@Putin33 You're actually making a pretty good case for voting for Ted Nugent. In some microscopic way you actually are working to remove some of the freedoms Americans currently enjoy. It's a trade, lose some freedom, gain some safety. Other people might not consider it to be such a good trade.

Modern firefight? I don't want to be in a "modern firefight". That's the whole point. You people's notions of "freedom" are people who actually live in areas where gun violence is a constant problem's idea of hell on earth. And if you notice poll after poll shows that people who actually live in cities aren't the ones clamoring for more guns. It's the people who live in the middle of nowhere that want guns, because they don't bear the costs while they get to enjoy the so-called "freedom". Cities have tried to pass ordinances banning hand guns only to be overturned by people who don't live there.

Whether it takes you some time to get your preferred automatic weapon is beside the point. Automatic weapons aren't the ones doing most of the killing, precisely because they are more expensive and more regulated. Thank you for buttressing my point. The only weapon that is actually explicitly constitutionally protected is the *handgun*, and it's this weapon that does 80% of the killing. It's cheap (can be around $100). It's easy to conceal. Anybody can get one.

You can go to any private unlicensed dealer and you don't even to get so much as a background check. In some states you do not even need a permit to conceal carry. That's what you call "regulation".

" It's a trade, lose some freedom, gain some safety"

You're right. Most people, I venture to guess, would rather trade the "freedom" to buy cheaper toys with the "safety" of them not having lead in them. Americans are currently "enjoying" the "freedom" of tens of thousands of homicides per year. Needless, pointless deaths. Please walk around in Chicago and give your lectures about the "freedom" you are defending.

"Besides, what's the harm if the gun owner is not drinking, as in my case?"

Are you kidding? Because somehow you being sober prevents a fight from getting out of hand, right?

What about Switzerland?

Dammit Putin33, you did it again! There are too many homicides, and it's my fault because I think Ted Nugent's trash talk is not a crime worthy of prison! Man, please have enough respect for real problems to try to understand their myriad causes and maybe one day work toward improving things in a way that's real. Please don't walk around Chicago and mention how you leveraged the local murder rate into half a point in a debate about Ted Nugent.

What about it? The gun laws in Switzerland for private gun ownership, contrary to popular belief, are much more strict than in the US (such as ammunition being stored in depots). Does that make it a tyrannical hellhole? Are they are sheep waiting to be slaughtered by the Swiss cantons? Or all the other melo-dramatic nonsense the 2nd Amendment absolutists like to say if we do anything about guns?

I have yet to see any evidence of your respect for the causes of real problems. Nothing but snide remarks and snark. You want us all to pretend as if violent speech and access to weapons has nothing to do with violence in society. Just pull the wool over everyone's eyes, all while reciting slick quotations and bumper sticker slogans to make yourself feel good about your "standing up for freedom". *Yawn*

Let's back up a few steps.

Putin33, there's a lack of proportion in your arguments that borders on disrespect. Rwandan genocide, violence in Chicago, and political violence do exist and are tragic. They're serious matters with complex causes that don't really belong in a debate about how much a cranky old musician is allowed to rant. You keep raising the stakes, and everyone else (including me) keeps taking the bait.

So, I'm done. Your appeals to emotion and apparent comfort in borrowing other people's suffering *in a thread about voting for Ted Nugent* haven't convinced me of anything, but I'm exhausted. You and Ted Nugent can both rant all you want.

Exhausted? You haven't even participated. You and Invictus need to eat more veggies or something.

Although it's quite rich you complaining about appeals to emotion when that's all the "you're taking away my freedom" argument (I use the term argument generously) has to go on. There's no practical side to it at all. It's all very quaint and theoretical, detached from real life.

Yes these are serious matters and you trying to reduce and simplify it to simply Ted Nugent mouthing off, as if it just happens in a vacuum and or is just a matter of Ted Nugent, and not a representation of something larger, isn't illuminating anything and is hardly adding complexity to it.

OK, Putin33, I'll finish my veggies add one more thing. I hope that you actually are able to discern the difference between the seriousness of the matters you constantly cite and the frivolousness of being the "obstinate idealist" in a forum. There's nothing more quaint and theoretical, and detached from real life, than appropriating a recent genocide in a forum thread about voting for Ted Nugent.

As I said, I did take the bait in your trap, and I went with a "taking away freedom" argument before I came to my senses. Sorry about that, it was a stupid appeal to emotion. That said, I didn't *introduce* the hyperbole into the thread, that was you.

Anyway, congratulations on blowing up another discussion.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xs4v-zexx8M

Tendmote, there are people that deny that speech can ever possibly contribute to violence, and did so in this thread. The usage of the much maligned Rwanda example was to demonstrate that such a position does not hold up. If one accepts that speech can lead to violence, then it's not much farther to argue that Nugent's speech here needs to be regulated because of its potential consequences.

But you seem more interested in criticizing me than the substance here. So be it.

I am criticizing you and the Rwanda example because of the lack of proportion. Sometimes speech is incitement to violence, and sometimes it's not.

The reality is that Ted Nugent's speech was permitted and it did not actually lead to any violence. As such it is a pretty poor example of an incitement to violence. As a result you have pointed to things like the Rwandan genocide and provided some "would have, could have" arguments, but... really man? By any reasonable standard that is out of proportion.

(There are better examples of people who lead actual hate-based groups providing names and addresses of their enemies, but that would be a different thread where there'd probably be unanimous agreement on incitement.)

I am criticizing both the argument (it's ridiculous) and you (for resorting to hyperbole, oversimplification of cause and effect, and overheating the discussion at every opportunity.)

@ Putin33

"Modern firefight? I don't want to be in a "modern firefight"."

Nor do I. My point is that there is a myth perpetuated by the media and believed by people like you that anyone can get military-grade hardware with little or no trouble. This is an outright lie. Go ahead, try and buy an automatic rifle. It's not as easy as you think. America is NOT a country that passes out machine guns to anyone who wants them (unfortunately).

"And if you notice poll after poll shows that people who actually live in cities aren't the ones clamoring for more guns. It's the people who live in the middle of nowhere that want guns, because they don't bear the costs while they get to enjoy the so-called "freedom". Cities have tried to pass ordinances banning hand guns only to be overturned by people who don't live there."

How about comparing city to city instead of looking at what the people want? Does DFW have a higher or lower murder rate than Chicago? Idiotic politicians elected by idiotic people pass these Draconian gun laws and act surprised when only the bad guys have guns. They then push for even stricter laws, and the vicious cycle continues. It's essentially illegal to carry a handgun in the city of Chicago. I'm all for keeping guns out of the hands of felons and thugs, but let's NOT disarm the good guys while we're at it.

"Whether it takes you some time to get your preferred automatic weapon is beside the point. Automatic weapons aren't the ones doing most of the killing, precisely because they are more expensive and more regulated."

I was merely pointing out your incorrect use of terminology. Claiming that anyone can walk into Starbucks with their M16 has to be one of the most ignorant statements I've ever read. If you're going to talk about guns, you could at least *pretend* to know what you're talking about. A cursory Wikipedia check would have been sufficient for you to use the proper nomenclature.

"You're right. Most people, I venture to guess, would rather trade the "freedom" to buy cheaper toys with the "safety" of them not having lead in them. Americans are currently "enjoying" the "freedom" of tens of thousands of homicides per year. Needless, pointless deaths. Please walk around in Chicago and give your lectures about the "freedom" you are defending."

Giving away freedom for a false sense of safety. Brilliant. /endsarcasm. How about you take a walk through west Chicago and see how many legal firearms you can find. Probably damned near zero. The thugs are armed with the exact same weapons that people like you explicitly banned years ago.

@ Putin33

100 years ago, nearly everyone west of the Mississippi River had a firearm, often on their hip. The crime rate was essentially zero. It is important to note that double-action revolvers of old are nearly as effective as modern semi-automatic pistols. In other words, an analogy between the Wild West and the modern day is not unfair from a technological standpoint.

People like you demonize firearms instead of demonizing the cause of firearm violence. Putin, I have been shooting for years, and I have a yet to see a gun that can load, aim, and fire itself.

If you want to test Putin's logical consistency, ask him which is the cause of/who is at fault for rape:

1. The girl in her provocative clothing?
2. The person committing the rape?

I assure you in this argument Putin will give zero power to any physical object, and ascribe all blame to the individual committing the crime. This is the type of logical inconsistency/failure we see with liberal causes.

What are you talking about Krellin? Of your two options, it's option 2, obviously. The person committing the rape is responsible for the rape. Duh.

Also @Krellin: "I don't really care about what you think or don't think....but I enjoy the hell out of the fact that I have so distracted you that you are now trolling..."

I am not trolling. Everything I have said in this thread is serious.

Krellin are you really saying that provocative clothes are responsible for rapes being committed?

It's also pretty horrible for you to imply that a girl in provocative clothing is an "object".

Sorry Celtic, when I said "you" I was still talking to Krellin, natch.

I figured so much :)

"It's also pretty horrible for you to imply that a girl in provocative clothing is an "object"."

The "object" as he used the word pretty obviously referred to the dress. There's plenty of legitimate points to criticize krellin on here, no need to pull a Putin33 and misrepresent him.

Thanks to all of you for playing and for clearly demonstrating that you all believe that human beings are responsible for their actions, and that it is wholly inappropriate to blame an object....be it a provocative dress, or a *gun*...for the violent actions of the human offender.

Now...let's see if you can pass the next test:

Regardless of who is to blame, the case can certainly be made the the hot chick in a sexy dress is ore likely to be raped than the dumpy looking girl in overalls. So, should we ban provocative dresses in order to limit the incidence of rape, understanding that we are in no way blaming the victim of the rape or her clothes??

^see above for a host of points to legitimately criticize krellin on

Krellin: Unfortunately you are attempting to equate two things which are not logically equivalent.

There are MANY instances of women who were NOT dressed provocatively being raped.

There are NO instances of people being gunned down by someone who didn't have a gun.

Jamie - counter to your counter - the overwhelming majority of guns are never, ever used in an illegal manner. It is the same argument.

You will now say "Yes, but a gun is always used in a gun crime" to which I will say "Yes, and a proactive dress is always present where a proactively dressed woman is raped"

you: "But we are talking about rape, and some rapes happen without provocative dress"
me: "No, we are talking about provocative dress, which sometimes results in rape"

...

Is that a fairly accurate representation of the next 5 or 6 posts?