The Daily Banter

Cowardly Ted Nugent Threatened the President Again

My Wednesday column begins like so:

Last week, I wrote an article about the SHOT Show in Las Vegas and how NBC Sports was pathetically tone-deaf by sponsoring the event. As I mentioned, the NRA had not one but three different booths, and Bushmaster, the manufacturer of the assault rifle used by the Sandy Hook shooter, had two different booths. So it comes as no surprise that aging rock star, secessionist and draft dodger Ted Nugent was there, too. It was the largest gun show in the world so, naturally, the rogues gallery of gun fetishists were on hand.

And the Secret Service should probably have another chat with Nugent after what he said from the floor of the SHOT Show.

Yes, Nugent not only threatened the president again, but he implied that he and his "buddies" would stage some sort of geriatric armed revolt if the president continues to push for new gun safety laws... [continue reading here]

  • GrafZeppelin127

    We all know why Republicans, the NRA and gun manufacturers oppose gun control. Understanding why regular people (and irregular people, like Ted Nugent) oppose gun control is more complicated.

    Part of the problem is that most people I talk to who oppose gun control, oppose the things that gun control laws don’t do. Gun control laws don’t “ban” guns, they don’t “confiscate” guns, and they don’t “disarm” anyone. That’s the main reason why no one can make any headway in this debate,” because so many people (including elected officials) are so opposed to things that no one is actually proposing that the things that are being proposed can’t get out of the starting gate. As long as they keep talking about “banning” and “confiscation” and disarmament,” nothing will get done. (Which, I’m sure, is the objective.)

    But if we set aside for a moment the things that gun laws don’t do, and try to understand why they oppose the things that gun laws actually do, we’re left with one of two options: (1) opponents don’t really know understand what gun laws actually do; or (2) opponents know that gun laws don’t “ban,” “confiscate” or “disarm,” but they can’t let it be known why they really oppose gun laws.

    So, if gun laws don’t “ban,” “confiscate” or “disarm,” what do they do? Well, mainly, they raise the standards that one must meet to obtain and maintain guns, increase the risks of gun ownership and gun use, and put the responsibility for guns on gun owners, where it belongs.

    “But, if you have these laws, only responsible, law-abiding gun owners will obey them.” That’s true. So if you’re a gun owner, you then have three choices: (1) obey the law, accept the risks, and take responsibility for your guns; (2) avoid the risk and responsibility by not owning guns; or (3) ignore or break the law, avoid the responsibility, and stop congratulating yourself for being a “responsible, law-abiding” gun owner.

    That’s really what it comes down to. Forget that they don’t want to be inconvenienced by having to jump through hoops to buy guns or register the ones they already have. And forget even, for a moment, the adolescent paranoid/narcissistic fantasies about “armed resistance” and revolution and personal heroism. It’s that they want/need to keep congratulating themselves for being “responsible” and “law abiding,” and new gun laws make it harder to do that. They make it harder for them to simply judge themselves as “responsible” and “law abiding” and gives those phrases some actual, objective meaning.

    • D_C_Wilson

      It’s always the slippery slope with them. Background checks today mean “gun grabs” tomorrow. They take the extreme argument in the hope of shutting down the debate before it even begins. It was the same thing with Obamacare. A few new rules that kept the for-profit insurance model completely in tact becomes a “government takeover of health care” complete with death panels. A routine raising of the debt ceiling becomes “giving Obama a blank check”.

      We can no longer have a reasonable debate about anything in this country because one side refuses to be reasonable. Ever.

  • Nefercat

    I think “aging rocker” would be a better description of that scum-sucking, draftdodging, cowardly pos than “aging rock star.”

  • stacib23

    I was arguing with my cousin last week because she crashed my parked car and is refusing to pay for it. The argument got rather heated, and I told her I would lay her down. I should add that everybody that knows me is well aware that I hate guns, so she wasn’t confused as to what I meant. She knew I was going to punch her ass. She called the Chicago police, and reported it as a threat and the police showed up at my house to arrest me for threatening another person. (Fortunately, for me, they didn’t actually take me in).

    Ted Nugent threatens the president on two separate occasions, one at a gun show, and nothing happens to him? WTF.

    • gescove

      The answer, obviously, is that your threat was more credible :-)

  • villemar

    Like the guy in Swingers said, “Roll up, Bitch!” Really I’m tired of these fuckers…let them go Koresh. The sooner they suicide by cop the better.

  • Draxiar

    I’m confident that in a one on one fight, Barrak would utterly destroy Ted…just sayin’.
    I’m not sure who’s more obnoxious: Ted Nugent, Donald Trump, or Rush Limbaugh.

    • muselet

      Three-way tie. I say they should settle the question once and for all with a steel-cage Texas death match (the sounds of breaking hips would be deafening).


      • Draxiar

        3 “men” enter, one “man” leaves!

    • Victor_the_Crab

      Throw in Sean Hannity, Glenn Beck, Ann Coulter, Fox And Friends…