Ted Nugent telling a liberal about his right to the 2nd ammendment

[PSGator66]

I think his is spot on with what he is saying.

http://biggeekdaddy.com/miscvideos/TedNugent.html

[108]

not surprising his argument starts and ends with the idea that people want to completely take away his right to defend himself

of course he should be reactive if that were the case, but it simply isn't

you can defend yourself Ted, and with a myriad of weaponry, no need to make a straw man

[MichiGator2002]

Didn't it come up in another thread that the UK or some other disarmament state wanted to abrogate the right of self-defense altogether? Why should people treat it as coincidence, instead of a valid inference that disarmamament cultures will devolve -- correct word choice -- into anti-self-defense states as well?

I mean, seriously, which of our antigun crusaders would settle for a cultural norm of carrying daggers or tonfas? Does anybody seriously want to pretend that the NMWA -- National Martial Weapons Association -- wouldn't be attacked and demagogues for promoting a culture of violence, assorted drivel just as vehemently as they do the NRA?

[wgbgator]

"Disarmament" is just the flipside of the pro-gun crown arguing that the government cant protect you from anything. Its really less about guns than arguing over the confidence in civil institutions to protect the populace and police crime or restore order in a crisis. My general thought is that cultures who willingly disarm have high degree of confidence in their civil institutions as well as being not particularly prone to vigilante type impulses, or harboring real fears of doomsday scenarios.

[Tim85]

Originally Posted by wgbgator

"Disarmament" is just the flipside of the pro-gun crown arguing that the government cant protect you from anything. Its really less about guns than arguing over the confidence in civil institutions to protect the populace and police crime or restore order in a crisis. My general thought is that cultures who willingly disarm have high degree of confidence in their civil institutions as well as being not particularly prone to vigilante type impulses, or harboring real fears of doomsday scenarios.

I think you're right on some of this, however, I don't know that I would consider looking at human history, and seeing what other governments and leaders have done, and then saying having a fear that the government can't really protect you is from "vigilante type impulses,"(That just sounds really silly, by the way)or "harboring fears of doomsday scenarios." These people aren't mentally ill, they've seen what's happened in the rest of the world -- dictators, child soldiers, gang-rapes, murders, and generally just really terrible things, what person in their right mind wouldn't have some kind of fear after knowing anything about how people are and our history? I think that's pretty reasonable and rational to think that, and to look at our history, and to say - there is no government out there who can protect me from human nature, but the best thing possible is for me to defend myself, as well as with help from the government, and I might be able to prevent as much of those terrible things from touching my life. Now, obviously -- there are extremists who live their lives in complete fear, but there will always be those.

[CalSFGator]

Ted is a bona fide nut job, with some very deep misogyny at play - but he is somewhat right about self-determination/free men, he just can't figure out how to make a coherent argument through his anger and limited intellect.

[wygator]

Originally Posted by wgbgator

"Disarmament" is just the flipside of the pro-gun crown arguing that the government cant protect you from anything. Its really less about guns than arguing over the confidence in civil institutions to protect the populace and police crime or restore order in a crisis. My general thought is that cultures who willingly disarm have high degree of confidence in their civil institutions as well as being not particularly prone to vigilante type impulses, or harboring real fears of doomsday scenarios.

People do break into houses. Some do want to commit rape or murder. It is rare that the victim gets an opportunity to call the police. Even if they do, ten minutes is a very long time to wait if a violent person is in your home.

Their best bet is if they can defend themself with lethal force.

That is hardly an irrational fear of a doomsday scenario...

[wgbgator]

Originally Posted by Tim85

I think you're right on some of this, however, I don't know that I would consider looking at human history, and seeing what other governments and leaders have done, and then saying having a fear that the government can't really protect you is from "vigilante type impulses,"(That just sounds really silly, by the way)or "harboring fears of doomsday scenarios." These people aren't mentally ill, they've seen what's happened in the rest of the world -- dictators, child soldiers, gang-rapes, murders, and generally just really terrible things, what person in their right mind wouldn't have some kind of fear after knowing anything about how people are and our history? I think that's pretty reasonable and rational to think that, and to look at our history, and to say - there is no government out there who can protect me from human nature, but the best thing possible is for me to defend myself, as well as with help from the government, and I might be able to prevent as much of those terrible things from touching my life. Now, obviously -- there are extremists who live their lives in complete fear, but there will always be those.

Well, we had a thread here a week or so ago in which a bunch of people said they would seek revenge rather than legal justice if a member of their family was killed by a drunk driver. Its probably mostly talk, but that's what I mean by "vigilante impulses." The less confidence we have in our system of justice to deliver justice, the more people will seek retribution or remedies outside of the law. So, the more you will likely value the idea of needing to arm yourself for self-defense or civil breakdown.

[Tim85]

Originally Posted by wgbgator

Well, we had a thread here a week or so ago in which a bunch of people said they would seek revenge rather than legal justice if a member of their family was killed by a drunk driver. Its probably mostly talk, but that's what I mean by "vigilante impulses." The less confidence we have in our system of justice to deliver justice, the more people will seek retribution or remedies outside of the law. So, the more you will likely value the idea of needing to arm yourself for self-defense or civil breakdown.

What you refer to as "vigilante impulses," at least in that specific situation, I would refer to as a completely normal human response to a tragedy. Ever seen that old film "12 Angry Men?" The one guy yells something like, "I'll Kill ya!" Doesn't mean he's really going to kill someone, it was just an expression, anyway a really a good movie, but I digress, I mean -- I think you're right, but it's not that simple. I don't think the fact that pro-gunners feel the need to protect themselves solely because of an incompetence and distrust with the justice system, but also because they've seen in their own lives how people can be, and that within every society there are people who will murder, and steal, and rape -- and do everything we all hate, regardless of whether the justice system is competent or not, and especially regardless of whether guns are taken away or not.

[wgbgator]

Originally Posted by wygator

People do break into houses. Some do want to commit rape or murder. It is rare that the victim gets an opportunity to call the police. Even if they do, ten minutes is a very long time to wait if a violent person is in your home.

Their best bet is if they can defend themself with lethal force.

That is hardly an irrational fear of a doomsday scenario...

Actually, thinking you are likely to be the victim of a crime like that is irrational, especially from a statistical standpoint, a gun in the house makes you more likely to be the victim of gun violence. Especially since most murders are done by people known to the victim, a friend/lover/spouse/relative or a fellow criminal associate. Random, violent crime is rare, and has been in decline since the early ninties. It probably doesnt help though that the media is filled with TV & movies that are full of random homicidal weirdos that make people think otherwise.

[wgbgator]

Originally Posted by Tim85

What you refer to as "vigilante impulses," at least in that specific situation, I would refer to as a completely normal human response to a tragedy. Ever seen that old film "12 Angry Men?" The one guy yells something like, "I'll Kill ya!" Doesn't mean he's really going to kill someone, it was just an expression, anyway a really a good movie, but I digress, I mean -- I think you're right, but it's not that simple. I don't think the fact that pro-gunners feel the need to protect themselves solely because of an incompetence and distrust with the justice system, but also because they've seen in their own lives how people can be, and that within every society there are people who will murder, and steal, and rape -- and do everything we all hate, regardless of whether the justice system is competent or not, and especially regardless of whether guns are taken away or not.

I think seeking retribution is a natural human impulse. The point of these legal & civil institutions is to eliminate, curb and control those impulses. I think a fixation on guns are a symptom of a breakdown of trust in said institutions, as are the expansion of self-defense laws like SYG, or open carry laws, wanting to arm teachers, and many other things.

[wygator]

Originally Posted by wgbgator

Actually, thinking you are likely to be the victim of a crime like that is irrational, especially from a statistical standpoint, a gun in the house makes you more likely to be the victim of gun violence. Especially since most murders are done by people known to the victim, a friend/lover/spouse/relative or a fellow criminal associate. Random, violent crime is rare, and has been in decline since the early ninties. It probably doesnt help though that the media is filled with TV & movies that are full of random homicidal weirdos that make people think otherwise.

While you are statistically correct that the risk for any particular individual to fall victim is small, that is not a reason to be unprepared.

When you become the victim, it is 100%.

[MichiGator2002]

Originally Posted by wgbgator

I think seeking retribution is a natural human impulse. The point of these legal & civil institutions is to eliminate, curb and control those impulses. I think a fixation on guns are a symptom of a breakdown of trust in said institutions, as are the expansion of self-defense laws like SYG, or open carry laws, wanting to arm teachers, and many other things.

Ser, when you get on about us really just needing to trust government more -- because that always goes so well -- it tacitly confirms mybsuspicion that Nugent might be on to something. Because if Nugent were associated with having a personal abattoir instead of being a gun guy, I get the sneaking feeling you would be right there leading the charge Knives And Sticks Are Not The Answer. Guns are an instrumentality, the most efficient means of achieving distinct and identifiable ends, like self-defense. But the rhetoric deployed against those means is usually framed as an argument against those ends, i.e. trust government to protect you from crime, which it demonstrably does not do particularly well.

[wgbgator]

Originally Posted by MichiGator2002

Ser, when you get on about us really just needing to trust government more -- because that always goes so well -- it tacitly confirms mybsuspicion that Nugent might be on to something. Because if Nugent were associated with having a personal abattoir instead of being a gun guy, I get the sneaking feeling you would be right there leading the charge Knives And Sticks Are Not The Answer. Guns are an instrumentality, the most efficient means of achieving distinct and identifiable ends, like self-defense. But the rhetoric deployed against those means is usually framed as an argument against those ends, i.e. trust government to protect you from crime, which it demonstrably does not do particularly well.

What makes you think that the liberal fixation on guns isnt born of the same impulse? I mean, its not as if the average liberal is super-confident about the ability of government to do things or satisfied with the justice delivered by the legal system. That confidence is probably higher than the average conservative, but gun mania infects everyone, and the disease is probably the same, a distrust of their fellow man and our institutions.

[Row6]

Isn't he dead or in jail yet? What's the hold up?

[wargunfan]

I trust the government a lot. I trust the police to arrive about fifteen minutes after someone or several someones have broken into my house. I trust them to question me as to why I shot some/all of them. I trust them to write a crime scene report detailing the break in. I trust them to fingerprint the bodies and dust the scene for prints. I trust the coroners office to bag and remove the bodies. But I do not trust the government to prevent the crime in the first place. They are too few and too distracted to save me from the minuscule chance that my home may be invaded. I could choose to take that chance unarmed or I could choose to arm myself with whatever arms I choose and defend myself. That is my choice and no one else can or should deny me that right. I don't give a rat's rear end about statistical probabilities. It's my choice. It's that simple.

[rivergator]

Originally Posted by 108

not surprising his argument starts and ends with the idea that people want to completely take away his right to defend himself

of course he should be reactive if that were the case, but it simply isn't

you can defend yourself Ted, and with a myriad of weaponry, no need to make a straw man

that is the continual and basic problem. you can't have an intelligent conversation about anything because someone immediately gets into falsehoods and hyperbole.