2A goodness...
- Thread starter SigSour
- Start date
- Status
lilguy
Member
I'll rest easy when the likes of those running the Democratic Pary speak in such language. I like Ted, but our enemies are always busy and that's who I listen to.
230RN
2A was "political" when it was first adopted.
Not that I have a personal problem with Nugent's phrase "G-d-given rights," but I do have a problem with the negative semantic loading of it in much of today's supposedly "enlightened" world.
I would prefer we use the term "natural rights," since almost every creature on earth has some built-in natural capacity to defend itself, that is, to survive. Oh, porcupines, skunks, wasps... you know what I mean. The alternative is for them to play dead like opossums [STRIKE]supposedly[/STRIKE] do, or simply succumb to predation.
So this is a natural right, and as much as it may or may not be "G-d-given," it is definitely necessary throughout the species.
Why heck, Mr. Nugent, even kittens carry concealed weapons under their fuzzy little paws.
May only be a .25 ACP compared to a lion's .44 Magnum... but they're still concealed weapons.
Terry, 230RN
I would prefer we use the term "natural rights," since almost every creature on earth has some built-in natural capacity to defend itself, that is, to survive. Oh, porcupines, skunks, wasps... you know what I mean. The alternative is for them to play dead like opossums [STRIKE]supposedly[/STRIKE] do, or simply succumb to predation.
So this is a natural right, and as much as it may or may not be "G-d-given," it is definitely necessary throughout the species.
Why heck, Mr. Nugent, even kittens carry concealed weapons under their fuzzy little paws.
May only be a .25 ACP compared to a lion's .44 Magnum... but they're still concealed weapons.
Terry, 230RN
Last edited:
txblackout
Member
- Joined
- Jan 29, 2014
- Messages
- 339
I like natural rights too
tdstout
Member
You say that like you don't know if they actually do that. I've seen more than a few possums play dead, one even let my dog come up and sniff it and never moved until the dog left.
More to the topic, I am a Christian, therefore I have no problem with the term GOD given rights.
buck460XVR
Member
- Joined
- Feb 6, 2007
- Messages
- 10,085
I lost much of my respect for "Uncle Ted" when he got busted for Hunting Violations in California. Two years later when he was busted for Game Violations in Alaska, what little I had left for him disappeared. Kinda like a convicted wife beater telling us how we should respect women.
It's probably about time to discuss the merits of much of the legislation itself. "Law abiding" has become a meaningless buzzword when thousands of new laws are enacted every year. Long gone are the days when legislation was fairly simple, well-founded and made sense. The end result will inevitably be that at some point the general public doesn't give a flying honk anymore, which is detrimental to abiding the, fairly few, laws that actually matter.
Case in point, a couple of decades I was on a flight from Amsterdam to NYC and at some point I realized that I still had my key ring with me. A fully functional AR15 drop-in auto sear. A genuinely innocent piece of tool steel I had had dangling from my home keys for years, as a reminder how utterly idiotic some laws can be. Perfectly legal in most of the world as long as it's not used in a firearm but pure jailbait in the US. I quietly discarded in the trashcan in the restroom, because just bringing one to the US would've been a felony, punishable by several years in prison. A longer sentence than a repeat offender would most likely get for an assault and battery, or even a rape.
Law, for the sake of being a law, isn't worth much. Alcohol prohibition should've taught even the slowest politicians something, but some people never learn, even from such obvious mistakes. Expecting everyone - or even the majority of people - to obey any and every law enacted is wishful thinking in the long run. History has taught us that absolute fact, time and time again.
hq, I agree that myriad regulations are useless, and that your example is a case-in-point. But I don't believe poaching is an example of this. Most gun owners and particularly conservation-minded hunters manage to follow those laws, which are not that hard to understand.
Last edited:
lobo9er
Member
He says some good and he says some not so good. How about when he said he'd be dead if Obama was elected again... He's still alive and received a complimentary visit from a few men in suits and ear buds.
I like a lot of what he says if not most but I don't think he makes a good representative of the 2nd Amendment. Holding a rifle up and telling Hillary to "suck on this" while speaking somewhere doesn't help.
I like a lot of what he says if not most but I don't think he makes a good representative of the 2nd Amendment. Holding a rifle up and telling Hillary to "suck on this" while speaking somewhere doesn't help.
230RN
2A was "political" when it was first adopted.
tdstout remarked,
My point was that while you don't have a problem with it and neither do I, we must understand that we are in a public relations war, and to the "outside world," the semantics count, and we should get away from that phraseology. Feel free to disagree, but there are a lot of Christian-based things we should stay away from re firearms rights until after the elections.
(I will not elaborate on this herein.)
(I accidentally stuck "supposedly" in there WRT opossums from another paste copy of my post and somehow it stayed there. I would have liked to edit it out, but since you mentioned it, I shall now have to merely strike it.)
Terry, 230RN
My point was that while you don't have a problem with it and neither do I, we must understand that we are in a public relations war, and to the "outside world," the semantics count, and we should get away from that phraseology. Feel free to disagree, but there are a lot of Christian-based things we should stay away from re firearms rights until after the elections.
(I will not elaborate on this herein.)(I accidentally stuck "supposedly" in there WRT opossums from another paste copy of my post and somehow it stayed there. I would have liked to edit it out, but since you mentioned it, I shall now have to merely strike it.)
Terry, 230RN
J-Bar
Member
Perhaps listening to Mr. Nugent speak is a demonstration of First Amendment rights, as much as Second Amendment rights...
Sorry about that. I should've been more specific about questioning a number of laws in general instead of any of it being specific to Mr.Nugent's admittedly questionable (and that's putting it mildly) antics. I have no intention to belittle poaching as a crime, it most definitely breaks objective laws that actually make sense.
The Alaskan
member
- Joined
- Mar 14, 2015
- Messages
- 477
Lunatic.
The Alaskan
member
- Joined
- Mar 14, 2015
- Messages
- 477
You are probably right. What is the best way for me to express my disapproval of some of (not all of) Ted Nugents' comments in a manner that is not name calling, yet conveys the level of my disapproval?
The Alaskan
member
- Joined
- Mar 14, 2015
- Messages
- 477
Ah! There we go then.
He is not completely off the mark, but I can't admire a person who wants to see other people dead-for any reason.
I also feel like, in this video, he is mixing two completely different issues. He is advocating that people kill other people simply to compensate for a failed corrections/justice system. While I agree that our system is in dire need of reform, I don't think encouraging people to kill others is the best way to achieve that.
Define "poaching."
What we have is an English sense of "fair chase," which was and is never practiced where people depend on the local environment for sustenance. The point of most hunting laws are to restrict the taking of game for financial gain by the state and prevent it being overdone to protect it as an financially renewable resource.
It can and is overdone, with blue tongue and drought hitting the deer in Northern Missouri, the annual harvest has significantly declined. Nonetheless tag sales keep marching on.
As said, you make enough laws and eventually you can't be right in the eyes of the court. MO has a "no road hunting" rule, loaded guns in the front seat readily available are the key - therefore rifles have to be unloaded and cased in the rear of the vehicle. Yet, in Alternative Season you can hunt deer with handguns, and under our current CCW regulations it can be Openly Carried in the vehicle loaded ready to go.
At this point if you were pulled over a Deputy may well disregard it, but a MDC Agent could construe illegal activity. It would then go to the nature of what you were doing - which could have been trying to spot property markers in a rural area to purchase it. Looks the same as road hunting.
While I won't argue that the principles of Conservation mean regulating some behavior to prevent wiping out a species, it's interesting that we pick and choose who's cultural ethic to propose as the guiding light. In this case English nobility's sense of fair chase was imposed. It's interesting that in the South that included the use of dogs to track and chase deer, which is largely prohibited elsewhere. It would be considered poaching in Missouri.
That's the issue - the nuances of local law are determined and imposed in a myriad of ways which may not be applicable in other states. What I do hunting with an AR pistol next week would be illegal and prompt time in jail elsewhere. Be VERY careful how you want to regulate behavior as nobody agrees on the standard, which makes one man's taking game another's poaching.
As for "God given" rights, it seems that "inalienable" has fallen out of favor, but is the more accurate word used in the day. If we are loathe to allow the anti gunners to spin a new definition for terms - "gun safety," why should Christians then submit to having their choice of term disallowed? Is there not a 1st Amendment which is the entire point of defending with the 2d? Yes, politics is involved, but it doesn't mean those who understand what "God given" rights are have to quit using the phrase to sell the concept to those who deny BOTH as their belief. Christians could really care less if it's heard as some quaint or offensive term - it's truth to them and there is no backing down from it.
We should quit trying to accommodate the opposition's sense of how the argument can be presented - it only plays to their agenda. It is historically accurate to describe our Rights as "God given" and it can be quoted from many of the founding father's own thoughts on the subject. Whether that is the current vogue of popular interpretation or not has nothing to do with it's reality.
That is exactly what the First Amendment is about and attempting to shackle it to promote another isn't High Road.
What we have is an English sense of "fair chase," which was and is never practiced where people depend on the local environment for sustenance. The point of most hunting laws are to restrict the taking of game for financial gain by the state and prevent it being overdone to protect it as an financially renewable resource.
It can and is overdone, with blue tongue and drought hitting the deer in Northern Missouri, the annual harvest has significantly declined. Nonetheless tag sales keep marching on.
As said, you make enough laws and eventually you can't be right in the eyes of the court. MO has a "no road hunting" rule, loaded guns in the front seat readily available are the key - therefore rifles have to be unloaded and cased in the rear of the vehicle. Yet, in Alternative Season you can hunt deer with handguns, and under our current CCW regulations it can be Openly Carried in the vehicle loaded ready to go.
At this point if you were pulled over a Deputy may well disregard it, but a MDC Agent could construe illegal activity. It would then go to the nature of what you were doing - which could have been trying to spot property markers in a rural area to purchase it. Looks the same as road hunting.
While I won't argue that the principles of Conservation mean regulating some behavior to prevent wiping out a species, it's interesting that we pick and choose who's cultural ethic to propose as the guiding light. In this case English nobility's sense of fair chase was imposed. It's interesting that in the South that included the use of dogs to track and chase deer, which is largely prohibited elsewhere. It would be considered poaching in Missouri.
That's the issue - the nuances of local law are determined and imposed in a myriad of ways which may not be applicable in other states. What I do hunting with an AR pistol next week would be illegal and prompt time in jail elsewhere. Be VERY careful how you want to regulate behavior as nobody agrees on the standard, which makes one man's taking game another's poaching.
As for "God given" rights, it seems that "inalienable" has fallen out of favor, but is the more accurate word used in the day. If we are loathe to allow the anti gunners to spin a new definition for terms - "gun safety," why should Christians then submit to having their choice of term disallowed? Is there not a 1st Amendment which is the entire point of defending with the 2d? Yes, politics is involved, but it doesn't mean those who understand what "God given" rights are have to quit using the phrase to sell the concept to those who deny BOTH as their belief. Christians could really care less if it's heard as some quaint or offensive term - it's truth to them and there is no backing down from it.
We should quit trying to accommodate the opposition's sense of how the argument can be presented - it only plays to their agenda. It is historically accurate to describe our Rights as "God given" and it can be quoted from many of the founding father's own thoughts on the subject. Whether that is the current vogue of popular interpretation or not has nothing to do with it's reality.
That is exactly what the First Amendment is about and attempting to shackle it to promote another isn't High Road.
SlayerOfBunnies
Member
- Joined
- Jun 27, 2014
- Messages
- 204
They can be wrong.
X-Rap
Member
- Joined
- Sep 23, 2006
- Messages
- 6,657
Here is another interview that will make some peoples head explode. Thing is, when you listen to it and remove the Uncle Ted hyperbole it is true as well.
Ted is an entertainer and his life is a stage, he does everything with great passion.
He lives with mistakes and regrets like us all.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KyDcsY-6BhA&feature=youtu.be
Political correctness really will be the end of us, I can't say how long we can run on this path but I know it can't be indefinite and we do suck less than everyone else.
Ted is an entertainer and his life is a stage, he does everything with great passion.
He lives with mistakes and regrets like us all.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KyDcsY-6BhA&feature=youtu.be
Political correctness really will be the end of us, I can't say how long we can run on this path but I know it can't be indefinite and we do suck less than everyone else.
Many people who disagree with the actual substance of a message try to clutch at straws by claiming that they're offended and play the political correctness card. Stephen Fry, a british actor/writer/etc. put it better than I ever could:
"It's now very common to hear people say, ´i'm rather offended by that.´ As if that gives them certain rights. It's actually nothing more...than a whine. ´I find that offensive.´ It has no meaning; it has no purpose; it has no reason to be respected as a phrase. ´I am offended by that.´ Well, so (eff)ing what."
Considering how many antis react to Nugent's statements, this pretty much sums it up. Being polite but firm in spite of using fairly harsh language in general statements gives absolutely no reason for anyone to be offended. Especially when just being offended used in context of having no arguments to counter the substance.
"It's now very common to hear people say, ´i'm rather offended by that.´ As if that gives them certain rights. It's actually nothing more...than a whine. ´I find that offensive.´ It has no meaning; it has no purpose; it has no reason to be respected as a phrase. ´I am offended by that.´ Well, so (eff)ing what."
Considering how many antis react to Nugent's statements, this pretty much sums it up. Being polite but firm in spite of using fairly harsh language in general statements gives absolutely no reason for anyone to be offended. Especially when just being offended used in context of having no arguments to counter the substance.
- Status
Similar threads
