Nugent Has Them In A Strangle Hold, Baby! -- on Gun Control
John Alway
The Link:
http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/04/19/commentary.nugent/index.html
The article:
[quote]
WACO, Texas (CNN) -- Zero tolerance, huh? Gun-free zones, huh? Try
this on for size: Columbine gun-free zone, New York City pizza shop
gun-free zone, Luby's Cafeteria gun-free zone, Amish school in
Pennsylvania gun-free zone and now Virginia Tech gun-free zone.
Anybody see what the evil Brady Campaign and other anti-gun cults have
created? I personally have zero tolerance for evil and denial. And
America had best wake up real fast that the brain-dead celebration of
unarmed helplessness will get you killed every time, and I've about
had enough of it.
Nearly a decade ago, a Springfield, Oregon, high schooler, a hunter
familiar with firearms, was able to bring an unfolding rampage to an
abrupt end when he identified a gunman attempting to reload his .22-
caliber rifle, made the tactical decision to make a move and tackled
the shooter.
A few years back, an assistant principal at Pearl High School in
Mississippi, which was a gun-free zone, retrieved his legally owned
Colt .45 from his car and stopped a Columbine wannabe from continuing
his massacre at another school after he had killed two and wounded
more at Pearl.
At an eighth-grade school dance in Pennsylvania, a boy fatally shot a
teacher and wounded two students before the owner of the dance hall
brought the killing to a halt with his own gun.
More recently, just a few miles up the road from Virginia Tech, two
law school students ran to fetch their legally owned firearm to stop a
madman from slaughtering anybody and everybody he pleased. These
brave, average, armed citizens neutralized him pronto.
My hero, Dr. Suzanne Gratia Hupp, was not allowed by Texas law to
carry her handgun into Luby's Cafeteria that fateful day in 1991, when
due to bureaucrat-forced unarmed helplessness she could do nothing to
stop satanic George Hennard from killing 23 people and wounding more
than 20 others before he shot himself. Hupp was unarmed for no other
reason than denial-ridden "feel good" politics.
She has since led the charge for concealed weapon upgrade in Texas,
where we can now stop evil. Yet, there are still the mindless puppets
of the Brady Campaign and other anti-gun organizations insisting on
continuing the gun-free zone insanity by which innocents are forced
into unarmed helplessness. Shame on them. Shame on America. Shame on
the anti-gunners all.
No one was foolish enough to debate Ryder truck regulations or ammonia
nitrate restrictions or a "cult of agriculture fertilizer" following
the unabashed evil of Timothy McVeigh's heinous crime against America
on that fateful day in Oklahoma City. No one faulted kitchen utensils
or other hardware of choice after Jeffrey Dahmer was caught drugging,
mutilating, raping, murdering and cannibalizing his victims. Nobody
wanted "steak knife control" as they autopsied the dead nurses in
Chicago, Illinois, as Richard Speck went on trial for mass murder.
Evil is as evil does, and laws disarming guaranteed victims make evil
people very, very happy. Shame on us.
Already spineless gun control advocates are squawking like chickens
with their tiny-brained heads chopped off, making political hay over
this most recent, devastating Virginia Tech massacre, when in fact it
is their own forced gun-free zone policy that enabled the unchallenged
methodical murder of 32 people.
Thirty-two people dead on a U.S. college campus pursuing their
American Dream, mowed-down over an extended period of time by a lone,
non-American gunman in possession of a firearm on campus in defiance
of a zero-tolerance gun ban. Feel better yet? Didn't think so.
Who doesn't get this? Who has the audacity to demand unarmed
helplessness? Who likes dead good guys?
I'll tell you who. People who tramp on the Second Amendment, that's
who. People who refuse to accept the self-evident truth that free
people have the God-given right to keep and bear arms, to defend
themselves and their loved ones. People who are so desperate in their
drive to control others, so mindless in their denial that they pretend
access to gas causes arson, Ryder trucks and fertilizer cause
terrorism, water causes drowning, forks and spoons cause obesity,
dialing 911 will somehow save your life, and that their greedy
clamoring to "feel good" is more important than admitting that armed
citizens are much better equipped to stop evil than unarmed, helpless
ones.
Pray for the families of victims everywhere, America. Study the
methodology of evil. It has a profile, a system, a preferred
environment where victims cannot fight back. Embrace the facts, demand
upgrade and be certain that your children's school has a better plan
than Virginia Tech or Columbine. Eliminate the insanity of gun-free
zones, which will never, ever be gun-free zones. They will only be
good guy gun-free zones, and that is a recipe for disaster written in
blood on the altar of denial. I, for one, refuse to genuflect there.
[/quote]
One of the great points:
"Thirty-two people dead on a U.S. college campus pursuing their
American Dream, mowed-down over an extended period of time by a lone,
non-American gunman in possession of a firearm on campus in defiance
of a zero-tolerance gun ban. Feel better yet? Didn't think so."
Gun control disarms the good guys, and makes them sitting ducks
for the bad guys who will arm to the teeth. That's it in a nut shell.
...John
Paul Robinson
> Ted Nugent has written an excellent article on gun control.
>
> The Link:http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/04/19/commentary.nugent/index.html
>
> The article:
Well, no kidding. What's more interesting are some of the comments in
response. (CNN doesn't allow any further comments or I'd have added
my own.)
:Doug, Houston, Texas
:Frankly I got sick in my stomach reading Mr. Nugent's article.
According to Mr. Nugent, the solution is very simple:
:All citizens should be armed and the world would be a much safer
place. Let's take a moment to think about the
:implication of this. The criminals are not dumb. If we average law-
abiding citizens were allowed to freely purchase
:weapons, the criminals would do everything they could to ensure they
have the upper hands on their firepower. Of
:course, we would immediately do the same to regain our upper hands.
What then would you think the criminals
:would do in return?
Run for cover, that's what. Or target weaker targets. Evidence shows
that, given the choice, criminals target weaker victims and move to
weaker victims when the potential targets are stronger.
A few years back there was a big rise in tourist robberies in
Florida. It was an unexpected consequence of Florida liberalizing its
permitting system to "Shall Issue" concealed carry ("CC") permits.
(There are two types of CC permit systems, "Discretionary Issue" and
"Shall Issue," the former being New York City where you apply and then
in one way or another you have to prove you're entitled to a permit;
in "Shall Issue" you fill out the form and unless you're disqualified
you get the permit.)
What happened was, Florida basically changed the rules so that any
resident could get a CC permit, barring any showstopping
disqualifications (felony convictions, violence convictions, etc.) So
anyone robbing people stood a strong chance of robbing someone who
could potentially be armed. Except, maybe, for tourists, especially
tourists from out of state, who wouldn't be carrying their piece on
vacation. But how would they know who was a tourist and who wasn't?
In addition to those in vehicles with non-Florida plates, by whether
or not the person was driving a rental car. And how did they know
that? Because in most areas there is a difference that if you know
the local rules, you can tell.
For example, in Washington, DC, a rental vehicle can either have a
standard license number (which was either the 3 digit seal and 3
digit combination, and is now two letters and 4 digits), or you can
have a plate with the letter R followed by a 5-digit number.
In Virginia, rental vehicles could have a standard 3 letter and 3
number or two letter and 4 number plate where the first two letters
were "RA". Well, in view of the problem with that being a giveaway,
they changed that. But, you can still tell if a vehicle from Virginia
is a rental or not, because of a quirk in the tax laws. A vehicle
which is owned by a private party (non-exempt) will have two stickers,
a state inspection and local tax sticker, to prove that the property
tax on the vehicle has been paid. Except for rental vehicles, which
do not have a tax sticker, because the rental agency collects the 8%
tax on rental fees in lieu of paying the property tax on the
vehicle. So with the small exception of vehicles which the owner has
had them less than 30 days, a private vehicle in Virginia with
Virginia tags without a tax sticker is either someone driving a
vehicle illegally or a rental vehicle.
Paul Robinson
>
> The Link:http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/04/19/commentary.nugent/index.html
:Joe Russo, Staten Island, New York
:Ted Nugent really has a twisted way of looking at the violence that
seems to regularly
:plague us. As a hunter and gun owner, I do believe in our right to
bear arms. However,
:that right should not include hand guns and assualt weapons.
Spoken like an ardent defender of the 1st Amendment who says, "Oh I
believe in free speech except for..."
Notwithstanding all the other arguments, I can give two really simple
reasons for allowing them. Handguns give the weak and the handicapped
the defensive power of someone much larger than them. And if I
understand the argument correctly, it's been mentioned that it's far
easier to disarm someone in close range who has a rifle or a shotgun
than it is to disarm someone with a handgun, at least before they can
shoot you.
If you're in a life or death struggle with someone who is a serious
threat or is likely to kill you, the last thing you want is for
someone to be able to disarm you, then maybe use your weapon against
you.
:Linda, Plymouth, Michigan
:To back up Ted's points, when have we ever heard of a gunman killing
32 people in a police
:station?
Well, I can point out that the Governor of California did that, killed
(possibly 32) police officers in a police station. But at that time
he was a metal chassis cyborg. (The Terminator). Normal human beings
don't have that kind of resistance to injury and shooting at one (in
the hand, if nothing else) will make them unable to shoot any more,
and shooting them in the head should also eliminate their ability to
continue to shoot further, and shots in other places might also (non-
fatally) disable them.
:How about at an Army Base in Michigan? Nope. How about at the local
shooting
:range? Tons of guns there, you'd think there'd be mass killing there
every other weekend
:with all the guns...oh wait...at all those places the victims would
be armed and would shoot
:back. An armed gunman wouldn't get out more than one shot, if that,
before being stopped.
I would like to note that this exact scenario played out in Israel (at
least) once. One or more gunmen opened fire in public, or in a
shopping center, and subsequently the shooters were all shot down by
bystanders. I believe the (wounded) surviving shooter admitted that
they didn't know that Israel either has (and I'm not sure which it is
myself) a mandatory carry law or has a very liberal concealed carry
law.
No one seems to note that Switzerland has extremely strict gun control
laws, coupled with a mandatory requirement that every male citizen
have military service, and are issued, to take home, a fully automatic
machine gun and ammunition. Every household in Switzerland has at
least one and perhaps more than one fully automatic machine gun
present with ammo. The presence of guns does not cause gun violence,
it is the intent of the persons who have them.
British magazine "The Economist" is running an article about the
problem of gun violence, mentioning the Virginia Tech incident. It
should be noted that - which the article does not - is that Britain's
gun control laws were not enacted to protect people from gun violence,
they were specifically enacted - as was openly said at the time - to
disarm the public and prevent it from overthrowing the government.
And that the statistics on how low gun crime was in Britain
specifically excluded IRA attacks and religious fighting between the
Protestants and Catholics in Northern Ireland.
Atlas Bugged
news:1177411635.1...@b40g2000prd.googlegroups.com...
> :How about at an Army Base in Michigan? Nope. How about at the local
> shooting
> :range? Tons of guns there, you'd think there'd be mass killing there
> every other weekend
> :with all the guns...oh wait...at all those places the victims would
> be armed and would shoot
> :back. An armed gunman wouldn't get out more than one shot, if that,
> before being stopped.
The latest story had me puzzled - at first - because one of my "favorite"
statistics regarding the insanity of gun prohibition is that the mass
murders happen almost every single time in areas that restrict guns, such as
Long Island, and so on.
So when I heard this happened in Virginia, I was not dissuaded from my basic
views, but I thought it put a real dent in *that* particular talking point.
Then I learn (thanks, Bert) that the campus was exercising its own little
"gun prohibition" on the campus. So the terrible logic of gun control was
at work here as well - all the law-abiders got their invariable reward for
following the law.
It illustrates how the logic of gun control is just always topsy-turvy.
Many "good" jurisdictions like to have liberal gun possession laws, but they
like to carve out "gun-free zones" like churches, bars, schools, whatever.
This sets them up as targets (though even I worry about the patrons in bars,
but perhaps bars ought to have armed bouncers.) And multi-million dollar
jumbo-jets, filled with fuel, are exceptionally bad places to have a weapons
ban, as 9/11 demonstrated, and with almost no one understanding the lesson.
This is the "issue" of idiots. In my youth, I was a McGovern liberal. This
was as close as you could get to Communism in the United States without
actually deserving to be called one, it was heavy socialism. I adopted the
entire "liberal line," but even then, I said "What's this gun control thing?
Are they nuts?" It's a position I never considered for more than a second.
You got a gun? Well, I have a car. If we are going to duel and choose
weapons, I'm going with the car. [Yes, FTR, I have a gun too, I don't
expect my car to be useful at 2am with an intruder.]
Puppet_Sock
[snip]
> I would like to note that this exact scenario played out in Israel (at
> least) once. One or more gunmen opened fire in public, or in a
> shopping center, and subsequently the shooters were all shot down by
> bystanders. I believe the (wounded) surviving shooter admitted that
> they didn't know that Israel either has (and I'm not sure which it is
> myself) a mandatory carry law or has a very liberal concealed carry
> law.
As I understand it (and this does not have any authority
whatever, it's just what I've been told) the military in Israel
are required to have their weapon with them at all times.
On duty or off, in uniform or not, they must have their
weapon with them. So you see rather interesting accents
on the outfits of certain people. Perfect outfit, perfect hair,
perfect makeup, perfect shoes, perfect handbag, perfect
sunglasses. And an Uzi strapped over the shoulder on the
other side from the handbag. Which I did see on my trip
to Israel, though that was round-about 1985. I also saw
a couple blokes in fatigues sitting at the back of a bus
with their weapons. It's a strange feeling for a naive guy
from Canada to see people toting guns around. Brought
home the reality of the situation fairly viscerally.
Socks
Lionell K. Griffith
>
> It illustrates how the logic of gun control is just always topsy-turvy.
>
I think you are a bit confused. The result is EXACTLY what the gun
control nuts really want: the criminals are armed and their victims
aren't. The words they use to describe their intent have absolutely
NOTHING to do with their real purpose. Especially after many centuries
of experience with both sides of that issue. POSIWID: The purpose of
a system is what it does.
The gun control nuts are in fact wannabe criminals or they would not be
advocating the probation of the right of self defense - a fundamental
right if any right exists at all. If one person, who is made
defenseless by following the law, is injured or killed by a psychotic or
criminal using a gun, the gun control nuts become accomplishes in that
crime. They are no longer wannabe criminals. They have become
criminals - one and all.
I know. The Law states otherwise. The Law is broken if it is used as a
justification of violation of individual rights. When the Law no longer
protects me and makes me defenseless against attack, its no longer
worthy of respect. I may still have to follow it but that's only
because the government is willing to use deadly force to make me do it.
Legalities become irrelevant. Its the whim of the biggest nut in the
box that counts.
Matt Barrow
"Atlas Bugged" <atlasbug...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:h_nXh.498234$lD4.2...@fe02.news.easynews.com...
>
> You got a gun? Well, I have a car. If we are going to duel and choose
> weapons, I'm going with the car. [Yes, FTR, I have a gun too, I don't
> expect my car to be useful at 2am with an intruder.]
Unless you catch him in your garage.
--
Matt ("Well Heeled") Barrow
Performace Homes, LLC.
Colorado Springs, CO
Matt Barrow
"Lionell K. Griffith" <lgri...@dslextreme.com> wrote in message
news:132s5fm...@corp.supernews.com...
> Atlas Bugged wrote:
>>
>> It illustrates how the logic of gun control is just always topsy-turvy.
>
> The gun control nuts are in fact wannabe criminals or they would not be
> advocating the probation of the right of self defense - a fundamental
> right if any right exists at all.
Ever notice that the gun controllers are the self-same folks that make so
many excuses for criminals? Poverty (which came first, poverty or criminal
mindset?), social pressure, racism, poverty, social indifference, racism,
not enough money spent on schools, poverty, not enough spent on welfare...
Sure you have.
--
Matt Barrow
Puppet_Sock
wrote:
[snip]
> Especially after many centuries
> of experience with both sides of that issue. POSIWID: The purpose of
> a system is what it does.
Hmm... I'm going to have to remember that one.
Let's see here. Govt run health care in Canada produces long
lineups of people supplicating the govt for their very survival.
Thus every sniffle is transformed into a reminder that each
person owes his/her very existence to continued govt largesse.
Check.
Govt run schools produce generation after generation that
can't imagine any other system than govt run schoools.
Check.
Severe and strict gun control produces a disarmed population
that does not even think to defend itself, but relies on the
govt for every possible problem.
Check.
Govt run charity (individual welfare to corporate welfare) produces
generation after generation of people who think of the govt as
the source of all that is Goodness and Light.
Check.
Geeze, I think you are onto something there Lionell. It's actually
kind of chilling when you look at it that way.
Income tax produces a vast system of privately-paid-for people
who's specialty is ferreting out any aspect of commerce and
reporting it to the govt.
Check.
You know, this is getting depressing. As that guy in _Jurassic
Park_ said, I really hate being right all the time.
Socks
Lionell K. Griffith
> On Apr 24, 10:36 am, "Lionell K. Griffith" <lgriff...@dslextreme.com>
> wrote:
> [snip]
>> Especially after many centuries
>> of experience with both sides of that issue. POSIWID: The purpose of
>> a system is what it does.
>
> Hmm... I'm going to have to remember that one.
> Geeze, I think you are onto something there Lionell. It's actually
> kind of chilling when you look at it that way.
> You know, this is getting depressing. As that guy in _Jurassic
> Park_ said, I really hate being right all the time.
> Socks
Yes, it can be depressing but the good thing about this principle is
that you know with clarity what you are dealing with in very short
order. It cuts through mountains of bullshit with a single stroke. The
devil is in the details of what you do with the result.
Please understand that I am not the originator of the principle. It was
Stafford Beer See http://www.squidoo.com/POSIWID. I was introduced to
this principle by a retired engineer over ten years ago. See
http://posiwid.wikispaces.com/ for a massive but not yet well organized
body of his and related works. His writing style is less than crisp but
its well worth the effort it takes to dig for the many gems in it.
Before my discussions with that engineer, I had been using a weaker form
of the idea in systems analysis. That idea was more or less based upon
a statement in The Fountainhead. Rand had Elsworth saying something
like, "When you see something absurd, don't question the absurdity.
Simply look at what it accomplishes. You will then know its purpose."
See http://www.dslextreme.com/~posiwid/History/LGRIF11.HTM for one of my
published essays on the topic.