Feeds

back to article Still-living, unincarcerated Ted Nugent invited to Barack Obama gig

Ted Nugent - the rocker famed for deploying Marshall stacks and hunting rifles to equally deadly effect - will attend Barack Obama's State of the Union address later today. Last year, the "conservative activist" guitarist got himself into a bit of bother with the Secret Service when he declared he'd be "dead or in jail" if Obama …

COMMENTS

This topic is closed for new posts.

Page:

Anonymous Coward

"Amendment II - A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.

(b) The classes of the militia are—

(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and

(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.

12
2
Silver badge
Happy

So by a strictly literal reading of amendment 2, a private citizen should be allowed to purchase not simply guns, rifles and assault weapons, but also (budget permitting) grenades, rocket-launchers, tanks, anti-aircraft missiles, gunships....

Larry Ellison and Paul Allen should forget about their sailing boats and buy themselves an aircraft carrier :)

3
3

elfreeman

You missed this part "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." This also stands alone in the interpretation !!

0
4
FAIL

Re: elfreeman

So all gun-owners in the states are members of militias?

1
1

Then I should be able to own a NUKE!

Since there is NO reason to restrict arms ownership of private citizens, there should be legions of people that establish a personal need to buy personal nuclear weapons. If there are NO limits, then there ARE NO LIMITS!

(Hint: there ARE limits today!)

2
1
Thumb Up

The original text works

Only a total idiot would think it's okay to pull a phrase out of context when interpreting a legal document. Taken in context, the term "the people" is clearly intended in the collective sense. Had the founders intended to arm paranoid hicks, they'd have said "citizens" or even "individual citizens" instead.

A similar problem comes up with patent and copyright law. The IP industry conveniently ignores the beginning of the relevant clause: "To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts..." Which renders unconstitutional any laws that demonstrably do NOT "promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts."

Unfortunately, even the most clever language is useless when interpretation is left to rogues and fools.

1
1
WTF?

Re: elfreeman

That is the most misunderstood part of the 2nd amendment. What it means is people are allowed to go shirtless when ever they choose !

2
1
Anonymous Coward

Re: The original text works

"Taken in context, the term "the people" is clearly intended in the collective sense."

So, then, how do you interpret the

1st "[...] or the right of the people peaceably to assemble [....]"

or

4th "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, [....]"

amendments in terms of a "collective" vs. "individual" right? Does that mean any assembly of people must be sanctioned by the state? Does that mean that only the houses, papers, and effects of GROUPS of people (e.g. a city) may be secure?

2
1
Anonymous Coward

Re: elfreeman

"You missed this part "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." This also stands alone in the interpretation !!"

And how about their right to keep Legs, Torsos, and Other Assorted Body Parts? Is that the 3rd and subsequent amendments?

0
0
Silver badge

Re: Taken in context

Taken in context, the amendment is pretty damn clear. Let me refresh the context for you:

When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

So what the 2nd amendment is really all about (valid claims to the right of self-defense which would be covered by the 10th Amendment) is the right of the people to overthrow the government when it becomes insufferable. And that means (SCOTUS opinions which substitute the prejudices of jurists for the words of the Constitution not withstanding) that the people necessarily have access to weapons sufficient to the cause of overthrowing the government.

1
2
Bronze badge

OK, let them bear arms...

...as long as the arms they bear are only these.

0
0
Pint

"After the address I'm sure Ted will have plenty to say."

Well, words will presumably come out of his mouth. Whether they will be placed in some kind of coherent order or will be the result of cognitive dissonance remains to be seen. The most likely result: John Stewart will have some new material.

17
0
Happy

I am already looking forwards to The Daily Show following this.

I shall have to get my new popcorn machine up and running ^_^

3
0
Silver badge

Why does jon stewart not run for president?

The one yank with 2 brain cells to rub together - and he contens himself with poking fun at the fuckwits.

real shame for us all.

0
0
Silver badge

Nugent

What a complete arse. He calls himself a survivalist. It must be tough surviving between fat royalty cheques.

14
1
FAIL

Re: Nugent

Teddy Nugent is not a survivalist... or a patriot... he's a CHICKEN HAWK, who was so anxious to go to VietNam (NOT!) that he stopped bathing when he got his induction notice, and stopped using a toilet a week before he was supposed to report... actually pissing and sh**ting in his pants that he wore the entire week... The induction station should have stripped him down and turned a fire hose on him... and brushed him down with a rotary wire brush and lye soap... then shipped his sorry @$$ to the worst basic training post in the country... I understand that Ft. Leonard Wood in the winter got pretty cold and the wind just blasted through the knotholes in the barracks walls... I had a cousin who went to Basic Training at Ft. Leonard Wood...

3
1
g e
Silver badge
Facepalm

"a patriot like Ted Nugent"

Is 'Patriot' a synonym for 'gun-nut' over there? The Rest of The World is curious

21
2
Anonymous Coward

Re: "a patriot like Ted Nugent"

It's just marketing, patriot sounds better than paranoid nut case that only feels safe if they're packing.

What I just can't understand is how people who feel they must have guns to feel safe don't see that this shows a fundamental failure of American society, and more guns won't fix it.

5
3
Silver badge

Re: "a patriot like Ted Nugent"

Yes.

2
3
Anonymous Coward

@AC 15:54

Its simple. Criminals like the upper hand. They will get guns and weapons anyway and may even choose victims weaker/smaller than themselves. But big or small a gun will stop a person and the criminal no longer has as big an advantage.

Less guns seems to cause more trouble. Because criminals face less danger.

5
13
DJO
Bronze badge

Re: "a patriot like Ted Nugent"

According to Dr Johnson, “Patriotism is the last resort of the scoundrel”. Ambrose Bierce who knew his American brothers better, refined it to “Patriotism is the first resort of the scoundrel”

3
1
Holmes

Re: Re: @AC 15:54

Not in Britain. Compare the stats, and you'll see that many fewer guns mean many, many, many fewer killings, about 80 times fewer per capita, IIRC.

3
1
Anonymous Coward

Re: @AC 15:54

So why is that that in other countries where people don't tend to carry weapons they don't have dramatically higher crime rates, in fact in many categories they are quite a bit lower.

Do people not see that this is just nuclear escalation all over again, just on a smaller scale. The solution is to remove unnecessary weapons from the system. It will take decades but it is possible

0
0
Anonymous Coward

Re: "a patriot like Ted Nugent"

"Is 'Patriot' a synonym for 'gun-nut' over there? The Rest of The World is curious"

I do not know, but as La Polla Records used to say: "un patriota es un idiota".

0
0
FAIL

Re: "a patriot like Ted Nugent"

I'm a left-wing liberal gun nut,t where do I fit in?

0
0

Re: "a patriot like Ted Nugent"

They might think it sounds better than "idiot"...

0
1
Anonymous Coward

@proto-robbie

Not sure how your comparing fewer killings. If your comparing the UK against the US then you are wrong (I assume you are but do say if its not). Not because of the numbers but because the US is a collection of states as the EU is a collection of countries. The UK would need to be compared to each state. But as we are english and they are american there is also the huge difference of culture, so you can only really compare american to american.

As well as comparing killings there is also violent crime rates which are interesting. Do feel free to express these results too if you wish because those would be debatable statistics.

Most people against guns often like to use the same statistics and a lot of them dont understand why they are wrong. I am not having a go or trying to make you look stupid, I am only trying to make the debate fair.

0
3
Anonymous Coward

Re: @AC 15:54

"Less guns seems to cause more trouble. Because criminals face less danger."

Statistics say no.

2
0
Silver badge
Coat

Re: "a patriot like Ted Nugent"

"What I just can't understand is how people who feel they must have guns to feel safe don't see that this shows a fundamental failure of American society, and more guns won't fix it."

I think you'll find that *enough* fully automatic weapons might solve the problem of American society once and for all...

0
1
Silver badge
Thumb Up

Re: @proto-robbie

"But as we are english and they are american there is also the huge difference of culture, so you can only really compare american to american."

This is true. Let's look at Texas... say. It's harsh on criminals, keen on the death sentence, and OK with people carrying firearms... and of course next to no crime because of it.... oh no, wait... that's totally untrue...

Ok: How about Florida... nope... that's a free fire zone as well. Hmmm....

1
1
Anonymous Coward

@Psyx

Interesting you think there are only 2 states in the US. You mention 2 that make your point but miss out on the whole of the US. Also there is always crime, but victims have a better chance when they are not disarmed for the criminals ease.

I can cherry pick too. How is DC? Tough laws, lots of gun crime. Or you can do something intelligent to the debate and present full facts.

1
0
Silver badge

Re: about 80 times fewer per capita, IIRC.

wrong stat. Britain always had less gun crime than the US. The relevant statistic is how much has gun crime gone up since you implemented gun control. That's up significantly, even when you exclude thing related to The Troubles.

1
0
Silver badge

Re: Statistics say no.

Statistics say Yes regardless of how much you deny it. There's even a whole book about written by a statistician who expected to prove your statement before he started running the numbers.

1
0
Silver badge
WTF?

Re: @Psyx

"Interesting you think there are only 2 states in the US. You mention 2 that make your point but miss out on the whole of the US."

Well, duh!! That's was the point, if you actually read the thread. I was replying to a post that said that the US is a different society to Switzerland et al, so it's only proper to compare US States with other US States. So I took two US States that are harsh on crime and have lots of guns.

DC is an odd-ball case as it's a totally urbanised State, and urban areas have higher criminality rates.

But yeah... throw it in and cite it: tough on crime, lots of violent death. So being tough on crime doesn't really work that well. Or did you mean the (mostly repealed) gun laws there? The gun laws were brought in specifically to counter the massive violence, but it was already too late and the laws were side-stepped by people buying firearms 'next door'. Still: Crime figures are down there now.

1
1
Anonymous Coward

@Psyx

I also called for states to be compared. You still presented 2 only. Very selective.

You say DC got these laws to counter the high crime. But the ban on guns hasnt solved it and it still has high crime. So are you proving no link between crime and guns? Or just saying that DC is different because it doesnt suit your needs?

Crime figures are in general reducing across the US. The facts behind the numbers make a difference.

1
0
Holmes

Re: AC @ 09:41 @proto-robbie

Stats-wise, we count bodies with bullet holes. States-wise, they're all dead.

What's you'r point? Even if you compare your "best" State for accelerated lead poisoning (Rhode Island or Alaska?) with our worst (Royal Deeside?) you'll have more corpse per capita.

As for the sacred status of the Second Amendment, do you really believe the Founding Fathers would approve of their ambiguous words being used to justify wiping out the population of a small town every year? Whatever these killers may be, they are not a "well regulated militia", so why would you want to make it so easy for them?

2
1
Silver badge

Re: AC @ 09:41 @proto-robbie

States with "loose" gun laws that actually implement real criminal control, like say Virgina which is right next to DC and gets blamed for DC having so many criminals with guns, wind up with less crime. When Virginia implemented their 3 strikes policy (3rd strike they partnered with federal enforcement to move convicted gang members to prisons outside the state, thus breaking connection with their base of operations) with respect to gun crimes, homicide fell around 20% immediately and continued to fall thereafter. In DC we have multiple people breaking their laws on national TV who go unpunished and the rates stay steady and near the top for the nation. But that couldn't possibly have anything to do with their criminal coddling mentality now could it?

1
1
Anonymous Coward

@proto-robbie

I do agree with a few more restrictions myself, but the state to state comparison is needed to be a fair debate.

As for the founding fathers, yeah. The point is to be in charge of your own life and have the freedom to live it. Not to give away your rights or put yourself in a position to have your freedom taken from you. As Tom has pointed out, the idea is for the population to be in charge and capable of overthrowing a bad gov. You may disagree with that but tough.

I would agree with some more regulation but I totally agree with the freedom to own and the right to self defence.

0
0
Holmes

Re: @proto-robbie

I'm sorry, I think state by state analysis is superfluous. The USA has a national problem with guns, and that's where to apply the fix.

0
0
Silver badge

Re: "a patriot like Ted Nugent"

we arent curious, we know exaclty what it means.

0
0
Silver badge

Re: "a patriot like Ted Nugent"

commie

0
0
Silver badge
Stop

Re: @proto-robbie

hmmm, i saw some guy on tv last night talking abiut this.....

we have more guns, and we have way more killing in this country than anywhere elsin in the world that inst a warzone.

it's not hard to make the connection.

less guns would mean less killing.

now who was he?

chief of pittsburg police, so it's not like he would have the vaguest idea of what he was talking about. I mean it's not like he was some brain dead 'B' list guitar player from 30 years ago....

if you dont get it, then i cant be bothered to explain it to you, i'll just wait till you comer up against a McVeigh, then your lack of understanfing wont matter.

0
0
Silver badge

Re: @AC 15:54

Countries like Britain with much lower gun ownership have much lower violent crime. But so do countries with quite high gun ownership rates liek Canada and Switzerland. The 'culprit' in the US isn't just the loads of guns, it's the combination of loads of guns with a combination of paranoia, hubris, and a national psyche that glorifies violence and is OK with blood and guts being blasted all over a movie screen but is afraid of nipples.

0
0
Silver badge
FAIL

Re: @Psyx

"I also called for states to be compared. You still presented 2 only. Very selective."

Yes, that's because I'm not about to look up that stats for 50 States for you again. Do your own damned homework.

"You say DC got these laws to counter the high crime. But the ban on guns hasnt solved it and it still has high crime. So are you proving no link between crime and guns? Or just saying that DC is different because it doesnt suit your needs?"

Actually DC does fit my means because it shows that lots of firearms equates to a lot of deaths. I'm not sure why you keep thinking it fits *your* needs. Not that I *need* anything. I just get tired of reading about another dozen kids being blown away because the US has more legislation in place against Kinder Eggs than it does semi-automatic weapon.

DC is still high crime, but it's LESS crime now. Do you really believe that essentially saying "gun laws didn't magically transform DC into My Little Pony Land" is an argument against gun control in any way?

Any State which is purely urban is going to be a statistical abnormality. Is that not evident? Pointing at it and going: "Look here" is just stating the obvious. You have to actually *think* about why, instead of just pointing at a number.

The gun laws didn't make enough of a difference because they weren't coupled with a enough effort to get illegal firearms off the street and because people could just go and buy firearms from 50 miles away. It was a bad implementation of gun control because of porous borders. That doesn't make gun control bad. Same story with Mexico: Gun control, but with the world's biggest gun shop right next door and a porous border.

"Crime figures are in general reducing across the US. The facts behind the numbers make a difference."

That has nothing to do with guns, does it. At all.

0
0
Silver badge
Pint

Re: @proto-robbie

"the idea is for the population to be in charge and capable of overthrowing a bad gov."

Then I put it to you that the Constitution and specifically the Second Amendment has failed your Nation.

The Citizens cannot overthrow your government. Anyone who tries is located by the world's most effective internal security services, branded a terrorist and thrown in jail forever. Any large scale uprising will be met with a far larger and better armed 'militia' (the NG and regular army) and would be utterly torn apart.

As the Second Amendment has failed in its purpose, why cling to it?

"I would agree with some more regulation but I totally agree with the freedom to own and the right to self defence."

I agree that more regulation is good. I agree that the right to own *some* types of firearms. I personally do not agree with the right to use firearms for self-defence *in my nation* and I feel that if the firearms could be removed from the hands of criminals in the US in an effective manner then it would reduce the perceived need and desire for people to use firearms for home defence, which would then have the knock-on effect of reducing accidental deaths, domestic violence using firearms and other nice things. But America needs to get a lot of guns of the streets before they can get to that point, which involves sensible laws regarding ownership coupled with and led by a serious amount of police-effort to stop firearms getting into criminal hands in the first place, and removing the ones that are already there.

0
0
Bronze badge
Devil

Re: @proto-robbie RE naughtyhorse

The police have a vested interest in disarming citizens, the same exact interest that Hitler, Moussolini, Tojo and Stalin did and now Obama.

Each one of those tyrants (besides Obama) had said that they did not want to attack the US for the sole reason that they would be fighting not only our military but every man woman and child in our country.

For you dolts out there who have no idea about the intent of our founding fathers in writing the Constitutution and the Bill of Rights, the first 10 so called amendments are actually the Bill of Rights which is somewhat drawn from the Magna Carta and some other English documents.

The statement "These rights shall not be infinged" is key in understanding that NONE of the first 10 were ever to go up for modification, discussion or alreation. In reality, the Second Amendment was contentious even then because most favored an even more strict interpretation.

The interpretation for guns to be owned soley for the purposes of a Militia has been altered by the Supreme Court in several landmark cases that basically said that gun ownership is a right for all people except felons and mental cases and is no longer tied to a militia. Both DC and Chicago tried to ban ownership of all guns by law abiding citizens and both laws were struck down as unconstitutional.

BTW, gun related crime tripled in both cities when its citizens were disarmed and decreased again when the anti-gun law was repealed.

Let me know when you FINALLY gain the rational comprehension to understand that the conscious decision to misuse a tool lies soley on the head of the user, not the tool. Tools are inanimate objects that can do nothing without the action of the user. Guns are nothing but tools.

BTW over 195,000 people die annually from errors in Medical treatment in the USA while there are roughly 33,000 gun related deaths, of that number, 2/3rds of the total or 19,000 deaths are gun related suicides. Who are the bigger criminals, the gun owners or the medical system?

Total Suicides (by any method) is greater than gun deaths, at appx 38,800 per year, auto deaths is just about the same as total gun deaths. Glad we spend enough on mental health in this country (NOT).

For the record, the rate of gun related deaths has remained fairly consistent for the last two decades so no legislation so far has had any impact whatsoever and likely never will.

Let us also take into consideration that many gun related deaths (especially in large cities) are gang related and in my mind, as long as they are killing each other, it's a public service. No innocent should ever die needlessly but if you run with criminals, it WILL come back to bite you. None of those gangsters will obey any law and they are better armed than the Police are.

1
0
Anonymous Coward

Re: @proto-robbie RE naughtyhorse

"The police have a vested interest in disarming citizens, the same exact interest that Hitler, Moussolini, Tojo and Stalin did and now Obama."

Thanks! I knew I could stop reading after you likened Obama to Stalin, Mussolini, Tojo and Hitler. It's nice when you guys put these clues right in the first sentence...

0
0
Holmes

@Dan Paul

England & Wales: 39 homicides from 56,000,000 in 2012

USA: 14,000 from 314,000,000 in 2012.

Do the math; and don't call me a dolt. You are the primus inter alia bag of spanners here . That's "winningest" where you come from.

Perhaps your nation has too many tools? As you say, tools are inanimate objects. Like "nucular" bombs. So perhaps we should welcome Iran and North Korea to the well-tooled militia club?

ps Not only your citizens are getting moiderd.

0
0
Anonymous Coward

@Psyx 18:06

"Yes, that's because I'm not about to look up that stats for 50 States for you again. Do your own damned homework.". Exactly. If you look for the facts then you have to argue a reasonable position. Something you have been very much noted as not being able to do (or just very unwilling).

"Actually DC does fit my means because it shows that lots of firearms equates to a lot of deaths.". Then I suggest you do some homework and see some facts. Not being informed of the facts is not your fault. But totally unwilling to see fact is exactly your fault. See tom13's post wed 13th 15:28. Even better look up the actual data.

"I just get tired of reading about another dozen kids being blown away because the US has more legislation in place against Kinder Eggs than it does semi-automatic weapon.". I get tired of hearing of another shooting/stabbing/home invasion/pensioner rape/ mugging/etc in the UK. Then debates on what you can legally do to look after your life, your family and your property.

"DC is still high crime, but it's LESS crime now". As is the trend across the whole US. Duh

"That has nothing to do with guns, does it. At all.". The first sensible thing you said. However I dont think you ment it.

0
0
Silver badge
Thumb Up

Re: @proto-robbie RE naughtyhorse

@Dan Paul - The US has a far higher rate of violent crime than otherwise comparable western democracies. If, as you argue, that has absolutely nothing to do with the availabilty of guns (because guns are just tools, and it's people who kill people, not guns)... then does that mean that the US has a disproportionately large amount of violent paranoid homicidal arseholes.

0
0

Page:

This topic is closed for new posts.