Ted Nugent: "Demand the right to self defense!!"

[progunner1957]

Never one to be accused of understatement, the Motor City Madman, AKA Ted Nugent, spoke to the members at the recent NRA convention in Houston. It appears that some within the firearms community were rubbed the wrong way by his address to the convention; did he go to far, or did he give us all a dose of "calling a spade a spade?"

The Nuge says we should all be "hardcore, radical extremeists, demanding the right to self defense." From where I stand, demanding the right to self defense is NOT hardcore, radical or extreme. Demanding the right to self defense is NO DIFFERENT than demanding the right to free speech, the right to religious freedom, or the right to be secure in our homes.
If demanding the RIGHTS we are GUARANTEED by the Bill of Rights is troubling to the politicians and social engineers, it is time to get rid of them - send them to the unemployment lines - plain and simple.

As Jeff Cooper so aptly stated in a radio interview, "The only proper resolution to an armed robbery or carjacking is a dead thug laying at the feet of the intended victim."

AMEN, Colonel!!



Nugent urges NRA members to recruit other gun owners

PAM EASTON

Associated Press


HOUSTON - Rocker and gun rights advocate Ted Nugent urged National Rifle Association members Saturday to be "hardcore, radical extremists demanding the right to self defense" and to work daily to recruit new members.

Speaking at the group's annual convention in Houston, Nugent said the NRA's current record-high membership of 4 million was nothing to get excited about. He said each NRA member should try to enroll 10 new members over the next year.

"Let's next year sit here and say, 'Holy smokes, the NRA has 40 million members now,'" he said, adding NRA members should only associate with other members. "No one is allowed at our barbecues unless they are an NRA member. Do that in your life."

Nugent, who walked onto the stage with a large assault weapon in each hand, said those who support gun control aren't the enemy.

"They are a joke," he said. "Our enemy is the gun owners that don't belong to the NRA."

He said the NRA needs to become a more powerful political force and encouraged members to write letters to newspaper editors, teach about guns and hunting at their children's school and recruit other gun owners.

"The whole world sucks but America sucks less," he said to laughter and applause. "And we can eliminate that sucking sound altogether if we all would actually be hardcore, radical extremists, hardcore radical extremists, demanding the right to self defense."

Nugent and his family moved to Crawford, Texas, from Michigan about two years ago. President Bush's ranch also is in Crawford.

The NRA has worked to elect Republican lawmakers who support its efforts to limit lawsuits seeking damages against gun manufacturers and distributors and to ensure a ban on assault weapons isn't resurrected.

Among them is U.S. House Majority Leader Tom DeLay, R-Sugarland, who was set to deliver the convention's keynote speech Saturday night.

Nugent also sang and played a guitar painted with red and white stripes for the crowd at Houston's downtown convention center.

He drew the most cheers when he told gun owners they should never give up their right to bear arms and should use their guns to protect themselves if needed.

"Remember the Alamo! Shoot 'em!" he screamed to applause. "To show you how radical I am, I want carjackers dead. I want rapists dead. I want burglars dead. I want child molesters dead. I want the bad guys dead. No court case. No parole. No early release. I want 'em dead. Get a gun and when they attack you, shoot 'em."

AMEN, Ted!!

[Unique 5.7]

Nugent is the joke. "No court case."
Yes, let's not worry at all about determining guilt, just kill anybody you "think" did something. Better to kill somebody first and find out if they did later, no?
Jeff Cooper, great expert on guns, north facing horse's south end with the law.

[kjm]

I believe Ted was refering to actually shooting a criminal when he is in the act of making you a victim. If I recall, that isn't radical, it is acceptable behavior in nearly all 50 states (except maybe California and New York). In a case where you shoot a rapist trying to rape you, a robber trying to rob you, or a murderer trying to murder you, the poor hapless fellow does not recieve a trial nor is a trial needed. Guilt or innocence is not in question when caught in the act, and preservation of decency provides for the sentence immediately.

Nope, can't say I disagree with Ted. He may sound radical and he is. This is a rare attitude among the human race. I wish there were more like him.

[Fred Hansen]

Yes, let's not worry at all about determining guilt, just kill anybody you "think" did something.

He's talking about people defending themselves during the actual crime, but then again you already knew that didn't you?

[Handy]

He's talking about people defending themselves during the actual crime,

I want child molesters dead.

Oh, really?

What is a good age to equip a child with a self defense gun?

[Unique 5.7]

Fred - I'm glad you brought that up. Look at his rhetorical trickery. NOBODY knows while he's getting the "amen" chorus to agree to carjackers and burglars being dead. Only after he's got the rubes (and I have no doubt that is what he's thinking because he is manipulating them) rooting for all this, THEN he comes up with the rationalization. If you don't get the dishonesty of this approach, Fred, remember all the hootin' and hollerin' goes on BEFORE he mentions being personally attacked. Goebbels would be proud.

[Fred Hansen]

Well if speaking plainly is rhetorical trickery, then I guess I'll take rhetorical trickery over liberal sophistry any day of the week. You should get out more often, you might find that there are quite a number of adults (you would call them rubes) that are quite capable of understanding plain talk and common sense.

[perception]

Progunner
"The Nuge says we should all be "hardcore, radical extremeists, demanding the right to self defense." From where I stand, demanding the right to self defense is NOT hardcore, radical or extreme. Demanding the right to self defense is NO DIFFERENT than demanding the right to free speech, the right to religious freedom, or the right to be secure in our homes."

I see the point you are making here, and I agree with you, but these other rights don't have so many people trying to destroy them. In an ideal world, this would be the case, but since the anti-gun sentiment is so strong, I think Nugent is simply saying that we need to buckle down and fight with everything we have.

[Don Gwinn]

Almost four years ago now, a man tried to abduct my sister.

The police guessed from her size and appearance that he was trying to get a teenager, maybe 16 at the oldest (he could see that she drove a car.) Their assumption was that failing in his attempt might lead him to seek an even younger victim the next time. He was never caught (nor, in truth, pursued with much zeal by anyone outside our family.)



Had I been there, I'd have done my best to beat him until he stopped offering any resistance whatsoever. If I'd been there with a pistol, I'd have shot him in the center of his chest until he stopped.

If he'd died, he'd have died.

Similarly, if I ever catch some guy trying to pack my sons into a van, he'll have to be quick about surrendering to survive the encounter. I will shoot him until he stops. If he dies, he dies. I don't think that plan requires arming children.

Nugent is often over the top and purposely so. THIS is not over the top.

[Unique 5.7]

Thanks for the gratuitous insult, Fred, but if you can't recognize this "Music Man" style of rhetorical trickery, perhaps it is YOU who don't get out enough. Watch the "Music Man" and you'll be hip to the con.

What do YOU think, "Remember the Alamo! Shoot 'em!" means? I know some Texans who told me they know EXACTLY what that means.

[Fred Hansen]

Hilarious. You intimate that I am a "rube", and it's you that is insulted.

What do YOU think, "Remember the Alamo! Shoot 'em!" means? I know some Texans who told me they know EXACTLY what that means.

It means that he had brains enough to pay homage to the city and state that was gracious enough to host the NRA convention. On the other hand it is folks like you who will imply that he was exhorting his fellow NRA members to go slaughter illegal aliens at the U.S. border. Oddly enough he made no mention of shooting anyone, anywhere, anytime who is unarmed. Not once. Nor did any of the "rubes" go out and blast any of the people that you claim the exhortation was aimed (aimed... get it?) at.

Kind of a funny time we live in when professors can call for the mass murder of unarmed Americans and be held in the highest esteem possible by their university - and universitys and colleges nationwide - but if a "Music Man" dare remind Americans of their God given right to defend themselves from predators he is found to be guilty of crimes that have never been committed. Did you have a time frame in mind as to when us "rubes" were going to open fire on the unarmed? Or were you just using rhetorical trickery to get the libs all freaked out about the coming (imaginary) bloodbath?

Mr. Nugent's and my concern is for the bloodbath that already exists. Mr. Nugent and I, like millions of my fellow Americans, are tired of finding out that another child has died at the hands of animals let loose by liberal judges to prey upon the innocent again. Mr. Nugent and I, like millions of my fellow Americans, remember a time when crime was curtailed by citizens who lawfully defended their own lives, and a time when our government did everything in its power to defend the innocent, while anihilating the guilty.

When someone is grabbing a woman off of the street he doesn't need a scolding, or a government program. He needs a bullet to the center of his chest as Don mentioned above. There is nothing unjust about that. Never was, never will be.

Don't like it? Well that's OK, but there isn't thing one you can do about it.


Hugs and kisses.

[Unique 5.7]

Fred - No Fred, I stated what con men call the marks, I guess I could have said marks, instead of rubes, no dif. YOU decided to misinterpret it and completely missed who the object of my contempt is, Mr. Nugent. If you didn't then you are either too dim or angry to continue this discussion. It was not "folks like me", I was curious enough to ask TEXANS what that meant. Their answer, which you correctly "guessed" at, lo and behold, maybe there WAS something to what they told me, eh, was unanimous.
I was no way implying that you are a rube, where you got that is a mystery. After seeing what you write, I will say you are a very angry person who obsesses to a dangerous degree on shooting other people. That probably won't happen, but the accompanying stress could do you harm. Relax.

[Wildalaska]

When Streisand or Sarandon babble their nonsense and expect people to adhere to their message simply because they are "stars" I roll my eyes and consider that they are nothing but rich self indulgent numbskulls who think that becasue they are stars they mean something...

I cant understand the democrats who worship them.

When Nugent babbles his nonsense and expect people to adhere to his message simply because he is "stars" I roll my eyes and consider that he is nothing but a rich self indulgent numbskull whose message may resonate with me, but who isnt gonna oinfluence me one way or another simply becasue he plays a mean gitar....

The same guys worshipping Nugetn are the same ones decrying hollywood liberals. Other than the message, the source is the same.

WildhypocrisyAlaska

[Martin Luther]

Ted Nugent, great American, was re-focusing Americans on the fact that guns rights aren't just about hunting.

"Duty to Retreat" case law is infecting our country's legal system. How many of us worry about some overzealous prosecutor trying to make a name for himself at our expense if we ever use justifiable deadly force?

Remember Tony Martin in Great Britain?

Rock on, Ted!

[UT_Air_Assault]

If the NRA ever hopes to make itself respected by the average American, its going to have to realize that grandstanding to its base with stupid stunts like "from my cold dead hands", yelling gibber-jabber about shooting people or inviting a dirt-bag like Tom DeLay to address them, is going to make them look like a bunch of jackasses.
Heston's famous speech did wonders for the reputation of us gun owners (especially if we enjoy Class III or Evil Black Rifles). Now when I have someone asking me "Why do you own an Assault Rifle" they usually throw "From my Cold Dead Hands" at me as an example of how we're a bunch of guys just waiting to blow someone away. And good 'ole Ted just reinforced it. Thanks NRA for giving me another reason to never rejoin.

Ya'll don't blame me. I voted for Willie Nelson.

[TheBluesMan]

Originally Posted by UT_Air_Assault

If the NRA ever hopes to make itself respected by the average American...

The respect of the average American and a quarter won't even buy you a local phone call anymore, even if you *could* find a pay phone.

The NRA isn't about being respected, the NRA is about political clout and education. If the respect of the average American is something to be sought and valued, it is the responsibility of each individual gun owner to behave in a respectful manner (unlike this dipstick). What would it gain the NRA to have the respect of Joe Average and lose all political power because it became "moderate."

Methinks the NRA needs to move a little further toward Mr. Nugent's perspective and a little further away from the middle of the road.

[TheeBadOne]

TheBluesMan hit all the right points. The only thing I'll add is that any message must be carefully considered to impact the maximum amount of folks in the manner you want.
A happy medium must be found. If the message turns off more people than it turns on, who is it really helping? I've never heard Ted so radical before. In the past, while not as loud, he's been a great source of common sense and reason. A few more Ted Nugents wouldn't be a bad thing at all, IMHO.

TBO

[USP45usp]

Unique 5.7: I didn't see where Fred insulted you but in this sentence, you did:

If you didn't then you are either too dim or angry to continue this discussion.

No personal attacks allowed, by anyone, includeing Fred and I didn't see that. He attacked your agruement, not you. Please, if you felt he attacked you, post the attack in Quotes.

If you are talking about this

Well if speaking plainly is rhetorical trickery, then I guess I'll take rhetorical trickery over liberal sophistry any day of the week. You should get out more often, you might find that there are quite a number of adults (you would call them rubes) that are quite capable of understanding plain talk and common sense.

I still don't see any attack upon you. He was just saying that via your agruement, he would rather err on the side of "trickery" then "liberal". He may have been calling you a liberal and if that offends you, then I'm sure that he will apologize, that is just the way that he is.

Mr. Wild makes for a better agruement

When Streisand or Sarandon babble their nonsense and expect people to adhere to their message simply because they are "stars" I roll my eyes and consider that they are nothing but rich self indulgent numbskulls who think that becasue they are stars they mean something...

I cant understand the democrats who worship them.

When Nugent babbles his nonsense and expect people to adhere to his message simply because he is "stars" I roll my eyes and consider that he is nothing but a rich self indulgent numbskull whose message may resonate with me, but who isnt gonna oinfluence me one way or another simply becasue he plays a mean gitar....

The same guys worshipping Nugetn are the same ones decrying hollywood liberals. Other than the message, the source is the same.

I think he is saying that until the "masses" are told by someone "famous" (or infamous in my eyes), we, the People stay asleep and let them do the talking for us. Mr. Nugent is just saying what we've all thought but think that no one will listen unless it comes out of their mouths, not ours. That we are too scared to say the same things and just because someone puts forth the message that we've all wanted to, but didn't, then all of a sudden it "worship" of the person... why, just because he had the balls to say what you were afraid to say?

Of course, I may be wrong on all counts. Tis life, sometimes you're right, sometimes it's better to just go back to bed .

Wayne

[Martin Luther]

I'm not trying to flame here. I'm trying to find common ground between some points. So please bear with me.

I think we can all agree about widespread anti-gun bias in academia, broadcast/cable TV, religious groups, most large corporations, and the news media.

Thing is, what can the NRA do to get the movers and shakers to go to bat for us? Except for John Lott at Yale, there aren't a lot of active, friendly voices on our side in high places (except for conservative politicians).

Imagine a country where Bill Gates, the President of Harvard, or (difficult here) a major network news anchorman would speak at NRA conventions on the advantages of an armed citizenry.

Why isn't that happening in America?

[USP45usp]

Martin Luther,

Power. It's all about power or about job security (which usually runs pretty high on the pay scale).

Fear, fear that one will lose power, or that salary.

Greed, mammon, pride, what have you. It's all the same. In order to gain more of the same, one must go with what has allowed that to come to them.

The things that make me most angry is the fact that no one will admit that it is the power, the position, or the money that causes them to do what they do. If this was turned around, and gun ownership and guns were PC, and it gave more power, wealth, and a higher position then they would be falling all over themselves to star in the next gun ad/commercial, or running up and down spouting how great the 2nd was just to gain votes to remain in office.

Why do you think that Kerry had a couple of ad's in which he was a "hunter", he knew that it was an issue and tried to pull the wool over gun owners (hunters) eyes. He just wanted power, be damned any gun owner or anyone. He had a goal, and that goal was power (mammon would follow because like Clinton, he would charge $$$$$ to speak).

I may be wrong (most likely am) when I read by the Forefathers that the office should be a low paying job, that no one would actively seek these offices and only do so because they felt the need to help America along. Yet now, with their pay, the money that they get from groups, the medical and dental benefits, it has become the "supreme" job to obtain, you're set for life and still have some power over the people.

To those that believe me wrong, please give information as to why, and prove it. Give links and direct information that proves me wrong.

Republicans, Democrats, it doesn't matter. It the name of the game, the greed, the power, and most especially, the power to run the lives of millions of people who live upon their every want of those in charge.

We have no thoughts, we do as we are told. Or so it seems.

Wayne

[Double Naught Spy]

It is quite troubling when folks like Ted Nugent speak ignorantly. He says to demand the right to self defense. The right to self defense isn't much of an issue in most states or in federal law. Some states do have some restrictive parameters (such as mandatrory retreat before using lethal force), but "self defense" is not what the NRA or gun owners are after.

Basically, Nugent has associated the right of self defense as a variant of gun ownership. This is not the case and arguing the case in that manner is not going to work. Why? Because as noted, self defense is allowed legally. Where the regulation comes in is with the tools one might want to use to exercise our right to self defense. You can have self defense without guns.

So, demanding the right to self defense is essentially demanding the right we already have. Nobody is fighting us on this. Too bad Nugent doesn't understand this.

Nugent said that anti-gunners are not the enemy, but a joke. He went on to say that gun owners that are not members of the NRA are the real enemy. This is just a blatantly stupid set of declarations. It wasn't non-NRA gun owners that have put forth legislation to restrict guns. That was done by the anti-gunners. For a group that supposedly is a joke, they have done a lot of damage to our gun rights. Just what damage has non-NRA gun owners done to us?

So, Nugent has misidentified who our enemy is and underestimated the powers of the actual enemy, the anti-gunners. Underestimating one's enemy is a sure way to lose a fight. Not only that, but now he has helped to assure that many non-NRA gun owners won't ever join the NRA because of his proclamation that such folks are our enemy.

Why must non-NRA gun owners join the NRA? Are they still the enemy if they vote as pro-gun people? I don't think so. Saying they would be the enemy is just a bunch of self-centered elitist crap.