Ted Nugent too radical???

MTMilitiaman - Nugent's message is to look at the illegal migrants as we looked at the invading Mexican army at the Alamo, right?
Not a big stretch to see it was right to shoot "them" back then....so it must be right nowadays?
That IS the message, correct?
 
Nugent's message is to look at the illegal migrants as we looked at the invading Mexican army at the Alamo, right?
Click to expand...
His message is for citizens of our republic who value having a republic in the first place. The message isn't meant for the liberal elitists who have trashed our rights and our sovereignty. It isn't for the moderates - or the midle of the road anything goes types - it is a message for and to patriots.

Lots of folks don't like that, but tough, too bad so sad.
 
While the NRA is tayloring it's message to 10% of the population the other side taylors it's message to the middle 80%, which side do you think will be more successful?
 
Ted got me to join the NRA with his logical criticism of gun-owners who don't join. Did he SHAME me into it? It's possible that there was a little bit of shame involved, but he's got a very valid point. It's not expensive, it takes no time at all on their website, and if every gun-owner were to fork over a few bucks a year to make our voice heard, it would be the LOUDEST voice around and the anti's could never, ever touch us or our guns again. TRUTH.
 
Fred - You post a question and then don't address it???
Your political catalog of people IS interesting though:
1. liberal elitists
2. moderates
3. patriots
 
"Your political catalog of people IS interesting though:
1. liberal elitists
2. moderates
3. patriots"

Accurate breakdown of the spectrum. And along with the percentage breakdown, it illustrates the real situation here.

Like it or not, the people in group 1 have been marketing to the people in group 2 much better than the people in group 3 are marketing to the people in group 2.

Unfortunately, the people in group 2 are the ones who have the political clout, as groups 1 and 3 essentially cancel each other out in the polls.

The thing about Ted Nugent is that he is tailoring his message purely to those in group 3. He is preaching to the choir. His message is doing nothing to increase the clout of group 3 at all, it just reinforces those who are already there. Real gains are made by convincing some of those in group 2 to become members of group 3, and that takes a different message than the one that Mr. Nugent brings. Obviously, there is no real hope for swinging those in group 1 to either group 2 or 3 status in any meaningful numbers, and can so be ignored as being more trouble to sway than they are worth.

Marketing to group 2 is where the real battle is. Mr. Nugent, while useful, is not the voice that will get that battle won. His sort of radicalism may fire up the troops in group 3, but it alienates those in group 2 which ultimately hurts the cause.
 
gb in ga,

I disagree. See my above post - I'm sure that I'm not alone. Even by preaching solely to the choir, a lot can be done; as long as the choir is listening. :rolleyes:
 
tjhands:

I must likewise respectfully disagree.

You may have been convinced to join the NRA by his admonishment, and so increase the NRA's coffers by your contributions. And yes, that does increase the monetary clout of the NRA which increases their ability to effectively lobby. Point conceeded. But honestly ask yourself if you were a member of group 2 or of group 3 beforehand. I'd guess that you were already a member of group 3. That being the case, his message did not change the voting demographic with respect to your vote -- you were already aware of the issues and voting appropriately. He didn't change the voting patterns. He isn't changing the voting patterns. If anything, his message is driving some of those who are on the left side of group 2 into group 1's camp, and that is detrimental to the cause. He is also serving as a hinderance to those on the right side of group 2 to be more receptive to moving into group 3, and that is also detrimental to the cause. Remember: the war is won and lost mainly at the ballot box, even more so than in the lobbies of congress & the various legislatures. Remember, lobbying is only effective when the lobbyists' words fall on receptive ears. Elections are what matters.

For example, I am not a member of the NRA, and am not considering joining, even though I am most certainly a member of group 3. I find Mr. Nugent's admonishment to be insulting, and as such makes it that much more certain that I won't be joining anytime in the forseeable future. Sorry, but I can't support an organization that ignores political reality like that, it would be giving my stamp of approval to something I don't agree with. He is coming across as the stereotype of everything the anti's portray as bad, and I'm trying to come across as the refutation of that -- a reasonable citizen reasonably exercising his right to keep and bear arms and defend himself. If the NRA were to focus on that message -- the reasonableness of RKBA in a rational reasoned manner, then they would actually make some headway into convincing the group 2 leaners on the right into becoming group 3 -- eventually leading to victory in this battle.

Extremism does not win the hearts and minds of the moderates, that is where the battle is fought and must be won.
 
gb in ga,

Thank you for a polite, well-thought and well-conveyed explanation of your ideas. While I might agree with your assessment of the situation regarding Nugent's hard-line tactics in recruiting NRA members, I can't help but think that your refusal to join, based, to whatever degree, on Ted Nugent's personality, is akin to cutting off one's nose to spite one's face. He may not be the ideal spokesman for the organization to attract those in Group B, but the organization itself is good one and is the one which we need to bolster if our voice is to be more than a whisper.
EDIT: You do make a good case against Nugent and his appeal to the moderates, however. :)
 
Last edited:
What Ted is saying is very simple, and I should think its obvious. As gun owners, a LOT of us are just willing to bow down and take the heat. We fear acting against the left, fighting back is something we claim to support as a right, but we cower infront of the media(Remember, its us that makes the media big? We can choose), and in general those that claim to represent gun owners back stab us or buckle to liberal demands.

How many gun owners pussyfooted and voted for John Kerry last election? What about all you guys who voted liberal politicitians into office? I look at those than vote that way, and I ask myself "Why do these unthinking sheep buy into the lies of the left?". I'll be voting in my first election in 2006. Pro gun = Smaller government.
 
tjhands:

Actually, it would take the NRA making a few changes for me to consider supporting them. For that matter, if they'd actually make them I'd say that I'd support them wholeheartedly.

First, they do need to get a more mmm, eloquent? Nah, it doesn't so much take eloquence as it takes rationality, let us say polished and professional, set of spokesfolks who can take a coherent message to the people in general while at the same time leave nothing for the anti's to attack. It is going to take oratory leaders as opposed to rabble rousers, since rabble rousers are such easy prey for the opposition. And it is going to take media access, which is a tough row to hoe right now. Thankfully, there are alternative media outlets becoming more available that help break the MSM stranglehold.

Second, they need to quit compromising with the anti's. There's nothing positive about compromise, it just shows weakness. They need to get all of those "I don't care what they do as long as I can keep hunting." types with the plan, and show them that allowing the opposition to chip away at the edges eventually allows the anti's to enact their entire plan to the detrement of us all.

They need to start acting like they understand that they have a mission in life seperate and apart from fundraising and lobbying. They need to get their message out to the people at large: yes, I'm talking about the rank and file sheep out there. They need to stop acting like the Republican Party: "The Stupid Party". It is time for them to start actually being tough about it, in a smart kind of way.

And no, I'm not going to support them at this time right now, since my supporting them is tacit approval of the status quo. If I throw in my support at this time, they'll just be that much more likely to not change things for the better. It is better to air my grievances and let them make the necessary changes.

That said, it appears that, behind the scenes, some of those changes may be happening. I do hope so, I'd like to be able to support them.
 
gb in ga,

Again, I hear your objections and understand them, but let me ask you this. Did you vote in the last presidential election? Without asking for whom, did you support everything for which they stood? If you were like most people, you put your "I agree withs" on one side of the scale, and your "I disagree withs" on the other side, and voted for whomever agreed with most of your opinions and ideals. If I may assume that your candidate did not see things as you do on EVERY issue, was it not giving him tacit approval for those things by giving him your one and only vote?
We, as gunners, have but one major group to support. Not giving them that support is equivalent to not voting in an election. You don't vote, you can't bitch. That simple.

I understand your position, but I just think you're holding back your membership for poor reasons. No offense meant, OK? :)
 
"Did you vote in the last presidential election?"

Of course.

"did you support everything for which they stood?"

Nope.

"If you were like most people, you put your "I agree withs" on one side of the scale, and your "I disagree withs" on the other side, and voted for whomever agreed with most of your opinions and ideals."

Actually, that wasn't the case in my case. I am ideologically most compatible with one certain 3rd party, but I realized that party had about as much chance of actually getting anybody elected as a snowball's survival chance in Houston in mid-July. Besides that, they take the position of extremism, which dooms them to continued failure. Faced with the lesser of 2 evils, I held my nose and voted for the less evil of the 2. Why vote that way? Because I felt that the greater of the 2 evils was so overwhelmingly evil that they just had to be stopped, no matter what lesser sorts of evils the opposition was into. It just turns out that the candidates I voted for also happen to be pro-RKBA for the most part, or at least not blatantly anti-RKBA.

This is not the case with my supporting the NRA, however. In this case, it is not my vote for or against a presidential or legislative candidate of the sort who directly makes decisions that affect me and the country that we are talking about. It is my support for or against an organization that is supposed to be representing me and my concerns pertaining to the RKBA that we are talking about. This isn't an either/or thing -- I can support the RKBA by direct mail to legislators without going through the NRA, and there's enough I find less than desireable about the NRA that I find it more to my advantage to not support them in protest. They aren't the only game in town regarding pro-RKBA, you know, just the largest and best known.

"We, as gunners, have but one major group to support. Not giving them that support is equivalent to not voting in an election."

I disagree. While it is true that they are the largest such group, they are not the only such group. It is quite possible to be effectively active without being associated with that one particular group. It is quite possible that a smaller group, able to keep from compromise, is better able to more accurately express my views. It is also quite possible to be effectively active without being in any group at all. It just takes being active. In the long run, monopolies are bad.

"You don't vote, you can't bitch."

Correct. In this case, however, it is not equivalent to say that joining the NRA is the same as being pro-RKBA. It is not true that not being in the NRA is like not voting on the issue, in other words. One can be actively pro-RKBA and not be a memeber of the NRA. Again, they aren't the only game in town. If they were, and they were doing the same sorts of things they have been of late, I'd be one to suggest forming another group that was more "effective", more "focused", and yet less "inflamatory".

"I understand your position, but I just think you're holding back your membership for poor reasons. No offense meant, OK?"

No offense taken. But IMHO my reasons for not placing membership are quite good ones. My not doing that is the only "real voice" I have that could adequately express my distaste for their approach and their lack of wisdom in their choice for spokesman. Think of it this way: I am exercising my rights as a consumer to not voluntarily give my money to some organization I have issues with. I speak with my wallet. Were I to then give in to them at this point and join, then I have lost that voice, they would then have no further incentive to listen to me and my concerns.
 
First, they do need to get a more mmm, eloquent? Nah, it doesn't so much take eloquence as it takes rationality, let us say polished and professional, set of spokesfolks who can take a coherent message to the people in general while at the same time leave nothing for the anti's to attack.
Click to expand...

They oughta get a real warrior type like Hackworth instead of a Walter Mitty-like crapping-in-his-pants-to-avoid-the-draft type "warrior".....
 
"They oughta get a real warrior type like Hackworth instead of a Walter Mitty-like crapping-in-his-pants-to-avoid-the-draft type "warrior"....."

Something like that. You've got the basic idea. They need real pros who really know the issues at a gut level, who will not tuck tail when the antis attack and yet still leave little for the antis to attack. All at the same time, never compromising and staying on the offensive. Pros who are both unflinching warriors and yet are still savvy about PR and political issues and techniques. Pros who will not tuck tail when faced by an antagonistic media, but will instead turn said media exposure into a PR positive. Pros that can effectively communicate our message to the general public, convincing the public instead of alienating them.
 
A lot of you guys are packing a lot more into your agenda than just gun rights here. Which is your right, just don't expect all of us to say "amen" to your other political views. I have found that those who crow the loudest to be "patriots" are usually not at all, they have a loyalty to a very narrow and specific right wing political view. Anyone who disagrees with them is name called and somehow viewed as Un-American (as in House of, that sure was a shining moment in our history, eh?) or (gasp!) a liberal, like there is something indecent about that. You guys are as bad as the anti-war protestors I've talked to who would rather see things go down the tubes in Iraq than for Bush to succeed. You 2 groups are equally "patriotic."
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top