Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -

Nugent: Gun-free zones a recipe for disaster


Fluffybunny

Recommended Posts

As for Ted Nugent, I haven't really heard of him..living in the uk.

I saw his book on the the net once. The title alone cracked me up.. :lol: I take it, it's ironic?

GOD, GUNS AND ROCK'N'ROLL.

linked-image

Edited by billyhill
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 80
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

  • truethat

    15

  • Bill Hill

    8

  • Michelle

    7

  • __Kratos__

    7

I’m still shocked that a kid can walk into a gun store and buy two handguns and a whole stack of hollow tipped ammo.

It was no kid. He was an adult. He also had to wait and go through checks for all handguns. He actually bought the one handgun from a site that is based pretty close to me and the owner is crushed that it was a gun he sold but he still supports responsible use of guns. Even after all those checks, he had to wait 3 days for shipping and then had to pick up the gun at a registered dealer there.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It was no kid. He was an adult. He also had to wait and go through checks for all handguns. He actually bought the one handgun from a site that is based pretty close to me and the owner is crushed that it was a gun he sold but he still supports responsible use of guns. Even after all those checks, he had to wait 3 days for shipping and then had to pick up the gun at a registered dealer there.

Ok.. yeah you're right 23..hardly a kid.

Must've been a breakdown in the checking system. It's interesting because -in the UK the story has been presented as if he just walked into a gun store and bought the guns and ammo all together.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

well your news is lying to you because they want you to think that the govt. taking your guns away was a good thing.

I mean beside the waiting period, you can only purchase one handgun per 30 day period in virginia. That right there shows how your media is messing with your head.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Right to bear arms doesn't say anything about needing practice.

You have a right to have a gun.

Here's a gun

You have a right to arm yourself.

Here's seven bullets.

You wanna practice? Then you need to head down to your local police station and we'll set up ranges there.

Constitution issues SOLVED.

Maniacs shooting up and killing dozens of people? Solved.

You're sad because you can't practice shooting bullets into your backyard? Oh friggin well.

You're sad because the US doesn't GET YOU?

Welcome to the club my friends. Get in line behind the blacks, women, homosexuals and green party....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah we’re presented with images such as these-

linked-image

Your friendly localstore.

linked-image

er need to compensate for something sir? Why, it's your constitution right.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

LEts all pretend we are in truthats fantasy island where you only get 7 rounds of ammunition from the government per gun per year.

Lets see who that effects? The legal gun owners and those obeying it's laws.

Now for those that don't care, will just buy as many guns and as much ammunition as they care illegally. You cant stop guns an ammunition from entering the country.

All that you are proposing is to arm the criminals, and take ammunition from legal gun owners.

Yeah, that sure solved things didn't it.

Now tell me, do you honestly, really, truly think that your idea is feasible?

It might make sense to you, but to any sane person it is the ramblings of someone out of touch with reality with no experience with firearms.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The shooter in this case bought the gun legally. So what's your point?

So did a lot of other people.

If some maniac can go wild with a gazillion bullets then there really is no stopping him is there?

And the argument of the thread is that if law abiding gun owners could use their guns they could have stopped them.

With my law, this won't be a problem at all.

I also think having to practice at the police station is a great idea.

ETA

I also stated that you get a refill on your guns ammo once you go down and register explaining what happened to the other bullets.

Edited by truethat
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The bullet limiting plan is kind of silly as people can reload their own ammo, buy ammo from other places or procure ammo from any of a number of sources. It is like saying you want to limit the purchase of rolling pins; you can make those from wood. For your bullet idea you would have to stop and search mail, every shipment that comes into the country; every citizen that moves into your state. You would also have to limit access to lead(so much for folks being able to buy fishing weights) and potassium nitrate or, less frequently, sodium nitrate, charcoal and sulfur.

It is a not feasible.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It is not the same thing at ALL from limiting the use of rolling pins.

Pah LEAZE at least TRY to come up with something better than that.

Rolling pins are used primarily for baking, not killing.

For what other purpose is there a use for bullets? They are designed to KILL.

And in addition it is the extreme ease in access to guns and weapons that contributes to situations like this shooting.

Ask yourself sincerely if the killer had been able to pop down to a store and purchase a few bombs if you think he wouldn't have just blown up the buildings?

OF COURSE HE WOULD HAVE.

It is the easy access for the criminal mind that is the problem. Not the guns themselves.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And the argument of the thread is that if law abiding gun owners could use their guns they could have stopped them.

With my law, this won't be a problem at all.

Well see, it would be a problem. How would a person be able to defend themselves in the first place if they're unable to practice and become proficient with the gun (which, by limiting one to 7 bullets, is exactly what you're doing)?

And you miss the point of FluffyBunny's argument. There's no point in banning something one can manufacture on their own (well, to a certain extent...).

And BillyHill, PLEASE tell me that second picture was photoshopped. I mean, I don't know what the hell half the stuff on there is...

Edited by Stalker
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guns don't kill people, people do. And with your logic (people here who agree with gun control), anything that is dangerous and in the past has killed a lot of people should be banned.

Planes killed over 3,000 lives on American soil, should they be banned too?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Right to bear arms doesn't say anything about needing practice.

You have a right to have a gun.

Your simple look at the rights of Americans is a scary thing indeed. We have these rights for a reason and we don't need more government to get their nose into them.

I mean what if the government had you simple outlook on our rights? Like freedom of speech is only acceptable as long as you're allowed to talk. So if we don't like what you're saying or your group is we'll arrest you all and let you have your freedom of speech in a jail cell. That's your logic after all. :hmm:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's not my logic. Don't put words in my mouth by way of avoiding having to come up with a legitimate debate.

So far we have rolling pins, hunting squirrels and a twist on freedom of speech. All OFF TOPIC and nothing at all to do with the topic of the thread.

The fact remains that it is TOO easy for someone to get a gun with the sole purpose of killing people.

Its happened several times in this country and is entirely outside the paradigm of the right to bear arms. In my mind the founding fathers would probably slap the crap out of you all for your ridiculous arguments.

The right to bear arms is a form of protection from government tyranny. Its not the right to go HUNTING????

What the heck is wrong with you all?

Hunting has nothing to do with it. The right to bear arms means that we have a right to defend ourselves from the government.

Not the right to practice shooting cans in our back yard. Not the right to shoot deer....holy crap.

Edited by truethat
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Pah LEAZE at least TRY to come up with something better than that.

Rolling pins are used primarily for baking, not killing.

For what other purpose is there a use for bullets? They are designed to KILL.

The example of the rolling pin is to simply illustrate that anything that can be made with things commonly available cannot be stopped or limited. As for a rolling pin, of course it is used for baking, please don't act like I am an idiot, but it can have a dual purpose; I can crush a skull with it too.

You are wrong about what the purpose of a bullet is. Of course it can kill with the assistance of the correct weapon and a human to fire it, but that is not all it can do, just as with the rolling pin example. My pistol and rifle are used for target practice on my property with my friends, or at a gun range. I have used my guns at competitions. I have some rifles that were owned by my grandfather which he used to feed his family(people all over the US still feed themselves with hunted animals; you may not know them because you live in a city, but it is still extremely common), both of those rifles are like a piece of history to me, like any family heirloom. They both still work well. My pistol can be used to shoot the bear that tried to climb through my kitchen window(oh it took more than a few bullets too), it can also be used to inspire a wouldbe burgler to hangout and wait the 30 minutes until the sheriff could get to my house to arrest him. It could have been used to permanently stop him had he tried to hurt anyone in my family.

Guns have many many uses, I have fired tens of thousands of rounds in my life. Very few times have I ever had to use a weapon in a defensive manner, but each of those times I have saved the lives of myself and my family.

Not everyone believes as you do about guns, not everyone lives in the same way as you do; there is a spectrum of belief from total gun bans to no gun control at all. Everyone has the right to their opinion and the ability to express themselves via the first amendmet of the Consitution. Not surpisingly the second amendment is our right to protect ourselves with guns.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

All of the things you have mentioned are OUTSIDE the parameters of the right to bear arms.

Please explain further, if you could.

This will be quite interesting...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would suggest that you research the right to bear arms.

Not to be confused with the right to bare arms while hunting.

The reason for this law was to prevent the government leaders from turning into dictators and ruling the people.

The people rule this country by electing representatives. The right to bear arms was designed for a specific reason. Not simply just the right to own a gun.

Its a right....why not just not make it illegal? I mean we don't have the right to own cars? The right to own rolling pins.

Why is it a RIGHT and not simply legal?

Thats the difference.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's not my logic. Don't put words in my mouth by way of avoiding having to come up with a legitimate debate.

Sure it is. It's twisting our rights to whatever fits your needs.

The fact remains that it is TOO easy for someone to get a gun with the sole purpose of killing people.

If they can't get a gun, they'll just find another tool to do it. There are lots of interesting ways to kill us fragile humans.

Its happened several times in this country and is entirely outside the paradigm of the right to bear arms. In my mind the founding fathers would probably slap the crap out of you all for your ridiculous arguments.

Really? The guys that fought for this country and laid down the rights that you want to basically strip, they'd agree with YOU of all people?

The right to bear arms is a form of protection from government tyranny. Its not the right to go HUNTING????

A right to have and use guns. You want to keep twisting the rights of citizens and in effect we'll lose more freedoms with thoughts like yours. Thank the 'verse you're not in power.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why is it a RIGHT and not simply legal?

Thats the difference.

You’re created all these posts and your major point boils down to mere semantics? what’s that all about?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would suggest that you research the right to bear arms.

Not to be confused with the right to bare arms while hunting.

I know it rather well, thanks. The play on words is rather cute though. Perhaps the right to arm bears? The reason it is a "right" rather than just "legal" is that the founding fathers felt the right to bear arms was so fundementally important that they placed it second in line behind the freedom of speech in the BILL OF RIGHTS. You might want to research that...

So let me see if I understand you. People should not have the right to feed their family with the food that they have hunted?

I am not quite understanding exactly what your point is.

Edited by Fluffybunny
Link to comment
Share on other sites

She's stated, very clearly, that the second amendment is to prevent a government dictatorship, but wants the government to dictate how many bullets (typos in most of my previous posts because I was in a hurry :blush: ) they allow us to have.

*government militia checks records* "We allocated the people in this neighborhood 124 rounds of ammo in the past nine months...that means we need to send 10 soldiers in there with unlimited supplies and either wait them out or take them out."

*reply* "Yes SIR...*salutes* "

:wacko:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

^ That is exactly why I am stockpiling hundreds of:

linked-image

At this point rolling pins aren't registered and serialed so no one knows how big my collection is. I am going to start my own militia... or a bakery...either way...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oh wow that took my breath away! LOL

Too funny about arming bears. We might do that down the line as well.

The point I am making is to ask why its a RIGHT? No one says that you have a "right" to own a car? When you have a right its a priveledge and comes with responsibilities.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

:lol: Fluffy, maybe I need to start training with spearguns...they don't draw nearly as much attention and are easier to get! :ph34r:
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.