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 …

COMMENTS

This topic is closed for new posts.
  1. Anonymous Coward
    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.

    1. James Micallef 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 :)

    2. elfreeman

      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 !!

      1. Alien Doctor 1.1
        FAIL

        Re: elfreeman

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

      2. Beachrider

        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!)

      3. Stevelane
        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 !

      4. Anonymous Coward
        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?

    3. fung0
      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. Anonymous Coward
        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. Tom 13

        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.

    4. Martin Budden

      OK, let them bear arms...

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

  2. Scott Pedigo
    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.

    1. Panzerbjorn
      Happy

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

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

    2. Naughtyhorse

      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.

  3. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Nugent

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

    1. LateNightLarry
      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...

  4. g e
    Facepalm

    "a patriot like Ted Nugent"

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

    1. Anonymous Coward
      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.

      1. Anonymous Coward
        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.

        1. proto-robbie
          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.

          1. Anonymous Coward
            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.

            1. Psyx
              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. Anonymous Coward
                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. Psyx
                  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. Anonymous Coward
                    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. Psyx
                      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.

                      1. Anonymous Coward
                        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.

            2. proto-robbie
              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?

              1. Tom 13

                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?

              2. Anonymous Coward
                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.

                1. proto-robbie
                  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.

                2. Psyx
                  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.

            3. Naughtyhorse
              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.

              1. Dan Paul
                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. Anonymous Coward
                  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...

                2. proto-robbie
                  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.

                3. James Micallef 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.

          2. Tom 13

            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.

          3. James Micallef 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.

        2. Anonymous Coward
          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

        3. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: @AC 15:54

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

          Statistics say no.

          1. Tom 13

            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.

      2. Psyx
        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...

    2. Destroy All Monsters Silver badge

      Re: "a patriot like Ted Nugent"

      Yes.

    3. DJO Silver 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”

    4. Anonymous Coward
      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".

    5. Dana W
      FAIL

      Re: "a patriot like Ted Nugent"

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

      1. Naughtyhorse

        Re: "a patriot like Ted Nugent"

        commie

    6. Bitbeisser

      Re: "a patriot like Ted Nugent"

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

    7. Naughtyhorse

      Re: "a patriot like Ted Nugent"

      we arent curious, we know exaclty what it means.

  5. 404 Silver badge
    Facepalm

    Damn, more down-votes

    Perhaps the only reason I'll watch SotU will be to see what Old TedNugent does/says - I've already heard what the other guy has to say - he's been saying it the last four years.

    sigh.

  6. Zaphod.Beeblebrox
    Joke

    It'll be a free-for-all baby!

    "I am excited to have a patriot like Ted Nugent joining me in the House Chamber to hear from President Obama. After the address I'm sure Ted will have plenty to say."

    In his subdued, reasoned and rational way, I'm sure.

  7. pensive

    observing Mr Nugent from the USA

    i spend a lot of time in the US and Mr Nugent is something of a rock and roll icon...certainly not a candidate for incarceration and not really that much of a big deal security-wise.

    he is a firearms owner, a hunter, and a big mouth but the title of this article makes it seem unusual that he went to a political event as a guest of a politician from a Southern USA state which is gun owner friendly.

    it just shows you that the US is a very diverse and interesting country with a lot of expression and free speech. i suspect the US Secret Service had at least one agent on Ted's tracks during the inagural event.

    1. SirWired 1

      Re: observing Mr Nugent from the USA

      The reference to incarceration refers to his statement that if Obama was re-elected, he'd either be "Dead or in Jail", not an expression of opinion that he should be. Apparently it was not as important to him as he was boasting.

      It just puts him in the same category as the people who state "I'm moving to [insert country here] if [the other guy] wins election", yet they stubbornly remain US residents and citizens.

  8. TeeCee Gold badge

    Ted Nugent.

    I saw him play live at the Hammersmith Odeon once.

    About halfway through the evening he got the guitar feeding back nicely. carefully placed it on the floor of the stage and buggered off for a piss. After a few moments, half-a-dozen roadies shot out of the wings carrying towels and proceeded to fan the living daylights out of the amp stacks, to prevent the whole shebang going up in smoke before he got back.

    He was the fourth loudest thing I've ever heard. Third was a basement full of LPG bottles going up less than a mile from my house. Second was Motorhead at the same venue. Top spot goes to Blue Oyster Cult, who shoehorned their PA for the Reading festival into the Dunstable Queensway Hall and gave Krakatoa a run for its money.

    1. ElsieEffsee

      Re: Ted Nugent.

      Oh how I miss the days of loud concerts. Saxon circa 1983 at DeMontfort Hall in Leicester. The speaker stacks at each side of the stage had crash barriers in front. Behind the band were even more. I swear my ears were ringing for a week. Nowadays going to concerts, even Motorhead, is a tame experience. As the great Lemmy wrote:

      Only way to FEEL the noies it when its way up loud.

      As for gun totin Ted, lets hope he has a cleaning accident while polishing his weapons.

      1. BillG Silver badge
        Happy

        Re: Ted Nugent.

        >Oh how I miss the days of loud concerts.

        Me: How did you like the concert?

        Friend: GREAT!!! I!! WAS!! SITTING!! BY!! THE!! SPEAKERS!!!!!!

      2. Tikimon Silver badge
        Stop

        Re: Ted Nugent.

        "As for gun totin Ted, lets hope he has a cleaning accident while polishing his weapons."

        YOU HATER! My God, the hypocrisy! Somehow "we are the world" only applies to other bed-wetters, does it?

        Some context for Ted's more impassioned ravings: "Give me liberty, or give me death" is an old sentiment in the US, attributed to Patrick Henry in 1775. Henry was also known as an impassioned orator with fiery speech. I'm sure

        1. Esskay

          Re: Ted Nugent.

          "Some context for Ted's more impassioned ravings: "Give me liberty, or give me death" is an old sentiment in the US, attributed to Patrick Henry in 1775. Henry was also known as an impassioned orator with fiery speech."

          If I recite Martin Luther King's "I Had A Dream" speech, that doesn't make me an "impassioned orator". If Ted was so great he'd come up with his own incredible speeches, instead of dribbling someone else's into a microphone.

      3. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        @ElsieEffsee

        "As for gun totin Ted, lets hope he has a cleaning accident while polishing his weapons."

        I find it interesting that the anti gun nutters must look to find the few of the many gun owners who do bad (and most nutters dont distinguish between legal/illegal guns used) but for openly hostile comments it is the anti gun nutter who never fails to deliver.

        Do people wish you an accident while driving? Or during DIY? Do you think its real when they say "break a leg" to someone performing?

        I do wonder if there could be a case made for gun owners wanting guns to protect themselves from openly hostile people praising death on our fellow man.

  9. hopespring

    still obliving, still unincarcerated . . .

    said prez has failed on way more of his promises than the nuge. the congressman on the other hand may be only as reliable as obama.

    it was in fact the secret service who got themselves into a bit of bother with nugent and ultimately had to back away from their public stunt.

    the question of obama vs. nugent might be looked at as a question of honolulu (or chicago if you wanna believe the BBC) vs. detroit. which place is most bad-ass and most likely to survive the zombie or any other apocolypse?

    or for the warm and fuzzy, where would you rather smoke dope?

  10. Gavin McMenemy

    Let them bear flintlocks

    I'm pretty sure that's what they had when the constitution was written!

    1. Euripides Pants Silver badge
      Thumb Down

      Re: Let them bear flintlocks

      Using your logic we should make the Indians hunt with bows and arrows because thats what they had when all our treaties were signed.

      1. Gavin McMenemy

        Re: Let them bear flintlocks

        I see you've had a sense of humour failure.

    2. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Let them bear flintlocks

      I approve of this - if anything else, drive-by shootings will be utterly hilarious.

  11. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Hmm...

    Gun nut: "You can't change the second amendment."

    Reasonable person: "The second word sort of suggests you can"

    1. fishman

      Re: Hmm...

      The same cam be said about all those other "pesky" amendments.

    2. Anonymous Coward
      Big Brother

      Re: Hmm...

      Gun nut: "You can't change the second amendment."

      Reasonable person: "The second word sort of suggests you can"

      Let's correct that dialog a bit...

      Constitutionalist: "You can't change the second amendment."

      Simple Liberal: "The second word sort of suggests you can."

      Constitutionalist: "You're right, so why don't you start the constitutional ammendment process?"

      Simple Liberal: "That takes too long and those dumb gun nuts will block us at the polls. We'll just get Obama to command it be done."

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: Hmm...

        @Big John: Surely a real constitutionalist would have objected to any amendments in the first place? It's not long since the last one was made 1992 IIRC.

        1. Esskay

          Re: Hmm...

          I love that gun nuts recite the "right to bear arms" section of the second amendment as gospel, but cheerfully forget the "well regulated" aspect.

  12. keith_w
    Thumb Up

    set your amps to 11

    so you can be louder than anyone else

  13. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Duped by the clueless and the media

    It's always comical to read the opinions of those who think by passing some legislation that the ills of society will suddenly be resolved. Nothing could be further from the truth.

    It's difficult for many to understand that guns are not the issue, mentally unbalanced people are the real issue. How many people died on 9-11 without a single gun being used? Should society outlaw airplanes as a result of the horrific tragedy of 9-11 when 3,000+ innocent people were killed? Should we outlaw airplanes and box cutters, because they are the tools of death and destruction? Of course not. What we should do is a better job of removing evil and mentally unbalanced people from society because there will always be a convenient means for these types of people to injure or kill other people be it with a knife, poison, home made bomb, biological or chemical attacks, etc. It's not particularly difficult to buy a kitchen knife and a razor blade...

    People need to remove themselves from all of the emotion and look at the big picture. Even if you could ban all guns tomorrow, which you can't and you couldn't enforce even if you tried, this would not prevent the tragedies that happen not only in the U.S.A. but world wide. A knee-jerk reaction won't fix the problem but it will make those without reasoning skills "feel safer" because they are oblivious. Unless society adopts proper solutions, nothing good will actually happen and soon we'll be banning automobiles because they kill way more people annually than guns ever have or will.

    1. Hieronymus Howerd

      Re: Duped by the clueless and the media

      Taking pride in making sure that your mentally ill can be armed to the teeth is perhaps the more pressing issue.

    2. fung0

      Re: Duped by the clueless and the media

      Anonymous coward sez: "It's always comical to read the opinions of those who think by passing some legislation that the ills of society will suddenly be resolved. Nothing could be further from the truth."

      No... what is truly comical (not to mention frightening) is how you can ignore the excellent empirical evidence that proves you wrong. Countries that have passed moderate gun-control legislation have seen dramatic declines in gun-related deaths, and in mass-shooting incidents. There are quite a few good examples... Australia, for one. There's no need to theorize: legislation does work, and need not be draconian.

      If you see modest, reasonable gun-control laws as an unbearable infringement on your liberties, you clearly have no idea what civilization looks like.

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: Duped by the clueless and the media

        By that theory Mexico should be safe do to it's strict gun control.

        1. Psyx

          Re: Duped by the clueless and the media

          "By that theory Mexico should be safe do to it's strict gun control."

          It has gun control, just not strict gun control. Mostly because they're being smuggled in by the van-load from the US, with some even kindly being supplied by the DEA...

      2. Tom 13

        Re: Duped by the clueless and the media

        Australia like the UK has seen its gun crime go up on a per person basis, not down since it implemented its so called gun control laws. And it's legislation was in fact QUITE draconian.

    3. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Duped by the clueless and the media

      It strikes me than an airliner has a pretty good legitimate use, which it does regularly and well, I am only aware of three airliners which have been used as a weapon to kill en mass. Box cutters open boxes, they are rarely used as a weapon - exactly why they were chosen as a weapon by the hijackers. Likewise all the other things you list have legitimate uses which aren't killing.

      Handguns, assault rifles, automatic weapons, large capacity magazines etc. are designed to kill and keep killing. They have been show to do this again and again in your schools, not to mention that they have been shown to do this again and again to your police, not to mention that they have been show to do this again and again in the workplace, furthermore criminals also kill each other en mass with these weapons. That's a hell of a lot of dead people, way more than died in 9/11.

      If you can't separate these two issues and think that banning the use of weapons designed to kill people is the same as banning airliners because they were once used to kill some people in a one-off atrocity, you've got very poor critical thinking skills. It doesn't even really matter if the US police could get rid of all of the weapons, at least they'd be able to get rid of some. If these weapons were made illegal the majority would be handed in, maybe not straight away, but they would in not too much time be off the street.

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        @AC 21:19

        If box cutters are rarely used as a weapon I challenge. A box cutter is of various forms but is a knife. Just as there are many variations of gun but all are referred to as gun. Also your not accounting for knives (and other things) as a weapon against animals (non-human) so we cant count the gun as a weapon against animals. If you do want to count it as a weapon against animals then all poisons must be banned because they are used on both too. This gets messy as overdoses are also poisonous and so equivalent so banning medical drugs.

        So falling back to just human against human. You say knives have other uses but so do guns. As a sporting apparatus against game or targets it has other uses as well as hunting, farm land protection (against predators). So both have uses outside of killing people.

        Then we look to self defence. Criminals use anything as a weapon and will look to have the advantage over a weaker/smaller/easy victim. So while a gun is a weapon so is a knife, sharp object or even blunt objects. As the victim is assumed in the weakest position people try to mitigate this problem in many ways. I hear of people keeping a bat or blunt object near the bed. Also a victim of violent crime may seek to keep a knife for protection (I know of a few of these too). However sharp/blunt objects still have a major disadvantage. You must be able bodied and strong enough to defend yourself. Then you need a lot of luck as the criminal started this assault in their favour.

        So looking at a gun as a weapon for offence/defence. Most people can operate a gun even if they are invalid/weak. The gun will stop an attacker effectively if it even needs to be fired. Unlike the other objects mentioned a gun can control a situation with multiple opponents. Often its mere presence stops a crime from beginning.

        On the BBC there is an article today of someone being shot in the UK. The bans havnt saved them. All the ban did was leave the gun in the attackers hands. Then there are the many violent crimes. It is assumed that crime figures look good because people feel it is pointless reporting to a police force that can do nothing. But the victims cant do anything either.

        Guns are only seen as bad because of the few atrocities committed by the few. Critical thinking requires analysing equal facts not apples and oranges

        1. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: @AC 21:19

          @AC 11:34 - I wasn't going to bother replying to your comment until you suggested that you were critically thinking and I wasn't so:

          You say box cuters=all knives - not critical thinking

          You say that hunting weapons/target shooting weapons = all guns - not critical thinking

          You say that one person shot in Britain today by gun violence = our gun laws have failed - not critical thinking (the fact that it is reported as newsworthy suggests that this is unusual, how many shootings america won't go reported today?)

          You say that the only way to stop someone with a gun is someone else with a gun, this ignoes the fact that you'd have lots of weak, nervous probably improperly trained people armed, what could possibly go wrong? Not critical thinking.

          You then say that guns are seen as bad because of a few atrocities - look at how many people are being killed in your country and think if that's only a few? Really? How many massacres does it take to make you think that something has to be done? Again - Not critical thinking.

          1. Anonymous Coward
            Anonymous Coward

            @AC 13:55

            "You say box cuters=all knives - not critical thinking". Yet how many have died from flintlock rifles recently? A box cutter is a form of knife. A flintlock rifle is a form of gun. Critical thinking can only be done when the correct data is applied.

            "You say that hunting weapons/target shooting weapons = all guns - not critical thinking". I did not say that so before you do your thinking you need to do your reading. I stated those as legitimate uses of guns. Guns is a general term remember.

            "You say that one person shot in Britain today by gun violence = our gun laws have failed". Stop claiming to be thinking if your only going to write rubbish. I didnt say the laws failed because of one person shot. Our laws failed because the criminals are armed and we allow violent crime.

            "You say that the only way to stop someone with a gun is someone else with a gun". I suggest you read before you think because I have yet to see a strong point based on my comment. The victim having a gun even if the attacker is also armed with a gun gives a much stronger fighting chance than the victim not having one.

            Your final statement makes me laugh the most. For someone talking about critical thinking I have yet to read any. I wish you didnt reply to my post, I held more respect for you before you did

            1. Psyx
              FAIL

              Re: @AC 13:55

              "Our laws failed because the criminals are armed and we allow violent crime."

              Bwahahaha. *a few* criminals have firearms so the law failed?

              Oh, so a few people get murdered so our police fail? I burned a piece of toast last week so I'm a failure as a cook? Don't be absurd.

              1. Anonymous Coward
                Anonymous Coward

                @Psyx 18:05

                ""Our laws failed because the criminals are armed and we allow violent crime."

                Bwahahaha. *a few* criminals have firearms so the law failed?"

                I included my quote in the above because people need to see the level of reasoning and thought you apply to your statements. I said armed. Armed people have a weapon. Most items can be used as a weapon with varying degrees of lethality and harm. The fact that all weapons require an amount of energy to be able to use it is the gun which is easiest to use with the least requirements. As a result it may be good for a criminal but it is perfect for the victim who may be old/frail/ill/weak/small or any number of attributes which makes an easy victim.

                A few criminals have firearms. A few people performed the massacres that upset and scare you so much. A few people out of the many. But because the law abiding are by law to be victims with reduced to no capacity for self defence we rely on the police. But the police are not everywhere or they could have stopped the massacres you are so upset and scared about. And who could really do anything because nobody good was armed or capable of stopping them.

                In the UK a few people have firearms. Most firearms seem to be in the hands of criminals which sparked a number of initiatives collecting hundreds of guns a month. So what should a victim do? Last time you suggested a rope ladder to get out of the window. Make me laugh again

    4. Psyx
      WTF?

      Re: Duped by the clueless and the media

      "It's difficult for many to understand that guns are not the issue, mentally unbalanced people are the real issue.... What we should do is a better job of removing evil and mentally unbalanced people from society "

      Over 10% of the population are mentally ill at some point in their life.

      Every teenager who has ever existed has been mentally unbalanced.

      Anyone on courses of strong medication or hormone treatment is mentally unbalanced.

      Even the Pill can make you mentally unbalanced.

      What are you suggesting? Waving a magic fucking wand and solving all of that overnight? Incarcerating 20% of the population? And that's easier than licensing firearms is it?

      "How many people died on 9-11 without a single gun being used?"

      That's an absurd straw man. The people who committed the crime were not mentally unbalanced. They just weren't on your side.

      "Should we outlaw airplanes and box cutters, because they are the tools of death and destruction?"

      Actually, we DID outlaw box-cutters ON 'planes, and guess what: No more atrocities. Your own example shows you that taking away weapons has worked.

      "People need to remove themselves from all of the emotion and look at the big picture."

      Like the unemotional and even-handed way that you considered the 9/11 attackers as mentally ill?

      1. Tom 13

        Re: Duped by the clueless and the media

        Every single mass shooting we've experienced in the last 5 years has been the result of someone who was KNOWN to be mentally unbalanced and a DANGER TO SOCIETY not being locked up until treatment was completed.

        Every single start of a mass shooting which has been started and stopped short has been stopped by someone in the local vicinity who happened to be carrying a gun being able to bring it to bear on the situation.

        Those are the FACTS, but you wouldn't want to let that get in the way you fear guns now would it?

        1. Psyx
          Stop

          Re: Duped by the clueless and the media

          "Every single mass shooting we've experienced in the last 5 years has been the result of someone who was KNOWN to be mentally unbalanced and a DANGER TO SOCIETY not being locked up until treatment was completed.

          Every single start of a mass shooting which has been started and stopped short has been stopped by someone in the local vicinity who happened to be carrying a gun being able to bring it to bear on the situation."

          I'm going to call bullshit on both of those facts, because you just fucking made them up.

          Citation or stow it.

  14. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    original intent

    Since, at the time of writing the constitution, African-Americans were not citizens, the second amendment only allows White people, specifically White males with property, to possess firearms. Sounds very Republican to me.

    1. Tom 35 Silver badge

      Re: original intent

      If you want to know what the original intent was read up on the whisky rebellion.

      It's more or less the opposite of what the gun nuts are saying.

      1. Destroy All Monsters Silver badge
        Paris Hilton

        Not progressive enough?

        http://mises.org/freemarket_detail.aspx?control=206

        "The Official View of the Whiskey Rebellion is that four counties of western Pennsylvania refused to pay an excise tax on whiskey that had been levied by proposal of the Secretary of Treasury Alexander Hamilton in the Spring of 1791, as part of his excise tax proposal for federal assumption of the public debts of the several states.

        Western Pennsylvanians failed to pay the tax, this view says, until protests, demonstrations, and some roughing up of tax collectors in western Pennsylvania caused President Washington to call up a 13,000-man army in the summer and fall of 1794 to suppress the insurrection. A localized but dramatic challenge to federal tax-levying authority had been met and defeated. The forces of federal law and order were safe.

        This Official View turns out to be dead wrong. In the first place, we must realize the depth of hatred of Americans for what was called "internal taxation" (in contrast to an "external tax" such as a tariff). Internal taxes meant that the hated tax man would be in your face and on your property, searching, examining your records and your life, and looting and destroying.

        The most hated tax imposed by the British had been the Stamp Tax of 1765, on all internal documents and transactions; if the British had kept this detested tax, the American Revolution would have occurred a decade earlier, and enjoyed far greater support than it eventually received.

        Americans, furthermore, had inherited hatred of the excise tax from the British opposition; for two centuries, excise taxes in Britain, in particular the hated tax on cider, had provoked riots and demonstrations upholding the slogan, "liberty, property, and no excise!" To the average American, the federal government's assumption of the power to impose excise taxes did not look very different from the levies of the British crown.

        The main distortion of the Official View of the Whiskey Rebellion was its alleged confinement to four counties of western Pennsylvania. From recent research, we now know that no one paid the tax on whiskey throughout the American "back-country": that is, the frontier areas of Maryland, Virginia, North and South Carolina, Georgia, and the entire state of Kentucky.

        President Washington and Secretary Hamilton chose to make a fuss about Western Pennsylvania precisely because in that region there was cadre of wealthy officials who were willing to collect taxes. Such a cadre did not even exist in the other areas of the American frontier; there was no fuss or violence against tax collectors in Kentucky and the rest of the back-country because there was no one willing to be a tax collector.

        The whiskey tax was particularly hated in the back-country because whisky production and distilling were widespread; whiskey was not only a home product for most farmers, it was often used as a money, as a medium of exchange for transactions. Furthermore, in keeping with Hamilton's program, the tax bore more heavily on the smaller distilleries. As a result, many large distilleries supported the tax as a means of crippling their smaller and more numerous competitors.

        Western Pennsylvania, then, was only the tip of the iceberg. The point is that, in all the other back-country areas, the whiskey tax was never paid. Opposition to the federal excise tax program was one of the causes of the emerging Democrat-Republican Party, and of the Jeffersonian "Revolution" of 1800. Indeed, one of the accomplishments of the first Jefferson term as president was to repeal the entire Federalist excise tax program. In Kentucky, whiskey tax delinquents only paid up when it was clear that the tax itself was going to be repealed.

        Rather than the whiskey tax rebellion being localized and swiftly put down, the true story turns out to be very different. The entire American back-country was gripped by a non-violent, civil disobedient refusal to pay the hated tax on whiskey. No local juries could be found to convict tax delinquents. The Whiskey Rebellion was actually widespread and successful, for it eventually forced the federal government to repeal the excise tax."

        1. Tom 35 Silver badge

          You have an army of straw men in there...

          It was not a "13,000-man army".

          Washington called up a militia force from Virginia, Maryland, New Jersey, and Pennsylvania, you know that thing in the 2nd amendment the gun nuts like ignore.

          The armed militia was not created to protect the public from evil tax collecting governments, it was created by the government who could not afford a large standing army at the time. The role is now part of the National Guard, and the militias no longer exist in the form they did in Washington's time.

      2. Tom 13

        Re: whisky rebellion.

        And the Whiskey Rebellion pretty much provides the other bookend for when a declaration of independence is warranted: if you have enough of your fellow citizens on your side to win the war, it's warranted.

    2. LateNightLarry
      Mushroom

      Re: original intent

      Jeeez... Don't give the RepubliCLOWNS any more ideas... If they could keep Blacks or women or any other minority from having even a bb gun, they would move Heaven and earth to make it happen.

      1. Tom 13

        Re: f they could keep Blacks or women or any other minority from having even a bb gun

        I guess you missed all of history between the Missouri Compromise and the 1960's. It was the Demoncrats in the south who opposed that. Republicans efforts to allow all citizens to vote and own guns.

    3. Tom 13

      Re: at the time of writing the constitution, African-Americans were not citizens

      Actually there WERE negro citizens at the time. And I guess you missed that whole Madison case where the slaves who escaped as a result of a shipwreck were granted citizenship as a result of a SCOTUS decision. As I recall the King of France was mighty pissed about his lost property, particularly as the sitting President and the US ambassador to France were assuring him it was pretty much a done deal. The exact phrase from the Constitution was "slaves and Indians not taxed." Either a negro or an Indian who paid taxes to the US government was considered a person for purposes of apportionment. Yes, most were slaves, but not all. This was part of the 'house divided against itself' to which Lincoln referred, although the more obvious reference was to the opinions of whites on the slavery issue.

  15. Stevelane
    Mushroom

    Ted Nugent is also famous for crapping his pants and going unwashed to avoid service for his country in Vietnam and for taking on the guardianship of an under age Hawaiian girl so he could continue having sex with her.

    With a history like that it is unsurprising that the modern day Republican Party would welcome him into their fold.

    1. Destroy All Monsters Silver badge
      Paris Hilton

      So what are his negative sides?

  16. Rick Giles
    Stop

    For all you non-Americans

    You may discuss what we do, but you may not tell us what we should do.

    1. Psyx
      FAIL

      Re: For all you non-Americans

      Sure we may.

      You don't have to like it, but we may do just as we please.

      1. proto-robbie
        Holmes

        Re: For all you non-Americans

        There's a clue in the .co.uk at the top of your browser.

        You're the naughty children we still hold in affection, but we do think you should give up the Cowboys and Indians thang.

        1. Rick Giles
          FAIL

          Re: For all you non-Americans

          Yes, I saw the clue you mentioned long ago. It just lets me know that most of the stuff on this site that doesn't pertain to technology (and most of that even) should be taken with a block of salt.

        2. Rick Giles
          Pirate

          Re: For all you non-Americans

          "you should give up the Cowboys and Indians thang."

          We have, and we have moved on. That comment borders on being racist.

          Our right to keep and bear arms is there to give the public the ability to protect ourselves from getting a government like yours that doesn't really give a shit about its people.

          Yes, I know ours is getting that way.

          The Revolution is coming.

  17. Peter Gray
    Unhappy

    Worrying

    I watched an interview where the head of the NRA was promoting the idea of armed guards being based at schools as a way of preventing more shootings - America is the only developed nation I can think of where someone thinks this is a good idea.

    And why do so many Americans seem to think their Government will attack them if they don't own a firearm? (This may just be an impression based on biased reporting, but it seems to be an issue with a fair number of people there)

    1. Psyx
      Pint

      Re: Worrying

      "I watched an interview where the head of the NRA was promoting the idea of armed guards being based at schools as a way of preventing more shootings - America is the only developed nation I can think of where someone thinks this is a good idea."

      I made a throw away comment just after the attack about "I suppose the NRA would suggest that if teachers were armed this wouldn't happen", and I was genuinely slightly horrified to discover that this was indeed their response. Still, it almost seems karma has been intent on countering some of the more radical pro-gun arguments in recent weeks:

      "School massacres happen even without guns": China school attack with knives happens. Nobody actually dies.

      "Nobody ever gets gunned down on a shooting range. Places where people are armed are safe": War hero is gunned down on shooting range.

      "Look at all the assault rifles in Switzerland, and they have no problem": Drunk Swiss guy kills three with assault rifle.

      "If people have guns they can intervene and stop gunmen": Armed police attacked and wounded by ex police officer.

  18. AisForApple
    Meh

    As a gun owner in one of the countries that prides itself on strong gun laws. I'd say that the US model is not the problem, the UK model is no better.

    Crime is the issue, gun crime is not.

    Some people will sell out all freedom for the hope and illusion of safety, others accept there is a price for all things, sometimes the price is horribly high, no one wants to pay it. But we do, because the lie of safety is not worth the price.

    I'm not going to say there isn't room for both arguments, or insist my view is right. I would say, do some honest research, real, open, fair and apples to apples reseach. I was one of the anti gun people, until I spent some time getting to know the arguments. I believe that an honest apraisal of things like CCP's will highlight that the gun laws proposed are unlikely to help, and really achieve little.

    Look at Canadian long gun registry that is being scrapped, Australia's registry that can't even tell how many guns are in the country, let alone the illegal ones. Criminals in both countries have never had a crime solved against them with a registry and honest owners are made criminals by procedural misunderstandings and tiny obscure legalities.

    Gun control has in my view failed, 14th cent. technology can't be unlearned. And banning drinking didn't work. So why would you continue to try failed controls. Stopping crime is far harder than banning a particular thing -- always has been.

This topic is closed for new posts.

Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2019