Comments on: Piers Morgan vs. Ted Nugent at Texas gun shop

By: Sam Rorrer

Sam Rorrer — Sun, 10 Feb 2013 13:31:09 +0000

“Nuge is darn smart. He made good points without coming off as a nut job.”
Mark Taylor

Mark, someone else once said “There is a fine line between genius and insanity.”

By: Mike

Mike — Sat, 09 Feb 2013 18:12:19 +0000

Anyone notice the way morgan holds the gun? I’ve got a 12 ga with 3″ magnum I want him to shoot.

By: Mike

Mike — Thu, 07 Feb 2013 23:24:49 +0000

Quoted by Sandi “The vast majority of “gun toting hunters/shooters” are not even in the NRA for the same reason they are not rabid and in the face of everyone who sees merit in gun control and even banning some guns.”

Please provide facts/links for your statement.
===================

Sandi, you failed to fully respond my question. Where did you get this information from? I’m hope you didn’t make it up. It’s the latter part of your post that I’m interested in.

By: Stephen

Stephen — Wed, 06 Feb 2013 23:36:31 +0000

“For Sandi and Stephen, our reps from the lunatic fringe, you might want to consider moving to Maryland,…..”

Walt, I ain’t from the lunatic fringe! You can ask Mark. Can’t speak for Sandi, but I doubt she fits the bill either. Move? Why in the name of St. Peter would I move? I am a proud Virginian, born and raised in the mountains of this great state, hunting since I was big enough to walk. I just do not feel threatened when it comes to my firearms rights. I own around 20 weapons, and as I have said before on one of these blogs, they are all suited for hunting game. The big bad government, I doubt is interested in any of them.

By: Sandi Saunders

Sandi Saunders — Wed, 06 Feb 2013 21:36:18 +0000

Yes walt, the right to bear arms is a guarantee of our Constitution, but there is no guarantee or right to any arms you want. Nor should there be IMO. Some folks would have guns mounted on their vehicles and ammo vests would replace camo for some. We have every right to draw lines and maybe it would work better for you all if you worked with us instead of pretending we have no point. Too many lunatics have the same guns you do.

By: Sandi Saunders

Sandi Saunders — Wed, 06 Feb 2013 21:28:39 +0000

No, I do not “agree that those who are against ANY gun control legislation are the only ones trying to cover both parameters”. Not by a mile.

Gun control, like alcohol control, like school control, like charity control, like animal control, like car control, like food control, like pollution control, like cell phone control, like any other effort at control, plays a role in a civilized society. That does not mean it disrespects any natural or constitutional right. Only that it recognizes that the bad guys get their guns the same way the good guys do and waiting for the crime to happen is not working well for us as a society.

By: Sandi Saunders

Sandi Saunders — Wed, 06 Feb 2013 21:24:43 +0000

“43-55 million” people have guns
http://wiki.answers.com/Q/How_many_gun_owners_are_there_in_the_United_States_of_America

NRA “4.25 million members” that “always fluctuating” number is dwarfed by the number of gun owners NOT in the NRA.
http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2013/01/15/nra-membership-has-grown-by-250000-in-one-month

By: Ritchie

Ritchie — Wed, 06 Feb 2013 21:08:11 +0000

One over riding theme that I have observed from quite a few of these “debates” on gun control or lack there of. Is that one side particullarly seems to get “very passionate” shall we say during these debates. More often than not it is those who oppose having their 2′nd amendment rights questioned and or changed or possibly even revoked. The truth of the matter is that both sides have their own “passionate” believers. I call them believers more than supports because that is what they are. They BELIEVE in what they are speaking about no matter how right, wrong or indifferent their views may be. The problem with these “believers” thought is this. The ones who want to ban all guns think that one thing will solve all the issues. They simply will not look at the statistics. The statistics show that where folks are free to carry guns to protect themselves and family members, crime goes down. The criminals simply look elsewhere for easier targets. There is no doubt that there will always be criminals and they will not care what punishments they face should they be aprehended by law enforcement. The underlying point to the whole situation here is this. Should law abiding citizens be hindered by laws aimed to make things “safer” when in fact those same laws will infringe upon those law abiding citizens ability to protect themselves and their own families? It is their own duty and responsibility to protect themselves and their own families. The supreme court of the United States even verifies this fact in ruling that local, state, and federal law enforcement has “No duty to protect the public. The duty of law enforcement is to enforce the laws of wich jurisdiction it resides”. One last point is this. Look at the places that have the most strict gun regulations. California / New York / Chicago . All thos areas are riddled with huge amounts of crime. As a direct or maybe an indirect result of this these areas are all bleeding citizens like crazy. Those that can leave are “running for the hills”. There is a mass exidus of citizens who are leaving these areas and moving. they are moving for more reasons than just high crime but you have to believe that has some bearing on them making such a major decision as to uproot themselves and in many cases their whole families and move to “safer places”.

By: walt

walt — Wed, 06 Feb 2013 20:13:10 +0000

Go, Ted. I’ve never been a fan, but you got it right this time. For Sandi and Stephen, our reps from the lunatic fringe, you might want to consider moving to Maryland, where the governor is trying to pass everything you want, like making sure the poor will not be able to defend themselves, since they will not be able to pay the fees he wants for gun licenses. I saw in the paper yesterday that some teenager beat his father to death with a baseball bat; is that the bat’s fault, do we need to get behind national registration of bats, and disallow the private sale of bats without going through Sports Authority? Ridiculous.
On some things, there is no debate, only fact. Our right to gun ownership is a guarantee of our Constitution, no less than free speech, right to assembly or religious choice. The focus should be on violent and criminal behavior, not inanimate objects.

By: Mike

Mike — Wed, 06 Feb 2013 20:08:23 +0000

Please provide facts/links for your statement.