It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

NEWS: Ted Nugent to Fellow NRAers: Get Hardcore

page: 4
0
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 21 2005 @ 11:16 PM
link   
GO TED!


hehe cause he can't drive 55!




posted on Apr, 22 2005 @ 12:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by edsinger
GO TED!


hehe cause he can't drive 55!


Yeah, neither can Sammy Hagar. :rolleyes:



posted on Apr, 22 2005 @ 12:51 AM
link   
I'm as pro-RKBA as they get, but I'm not really comfortable with Nugent as a spokesman. Here's a guy with a rep for boinking twelve-year-old groupies by the truckload, loudly announcing he thinks child molesters should be shot. Umm, helllo?!?

I don't think the tough guy BS in general is a good face for us pro-gunners ro put forward, honestly. The freedom to own firearms mandates a greater degree of responsibility & restraint. Nothing plays into the gun grabbers hands better than the idea that gun owners are just itching for an excuse to shoot somebody.



posted on Apr, 22 2005 @ 01:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by xmotex
I don't think the tough guy BS in general is a good face for us pro-gunners ro put forward, honestly. The freedom to own firearms mandates a greater degree of responsibility & restraint. Nothing plays into the gun grabbers hands better than the idea that gun owners are just itching for an excuse to shoot somebody.


Some of the smartest words said in this tread, and very good advice to 2 amendment types. The gun grabbers (love this when I first read it) are not thinking about the guy that goes hunting a few times a year with his shotgun, or the business owner with a gun in the store, or the person who has a gun for protection which he/she looks at maybe once a month tops. They are thinking of nuts like Nuggent (great musician but come...), fringe militia men who see the government spending trillions to get their barren miniscule piece of land or whatever ur flavor of the week is (besides if they were up to a 10Th of what you suspect they are up to the most your going to do with whatever weapons you may have is P"s them off even more when they come after you) and trigger happy blanks trying with inferiorty/pesercution complexes, not to mention self righteous delusions of grandeur.



posted on Apr, 22 2005 @ 04:26 AM
link   
Still no justification for that stat by pro-gun advocates. What a suprise.

And for the second time (the ATS crash must of ate my last post) the stat was not from Disneyland but from the helpnetwork. A group of medical groups trying to reduce death tolls from weapons.

Gun stats

How about harvard?
link



posted on Apr, 22 2005 @ 05:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by subz
Still no justification for that stat by pro-gun advocates. What a suprise.

What exactly did you expect? You have obviously concreted this as fact in your mind, what good would it do to argue someone on the validity of the "facts"? We could throw around statistics all day long and it really wouldn’t change much. There are way too many avenues for bias to corrupt the sensational statistics that people refer often refer to. However, here is something to think about: Have you looked at the overall number of child deaths in those 25 countries? I bet you would find that in countries without guns, children are stabbing and beating each other to death at rates on par with violent juvenile crime in the States.

As for Ted Nugent, he’s, well… Ted Nugent. I’ve never really like him that much.

Grady: I think what you did qualifies as brandishing and is illegal in most states. Furthermore, you escalated the level of the conflict by pulling a weapon on him. It’s not personally what I would have done, but I can see why you might have.



posted on Apr, 22 2005 @ 05:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by GradyPhilpott

Yesterday, a belligerent neighbor threatened me with bodily harm if I didn't go back into my apartment, so I grabbed my pistol, racked the slide and admonished him to reconsider. Someone called the police and when they arrived...


Even though I was not there, I have to say your response to your neighbor threatening you with bodily harm was pretty hysterical and I think you were overreacting.

"asking him to reconsider" with a gun in your hand is the exact rambo attitude that makes these situations escalate and I think the police were right doing what they did.

Fights shouldn't be solved like this, and I hope you agree with me when I say that the average agressive neighbour who is "asked to reconsider" in the way you did it, is just going to be more pissed, more agressive and more threatening in the end, leading to what exactly?

It's this shift in "valid excuses" to pull out your gun, that makes guns look bad in the first place. First it was only for self defense in life or death situations, then it was okay to pull one out when someone breaks into your property in whatever way, and now you start pulling guns when your neighbour is acting retarded?

What's next then?



posted on Apr, 22 2005 @ 05:56 AM
link   
Hmm I see there have been enough personal attacks on Grady allready, sorry if my post sounds like that as well.
I understand that it has to be hard to live in a neighbourhood with such individuals in it.

Once again, we were not there so we can only base what we say on what you tell us.

In general I think if you live in such a neighbourhood it is okay to have a gun, even though I think your very example proves just how hard it is to decide wether a gun is needed to solve a certain situation.

If the guy you threatened is someone you see regularly, I think you should apologise or at least have a word with him to talk thinks out and become cool with eachother again.

I am not sure wether it works like that where you live, maybe I just don't get it, but that is what I would do if it happened to me.



posted on Apr, 22 2005 @ 06:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by para
What exactly did you expect? You have obviously concreted this as fact in your mind, what good would it do to argue someone on the validity of the "facts"?

It is fact, look up the statistic on any site of your choosing. I didnt ask for the validity of the fact to be debated. I asked for a justification, from gun advocates, for the staggering death toll being inflicted on Americans aged 0 - 15 y.o by firearms.

Your country loses more young people to firearms each year than do the other top 25 industrialised nations combined. How does this not cause alarm for you people? How are these firearms protecting your families when they are killing people left right and center when compared to the rest of the civilized world?

Why do you think guns are acceptable when so many young people are killed with them in your country?

If you have a right to bare arms then you must too bare responsibility for the grossly disproportinal deaths resulting from these arms. So far no one has even tried to justify owning guns when faced with that statistic.

[edit on 22/4/05 by subz]



posted on Apr, 22 2005 @ 06:30 PM
link   
I'd bet it's not nearly as high as the death toll caused to the same age group in car accidents. Should we also ban cars? After all, they're also dangerous machines that can kill when used with disregard for the lives of others.

I don't understand how you can justify legal car ownership, when cars kill so many.

[edit on 22-4-2005 by xmotex]



posted on Apr, 22 2005 @ 06:30 PM
link   
Its not a constitutional right to drive cars now is it? And that was not a justification, it was diversion from the topic.

How hard is it for you gun advocates to justify your guns when faced with their consequences?

[edit on 22/4/05 by subz]



posted on Apr, 22 2005 @ 06:31 PM
link   
Bad things happen.

Bad things happen more when people have access to dangerous technologies.

Such is life.

[edit on 22-4-2005 by xmotex]



posted on Apr, 22 2005 @ 06:35 PM
link   
My point is that you havent justified the statistic, you've danced around it and tried to excuse how many deaths firearms cause by refering to the road toll.

A car's primary purpose is transport. A firearms primary purpose is to kill. If you cant see the diference and the outcomes of each item I pitty you.

Edit: Thats not a justification, thats an excuse. You havent tried to explain why owning a gun is right in light of its consequences.

[edit on 22/4/05 by subz]



posted on Apr, 22 2005 @ 06:35 PM
link   
*looks around*

Oh, ATSNN.

Thinks about posting something like, "Let's keep it up to ATSNN standards".



posted on Apr, 22 2005 @ 06:39 PM
link   
"ATSNN standards" as in posting asinine comments attempting to disrupt a a completely civilised ontopic argument on a message board?



posted on Apr, 22 2005 @ 06:48 PM
link   


A firearms primary purpose is to kill.


Says you. I think they're for putting little holes in paper targets.

After all, far more of them put little holes in paper targets than ever kill anyone.



posted on Apr, 22 2005 @ 06:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by xmotex



A firearms primary purpose is to kill.


Says you. I think they're for putting little holes in paper targets.

After all, far more of them put little holes in paper targets than ever kill anyone.


Which comes in handy if you're ever attacked by............




Whatever.



posted on Apr, 23 2005 @ 12:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by subz
It is fact, look up the statistic on any site of your choosing. I didnt ask for the validity of the fact to be debated. I asked for a justification, from gun advocates, for the staggering death toll being inflicted on Americans aged 0 - 15 y.o by firearms.

Right. And I suppose the "statistics" that the Brady Campaign puts out are undeniable facts as well. As I said, I give very little weight to the statistics people cull from the internet. However, you did post a valid question, so here is justification (mine at least):

The benefits outweigh the risks.

Simple as that. The risks and benefits of firearm ownership have been exhausted on other threads, so I won’t open that can of worms here. Granted, this is a subjective conclusion reached by the individual, so there will always be debate. So it goes.



Originally posted by subz
A car's primary purpose is transport. A firearms primary purpose is to kill. If you cant see the diference and the outcomes of each item I pitty you.
[edit on 22/4/05 by subz]

I can readily tell you the difference between a car and a gun. I can also tell you the primary purpose of the guns and cars I own. And it might surprise you to know that I own guns to shoot at targets, and nothing else. However, if it ever came to the point where I needed to use one of my guns to defend myself, I would. Same goes for my cars (as strange as the circumstances surrounding that situation would be). If you can’t see that a car is just as dangerous as a gun, if not more so, than I don’t think you are being honest with yourself.



posted on Apr, 23 2005 @ 12:31 AM
link   
Ted Nugent makes me ashamed to be a gun owner. He did his damndest to get out of Vietnam where people would shoot at him, to spend his life shooting wild critters who cannot shoot back. Does he need to kill to put food on the table? I doubt it. Yeah, Ted sucks
, but I LOVE THE NRA!!!!



posted on Apr, 23 2005 @ 02:00 AM
link   
This is what Nugent told "The Detroit Free Press" about his efforts to avoid military service during the war in Vietnam.



Nugent avoided the draft during the Vietnam War. In an interview for the July 15, 1990 Detroit Free Press Magazine, Nugent detailed how he avoided the draft:

"He claims that 30 days before his draft board physical, he stopped all forms of personal hygiene. The last 10 days, he ingested nothing but Vienna sausages and Pepsi; and a week before his physical, he stopped using bathrooms altogether, virtually living inside pants caked with his own excrement, stained by his urine. That spectacle won Nugent a deferment, he says. ‘... but if I would have gone over there, I'd have been killed, or I'd have killed, or I'd killed all the hippies in the foxholes...I would have killed everybody.’"

www.answers.com...


I really don't know what to think of this, especially as someone who enlisted at seventeen and did everything he could do to get there as quickly as possible, despite efforts by the Marine Corps to keep him Stateside.

One might argue that Nugent has made up for such actions and certainly, even though his actions were extreme, he is in the company of millions who did everything they could do to avoid service, as well.

Out of the total population of those who were eligible to serve in Vietnam, only about three million of us actually set foot in country.

Edit:

On the other hand, there is this from a Marine Captain who accopanied Nugent and Toby Keith on their USO tour in Iraq:




As I waved goodbye and reflected on my time with The Nuge, I realized I didn’t remember much of his music. I’m sure most of his songs were grand odes to wine, women, and song. I don’t know if he ever sang anything that exuded nobility. But I know this: Ted Nugent and Toby Keith earned my respect as men tonight. The pair of entertainers, their assistants, and two USO workers set foot in a war zone where anything could happen; they knew they could be attacked at any time. For these civilians, that risk was worth the reward of expressing the gratitude of America towards those sent into harm’s way. They did it because they cared.

Thanks guys. You can rock and roll with us any time. But, Ted, if you plan to come back, bring a rifle instead of a Glock and stay a couple of days. It sounds to me like we need to work you into the watch rotation out on the
perimeter.

Semper fi,
"Capt Dave”

www.jimlynch.com...




[edit on 05/4/23 by GradyPhilpott]




top topics



 
0
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join