Ted Nugent on Gun Control

[htownskinfan]

Originally Posted by jsarno

I disagree 100%.
Look at a dog. If he pees on the carpet and you let it go, he will continue to do so. If you shove his nose in it, spank him and throw him outside, he eventually learns not to do it.
If you cut the hand off a person that steals, and others watch it, do you seriously think that won't deter others from stealing? I certainly do. Punishment absolutely prevents issues if the punishment is severe enough.

How many times do you have to do it to a dog? My dog is still shitting in the house

[SmootSmack]

Originally Posted by jsarno

I disagree 100%.
Look at a dog. If he pees on the carpet and you let it go, he will continue to do so. If you shove his nose in it, spank him and throw him outside, he eventually learns not to do it.
If you cut the hand off a person that steals, and others watch it, do you seriously think that won't deter others from stealing? I certainly do. Punishment absolutely prevents issues if the punishment is severe enough.

But you don't do all that to the dog before he pees on the carpet do you? You're not shoving his nose in the carpet just because

I think that's what SGG is trying to say

[jsarno]

Originally Posted by htownskinfan

How many times do you have to do it to a dog? My dog is still shitting in the house

My first basset hound figured it out in less than 2 weeks, my second basset took a tad bit longer but it was because of his dominance issues.
The spankings got progressively worse the more they didn't learn it.

What kind of dog do you have?

(editted to be a little more PC)

[jsarno]

Originally Posted by SmootSmack

But you don't do all that to the dog before he pees on the carpet do you? You're not shoving his nose in the carpet just because

I think that's what SGG is trying to say

I see his point, this is what he said:
Punishment reacts to the problem, it doesn't prevent it.
He is correct in saying punishment reacts to a problem. However I am saying that punishment prevents problems. We are already having the problem, so the only way to really stop it is to show that we are willing to punish it, and create fear so that the problem does not occur again.
It's not like we're trying to prevent something from EVER occuring, it already is. Since it's not stopping (I believe partly cause of weak punishments) the punishments needs to get severe in order to put fear into the people who are doing the acts.
My dogs fear the beatings, therefore they do their dirty business outside. If I didn't beat on them when they peed on the carpet, they would not have stopped.

[JoeRedskin]

Originally Posted by jsarno

See, that's the problem. If we let the government take too much control of our lives, we will become dependant on them. You don't have to look far to see this either. Look at the amount of people on welfare and food stamps, and how many of them volunteer to get off???? We don't rehabilitate those than need rehabilitation, we as a country allow them to suckle off the teet of America without any concern about actually making them a "normal" member of society. We talk a lot about an "exit strategy" in iraq, but we have none for those already sucking our systems dry.
I'm not saying we are around the corner from this, but the next thing you know is the government will tell us what movies to watch, what plants to grow, what food to eat etc. The less they are involved in my life, the better.

So many assertions, so many flawed conclusions.

Preliminarily, I am uncertain as to why you bolded the phrase “There are simply no constitutional rights that are unlimited” in my original post. If it is your assertion that there should be, then I would suggest that you assert an impossibility. In any society of people, unfettered individual liberty simply cannot exist. I would think that to be self-evident but, if you disagree or if I have misstated your intent, please let me know.

On to the rest!

A) “If we let government take too much control of our lives we will become dependant on them”:

Okay, can we go back to Govt. 101? The “government” which you fear so much is, in fact, nothing more than the embodiment of societal will acting through Constitutionally created structures. Because it represents the whole of us, “Government” was created to “control our lives” so that the corporate whole can exist through the rule of law and maximize our competing personal liberties. Simply put - without a Government “taking control”, there is no American society – just warlords, tribes and individuals in violent competition with one another.

To balance against this fundamental reason for its existence, i.e. the right of the whole to control the actions of the individual, the Founders, in a moment of brilliance and clarity, realized (as they had seen in Britain) that any government could overstep this essential function unless certain personal liberties were guaranteed. In other words, the “government”, i.e. the will of the collective, could very easily, in the name of the collective need, destroy the very thing it was created to protect- the individual. Thus, the Bill of Rights and its guarantees of personal liberties were created to provide a line and to delineate the extent to which the will of the societal whole may “take control” of the individual.

B) “You don't have to look far to see this either. Look at the amount of people on welfare and food stamps, and how many of them volunteer to get off???? We don't rehabilitate those than need rehabilitation, we as a country allow them to suckle off the teet of America without any concern about actually making them a "normal" member of society. We talk a lot about an "exit strategy" in iraq, but we have none for those already sucking our systems dry.”

The plusses and minuses, abuses and inadequacies of the welfare system could be a thread in and of itself. How many volunteer to go off? I don’t know. I also don’t know how many volunteered to go on either. I am sure, however, that the answer to both questions is not “100%”.

Relevant to the issue at hand, however, is that the whole welfare system, again, represents the balancing of conflicting societal interests and remedies. On one hand, welfare is intended to provide a minimum level of aid to avoid having portions of the populace living in abject poverty b/c, as societies through the ages have recognized, large swaths of poverty create a host of even more expensive and dangerous problems. On the other hand, society as a whole does not want a system that destroys incentive.

Inevitably, these two goals – avoidance of poverty v. disincentive - are in conflict. Through the federal, state, and local govts, our society works on various solutions to the underlying conflicts. Ultimately, we – you and me – have both the ability and opportunity to affect these decisions because the Founders created a federalistic system where we have a legislative voice, popularly elected executives to apply the laws enacted by the will of the people, and a judicial branch to challenge any action by that executive and ensure that the executives apply the laws as enacted.

C) The linkage between govt. “taking control of our lives” and the assertion that we will become dependent upon it.

And this is where it all completely falls apart: Every day, and in every way, everyone who is a citizen of the US is dependent on the “Government”.

Did you drive on a road today? Do you maintain it? Or are you dependent upon the "Government" to do so? Did you have electricity in your home? As power concerns are monopolistic entities, what steps did you take to ensure that utilities companies provided power at constant rate and price? Do you test your food to ensure it is properly inspected and safe? Again, I could go on forever.

Don’t tell me that these functions are entirely different from Welfare/Food Stamps because they aren't. All of these functions, including the welfare program, are merely various ways of determining how to divide and protect the corporate wealth of the nation and the individuals who comprise that society. You may disagree with how the pie is apportioned, but that does not make you any less dependent upon receiving a slice of it.

Because we live in and are members of a larger society, we are dependent on the “Government”. As I said in the beginning, our dependence upon a central government to determine our corporate needs and balance them against our individual liberties is the essence of and raison d'être for “Government”.

Simply put, we created a “government” because we needed one and, thus, our “dependence” upon the created government is inherent.

Government, despite the current Red State/Blue State characterizations, is not an “Us v. Them” situation. It is an “Us. v Us” situation. The conflict arises as different parts of “Us” fundamentally disagree as to what it is best for the whole of “Us”.

Originally Posted by jsarno

Maybe you're right, and I'm just being cynical. It just seems over the years the government is stepping in more and more and taking decisions away from others and telling us more and more on what to do.

Because of our fundamental guarantees of personal freedom, IMO, our society is more free and our government (even considering all its various levels) is less intrusive than any other in the world. I have no extrinsic proof of this, it is just my opinion based on my understanding of other forms of government and my review of the news. The fact that this country of 300 Million people can create a system that provides a single postage rate for letters whether being delivered down the street or across the country and still can guarantee the level of individual freedom that it does is, to me, mind boggling.

Are there flaws, abuses, and inefficiencies and an occasional overstepping of the authority? Absolutely. Does the fact that we can lawfully, consistently and openly discuss these problems create, in me at least, a confidence that the extreme abuses you fear are without foundation? Absolutely.

Of course, we must be ever vigilant and always question governmental actions. The fact that we, as a society, believe it is necessary to protect the individual civilian duty to ask and debate such questions is the very reason that the abuse you fear will not come to pass.

Originally Posted by jsarno

Well, I am not saying I have the "freedom" to shoot someone (unless of course he breaks into my home), nor do I have the "freedom" to drink and drive cause that puts others in jeopardy.

You don’t have these “freedoms” b/c society as a whole, through the “Government” has a right to control your actions by creating limitations on your actions and punishments for violating those limitations. In fact, as your examples demonstrate, the right of the "Government" to limit your rights is the pre-existing situation and that societal right was only limited by the foresight of our founders to enact and guarantee certain personal liberties.

Originally Posted by jsarno

How is it their right to limit the spread of firearms? That has nothing to do with them directly. Taking firearms away does directly affect someone.
That being said, I have no problem with having stiffer restrictions on guns. (within reason) I do not think a felon should possess a gun. I'm all for getting the guns OUT of those that abused guns in the first place.

The guarantee of individual liberty that you rely on as your right to possess a firearm exists only as limit to the pre-existing and essential societal right to limit or control your individual actions to the benefit of the corporate whole. Thus, if the society determines that it is in the best interests of the corporate whole to deprive individuals of gun ownership, it is the "Government’s" right and duty to do so.

Because of the foresight of our Founders in protecting certain individual liberties, however, society’s right to control your actions as to gun ownership may be limited by certain 2A constitutional guarantees. That is the essential balancing that Founders created and for which the Constitution provides.

[Bishop Hammer]

I have never liked Ted Nugents music, but I agree with over 90% of his political views.

[JWsleep]

Ahhh, I haven't got my Ted-Nugent-gun-control-warpath-debate fix in a while. As usual, JoeRedskin has expressed my views far better than I could.


Just a thought: all y'all who are anti-government here, should we then do away with our massive military? Should we at least limit the amount of hard-earned tax-payer dollars siphoned directly into the military-industrial complex? Can we at least get a little oversight there? The lion's share of our tax dollars fund programs in defense, not welfare. A true libertarian (see Milton Friedman or Robert Nozick, for example) would argue for a privatization of the military and an end to the enormous transfer of individual's money to defense contractors.

Here's another thought: gun owners and supporters of gun rights are generally pro defense spending. This suggests it's not rights that are at issue. It's about the ability to KICK ASS, either as an individual or as a nation. There's a feeling that we are being neutered, weakened, pussified, etc. when we can't have serious firepower, either in our homes or in the world at large. And that's something the MOTOR CITY MADMAN would NEVER stand for. Whatever he is, he is no pussy.

Rock on.

[firstdown]

Originally Posted by JWsleep

Ahhh, I haven't got my Ted-Nugent-gun-control-warpath-debate fix in a while. As usual, JoeRedskin has expressed my views far better than I could.


Just a thought: all y'all who are anti-government here, should we then do away with our massive military? Should we at least limit the amount of hard-earned tax-payer dollars siphoned directly into the military-industrial complex? Can we at least get a little oversight there? The lion's share of our tax dollars fund programs in defense, not welfare. A true libertarian (see Milton Friedman or Robert Nozick, for example) would argue for a privatization of the military and an end to the enormous transfer of individual's money to defense contractors.

Here's another thought: gun owners and supporters of gun rights are generally pro defense spending. This suggests it's not rights that are at issue. It's about the ability to KICK ASS, either as an individual or as a nation. There's a feeling that we are being neutered, weakened, pussified, etc. when we can't have serious firepower, either in our homes or in the world at large. And that's something the MOTOR CITY MADMAN would NEVER stand for. Whatever he is, he is no pussy.

Rock on.

May be you should look at a chart of federal spending. We spend twice as much for SS, and medicare type programs then for our military.

[htownskinfan]

Originally Posted by jsarno

My first basset hound figured it out in less than 2 weeks, my second basset took a tad bit longer but it was because of his dominance issues.
The beatings got progressively worse the more they didn't learn it.

What kind of dog do you have?

rat terrier

[Schneed10]

Originally Posted by JoeRedskin

So many assertions, so many flawed conclusions.

Preliminarily, I am uncertain as to why you bolded the phrase “There are simply no constitutional rights that are unlimited” in my original post. If it is your assertion that there should be, then I would suggest that you assert an impossibility. In any society of people, unfettered individual liberty simply cannot exist. I would think that to be self-evident but, if you disagree or if I have misstated your intent, please let me know.

On to the rest!

A) “If we let government take too much control of our lives we will become dependant on them”:

Okay, can we go back to Govt. 101? The “government” which you fear so much is, in fact, nothing more than the embodiment of societal will acting through Constitutionally created structures. Because it represents the whole of us, “Government” was created to “control our lives” so that the corporate whole can exist through the rule of law and maximize our competing personal liberties. Simply put - without a Government “taking control”, there is no American society – just warlords, tribes and individuals in violent competition with one another.

To balance against this fundamental reason for its existence, i.e. the right of the whole to control the actions of the individual, the Founders, in a moment of brilliance and clarity, realized (as they had seen in Britain) that any government could overstep this essential function unless certain personal liberties were guaranteed. In other words, the “government”, i.e. the will of the collective, could very easily, in the name of the collective need, destroy the very thing it was created to protect- the individual. Thus, the Bill of Rights and its guarantees of personal liberties were created to provide a line and to delineate the extent to which the will of the societal whole may “take control” of the individual.

B) “You don't have to look far to see this either. Look at the amount of people on welfare and food stamps, and how many of them volunteer to get off???? We don't rehabilitate those than need rehabilitation, we as a country allow them to suckle off the teet of America without any concern about actually making them a "normal" member of society. We talk a lot about an "exit strategy" in iraq, but we have none for those already sucking our systems dry.”

The plusses and minuses, abuses and inadequacies of the welfare system could be a thread in and of itself. How many volunteer to go off? I don’t know. I also don’t know how many volunteered to go on either. I am sure, however, that the answer to both questions is not “100%”.

Relevant to the issue at hand, however, is that the whole welfare system, again, represents the balancing of conflicting societal interests and remedies. On one hand, welfare is intended to provide a minimum level of aid to avoid having portions of the populace living in abject poverty b/c, as societies through the ages have recognized, large swaths of poverty create a host of even more expensive and dangerous problems. On the other hand, society as a whole does not want a system that destroys incentive.

Inevitably, these two goals – avoidance of poverty v. disincentive - are in conflict. Through the federal, state, and local govts, our society works on various solutions to the underlying conflicts. Ultimately, we – you and me – have both the ability and opportunity to affect these decisions because the Founders created a federalistic system where we have a legislative voice, popularly elected executives to apply the laws enacted by the will of the people, and a judicial branch to challenge any action by that executive and ensure that the executives apply the laws as enacted.

C) The linkage between govt. “taking control of our lives” and the assertion that we will become dependent upon it.

And this is where it all completely falls apart: Every day, and in every way, everyone who is a citizen of the US is dependent on the “Government”.

Did you drive on a road today? Do you maintain it? Or are you dependent upon the "Government" to do so? Did you have electricity in your home? As power concerns are monopolistic entities, what steps did you take to ensure that utilities companies provided power at constant rate and price? Do you test your food to ensure it is properly inspected and safe? Again, I could go on forever.

Don’t tell me that these functions are entirely different from Welfare/Food Stamps because they aren't. All of these functions, including the welfare program, are merely various ways of determining how to divide and protect the corporate wealth of the nation and the individuals who comprise that society. You may disagree with how the pie is apportioned, but that does not make you any less dependent upon receiving a slice of it.

Because we live in and are members of a larger society, we are dependent on the “Government”. As I said in the beginning, our dependence upon a central government to determine our corporate needs and balance them against our individual liberties is the essence of and raison d'être for “Government”.

Simply put, we created a “government” because we needed one and, thus, our “dependence” upon the created government is inherent.

Government, despite the current Red State/Blue State characterizations, is not an “Us v. Them” situation. It is an “Us. v Us” situation. The conflict arises as different parts of “Us” fundamentally disagree as to what it is best for the whole of “Us”.



Because of our fundamental guarantees of personal freedom, IMO, our society is more free and our government (even considering all its various levels) is less intrusive than any other in the world. I have no extrinsic proof of this, it is just my opinion based on my understanding of other forms of government and my review of the news. The fact that this country of 300 Million people can create a system that provides a single postage rate for letters whether being delivered down the street or across the country and still can guarantee the level of individual freedom that it does is, to me, mind boggling.

Are there flaws, abuses, and inefficiencies and an occasional overstepping of the authority? Absolutely. Does the fact that we can lawfully, consistently and openly discuss these problems create, in me at least, a confidence that the extreme abuses you fear are without foundation? Absolutely.

Of course, we must be ever vigilant and always question governmental actions. The fact that we, as a society, believe it is necessary to protect the individual civilian duty to ask and debate such questions is the very reason that the abuse you fear will not come to pass.



You don’t have these “freedoms” b/c society as a whole, through the “Government” has a right to control your actions by creating limitations on your actions and punishments for violating those limitations. In fact, as your examples demonstrate, the right of the "Government" to limit your rights is the pre-existing situation and that societal right was only limited by the foresight of our founders to enact and guarantee certain personal liberties.



The guarantee of individual liberty that you rely on as your right to possess a firearm exists only as limit to the pre-existing and essential societal right to limit or control your individual actions to the benefit of the corporate whole. Thus, if the society determines that it is in the best interests of the corporate whole to deprive individuals of gun ownership, it is the "Government’s" right and duty to do so.

Because of the foresight of our Founders in protecting certain individual liberties, however, society’s right to control your actions as to gun ownership may be limited by certain 2A constitutional guarantees. That is the essential balancing that Founders created and for which the Constitution provides.

Straight up embarassing Jsarno. I gotta love that.

[MTK]

Originally Posted by jsarno

My first basset hound figured it out in less than 2 weeks, my second basset took a tad bit longer but it was because of his dominance issues.
The beatings got progressively worse the more they didn't learn it.

What kind of dog do you have?

I can't believe I missed this the first time around. Do you really beat your dogs??

[mredskins]

Originally Posted by jsarno

I disagree 100%.
Look at a dog. If he pees on the carpet and you let it go, he will continue to do so. If you shove his nose in it, spank him and throw him outside, he eventually learns not to do it.
If you cut the hand off a person that steals, and others watch it, do you seriously think that won't deter others from stealing? I certainly do. Punishment absolutely prevents issues if the punishment is severe enough.

This logic implies that man and dog are the same. Do you really want to say that?

[MTK]

Not do hijack this thread too much but does anyone watch the dog whisperer? He's proof that you don't need to beat down a dog to make him learn.

[JWsleep]

Originally Posted by firstdown

May be you should look at a chart of federal spending. We spend twice as much for SS, and medicare type programs then for our military.

I think there's some question about that, though this is certainly a source with an agenda. The bigger pie is calculated by including debt incurred from military spending, including the supplemental support for the war, and trying to more accurately gauge what is being spent on the war on terror that's buried in other outlays. The smaller pie is the one you refer to, I take it.

We could argue the accuracy of this stuff, no doubt, but if you don't think the gov't is downplaying military spending to some degree, I think you should look more closely.

In any event, my point was more general: if you're against gov't intrusion and taxation, what about military spending? Should there be more or less? Why is it acceptable to a libertarian? My guess is that it's because it's for the common good. But that same reasoning can be used to promote gun control and welfare. The main issue is not whether taxation and government programs are allowed, it's a question of what is in the common interest. There is no blanket prohibition against the government acting in this way, which I take it was JoeRedskin's point.

(And I think a pie hijacking might be appropriate now...)



The Federal Pie Chart

[Lady Brave]

Originally Posted by Mattyk72

Not do hijack this thread too much but does anyone watch the dog whisperer? He's proof that you don't need to beat down a dog to make him learn.

Cesar is the man. I've used his techniques and they work. I don't think people should be naive enough to think it's going to work as fast for them as they do him though. It does take more time and effort than what you see in a 30 minute TV program. Consistency is the key.

Also, I work around several K9 officers and pick up tips from them. I've been told repeatedly that over-correcting your dog works against what you're trying to instill in them. Dogs live in the moment. You have to correct them while their exhibiting the undesireable behavior, otherwise you're just confusing them if you correct them after the fact. The biggest thing is rewarding a dog when they do something correct. That will re-enforce their training quicker than anything.

As far as house training goes. Shoving your dog's nose in his own urine and smacking it basically tells the dog that urinating is bad, not that the location he did it in is bad.