Dont Tread On Me

Love him or Hate him, Ted makes some profound and bold statements concerning our Second Amendment rights. Personally I happen to agree with everything he said, I liked him then...'Cat Scratch Fever'.... and I like him now!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T_QjEL0uUgo

:up: :up: :up:
Don't forget that this patriot who value ALL of our rights...such as the right to bear arms. pretty much quit bathing and wiped himself with feces to avoid fighting for those rights he cherishes. Odd that the right likes to cite a guy who has "madman" as part of his nickname.
 
Do you have anything, anything at all to substantiate your opinion or is the above statement the limit of your intellectual ability?

woah garf... no need to get catty! (get it? ha)


Once again, I'll remark about how interesting it is that you don't hear conservatives complain about idiotic, ignorant celebrities and their opinions when they agree with said opinions. On the contrary, they are lauded as heroes and blessed with h4ardcor3 rock n' roll insight. That is why "Mr. Nugent" makes me wanna vom.


So, yeah. To answer your question, that's pretty much the limit. Thanks.

;)
 
Love him or Hate him, Ted makes some profound and bold statements concerning our Second Amendment rights. Personally I happen to agree with everything he said, I liked him then...'Cat Scratch Fever'.... and I like him now!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T_QjEL0uUgo

:up: :up: :up:


Just to clarify, are you sure you want to use Teddy as your standard bearer?

Teds fan site

He has the rage, but he doesn't have the war record. At 18, he was called up to serve in Vietnam. "In 1977 you gave an interview to High Times [the cannabis user's journal of record] where you claimed you defecated in your clothes to avoid the draft."

("I got 30 days' notice of the physical," Nugent told them. "I ceased cleansing my body. Two weeks before the test I stopped eating food with nutritional value. A week before, I stopped going to the bathroom. I did it in my pants. My pants got crusted up.")

"I never *** my pants to get out of the draft," says Nugent, good-naturedly.

"You also told them you took crystal meth [methamphetamine, the highly destabilising drug sometimes described as poor man's crack] before the medical - as a result of which, and I quote: 'I got this big juicy 4F.'"

"Unbelievable. Meth," he replies, in a tone of deep sarcasm. "Yes, that's my drug of choice. You've got to realise that these interviewers would arrive with glazed eyes and I would make stories up. I never did crystal meth. And I never pooped my pants."

"But you did dodge the draft." "I had a 1Y [student deferment]. I enrolled at Oakland Community College."

"You said then that you wanted 'to teach the stupid bastards in the military a lesson'. I'd have thought you'd have loved the army. Guns. Travel. Danger." "Back then, I didn't even understand what World War II was."

"So basically," - I admit that I have, unaccountably, started to speak Nugent - "you didn't want to get your Michigan ass blown off in Vietnam." "Correct. I did not want to get my ass blown off in Vietnam."

"I know you do a lot of charity work for wounded veterans. Has it occurred to you that someone else may have died in Saigon because you didn't go?"

"Absolutely."

Nugent's name, as I am sure he's aware, appears, along with those of Cheney, Bush and many of their fellow Republicans, on a website called chickenhawks.com. It lists those who have evaded or abbreviated their own military service then, later in life, developed an appetite for war and machismo, either personally or by proxy.

"So has this made you..." "Certainly. Because I failed to serve in Vietnam, I feel an obligation now, to do everything I can to support those defending our freedom. Do I feel guilt and embarrassment? Yes."

"You missed your calling."

"I wish I'd understood how important America's fight against our enemies was. But did I go to Fallujah two years ago? Damn right I did. And was I in Afghanistan, manning a 50-calibre machine gun in a Chinook - ready to rock? Yes. Was I there for years? No. A couple of weeks. But I am not a coward."



At best he is a hypocrite and that is being generous in my opinion. But he seems to fit right in with the current crooks in power as one of them got 5 deferments and the other was guarding Indiana from the VC who were right there on the door step.
 
I think the best way to understand the framers intent is to understand the historical underpins of the bill of rights. Unfortunately, historical scholarship has been hijacked for ideological purposes in this bitter argument.

Ever heard of the federalist and anti-federalists? If you haven’t... it is because of their disagreements that we have the bill of rights (closely associated with federalism).

The inclusion of an amendment protecting the right to bear arms was a necessary concession to moderate Anti-Federalists who feared that the power of the federal government might threaten the states. Essentially, the 2nd amendment was designed to reaffirm state control of the militia and neutralize any fear that the militia might be disarmed by the U.S. government.

It was the protection of states' rights, not individual rights, that prompted the inclusion of the Second Amendment. It, like other checks and balances included in the Constitution and Bill of rights, is a final check on potential tyranny on behalf of the US government.

Bearing arms in the militia is legally distinct from bearing or carrying a gun in self defense. Reinterpreting the 2nd Amendment as an individual right distorts history for ideological purposes. It also turns the Bill of Rights into a constitutional etch-a-sketch in which the 2nd amendment's preamble, tying the purpose of the amendment to the preservation of a well-regulated militia, can be erased by ideological nonsense.

But, this only deals with whether Congress CAN regulate arms that are not being used for the people's duty to participate in the militia. This doesn't say that Congress HAS to regulate your made-up, err... god-given right to have weapons.

I think personal arms should be regulated (i.e. handguns, school zones, concealment, etc...), but I also think that some Texas farmer shouldn't be forced to hand over his rifle just because the government can regulate it. Both sides' main concerns can be adequately provided for through appropriate legislation.

So then...if the federal government allows under the constitution,a 'state militia' which in all actuality,the federal government actually controls,sits on and totally regulates.....how are we in conformity with the second amendment?
Where is my 'protection from tyranny'?

By my right to keep and bear arms...I have the ability to organize and conspire with my fellow citizens to subvert and or overthrow any corrupt and tyrannical government De Jour.This is the sole reason the government wishes to suppress and limit the ability and types of weapons a citizen can possess.

They are in fear of the people they represent and could be held accountable to for their foolish actions.
 
So then...if the federal government allows under the constitution,a 'state militia' which in all actuality,the federal government actually controls,sits on and totally regulates.....how are we in conformity with the second amendment?
Where is my 'protection from tyranny'?

By my right to keep and bear arms...I have the ability to organize and conspire with my fellow citizens to subvert and or overthrow any corrupt and tyrannical government De Jour.This is the sole reason the government wishes to suppress and limit the ability and types of weapons a citizen can possess.

They are in fear of the people they represent and could be held accountable to for their foolish actions.
dell..I have no problem with the second amendment. I DO have a problem with some draft dodging, self proclaimed "madman" cited by the right as a guy who "gets it". Someone should ask Nugent if those rights were worth fighting for, how come he didn't fight for them when he had the chance...instead, he sh!t himself....helluva spokesman y'all got there.
 
So then...if the federal government allows under the constitution,a 'state militia' which in all actuality,the federal government actually controls,sits on and totally regulates.....how are we in conformity with the second amendment?
Where is my 'protection from tyranny'?

By my right to keep and bear arms...I have the ability to organize and conspire with my fellow citizens to subvert and or overthrow any corrupt and tyrannical government De Jour.This is the sole reason the government wishes to suppress and limit the ability and types of weapons a citizen can possess.

They are in fear of the people they represent and could be held accountable to for their foolish actions.


Well, the militia was quite different in the 1700's. Control of the militia (or lack of militias) is a seperate issue... but very important nonetheless.
 
Somewhere you missed my point being exactly that....but who pulls the strings these days of our "state militia"? :eek:


It is a great point... being another example of how state's rights have been usurped by the all-powerful federal government.



In regards to earlier comments about how the supreme court has dealt with this issue. They don't need to rule on these issues when the lower federal courts continually get them right (allowing congress to regulate non-militia (individual) gun use). Also, the High Court has ruled on the issue years ago... and the decision backs the power of the fed to regulate non-militia arms.