• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

You're not helping, Ted

Roadtoad

Bufo Caminus Inedibilis
Roadtoad
Joined
Nov 27, 2002
Messages
15,468
Location
Citrus Heights, CA
I realize that Ted Nugent is free to express his thoughts any way he chooses. But sometimes, a more reasoned response is called for.

In the video, which has made the rounds online and on television, Nugent stands onstage with an AR-15 semiautomatic rifle in each hand. First he tells of his recent visit to Chicago, during which he claims he said to Sen. Barack Obama, "Hey, Obama! You might want to suck on one of these [guns], you punk!" Nugent adds, "Obama, he’s a piece of s---, and I told him to suck on my machine gun. Let’s hear it for him!"

Nugent then relays details of a recent visit to New York, during which he putatively conveyed a similar message to another Democratic presidential candidate, Sen. Hillary Clinton: "Hey, Hillary! You might want to ride one of these [guns]into the sunset, you worthless b----!" Then he shares similar messages he said he was planning to deliver to California Democratic Sens. Dianne Feinstein and Barbara Boxer during his concert tour of the Golden State.

In the video, the crowd seems wholly receptive to Nugent’s ideas. He knows his audience, and no doubt reasonably expected that people who like to hear him sing "Wang Dang Sweet Poontang" and watch him make a guitar explode by shooting it with a flaming arrow would also appreciate the form and content of his political message.
Click to expand...

Let me state this clearly: I support the Second Amendment rights of our nation's citizens, within reason. At present, I'm not a gun owner. I chose years ago to not own a gun, simply because at that time I had a tendency to confuse firearms with a certain portion of my anatomy.

The key to maintaining gun ownership within this nation is remembering that with your liberties come incredible responsibilities. At present, I have no place where I can safely secure a rifle or pistol. I now have a grandson, and I'm not so weak in my masculinity that I have to have some surrogate phallus tucked away so my grandson can find it and blow his own brains out.

In general, I'm opposed to people trying to take firearms out of the hands of citizens. Obama isn't entirely wrong when he wants to take guns out of major cities. Sorry, but I don't see how having a gun is necessarily going to guarantee that a crime will be prevented, nor is there any guarantee that it won't be taken from me and used against me. If we can get guns out of the hands of the crooks, great. That ought to be the goal.

We have one of the highest murder rates within the first world. Guns are only a part of the equation; we lack respect for life in this country, and have zip respect for authority and rule of law. That John Muhammed could engage in his killing spree and actually engender a degree of either a.) sympathy, or b.) admiration from some in this nation is disturbing.

This is not the way to convey Nugent's message. I don't want Obama sucking on the end of an AR-15, but I'd like to see how his proposal would limit crime in Chicago. Show me how that works, and I'm willing to listen. (So far, it really hasn't, for the reasons I've stated.) It scares me senseless that some nutcase could take the Nuge a little too literally and start popping off rounds into those who want to end gun ownership in this country.

Yes, I know Ted's an entertainer. Unfortunately, not all people see it that way. And it's the kooks and the destroyers who will kill the Second Amendment, not people like Feinstein and Boxer.
 
The best argument against the Second Amendment is it gives lunatics like Ted Nugent access to firearms.
 
Ian Osborne said:
The best argument against the Second Amendment is it gives lunatics like Ted Nugent access to firearms.
Click to expand...

Which criteria should people fulfill, before they should be allowed to own guns?

How will that correspond to the second amendment?
 
CFLarsen said:
Which criteria should people fulfill, before they should be allowed to own guns?

How will that correspond to the second amendment?
Click to expand...

Where did I suggest private citizens should be allowed to own guns?

ETA: But since you ask, a background check to make sure they haven't threatened to kill air marshals might be a start...
 
Ian Osborne said:
ETA: But since you ask, a background check to make sure they haven't threatened to kill air marshals might be a start...
Click to expand...

What? A mental ward ID bracelet won't be enough to get me a handgun anymore?

You Commie Pinko!
 
Ian Osborne said:
Where did I suggest private citizens should be allowed to own guns?
Click to expand...

You don't, then? You don't need "lunatics like Ted Nugent" to ban private citizens to own guns?

Then, please explain what is the purpose of your post.

Ian Osborne said:
ETA: But since you ask, a background check to make sure they haven't threatened to kill air marshals might be a start...
Click to expand...

I haven't seen anyone do that.
 
Just a bit more to consider:

Under the US Constitution, the right to bear arms is part of our duty as citizens to be the Militia. In other words, it's to provide for the defense of the nation in a time of war. At no point is hunting, target shooting, or any other reason listed.

The role of the Militia has varied at times. A friend of mine who was deeply into Western heritage, particularly the settlement of the West, will point out to you that the defense of Northfield, MN, against the James-Younger Gang was an example of the Militia at work. When the thieves tried to leave town, empty handed because the bank had a newfangled timed lock on the safe, they were cut to shreds by armed citizens who were shooting at them from every corner, window, water barrel, or any other place where they could take cover. (I'm told the scene in the movie, The Long Riders, where this takes place is brutally accurate.)

The idea behind keeping the role of arms in the hands of the citizens was to prevent the Federal government from becoming too powerful. Further, it was supposed to prevent us from getting into wars where we didn't belong, since if the Militia could figure out that the purpose of the war didn't jibe with what we were told it was, the Militia could simply say to the Feds, "Bite me."

(I'm sure I'll be corrected on this at some point, but I think you get the drift.)

Okay, so since the basic purpose behind the Militia is to provide for national defense, (not unlike Sweden, or many other European nations where at some point, everyone is a part of the military, if only for a short time), who would you not want to have firearms? Simply put, anyone you wouldn't want as a part of the military, someone who's forfeited their rights as a citizen by their own actions.

So, for starters, since a convicted felon loses the right to vote, among other rights, you can pretty much eliminate them from gun ownership. You don't give firearms to crazy people, to those who have demonstrated mental deficiency in some basic areas. I also wouldn't give a gun to someone who's demonstrated they aren't responsible, such as deadbeat non-custodial parents, or people who have a history of doing very stupid things, like getting into drugs or the like.

So, yes, I'm for the Second Amendment... up to a point. (Yes, George Will was right. Those are the four most important words in preserving our liberties.) I don't see any reason for a private citizen to own, for example, a Thompson submachine gun in most cases. A private collector, that's one thing. But when you consider that the Thompson was sold over the counter at hardware stores when it first came out, you can't help but wonder why gun control opponents are so damned dim.

There are reasons for gun control. It's because so many people lack self-control. If you want to keep the Second Amendment, you have to act like an adult and exercise self-control. (Which, obviously, gets back to my earlier statement about confusing a firearm with my d***.)

Just something to think about.
 
I think Ted Nugent and his music is the best argument against prohibiting cruel and unusual punishment.

Seriously, the guy should be made a manacled galley slave in an old Ottoman Empire corsair.
 
Gurdur said:
I think Ted Nugent and his music is the best argument against prohibiting cruel and unusual punishment.

Seriously, the guy should be made a manacled galley slave in an old Ottoman Empire corsair.
Click to expand...

Oh, come on. The "Wango Tango" wasn't that bad.
 
CFLarsen said:
Old myth, debunked long time ago.
Click to expand...

Perhaps you would liek to link to the debunking, eceasue as far as i can see, the OP in that trhead ciontains amuch mroe direct threat than Teds. he only asked peopel to ride or suck his guns- he may just ahev an odd fettish- you OTOH said you will kill any armed arimashall (or other armed person on a plane) that you see "no questions asked".
 
Roadtoad said:
I realize that Ted Nugent is free to express his thoughts any way he chooses. But sometimes, a more reasoned response is called for.



Let me state this clearly: I support the Second Amendment rights of our nation's citizens, within reason. At present, I'm not a gun owner. I chose years ago to not own a gun, simply because at that time I had a tendency to confuse firearms with a certain portion of my anatomy.

The key to maintaining gun ownership within this nation is remembering that with your liberties come incredible responsibilities. At present, I have no place where I can safely secure a rifle or pistol. I now have a grandson, and I'm not so weak in my masculinity that I have to have some surrogate phallus tucked away so my grandson can find it and blow his own brains out.

In general, I'm opposed to people trying to take firearms out of the hands of citizens. Obama isn't entirely wrong when he wants to take guns out of major cities. Sorry, but I don't see how having a gun is necessarily going to guarantee that a crime will be prevented, nor is there any guarantee that it won't be taken from me and used against me. If we can get guns out of the hands of the crooks, great. That ought to be the goal.

We have one of the highest murder rates within the first world. Guns are only a part of the equation; we lack respect for life in this country, and have zip respect for authority and rule of law. That John Muhammed could engage in his killing spree and actually engender a degree of either a.) sympathy, or b.) admiration from some in this nation is disturbing.

This is not the way to convey Nugent's message. I don't want Obama sucking on the end of an AR-15, but I'd like to see how his proposal would limit crime in Chicago. Show me how that works, and I'm willing to listen. (So far, it really hasn't, for the reasons I've stated.) It scares me senseless that some nutcase could take the Nuge a little too literally and start popping off rounds into those who want to end gun ownership in this country.

Yes, I know Ted's an entertainer. Unfortunately, not all people see it that way. And it's the kooks and the destroyers who will kill the Second Amendment, not people like Feinstein and Boxer.
Click to expand...

I think it should be more worrying the dude's an Oakland County Sherriff.

Makes me glad I don't live in Oakland County anymore.
 
brodski said:
Perhaps you would liek to link to the debunking, eceasue as far as i can see, the OP in that trhead ciontains amuch mroe direct threat than Teds. he only asked peopel to ride or suck his guns- he may just ahev an odd fettish- you OTOH said you will kill any armed arimashall (or other armed person on a plane) that you see "no questions asked".
Click to expand...

Unintelligible.
 
Ian Osborne said:
You could say that about anyone who ****s up using a gun, right up to the point just before they do it.
Click to expand...

If you don't need "lunatics like Ted Nugent" to ban private citizens to own guns, what is the purpose of your post?
 
CFLarsen said:
Unintelligible.
Click to expand...

Perhaps you would like to link to the debunking, because as far as I can see, the OP in that thread contains a much more direct threat than Ted’s. He only asked people to ride or suck his guns- he may just have an odd fetish, he certainly never directly said that he wished to harm them- you OTOH said you will kill any armed air-marshal (or other armed person on a plane) that you see "no questions asked".

Now we’ve all had a good laugh at my spelling, are you prepared to support your statement? Perhaps it warrants a new thread?

ETA- new thread here http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?p=2970957#post2970957
 
Last edited:
brodski said:
Perhaps you would like to link to the debunking, because as far as I can see, the OP in that thread contains a much more direct threat than Ted’s. He only asked people to ride or suck his guns- he may just have an odd fetish, he certainly never directly said that he wished to harm them- you OTOH said you will kill any armed air-marshal (or other armed person on a plane) that you see "no questions asked".

Now we’ve all had a good laugh at my spelling, are you prepared to support your statement? Perhaps it warrants a new thread?
Click to expand...

Irrelevant to this thread.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom