Another gun control thread. I was just blown away by Ted Nugent on CNBC’s show “The Edge.”
This guy hit every major issue head on.
He addressed the fact that there is NO gun show loophole. There is a law that regulates Federally licensed firearms dealers, and there is a seperate law that governs private sales.Simply put…The Federal Gov’t has ZERO authority to regulate firearm sales between private individuals.
He addressed PLASTIC GUNS!!! The guy he was debating actually tried to claim that the US Congress has prevented plastic guns from being introduced into America because of legislation they have passed.
Like if it was possible to make a plastic gun then terrorists would just decide not to mess around with them.
Good old Ted pointed out that plastic guns do not exist because they would not be able to withstand the pressures of firing. He then talked about the misconception people had of the Glock when it was first imported, and that that was the foundation of the “plastic gun” thing.
Ted even addressed the 2nd amendment and that it has nothing to do with hunting or target practice. The other guy (can’t remember who he was) tried to claim the 2nd Amendment was protecting a State’s right. (I was pretty sure it metioned people and not states in that one…)
I was just blown away by Ted Nugent. I thought we were toast, and he came through in SPADES!!!
Ted Nugent is made to look like the idiot he is when he is not preaching to the converted. Every time he is on Politically Incorrect, Bill Maher always skewers him like Ted is a helpless animal and Bill is a crossbow!
Don’t get me wrong here - I am not for the abolishment of guns. And there are people who can eloquently and intelligently take the against any and all gun control measures position. But Ted ain’t he.
Oh, and that line about never doing drugs? Sure. “Journey To The Center Of A Mind” and the rest of the psychedelic slop from his Amboy Dukes era couldn’t possibly have been done under the influence of some halucinogen, right Little Miss Dangerous? :rolleyes:
[sub]TIME ELAPSED SINCE I QUIT SMOKING:
Four months, two weeks, 1 hour, 5 minutes and 10 seconds.
5441 cigarettes not smoked, saving $680.23.
Life saved: 2 weeks, 4 days, 21 hours, 25 minutes.[/sub]
"Satan is not an unattractive person."-Drain Bead
[sub]Thanks for the ringing endorsement, honey!*[/sub]
What misconception is that?
I was to understand that the Glock is a polymer-bodied gun with a light alloy frame. (Not Ceramic, as was mentioned in “Die Hard 2”)
Strip it down, and you have a weapon to walk through airports with. As a result, Glock (realizing their mistake) started inserting metal strips and parts into their handguns so they’d show up on X-Rays and metal detectors.
The key phrase here is “BODIED.” All Glocks have a substrantial amount of metal in them. The entire firing mechanism and the barrel are metal. From the top slide up it is all metal. If you stripped it down, all you would have is a handle and a trigger. Plus, until they start manufacturing plastic bullets to go in these plastic guns, the bullets alone would be enough to set off the metal detector.
That is from the Glock website. Check out the picture at the top af the screen of the Glock. right above the trigger you will see the slide. The slide runs the ENTIRE length of the pistol. That is all metal(and always has been), and all the parts in the slide are metal. Glock did not add small metal strips that set off metal detectors because Glocks could sneak through undetected.
The bottom line is that plastic can not withstand the pressures of firing off a bullet. The barrel would melt or explode. Glock never realized that they made a “mistake,” they have turned themselves into one of the most popular gun manufacturers in America. The irony of the entire episode is that this supposed “TERRORIST” weapon has become the sidearm of choice for a large number of police departments.
The only reason we do not have plastic guns is because they do not work.
Personally, I liked Ted. Maybe it was because I had such low expectations of him to begin with though. Who have you seen on national TV that does a good job defending the 2nd Amendment?
On a personal note…
It always pissed me off that you stopped smoking. I had to read that friggin counter for over 3 months before I was able to quit. Don’t get me wrong, you were not the reason I quit, but it just pissed me off that even SATAN could quit smoking and I couldn’t.
I’m pretty sure they work, it just that the demand does not outweigh the costs. The manufacturing technology to build these does not come cheap, so only legitimate gun manufacturers are going to take on something like this and they aren’t going to do it unless they have a legitimate market demand and the only people willing to spend more money for a high tech plastic gun are collectors and terrorists…
-Ted Nugent has not “rocked” in quite some time. Anyone who’s heard his stuff with “Damn Yankees” (High Enough, anyone?) can vouch for this.
-Plastic guns are feasable but are not produced because of the cost and the lack of market. I believe (but am not positive) that Glock makes other handguns with a plastic slide (Glock does not mention what material the slide is composed of, but if you do a search on “Glock” and “plastic slide” you’ll get several hits).
-“Like if it was possible to make a plastic gun then terrorists would just decide not to mess around with them.”
I don’t understand what you’re trying to say here.
-“He addressed the fact that there is NO gun show loophole…The Federal Gov’t has ZERO authority to regulate firearm sales between private individuals.”
So your claim is that because private sales of firearms typically do not require background checks, so someone with a criminal record can go to a gun show and purchase a gun from an individual (a gun owner not licensed as a dealer) thereby bypassing the background check, you don’t consider this a loophole?
Until the first working 100% plastic gun is found, I challenge this. The barrel and firing mechanism HAS to be metal. Even metal barrels wear out, plastic ones would explode.
Well, if you do a search on “glock” “macaroni and cheese” you will also get several hits. Neither of those searches show that Glocks make plastic (or macaroni) guns. We are not discussing something in a vacuum. It is pretty easy to get your hands on a Glock. Just take a stop by your local gun shop and ask to see one.
I think it is crazy that so many people are willing to argue that Glock makes plastic guns, but are unwilling to take the time to go look at one. Once you hold one, you will understand just how much metal is in them. If you visit the Glock site listed up there, you can see the specs they have on the pistol shown. It is close to 2 pounds unloaded. At least 2/3 of that weight is METAL!!!
I can’t blame you for not understanding that sentence. Somwhow I never quite finished the thought there.
My point was that if it was possible to build a plastic gun, then we would have seen one by now. Criminals or terrorists would not decide to avoid plastic guns just because the United States Government banned them. Banning plastic guns is the same thing as banning personal laser guns and then claiming that you have prevented criminals world wide from having access to laser guns.
I choose to interpret the fact that not even one plastic gun exists, as proof that the technology IS NOT available
My claim? I am not making a claim, I am stating a fact. The Federal Gov’t has regulated everything that it has the authority to regulate. There is not a loophole, private sales between private individuals does not require background checks. This is not a loophole, this is the law.
Is it a loophole that cars are allowed in the left lane but trucks are not?
This can only be considered a loophole by people who have it on their agenda to have every single sale of a firearm registered with the federal gov’t. For people on the other side (like me) private sales without background checks is the way it is supposed to be. And BTW…It is not legal for a criminal (someone with a felony record) to buy a gun from anyone, background check or not. This so called “loophole” does not make it legal for criminals to buy guns as long as they buy them from private citizens.(now THAT would be a loophole IMHO)
The bottom line here is that you can regulate law abiding citizens all you want, but it will not reduce crime. If you truly want to reduce gun violence, lock up the criminals with guns for a VERY long time and leave the rest of us law abiding citizens alone.
Nobody believes that Ted Nugent Rocks! more than Ted Nugent himself. Which is my #1 problem with Ted Nugent.
However, as I am married to a native of the Detroit area, I will cease to put this opinion forth any further.
One thing about Ted’s gun argument that intrigues me: he says give a kid a shotgun and make him have some quality time with his dad and/or other male relatives in the woods for a weekend, that’s a kid who isn’t doing all that other stuff society worries about. And Ted might just be right about that, sort of. The sexism in those assumptions aside… it IS male bonding, even if some people would prefer male bonding didn’t have to happen around shooting furry & feathered little creatures. The men in my family are hunters, and hunting an experience of being together that they don’t duplicate in any other activities.
Plus they must be AWFUL shots; they really don’t bring much home.
Not true. That is why new regulations on guns and other facts of life pop up frequently.
You seem ignorant, as does Ted Nugent, on what a loophole is. If the law states that all people must register their thumbprints with the state of delaware, except those named steve, that is a law with a loophole. One that enables those named steve to avoid this arbitrary law.
Depends on who you’re asking. If someone decided to start making trucks and calling them cars, and the law allowed this, and then driving them in the left lane. Then there would be a loophole.
Absolutely. So you admit that it is a loophole when considered by anti-gun forces. Glad to see we are in agreement.
Hey that’s ok. I agree with you on this one. I just think that Ted is a fuck, and don’t like seeing anyone use an argument by him to support anything. Especially when the argument is faulty.
No but it does allow it. That is what makes it a loophole.
Exactly. Again we are in agreement.
Oops, you blew it again. Addressing the symptoms but not the disease won’t accomplish anything.
When I read this all I could think of was the Simpsons episode where Homer is concerned that Bart may be “turning gay”. So he decides that to “cure” Bart by Homer, Moe, and Barney taking Bart hunting. In the car on the way Bart observes:
“Something about a bunch of guys alone together in the woods… seems kinda gay.”
I forgot about the frustration of agueing with the anit-gun crowd.
In addition to reading your post Oldscratch, I just had the bad timing to read an article by Sara Brady just prior to coming here.
To quote Jane’s Addiction:
“Heeeere we gooooooooo…”
I agree with you about the Steve thing. However, you seem to have trouble keeping you logic consistent when it conflicts with your ideology. I have already said that I would consider it a loophole if criminals were ALLOWED to buy guns from private citizens. However…criminals are not allowed to buy guns PERIOD. Regardless of where or who they are buying them from. The Federal government has the right to set the guidelines for Federally licensed dealers. They derive this right from the interstate commerce clause. They do not have the right to set the same guidleines for individuals.
Since we are talking about the Federal Gov’t here, let me bring in the 10th Amendment that you seem ignorant of:
“The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”
Simply put, if the gov’t does not have explicit permission to do something, then it does not have that authority.
ummmmm…I am not quite sure how letting private citizens conduct business without federal involvement allows criminals to buy guns. Nothing whatsoever in the lack of a required background check ALLOWS a criminal to buy a gun. This is the same logic as saying that if the store owner walks away then you are ALLOWED to walk out of the store with whatever you want.
If you want to stop crime, focus on the criminals.
I have to admit that you have my head spinning. I am pretty used to the anti-gun crowd parking logic and reason at the door, but this one is a real gem.
First, one second earlier in your post you agree with me that regulating law abiding citizens will not lower crime one bit. Of course this ignores the preceding portion of your post where all you do is concentrate on law abiding citizens.
Then, you scoff at the idea of locking up criminals. Am I correct in interpreting your post to mean that you consider guns “the disease” and criminal behavior the “symptoms?”
I have never seen any anti-gun debater before forward the idea that guns actually induce criminal behavior. If you were to look at objective facts and leave the emotion behind, you would see that stiff enforcement of the law, plus more law abiding citizens with guns actually lowers the crime rate signifigantly.
I will be happy to provide cites if you require them.
How do you propose enforcing the aforementioned law? Under your plan, the criminal can easily buy the gun and will only get charged when commiting another crime. I’d prefer if the criminal was not able to buy the gun to begin with.
To use your storekeeper analogy, you aren’t allowed to steal stuff while the storekeeper is away. That doesn’t mean he shouldn’t lock his store at closing time.
You’re not thinking out of the box here… no one says that a plastic gun has to fire conventional bullets with conventional propellants. Also, we’re not talking about conventional plastics. The polymers we’re talking about are able to withstand very high temperatures and pressures. I’ve never seen any of these materials used as a gun, but I’ve seen some other pretty amazing demonstrations.
I used to work for a company back in the early 80s that was developing new carbon fiber / polymer materials. One of the proposed applications was automobile engines. This material could withstand forces and temperatures that destroyed ordinary steel. I suspect that in the last 20 years there have been some improvements.
Cecil deals with the plastic gun issue in a classic column. His verdict is that offically all guns have a substantial amount of metal in them. The Glock 17 is the closest to a plastic gun, but it is still 83% metal by weight. Cecil also mentions rumors concerning the CIA developing a ceramic gun. Ceramics can certainly withstand the pressures of the firing process. Ceramics are used in components of turbine and internal combustion engines. In these applications, ceramic components are required to endure pressures and temperatures greater than those in a gun. And they do so better than the metal components they are replacing. So the answer to the question of a nearly metal free firearms is: if they don’t exist now, secretly, it is only a matter of time.
As far as the gun show loop-hole, it depends on your definition of loop-hole. Sure, it is illeagal for criminals to buy guns from anyone, if they don’t do background checks at gun shows and they do at gun shops, it doesn’t take a criminal too long to figure out he can get guns more easily at the gun show. It’s like having booze shows where people can sell alcohol and don’t have to ask for ID. Guess where under-age kids could get their beer from? Not manating background checks at gun shows violates the spirit of the background check law. It was intended to limit the availablity of guns to criminals by forcing vendors to check if people are trying to buy guns they aren’t supposed to have access to.
AHHHHH!!! I forgot about the frustration (actually i remember it all to well) of arguing with people who don’t actually read your posts.
What part of “Hey that’s ok. I agree with you on this one.” don’t you understand? I’m more pro-gun that you’ll ever be. Just go ask Mr.Zambezi. Should convicted felons be allowed to purchase guns? Yes. You however, being a namby-pamby anti-gun person, want to restrict their rights.
Just because something is illegal doesn’t mean it’s not allowed. For example. If a piece of environmental legislation makes it illegal to dump toxins, yet the punishment is light enough to make it worthwhile to continue dumping, that would be a loophole. Understand? Now, the LAW doesn’t ALLOW companies to dump toxins. But, the penalty is so light that they can get away with it. That is a loophole PERIOD. The fact that background checks are not mandated makes it easier for criminals to buy guns at gun shows. Thus, it is a loophole in the law. Again, I don’t support it.
Interesting. I was not aware of this. Do you have a cite. Thanks.
That’s bullshit. The goverment wasn’t given specific permission to enact speed limits, or to make marijuanna illegal, or to do a host of other things.
Not my fault there. I think it’s been explained pretty simply by a number of various people.
Again you ignored the spirit and the letter of my post. Can’t help you here.
Nope. I think of criminal behavior as the symptomns and guns as a tool. Much like a screwdriver. Would anyone call a screwdriver “the disease”. Well, I hope not. One of the main causes for criminal behavior is unemployment and underemployment. There are some other factors too.
You’re lucky. I have. Let me tell you it was not a pretty sight. Did you know that some liberals actually suggest boycotting the Massachussetes quarter because it has a gun on it?
This isn’t true. There aren’t any studies that show that more guns lower crime. They don’t raise the crime rate either. But I’d like to see a cite. However, so you don’t misunderstand me again. I am against gun control! Got it?
Just wanted to say this. It’s not on topic, but it is on subject… if you know what I mean. I saw Ted live a few times in the mid 70s. He had a great show and he clearly earned his reputation as a madman. In one show, he jumped off of his stack and sprained his ankle (or perhaps it was part of the act). He still managed a sort of stomp/limp for the rest of the show – dude’s got some serious attitude. The only downside is I lost a girlfriend because of him. I took her to the show and he pulled out one of his custom Byrdlands; one that he said could blow the balls off of a charging rhino at a 100 yards… Let me tell you, that sucker was loud! Loud beyond enjoyment - my ears rang for a week after that. My girlfriend apparently suffered some hearing loss, however and her parents forbid us to see each other again - I was obviously a bad influence. Coincidentally, Ted was asked to never return to our venue again, “thank you very much”. He had violated a number of noise ordinances for the city.
I never was impressed with his guitar skills, but I loved his guitars!
Either you don’t like those laws and wish NOBODY put them there (that goes to hell when you consider that states are now making those decisions maybe?), which has nothing to do with the issue, or you don’t like the federal government having say over these areas, but you never answer why to that one.
What should the federal government be doing then?
[sub]I HAVE BEEN SMOKE-FREE FOR:
Four months, two weeks, 18 hours, 54 minutes and 41 seconds.
5471 cigarettes not smoked, saving $683.94.
Extra life with Drain Bead: 2 weeks, 4 days, 23 hours, 55 minutes.[/sub]
"Satan is not an unattractive person."-Drain Bead
[sub]Thanks for the ringing endorsement, honey![/sub]