Pro-gun rocker Ted Nugent bans guns from Virginia concert

[*Nately120*]

I'm not going to assume this is true, but Ted Nugent is full of shite too, so his cry of FAKE NEWS should fall on deaf ears, as well. Surely someone who actually went to the concert can set the record straight.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(07-20-2018, 03:37 PM)Arturo Bandini Wrote: I think you have more chances to be victime of a crime if you fear to be. 

IMHO.

Dealing exclusively with criminals and victims for a living these past 17 years I can safely say this is not the case.  Honestly I have a hard time finding the logic in your assertion.  I think you can absolutely reduce your chances of being a victim of crime by being smart about where and when you go places or do things but that only mitigates, it doesn't eliminate.  I had a neighbor get a gun stuck in his face when guys robbed the Subway he had stopped at to get a sandwich around 3 PM on a weekday.  Like I said, you don't get to pick and choose when you're going to be victimized.

I own many guns.  I have ammunition that I hope never to use as it is specifically designed to ensure the target does not survive (since you probably don't know there are a lot of different types of bullets).  I own them because I may have to use them, not because I ever want to.  I do this knowing the chance I'll ever use them is small.  It's better to have it and not need it than to need it and not have it.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(07-20-2018, 07:27 PM)Nately120 Wrote: I'm not going to assume this is true, but Ted Nugent is full of shite too, so his cry of FAKE NEWS should fall on deaf ears, as well.  Surely someone who actually went to the concert can set the record straight.

Nugent is full of shit and more importantly his music sucks! 


Seriously, I thought Wang Dang Sweet Poontang was juvenile when I was 13.  He really is lame.

[Nebuchadnezzar]

(07-20-2018, 10:11 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Nugent is full of shit and more importantly his music sucks! 


Seriously, I thought Wang Dang Sweet Poontang was juvenile when I was 13.  He really is lame.

Stranglehold is Teds only decent song

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(07-21-2018, 01:27 AM)Nebuchadnezzar Wrote: Stranglehold is Teds only decent song

Agreed, that is a great riff.

[Arturo Bandini]

(07-20-2018, 10:10 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Dealing exclusively with criminals and victims for a living these past 17 years I can safely say this is not the case.  Honestly I have a hard time finding the logic in your assertion.  I think you can absolutely reduce your chances of being a victim of crime by being smart about where and when you go places or do things but that only mitigates, it doesn't eliminate.  I had a neighbor get a gun stuck in his face when guys robbed the Subway he had stopped at to get a sandwich around 3 PM on a weekday.  Like I said, you don't get to pick and choose when you're going to be victimized.

I own many guns.  I have ammunition that I hope never to use as it is specifically designed to ensure the target does not survive (since you probably don't know there are a lot of different types of bullets).  I own them because I may have to use them, not because I ever want to.  I do this knowing the chance I'll ever use them is small.  It's better to have it and not need it than to need it and not have it.

I don't own any gun, I never did and I feel very good. I'm not in danger by just living.

I never got robbed, assaulted or whatever. 

But I know you guys love your guns very much.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(07-21-2018, 08:17 AM)Arturo Bandini Wrote: I don't own any gun, I never did and I feel very good. I'm not in danger by just living.

I'm pleased to hear that, especially as you have no real choice in this matter.  If you lived in the US you'd have the exact same option you're "choosing" to exercise right now.

Quote:I never got robbed, assaulted or whatever. 

Again, pleased to hear it.  Most people don't.

Quote:But I know you guys love your guns very much.

I love that I have the option to own one.  There is a small amount of piece of mind that comes in knowing you have the ability to defend yourself if someone tries to victimize you.  A bit like having earthquake insurance that you hope you'll never have to use.

[hollodero]

(07-23-2018, 11:00 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: I'm pleased to hear that, especially as you have no real choice in this matter.  If you lived in the US you'd have the exact same option you're "choosing" to exercise right now.

that's clever put.

Just for the record, no direct knowledge of French law, but it's not impossible at all for civilians to own guns here. It just is a way longer process. But Austria recently even had a highly relevant presidential candidate who carried a Glock around.

(07-23-2018, 11:00 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: I love that I have the option to own one.  There is a small amount of piece of mind that comes in knowing you have the ability to defend yourself if someone tries to victimize you.  A bit like having earthquake insurance that you hope you'll never have to use.

I can see the logic in that, it must be noted though that this freedom does come with a downside. That's not a spin, that's just as true as it is with traffic.
On the other hand, understand the Europeans, we grew up with the knowledge that a) a gun is deadly and meant to be and and b) a society is safer if common people don't have those deadly things. And from everything we see and witness (and have statistics on), this seems to be the correct take. Our downside of course being taking a calculated risk to fall victim. Calculated as in very small chance.

In my case, the calculation is helped that I'm qute clumsy at times and probably would hurt myself or shoot an innocent, were I ever to defend myself with a gun in an obvious high-stress situation. I'd rather be defenseless than risking that. Which is a bit of the point, if at least people who have guns can show that they're properly trained, like when they are using their freedom to drive a car, then we could see some reason in all that. But without these things in place, with basically everyone being able to buy self-defense weapons of all sorts and calibers, Europeans can't help but think you're taking a crazy road here. And paying a yearly toll of human life for it.

Which takes nothing away from your argument, and I additionally know there's an amendment in place. One I find an outdated absurdity, like laws from around 1800 often are, but that doesn't mean I could really argue with an amendment.

[*PhilHos*]

(07-20-2018, 04:04 PM)GMDino Wrote: So I post a news story, where people are quoted explaining that the guns WERE banned and why.  

And Teddy spews "fakenews!!!" and you post it and then say you don't even know if he's telling the truth when I suggest he must have fired everyone who went against he very strong wishes.

Noooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo, you posted a story that says Nugent told the venue to ban guns. I posted a story that says he denies doing so. You made a smartass comment about him misspeaking. I pointed out that he wasn't misspeaking and there's no way to make that claim.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(07-23-2018, 12:08 PM)hollodero Wrote: that's clever put.

Just for the record, no direct knowledge of French law, but it's not impossible at all for civilians to own guns here. It just is a way longer process. But Austria recently even had a highly relevant presidential candidate who carried a Glock around.

Thank you.   True, I don't know the exact extent of the firearms laws in France.  I can safely say they are far more restrictive than those in even CA.

Quote:I can see the logic in that, it must be noted though that this freedom does come with a downside. That's not a spin, that's just as true as it is with traffic.

Oh, absolutely.  This is true of all freedoms to some extent.  The right to free speech which we enjoy in the US and does not exist in the same fashion in Europe, is ripe for abuse.  The freedom of religion enables horrible people like the Westboro Baptists.  The freedom of assembly enables them to annoy and borderline harass people, and this is in no way restricted to them.

Quote:On the other hand, understand the Europeans, we grew up with the knowledge that a) a gun is deadly and meant to be and and b) a society is safer if common people don't have those deadly things. And from everything we see and witness (and have statistics on), this seems to be the correct take. Our downside of course being taking a calculated risk to fall victim. Calculated as in very small chance.

Yes, you are unlikely to be a victim.  You are even less likely to be in a position to use your firearm if you are one.  Self defense is just one facet of the 2A though.  It exists as the Framers also had a healthy fear of a well armed central government and its ability to oppress our citizenry.  Regardless, having some chance to defend yourself instead of none is far more preferable to me.

Quote:In my case, the calculation is helped that I'm qute clumsy at times and probably would hurt myself or shoot an innocent, were I ever to defend myself with a gun in an obvious high-stress situation. I'd rather be defenseless than risking that. Which is a bit of the point, if at least people who have guns can show that they're properly trained, like when they are using their freedom to drive a car, then we could see some reason in all that. But without these things in place, with basically everyone being able to buy self-defense weapons of all sorts and calibers, Europeans can't help but think you're taking a crazy road here. And paying a yearly toll of human life for it.

Except the vast majority of firearms related homicide are criminals killing other criminals.  This is, of course, no solace at all to the victims of gun related crime that aren't, themselves, criminals.  Again, it is a trade off.  I turn a very jaundiced eye towards any attempts to restrict the freedoms of law abiding adults, especially when such freedoms are enshrined in our country's founding document.

Which takes nothing away from your argument, and I additionally know there's an amendment in place. One I find an outdated absurdity, like laws from around 1800 often are, but that doesn't mean I could really argue with an amendment.[/quote]

I must respectfully disagree.  I think the intent behind the 2A is just as, if not more, relevant now than when the Bill of Rights was written.  The government's ability to control or monitor every facet of a citizen's life is far more extensive now than in 1789.  I find it oddly contradictory that when the Patriot Act was passed many left leaning types, including myself, felt it was an overreach.  Many quoted Benjamin Franklin, "Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."  However, when it comes to gun rights that quote seems to fall out of favor.  I've seen gun control activists state, "If it saves just one life it is worth it".  Sorry, but no.

[hollodero]

(07-23-2018, 10:25 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Oh, absolutely.  This is true of all freedoms to some extent.  The right to free speech which we enjoy in the US and does not exist in the same fashion in Europe, is ripe for abuse.  The freedom of religion enables horrible people like the Westboro Baptists.  The freedom of assembly enables them to annoy and borderline harass people, and this is in no way restricted to them.

Yes, it is. We Europeans are probably more used to ask the question if granting the last inch of freedom is worth the consequences for the society the free individual still lives in. And sure, we do that with free speech.
(...although whenever that is brought up, I don't think this to be a clear black and white from the start. There's things you can't say in the US, you've your restrictions against the n-word or inciting violence as well).

With gun freedom - not worth the consequences. This is again me asking what makes sense and giving that more weight than upholding a principle of total individual freedom ("free speech" restrictions, for example, did not lead to any kind of "slippery slope"). I'm glad my neighbor probably doesn't have a gun, I value that higher than the bit of freedom lost by that.

And I'm fine with my neighbor having a gun, as long as he's proven to be sane and that he can use that thing. The crazy part for us about the US, again, is not so much people having guns, it's all kind of unstable and untrained people potentially having guns. Some kind of gun licence would sound so reasonable.

(07-23-2018, 10:25 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Except the vast majority of firearms related homicide are criminals killing other criminals.  This is, of course, no solace at all to the victims of gun related crime that aren't, themselves, criminals.  Again, it is a trade off.  I turn a very jaundiced eye towards any attempts to restrict the freedoms of law abiding adults, especially when such freedoms are enshrined in our country's founding document.

Banning cars would prevent traffic deaths. I'm aware that not advocating that ban doesn't mean one is unsympathetic to the victims, and I'd never accuse you of that.
I think even criminals shot dead are tragic incidents, also that the gun liberty is an incentive to act on shooting phantasies of all sorts. Statistics sure seem to affirm that view, so the trade off (the gun deaths) seems a bit high for an European, especially when we think the advantages of an armed populace to be quite virtual. Bluntly, I just don't see you taking a gun and marching to Washington. If you didn't do it after being asked to choose between Hillary and Trump as your new leader, you never will :)

(07-23-2018, 10:25 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: I must respectfully disagree.  I think the intent behind the 2A is just as, if not more, relevant now than when the Bill of Rights was written.  The government's ability to control or monitor every facet of a citizen's life is far more extensive now than in 1789.  I find it oddly contradictory that when the Patriot Act was passed many left leaning types, including myself, felt it was an overreach.  Many quoted Benjamin Franklin, "Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."  However, when it comes to gun rights that quote seems to fall out of favor.  I've seen gun control activists state, "If it saves just one life it is worth it".  Sorry, but no.

I know the quote, I don't think it's a particularly smart one, but I get the point. Then again, said overreach (and I sure thought it was one too) isn't solved with armed people. No one picked up his guns, yeah the people itself weren't even united on that one.
I see the amendment as the idea to extend the checks and balances principle it seems to be high on in general is expanded to government/people - people can keep the government in check by force. But is that still true? Given there's a third entity now, a standing army... and if people and government ever were in the crosshairs so badly that a civil war were looming, the army would take side and win anyway. This is why I said the armed people's militia is a virtual advantage to me, which wouldn't do much but increasing the death toll in case of a civil war (and people forming a militia to fight the government would be that, a civil war).