Exactly, which is why a few years ago the speed limits on all Interstate Highways changed from a Federally mandated 55mph everywhere to whatever the state containing each stretch of highway chose to make it.
The 10th Amendment in action.
What the Constitution stated that it exists to do. No more. Read some of the discussions and debates that went on during the ratification conventions. Everybody was strongly against a strong Federal government. Our Constitution outlines a weak Fed, along with strong and largely independent State gov’s.
When confronted by an animal rights activist in San Francisco recently Ted responded that animals do indeed have rights… They have a right to garlic, butter, and cook’n on both sides.
He definitely adds color to any fray he enters.
I’m not entirely thrilled about Ted Nugent being considered by mainstream America as a spokesman for the gun community.
I’ll stick with people like Tom Selleck, Nolan Ryan, Tom Clancy, Carl Malone, Congressman J.C. Watts, Oliver Stone, John Milius, Willie Nelson, to name a few (I personally feel that the NRA should get more women on-board the “I’m the NRA” campaign).
And Mr. Heston, of course.
In spite of the liberal media’s attempts to tarnish him with carefully selected and edited “sound bite” quotes, he really is a gifted, inspirational orator.
Bottom line: I’ll take class over crass any day of the week, and twice whenever I can get away with it.
ExTank
“Although I harbor secret doubts about Willie…”
A well reasoned post ExTank. Having Ted Nugent on your side is like having Pat Buchanan or Pamela Lee. They make you wonder if maybe you shouldn’t change positions, just because.
I agree with you guys about Nugent. When I saw that he was going to be interviewed, I was pretty pissed off.
My reaction that rocks came from him being able to handle the issues fairly well. Sure he needs a haircut, and the camo he was wearing made me wince, but the substance of what the had to say was on target.
So maybe Ted doesn’t rock, but he sure came off miles above where I expected him to.
Well, I could let this deteriorate into a pissing contest of who is more pro-gun, but I realize that fighting among ourselves is counter productive. I am little impressed by your desire to allow ex-cons to own guns. I can’t think of anything else in the Bill of Rights we deny an ex-con when they are free, so I have trouble understanding why we deny them their 2nd Amendment rights. If they can’t be trusted, they shouldn’t be free. I once got into an arguement with Libertarian (months and months ago) because I put forth the idea that we should REQUIRE everyone to own a firearm.
Since we are name dropping, I will have to use Ex-Tank as a refferal (hope you don’t mind). I used to be just plain old Freedom, but life got complicated for a while and for many months I have only had the time to read, not post. Somewhere in there I moved, got a new e-mail address and computer, so I don’t have my old password anymore. I have been through the mill many times on gun control debates.
<backing away slowly>
Having said that, I still consider the use of the word “loophole” to be an example of liberal “spin” designed to confuse the issue. IMHO something that the law has not yet seen fit to regulate out of existence is not a “loophole.”
I am a little blown away that you are not a fan of John Lott. Co-incidently, his study is entitled " More Guns, Less Crime : Understanding Crime and Gun-Control Laws." (I swear I am not making that up)
In retrospect, it perhaps should not have been surprising that increasing the number of civilians with guns would reduce crime rates. The possibility of armed victims reduces the expected benefits and increases the expected costs of criminal activity. And, at the margin at least, people respond to changes in costs, even for crime, as Nobel-Prize winning economist [TAG]Gary Becker showed long ago. Allusions to the preferences of criminals for unarmed victims have seeped into popular culture; Ringo, a British thug in Pulp Fiction, noted off-handedly why he avoided certain targets: “Bars, liquor stores, gas stations, you get your head blown off stickin’ up one of them.”
…
I have consider the anti-gun force’s reluctance to even try to refute Lott’s study to be fairly damning evidence against them.
In the Onion’s Finest News Reporting book, there is a small story titled “New Ted Nugent Cologne Tested On ‘Every Damn Animal We Could Find’”. Quality stuff.
Is it a federal statute that determines the speed limits, or the threat of withdrawing highway funds from the states that post speed limits over 75mph?
Just curious. Now back to your regularly scheduled thread.
Well, Ted Nugent is coming to town (DFW, Texas) to open for KISS. There was a short interview with him in the front of our local Dallas rag The Met, which I only pick up because it bears the Holy Column of Cecil itself a week ahead of the website.
The photograph included with the interview shows a smiling Nugent with a rifle in his right hand, a guitar in his left, and an American flag behind him.
Gratuitous foul language aside, I kinda like the guy already
Hoo boy, the irony here is so thick you could cut it with a knife. Nugent comparing himself to American Indians, one tribe of which I believe he told he wanted to hunt and kill their sacred animal, a white buffalo.
I don’t see what the big deal is about The Nuge. So he likes his food to have the taste of fresh gunpowder. Big deal! All of the Ted bashers out there need to remember that in order to eat your Big Mac, someone had to kill that cow first. It sure wasn’t going to kill itself.
“If “shoulds” and “buts” were beer and nuts, we’d have one hell of a party!” - Bill Maher
…except that federally licensed DEALERS at gunshows must still complete all the background checks they’d have to complete in their stores. The “loophole” argument is based on deliberate attempts (by some) to pretend that they don’t. A private citizen who sells his own property (guns) at a gunshow doesn’t have to run background checks, but then he wouldn’t have to do it from his living room either. Which is as it should be.
And DEALERS at gunshows ARE required to do background checks. It’s a condition of doing business with a firearms dealer’s license–and it is required ANYWHERE they sell firearms. Period.
Private individuals aren’t required to do background checks, either at home or at a gunshow. The “loophole” argument is a stalking horse; the ultimate goal is to require registration of every gun and every transfer. If they can get it started by closing the alleged “loophole” at gunshows, private sales through newspapers or anywhere else will be next.
Not much to say on the main topic, here. Just wanted to mention that WHENEVER a Nugent tune comes on the classic rock station and my 11 yr old boy is within earshot, I KNOW I’ll be subjected to his tuneless rendition of the chorus for days if not weeks on end. Most recently it was, “Dog, dog, dog eat dog.” After twelve trillion repetitions, I had to flat out order him not to say those words or he would be punished. Prior to that it was “Cat scratch fever,” and earlier yet, “It’s a free for all.”
Did I mention I gave my boy a compound bow for his b-day? And he has had his bb gun for several years, now. Hmm.
this whole, ‘ted as spokesman for a political movement who needs to be taken seriously and debated by our cultural elite in a public forum’ has gotten way out of hand.
there was a time when ted was just an over-the-top rocker who coaxed ‘melodic’ feedback out of a gibson byrdland and sang about poontang. he talked in rhyme and spat out gems like ‘this guitar can blow the balls off a charging rhino at 60 paces.’ the pictures of him and his kids shooting on his ranch on the ‘weekend warriors’ album intertwined with concert shots was a cool effect. ted used to be my one of my favorite rock and rollers - one of a dying breed of extroverted lead guitarists.
he needs get off his survivalist supremacy soapbox and get back to studded wristbands and ‘yank me crank me’. enough already with your guns - WE KNOW! practice your licks!
Al Mondroca: thank you for explaining to the dense, obtuse, outright skeptical and never-before-been-to-a-gunshow-folks about how background checks and basic property law works in America. Coming from a new and unheard-of-before voice might convince some of the Anti-Gun Nazis that it’s not all some evil conspiracy to slaughter the American population and take over the world.
I note from your post count that you’re new here; welcome to the Straight Dope (and the never-ending, never-resolved Gun-Control Debate!).
ExTank
“Nah. Liberals don’t let themselves get confused with facts.”
THAT’S THE LOOPHOLE! THAT IS THE FUCKING LOOPHOLE! THERE IS A LOOPHOLE THERE THAT ALLOWS ME, (someone who is not legally allowed to have a gun) TO RELATIVELY EASILY AQUIRE ONE! How can you not admit that. I’m all for that loophole, but it is one.
Exactly. But saying it’s not a loophole is like saying that guns aren’t dangerous. Of course they are, cars a re dangerous too, so what.
I just typed another long post about the fake loophole thing again. Then I erased it.
Oldscratch, If we required every private sale of a firearm to have a federal background check, this would not make it any harder for criminals to get guns.
Say you are a criminal. Say I am selling a gun. It is already currently illegal for me to sell that gun to you. If that doesn’t bother me, then I am not really going to do a background check since I am already breaking the law.
Next case:
Say you want to sell lemonade one weekend in front of your house, so you open your little lemonade stand for the weekend and make a couple of bucks. Since you are a private person just doing this once, you do not need a tax-ID #, you don’t have to collect sales tax, and you do not need to have a health permit.
Now, since the local restauraunt needs to have all these things in order to sell lemonade, is there a loop-hole in the law that allows you to get away with something you shouldn’t be?
There are thousands of examples in this country of the law regulating this guy, but not that one. These are not loop-holes, these are just the way it is.
I beg to differ. Any federally-licensed gun dealer must perform background checks prior to any sale in any venue, period [Okay, in some states, possession of a CCW permit waives the check, since you’ve already been backgrounded, but…]. In his store, at a gunshow, in his kitchen–anywhere. The check is mandatory. Period.
Private persons who choose to sell a firearm do not have to do background checks under federal law (state laws differ in some cases). In his living room, on the street, at a gunshow–it doesn’t matter. No check required. Period.
That gun dealers and non-dealers congregate at gunshows does not change either of these conditions. If dealers could ignore background check requirements at gunshows, THAT would be a loophole. But they can’t. They’re bound by the same rules regardless of venue.
But let’s stipulate that this scenario is a “loophole”.
So what? Frankly, I’m more comfortable with the possibility of criminals buying guns at gun shows than I am with allowing the government to make it that much harder for law-abiding citizens to buy guns, to say nothing of allowing the government to maintain patently illegal registration lists [which is what the Brady checks do]. Criminals are the lesser threat.*
*Anyone who disagrees should ask themselves how much of their income is taken by criminals on a regular basis, and how many facets of their life revolve around the latest decisions by mob bosses about what they’ll be allowed to do in their own homes and businesses.
With statements like this, I’m starting to see Ted Nugent as a moderate. I’m assuming you don’t live in a big city as your opinion would be quite different. If you don’t like the current “mob bosses”, please elect a different set of 'em that accurately represent your views on easy access to weapons for convicted felons.
Yeah, Ted no doubt is a moderate compared to me. If it were up to me, any 14 year-old girl would be able to walk into the local hardware store, slap some cash on the counter, and walk out with a belt-fed, water-cooled machinegun–without filling out any forms, signing any papers or showing any kind of ID. [Not that I expect to achieve this, but if we’re gonna slice the “salami” of public policy, I aim to start dragging the middle ground my way.]
Your assumption is incorrect, by the way. While I did grow up a small town in rural Virginia, I spent eight years in the DC Metro Area (Northern Virginia) and now live in Portland, Oregon. Portland may be a small city by some folks’ standards, but it is sure 'nuff a city.
As for electing another set of “mob bosses” – believe me, I do my best every election. And between elections I write letters to the editor and otherwise keep busy trying to make an impact.
