Ted Nugent Commentary

I've never heard my "blood brother" Ted say anything I didn't agree with. Gun free zones are rediculous. Do the anti-gunners actually think any madman intent on killing would say, "Well I was going to take my weapons in there until I realized that it was a gun free zone, so I turned around and went home."
 
Please go back and read Tom Plate's rebuttal. Just because he was robbed at gunpiont all them nasty guns have got to go! What a twit he should be happy the robber had a gun or he would more likely have been stabbed or beaten to the ground for his property.
 
Oh, hah... Don't worry, I read Plate's rebuttal. Utterly weak. I'm actually quite surprised that CNN couldn't come up with better commentary than that. I think Nugent could have used a bit less rhetorical fire, but whatever, he got his points across and they're all solid.
 
I'm also impressed with the way CNN posted it. It was side-by-side with an anti-gun (pro-confiscation) article. I've been seeing more two-sided debate than I've ever seen before.
 
Great commentary. I dropped CNN an e-mail about Ted's comments...

Mr. Nugent is right on the money. Lets say, for the sake of argument that we pass laws which make private ownership of ANY firearms illegal. Does this mean that criminals will be unable or disinterested in obtaining a firearm? Absolutely not. By the definition of a criminal, the only armed people will BE the criminals. The reason such laws do not, and will not work, is the same reasons that illegal drugs still pollute our communities. Laws abound which make possession of these drugs illegal, but yet they are still readily available.

If only ONE citizen in that VT building was allowed to exercise their 2nd amendment rights, the final story would likely have been considerably different. Furthermore, if one of those students carried a firearm contrary to the school policy, they would be considered a hero for saving so many lives. Unfortunately, the anti-gunners and anti-constitution VT school policy only ensured that the law abiding citizens would be in danger.
Click to expand...

Fly
 
While Mr. Nugent is emotional in his appeal I don't see anything wrong with what he has to say. People laughed at General Mitchell in 1924 when he predicted we would be fighting the Japanese in the next war. He predicted that navy ships could be defeated with air power. His superiors and peers didn't want to hear such "nonsense".

Maybe some gun owners dont want to hear such nonsense either from Mr. Nugent. He sounds like fence sitters dont appeal to him much. He is entitled to his opinion.
 
From the opposing article:

Last month, I was robbed at 10 in the evening in the alley behind my home. As I was carrying groceries inside, a man with a gun approached me where my car was parked. The gun he carried featured one of those red-dot laser beams, which he pointed right at my head.

Because I'm anything but a James Bond type, I quickly complied with all of his requests. Perhaps because of my rapid response (it is called surrender), he chose not to shoot me; but he just as easily could have. What was to stop him?
Click to expand...

Certainly not you. But there could be another reason. Perhaps it was that the robber had nothing more than a three dollar laser pointer; and you, at ten o'clock at night in pitch dark and in your panic, believed it was a firearm. Why? Because the robber told you it was a firearm.
 
Too bad Ted fabricated details and embellished his examples to make pro-gun arguments. When the antis do the same thing, it makes us mad, but when Ted does it, we think he is on the mark and agree with everything he said. Interesting.
Click to expand...

Yeah, that is always interesting. I'll generally be the first to point out when anybody on either side is full of crap.

Certainly not you. But there could be another reason. Perhaps it was that the robber had nothing more than a three dollar laser pointer; and you, at ten o'clock at night in pitch dark and in your panic, believed it was a firearm. Why? Because the robber told you it was a firearm.
Click to expand...

Yeah, I'm wondering what the odds are that a mugger would have a handgun with a laser aiming device anyway. Low, to be sure. I mean, it's possible he stole one with one already attached...but then what are the chances that that particular guy would then rob somebody in a position to write a publicized anti-gun statement.

I smell BS. Loads of it.
 
displayimage.php
 
It should reason that those who created so-called "gun free zones" have thereby assumed the responsibility to insure the safety of those within the zone and should be held accountable.

It also drives me nuts when those who oppose "gun free zones" are characterized as promoting a requirement that everyone should carry a gun. It is the freedom to exercise the right that is advocated. I realize that I'm preaching to the choir, but it seems like the number of people who choose to carry, even in shall issue states, is a relatively small percentage of the population. It is an enormous responsibility and fairly burdensome to carry a handgun. I cannot believe that anyone would go through the hassle of carrying a handgun if they are not reasonably committed to do so responsibly.

On a positive note, it does seem that many, who do not carry a handgun, realize that they derive a benefit from the increase in collective safety created by those who do carry a concealed handgun.

I would propose that those who are truly against shall issue CCW permits should proudly display their opposition on their person at all times. :p
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top