicles were in the US in 2009 and that year there were nearly 40,000 motor vehicle deaths, giving a death rate of 0.02%) which is proportionally 100x more deaths, shouldn’t we be outlawing cars?
The bottom line, Fred, is that this is a ridiculous argument to use for upending a portion of the Bill of Rights in favor of safety. Well, the question then becomes, does gun control make cities safer? Let’s consider two countries that have very successfully outlawed guns for law abiding people. Australia does not allow its citizens to own any ballistic weapon for self defense, but does grant some waivers for sport hunting and other activities. There has been absolutely no change in the number of gun deaths, except for one statistic…home invasion gun deaths of elderly citizens. That has risen by almost 400%.
In England, Americans usually have the romantic notion that because the accent is cute and sounds so polite, that Britain is perfectly safe. NOPE. London is the most dangerous city in the EU. For some reason, the criminals refuse to obey the gun laws. Since the criminals are the ONLY ones with guns, they are virtually unopposed when they decide to commit violent crimes. Gun control advocates in both these nations claim that suicides by gun has fallen to an all-time low and claim that because of this, lives are being saved by the hundreds. Of course, they didn’t actually look to see whether suicides committed by other methodology are on the rise. They are, and at dramatically increased rate of what was seen prior to the gun control laws. This is what is expected because, duh, suicide can’t be addressed by gun control, since it has nothing to do with gun control. If we follow the liberal hysteria to its’ natural endpoint, if we really wanted to prevent suicide, we would outlaw airplanes, cliffs, buildings over five feet tall, medications, bikes, water…
Another bottom line is this. What happened when Obama took office? In 2009, the US experienced the highest drop in murder rates of all time. What does it correlate with? New policies? NOPE. There was a 40% increase in gun sales due to concerns over gun control. So far as concealed carry permit applications? There was an increase of 60%. The murder rates dropped like a stone as well as violent crime in general. Why? Because criminals don’t want to die any more than the people who are carrying weapons. The last time that we saw the same phenomenon was in 1999 with the gun control debates that occurred over Columbine. Increases in CCW permits resulted in dramatically lowered crime because criminals knew that they had a far higher chance of losing their lives for a few bucks.
Often, we also hear legal gun owners characterized as being “out of control” or “cowboys” or “rednecks” and we are all told that we do not need weapons to protect ourselves. Your way is absolute foolishness. CCW holders are far more accurate and spray non-combatants far less than police who draw their weapons. Why? Because most of them not only seek more training than police officers have, they PRACTICE more. The police simply do not have the funding to allow an officer to go to the range and fire thousands of rounds. Their budget for firearm expenditures is extremely limited and their accuracy rates reflect it. Case in point…look what just happened in front of the Empire State Building in which officers killed an assailant with a gun. However, they also nailed NINE innocents doing that. Would you say that this means that we should trust that the police will better protect us if we have no weapons? I’ve seen liberal stretching of reality, but that would be too much for all but the most moronic to believe.
Your kind dreams of making it impossible for psychotics to buy weapons that could be used against the public. Nice wish. Even if it were impossible to buy a gun, he could kill just as many with a car or purchase a weapon from criminals. Here’s the real tragedy from Colorado. Not a single person in that crowd had a single weapon. They could do nothing more than run or bravely block the bodies of their loved ones with their own bodies. Worse, it took the police 25 minutes to even think about entering the theater and they only caught him when he walked out and gave up. What? Are you going to claim that it would have done no good because the guy was wearing body armor? Wrong. There are always weak points, and it is REALLY hard to concentrate when your face mask is being blasted by .45 caliber shells. Where was the protection from the police?
Ted Nugent is not always well spoken. But knock off the “he’s a bad guy” routine. By my way of thinking, a person who advocates disarming those who obey the law is the bad person. Your goals may be noble to you. To me, they are evil and the result of a society which been pampered for too long. The world does not work the way that you think that it does. If you truly care about lives, then stop driving. There is a far higher statistical probability that you will take a life with a motor vehicle than with a gun. Guns are not the enemies. The problem is people who choose violence to solve problems. That cannot be tempered by the choice of weapon. Remember the Dark Ages, the Crusades, any time prior to the development of widespread ballistic weaponry? Violence was so low during those wonderful periods, wasn’t it? What about in African nations? Black on black violence puts to shame any of the inequalities of Apartheid. And most of that is not committed with guns, it is committed with machetes. Maybe you should crusade against those too.
The very best reason for Americans owning guns is given by the framers. They had just gone through a war with a nation that did not obey its’ own laws with regard to the American population and who very much desired to remove all weapons from the people here because when there are no weapons, the government has absolutely nothing to fear from its populace. In such a system, the government is paramount with the will of the people subject to nothing more than tyranny at their whims. When the people are armed and even the states can resist federalism through the use of state owned National Guards, the government always has a fear of what could happen if they decided to enforce their wishes without having to jump through hoops. They depend on fools who think they can solve problems by disarming one side of the parties. That works great so long as you are the side that remains armed.
Be my guest to try to ram through your ridiculous fantasies. I don’t disparage your wish for peace; I am disparaging your complete denial of human nature and your attempts to demonize someone because they don’t fit with your way of thinking. Ted Nugent is not perfect, but he is not a bad man. Don’t worry though, he’ll be there fighting for your right to be stupid, too, even if he doesn’t agree with you. Naiivete only lasts as long as the discussion remains philosophical. The foolishness of believing that Jared Loughner or James Holmes could have been stopped if they couldn’t buy a gun is so staggering it borders on the ludicrous. According to your way of thinking, if one person had a gun in that theater and had used it, they would be worthy of demonization, not considered a hero. You and your beliefs are not heroic, and they are not nice. It is that kind of idiocy that resulted in those peoples’ deaths. What if one person had a gun at the shopping center where Jared Loughner wreaked his destruction and had been willing to use it? Instead, it turned into a shooting gallery. That wasn’t the gun’s fault. It wasn’t Ted Nugent’s fault. It was the fault of the men who made the decision to pick up ANY weapon and commit acts of violence. Here’s one for you…would you be advocating revoking licenses if he had simply killed 6 people by running them down with a car? Obviously, it’s the car’s fault, right? Violence doesn’t need “access”. It simply IS. Be my guest and stay disarmed. I and everyone who believes the way that I do will still protect you should the need arise, no matter how irrational or stupid your reasoning. I fully expect that if you truly believe, you will promptly file a lawsuit against us for committing acts of violence to save life. Or is it okay to use another type of weapon? I can never keep it straight with you people since your ideas generally result in increased violence against the innocent.

Time to start writing to Congress about the many sins of this president – whether he is re-elected or not, he has to go for the good of the country.

Last night during the debate, watching Joe Biden address this issue with Paul Ryan, I now understand that I have been too charitable to these evil men. He laughed, he blamed Bush, he blamed the intelligence community, he blamed everyone and took no responsibility for a single shred of blame, nor did he show the slightest vestige of concern for the families of these men. It was all about him. He more than demonstrated why it is that he gives literally nothing to charity. Why should he? He’s given the “little people” enough of other people’s money and that’s REAL charity.

Ted Nugent is a good guy. He is unpolished, but from that good man, hearing that Obama is a bad man…well, I think he was actually holding back because the truth is worse. Obama and Biden are sociopathic narcissists who care nothing about anyone but themselves, who mock all that is good about America and strive to destroy the things about this country that makes it great in their headlong lust for power.

When Obama spoke for the first time following the Libya murders, he actually seemed puzzled as to why people would think that this was such a big deal. I was surprised that he wasn’t looking at his watch or hanging out with his rich and powerful celebrity friends or making his remarks on a friendly talk show.

Biden made sure to reinforce the administration’s uncaring attitude last night. It was like the president threw him a pitch and he knocked one out of the park. Contempt was dripping from his fangs all night long, but it was the worst where he was vulnerable. He and Obama still believe that the press will cooperate at some point to cover this up and attack those who dare to contradict their hallowed personages. If they say that this was NOT a terrorist attack, then God himself has spoken, and to question is to invite retaliation.

Ted Nugent hit the nail on the head. Keep talking, Ted!!