The Nuge speaks out on Ohio's ccw ban - The Firearms Forum

bgtrailertrash · 05-13-2003, 02:27 PM

During an interview with Columbus this week to promote an upcoming columbus concert with ZZTOP ,rocker and second amendment-rights activist Ted Nugent had this to say about Ohio's ban on carrying a firearm for self defence :

"Any obstacles for individuals of proper reputation--in other words , non-felons-- to need any kind of permit for the right to keep and bear arms is an indication of cultural deprivation at the hand of an apathetic , sheep- like society that embarrasses me , angers me ,'' he said

''To think that some man can tell this man if , where or when i may be able to defend myself is absolutely repugnent to me . ...I find that spiritualy , intellectually and constitutionally offensive.And i am fighting with all my might to rectify that .''

www.ohioccw.org/article1099.html

Shizamus · 05-13-2003, 04:33 PM

I agree with the Nuge except on one point
where he mentions non-felons.
When i read the 2nd Amendment..... And the
right to keep and bear arms shall not be
infringed, end of sentence, it does not say
except felons. I do not see this in the
Constitution i am reading, could it be that
the Constitution someone else is reading
says that ?

STAY ARMED WITH THE FACTS AND FIREARMS.

Real talk radio : http://www.gcnlive.com
www.thepowerhour.com
www.infowars.com

Texan · 05-15-2003, 02:48 PM

FWIW, A convicted felon can formally request that the U.S. Attorney General restore their right to bear arms. The rights of non- violent offenders are usually restored as requested.

Shizamus · 05-15-2003, 09:28 PM

I understand what you are saying but
the 2nd Amendment did not come with any conditions.
And to request from the Att. General is to beg to have your PRIVILIGE returned to you. The 2nd Amendement is about
your RIGHT to bear. The enemy wants to use the felony
charge for everything because that is gun control thru
the back door. The way I see it , if you do the crime and do
the time , that should be the end of it. The way the enemy
sees it is you do the time and the felony follows you to
your grave, seems to me that you have two penalties
for the same crime. Look what happened to Charlie Pucket,
commander of the Kentucky militia( don't know if any of you
know him) when he was in his teens he was charged with
stealing some groceries, has not had another arrest since then,
upstanding citizen in the community, all kinds of gun permits
and background checks over the years. Yet the ATF came
after him 30 years later for that same crime under the
pretense of a felony and hunted him down. The felony law
did not even exist at the time of this crime. He was a very
vocal Constitutionalist. He is serving time now, going on 2 years.
We know he was framed. The enemy interprets unconstutional
law as they see fit as they go along with the criminal judicial
system backing them up.

WE NEED TO WORK TOGETHER TO LIBERATE FREEDOM ONCE AGAIN.

Real talk radio : www.gcnlive.com

Texan · 05-16-2003, 09:01 AM

I agree with you. IMHO if you were a non-violent offender you should have all of your constitutional rights restored once you have paid you debt to society. I think that violent offenders should have the right to vote but their right to bear arms should be examined on a case by case basis. If they intentionally committed a crime with a weapon, and have a history of this type of crime, I don't think that they should have the right to LEGALLY obtain a firearm. Chances are that they did not get the offending weapon legally in the first place. If it was a case of negligence i.e. involuntary manslaughter, accidental death etc. they should have full rights restored.

just my .02

dirtyjap · 05-18-2003, 01:44 AM

Its my understanding that convicted felons are stripped of their civil rights.And therfore do not enjoy the same civil liberties as the rest of us.Thats why police can enter they're homes or violate their parole status for seemingly minor issues.Once they have done their time and have completed their parole/probation their rights can be restored.

05-13-2003, 02:27 PM	#1
bgtrailertrash Member Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Bowling Green ,Ohio Posts: 11	The Nuge speaks out on Ohio's ccw ban During an interview with Columbus this week to promote an upcoming columbus concert with ZZTOP ,rocker and second amendment-rights activist Ted Nugent had this to say about Ohio's ban on carrying a firearm for self defence : "Any obstacles for individuals of proper reputation--in other words , non-felons-- to need any kind of permit for the right to keep and bear arms is an indication of cultural deprivation at the hand of an apathetic , sheep- like society that embarrasses me , angers me ,'' he said ''To think that some man can tell this man if , where or when i may be able to defend myself is absolutely repugnent to me . ...I find that spiritualy , intellectually and constitutionally offensive.And i am fighting with all my might to rectify that .'' www.ohioccw.org/article1099.html -->

05-15-2003, 02:48 PM	#3
Texan Member Join Date: May 2003 Location: Michigan Posts: 31	FWIW, A convicted felon can formally request that the U.S. Attorney General restore their right to bear arms. The rights of non- violent offenders are usually restored as requested. __________________ Swift, Silent, Deadly

05-16-2003, 09:01 AM	#5
Texan Member Join Date: May 2003 Location: Michigan Posts: 31	I agree with you. IMHO if you were a non-violent offender you should have all of your constitutional rights restored once you have paid you debt to society. I think that violent offenders should have the right to vote but their right to bear arms should be examined on a case by case basis. If they intentionally committed a crime with a weapon, and have a history of this type of crime, I don't think that they should have the right to LEGALLY obtain a firearm. Chances are that they did not get the offending weapon legally in the first place. If it was a case of negligence i.e. involuntary manslaughter, accidental death etc. they should have full rights restored. just my .02 __________________ Swift, Silent, Deadly

05-13-2003, 04:33 PM	#2
Shizamus Senior Member Join Date: Jun 2001 Location: Vermont Posts: 891	I agree with the Nuge except on one point where he mentions non-felons. When i read the 2nd Amendment..... And the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, end of sentence, it does not say except felons. I do not see this in the Constitution i am reading, could it be that the Constitution someone else is reading says that ? STAY ARMED WITH THE FACTS AND FIREARMS. Real talk radio : http://www.gcnlive.com www.thepowerhour.com www.infowars.com

05-15-2003, 09:28 PM	#4
Shizamus Senior Member Join Date: Jun 2001 Location: Vermont Posts: 891	I understand what you are saying but the 2nd Amendment did not come with any conditions. And to request from the Att. General is to beg to have your PRIVILIGE returned to you. The 2nd Amendement is about your RIGHT to bear. The enemy wants to use the felony charge for everything because that is gun control thru the back door. The way I see it , if you do the crime and do the time , that should be the end of it. The way the enemy sees it is you do the time and the felony follows you to your grave, seems to me that you have two penalties for the same crime. Look what happened to Charlie Pucket, commander of the Kentucky militia( don't know if any of you know him) when he was in his teens he was charged with stealing some groceries, has not had another arrest since then, upstanding citizen in the community, all kinds of gun permits and background checks over the years. Yet the ATF came after him 30 years later for that same crime under the pretense of a felony and hunted him down. The felony law did not even exist at the time of this crime. He was a very vocal Constitutionalist. He is serving time now, going on 2 years. We know he was framed. The enemy interprets unconstutional law as they see fit as they go along with the criminal judicial system backing them up. WE NEED TO WORK TOGETHER TO LIBERATE FREEDOM ONCE AGAIN. Real talk radio : www.gcnlive.com

05-18-2003, 01:44 AM	#6
dirtyjap Member Join Date: Apr 2003 Posts: 27	Its my understanding that convicted felons are stripped of their civil rights.And therfore do not enjoy the same civil liberties as the rest of us.Thats why police can enter they're homes or violate their parole status for seemingly minor issues.Once they have done their time and have completed their parole/probation their rights can be restored.