Motor City Mad Man and NRA Board Member Ted Nugent didn’t create the “So who is really behind gun control?” photo meme above. But he did re-post it on his Facebook page and added this commentary [upper right in image above] . . .
Know these punks. They hate freedom, they hate good over evil, they would deny us the basic human right to self defense & to KEEP & BEAR ARMS while many of them have tax paid hired ARMED security! Know them well. Tell every1 you know how evil they are. Let us raise maximum hell to shut them down!
Nugent’s caught merry hell for his post, condemned as anti-semitic by both the mainstream media and Jewish organizations. And rightfully so. Let’s start with this . . .
The image reposted by Ted Nugent above is not inaccurate per se. All of the individuals identified are gun control advocates, men and women who seek to degrade and destroy Americans’ gun rights in the name of public safety. They should all be exposed and opposed. But they are not the only powerful gun control advocates. There’s an entire host of influential non-Jews who support civilian disarmament.
Specifically, President Obama, former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, Vice President Joe Biden, former Congresswoman Gabby Giffords, Americans for Responsible Solutions’ Mark Kelly, Moms Demand Action for Gun Sense in America’s Shannon Watts and more. Not to mention hundreds of anti-gun rights non-Jewish celebrities, [virtually all] Democrat politicians and multitudinous members of the mainstream media.
Now you could say that the photo gallery of Jewish gun control advocates shows some of, if not the most powerful proponents of civilian disarmament. I wouldn’t argue the point. But I would say that grouping them together based on their Jewish affiliation is at the very least borderline anti-semitic. The caption — suggesting an exclusively Jewish-led conspiracy against Americans’ gun rights — pushes the image over the line into full-on religious hatred.
Mr. Nugent’s remarks take it to the next, deeply disgusting level.
By stating these Jews “hate good over evil” Nugent is channeling anti-semitic propaganda that portrays Jews as “the other.” Whatever else you can say about these Jewish gun control advocates, they are motoring down the road to hell on a highway paved with good intentions. Even the most statist amongst them believe in “good” over “evil.” That doesn’t excuse their actions, but they aren’t “special” in their misguided belief.
Nugent’s Facebook post singles out these pro-gun control Jews as un-American (note the Israeli flag over the images) and “un-Christian” [my interpretation]. He instructs his followers to “Tell every1 you know how evil they are. Let us raise maximum hell to shut them down!”
Given Mr. Nugent’s history of calling for the execution of gun control advocates, given the history of deadly anti-semitism in America (and beyond), Mr. Nugent’s thinly veiled call for violent action against Jewish gun control advocates is beyond reprehensible. It also gives aid and comfort to the forces of civilian disarmament, allowing them to portray gun owners as bigots.
Mr. Nugent should remove this post and “clarify” his statement. The NRA should distance itself from Mr. Nugent. They should revoke his membership and remove him from their Board. One more thing . . .
I’m the founder, publisher and majority owner of The Truth About Guns. Dan Zimmerman is TTAG’s managing editor and a minority shareholder. Jeremy S. is one of our primary staff writers. All three of us are Jewish.
Our belief in — and hard work for — gun rights is rooted in our heritage and our recent collective past, which saw the systematic extermination of millions of defenseless Jews. “Never again” means never again will we be defenseless against our enemies. Never again will we be disarmed.
Like all of TTAG’s staff, Dan, Jeremy and I aren’t just fighting for our right to keep and bear arms. We’re fighting for all Americans’ natural, civil and Constitutionally protected right to keep and bear arms — regardless of their race, color, creed, religion, political affiliation or sexual orientation.
That is all.
UPDATE: Ted Nugent posted this reply to the [recent] public outcry on his Facebook page:
Just when you hope that mankind couldnt possibly get any dumber or more dishonest, superFreaks rise to the occasion. What sort of racist prejudiced POS could possibly not know that Jews for guncontrol are nazis in disguise? “NEVER AGAIN!” Anyone? Anyone?? RUFKM! The founder of Jews For the Preservation of Firearms Ownership called me his 2nd Amendment/Freedom hero. The NEVER AGAIN battlecry was universally embraced by all good people who will make sure another Holocaust never happens again. Freaks have plummeted to whole new low. Plummet on punks. Plummet on. Meanwhile I adjust my yamika at my barmitzva playing my kosher guitar. My dad killed nazis & saved Jews in WWII. Eat me.
“We’re fighting for all Americans’ natural, civil and Constitutionally protected right to keep and bear arms — regardless of their race, color, creed, political affiliation or sexual orientation.”
Hear, hear!
Ted Nugent is a loose cannon and it does gun rights supporters no good to be associated with him.
It does no good to capitulate on such a non-issue.
In no way was this anti-Semitic. Is it Ted’s fault for pointing out their race?
I’m embarrassed for TTAG to be utter pawns in this liberal canard. Shame on you, TTAG! Get a grip.
Race? I don’t think Jewish is a race.
Ok then, specifically which of those politicians who all promote gun control(gun confiscation)
is not Jewish?
Obama, Biden, Holder, Lynch, McAuliff, Maloy, Clinton, O’Malley, Cristie, Brown …
Here are a few politicians for gun control that no Republican likes to talk about:
1) President Nixon – wanted a complete ban on handguns
2) President George Bush the 1st – after pledging “no new gun laws” in 1988, he banned more guns than any other president in history up to that time in response to the Patrick Purdey shooting in Jan. 1989 by directing ATF to stop all imports of “assault weapons” until Congress could catch up with the Import Assault Weapons Ban which is STILL in effect and gun owners are still going to jail over violating regulations.
3) President George Bush the 2nd stated that if Congress sent him a renewal of the 1994 Domestic “Assault Weapons” Ban that he WOULD sign it to make it PERMANENT.
4) President Ronald Reagan (OK all of you Reagan worshippers don’t have a heart attack!) – not only did be permanently ban all full-auto firearms from being made for civilians after May 19th, 1986, he actively pushed, by using his influence as a former president, for the Brady Bill and it’s “assault weapon” ban in 1994 stating that no citizen needs these types firearms.
Bottom line (especially for you young guys) Don’t trust any of the cadidates!!! Trump made many statements over the years supporting “assault weapons” bans and gun restrictions but now most gun owners are drooling over him because he states that he is for the 2nd Amendment. Also, the NRA backed all of the above presidents as well as antigun McCain (who does not own a gun) and anti gun Romney. FYI: Presidential Candidate Jeb Bush does NOT own a gun. Do you think that he will keep his promise like his brother and dad if he gets elected?????
Here are a few politicians for gun control that no Republican likes to talk about:
1) President Nixon – wanted a complete ban on handguns
2) President George Bush the 1st – after pledging “no new gun laws” in 1988, he banned more guns than any other president in history up to that time in response to the Patrick Purdey shooting in Jan. 1989 by directing ATF to stop all imports of “assault weapons” until Congress could catch up with the Import Assault Weapons Ban which is STILL in effect and gun owners are still going to jail over violating regulations.
3) President George Bush the 2nd stated that if Congress sent him a renewal of the 1994 Domestic “Assault Weapons” Ban that he WOULD sign it to make it PERMANENT.
4) President Ronald Reagan (OK all of you Reagan worshippers don’t have a heart attack!) – not only did he permanently ban all full-auto firearms from being made for civilians after May 19th, 1986, he actively pushed, by using his influence as a former president, for the Brady Bill and it’s “assault weapon” ban in 1994 stating that no citizen needs these types firearms.
Bottom line (especially for you young guys) Don’t trust any of the cadidates!!! Trump made many statements over the years supporting “assault weapons” bans and gun restrictions but now most gun owners are drooling over him because he states that he is for the 2nd Amendment. Also, the NRA backed all of the above presidents as well as antigun McCain (who does not own a gun) and anti gun Romney. FYI: Presidential Candidate Jeb Bush does NOT own a gun. Do you think that he will keep his promise like his brother and dad if he gets elected?????
Every non-Jewish Democrat and Lefty, that’s who.
BS! Ted has long ago called out every non-jew on their anti-2nd amendment stances also. While you all were still in diapers.
I posted the following in a comment on my article about the 1943 Warsaw Jewish Uprising (http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2016/01/jeremy-s/on-this-day-in-1943/) and will re-post here as it’s obviously relevant:
In my opinion, there is no way whatsoever to reconcile “Never Again” with civilian disarmament on basically any level. But, again, the Democratic party and liberal ideology has done an absolutely bang-up job convincing minority and oft-oppressed groups to follow their lead. Reading Negroes and the Gun made me realize how insanely quickly that mentality shift can happen, too. Excellent book that I’d recommend to anyone who’s interested in the power of an armed populous, how African Americans won their civil rights, and/or how fragile our rights are and how quickly they can disappear in a single generation through nothing more than a shift in perception.
Jeremy,
I don’t think its party affiliation per se. The constituencies that make up the two parties have shifted significantly over the past forty years. The re-rack and stack began over the issue of civil rights and it was largely/finally completed by the late 1990s. Moreover, if you go through the general social survey data (full disclosure, I’ve not done this in about a decade l as its not relevant to my work) the pattern used to be that people were all over the map on issues. Even after the resorting of the party constituencies. Basically not a lot of single issue voters. That said, I think where party affiliation comes in is with the party elites who determine the platforms and official positions. And that’s different from those registered in either party or those registered as independents, or not registered at all, who lean more towards one party or the other. As we are seeing with the current GOP primary, and to a lesser extent the Democratic one, what the party leadership, elites, and notables want or espouse is not necessarily what the rank and file wants; especially the small proportion of each party that are very, very involved as opposed to those that start paying attention around the conventions or those that will show up and vote if the line isn’t too long.
Major polls conducted in the last couple of years have shown very strong party affiliation on 2A rights. Heck, major media has attacked people like Colion Noir effectively saying he’s a race traitor due to not toeing the D line. Firearms have continued to become an increasingly political issue breaking down more and more along party lines, and if you’re a liberal you’re expected to be pro-gun-control every single bit as much as you’re expected to be pro-choice. The tenets of liberalism are anti-gun, the tenets of Judaism or being black or female or whatever are absolutely not. But if they go liberal, they also go anti-gun. It’s a near-mandatory part of the package.
Other than the Manchin Toomey Bill, can you name me another gun control bill in the last 20 years written (co-written in this case), by a republican? Truth is, 99.9% of ALL GUN CONTROL LEGISLATION IS WRITTEN/PUSHED/SUPPORTED by DEMOCRATS.
I’m aware of them, but I’d like to see what comes out in the data in the next National Election Survey and the next General Social Survey. The polling methodology and scope, and therefore the goodness of the data is always much better in these then in any other polling. If they confirm the other polling that just further validates that the parties have finished realigning and consolidating. That said I still don’t see a requirement for rank and file members of the Democratic Party or those that are center left to left of center to have specific negative views towards the 2nd Amendment or firearms. Rather I think what is observed is to things. The first is socialization/acculturation. People grow up in households/families without a history of firearm ownership for whatever reason or participation in shooting sports and/or they live in areas where these things are less prevalent. As a result they are socialized and acculturated in a way that simply doesn’t place a large emphasis on firearm ownership. And as I think we can agree ignorance, in this case in regard to firearms and their usage, often leads to the development of negative views. I think the second dynamic at play is that most people aren’t tuned into this or any other political or social or economic issue unless it directly impacts their daily lives. They are so busy living their lives, doing what they have to do and have little time or energy to spare for anything else. Its why our midterm election, let alone local and special election, turnout is embarrassingly low, and why even national election years have middling turnout.
Face it you’re a Dem before you’re an American and before you’re a jino.
Ok, I don’t get it. These people are powerful. These people want government to control every aspect of our lives. These people are hypocritical…they need armed security to protect themselves from gun owners (not criminals, who they never encounter). These people are essentially opposed to all forms of personal responsibility. These people are opposed to personal liberty. Why shouldn’t their pictures be grouped together?
BTW, I saw the pictures but had to read the narrative to discover, OMG, anti-Jewish bigotry? Would never have reached that conclusion on my own. But the race-baiters (the people in the photo array) are always looking for offense so they can increase government control over thought.
I’m glad you didn’t take the bait. But that doesn’t change the fact that the image and Mr. Nugent’s text are baiting anti-semites.
In a fight to the death (and make no mistake that’s what we’re in) I’m not going to be very choosy about allies. Churchill cozied up to FDR (the only president to throw US citizens into concentration camps) and Stalin when his enemies were worse.
There is a lot of anti-semitism among the ‘extremist’ libertarian crowd.
I don’t really understand where it comes from, a lot of it I think comes from some of the wacky conspiracy minded theories we often see, but honestly haven’t given this stuff that much thought – it’s basically only worth ignoring in my mind.
But we have to understand that these people are out there. I didn’t know the Nuge was into all this, but live and learn I guess.
And this anti-semtiism has to be rejected completely. The second amendment applies to all citizens, white, black, brown, yellow, green, it doesn’t matter. Jew, Muslim, Christian, whatever your background or heritage – who cares? A citizen of the United States has the right to self defense and the right to own a firearm (among many others of course).
Um….BULLSHIT. Extremist Libertarian? Just admit you have know idea what you’re talking about and we can all move on. Hint: 1) “the Nuge” is not a Libertarian. 2) There is no anti-Semitic streak in Libertarianism, in fact many of the movements principles are/were Jewish. 3) Being an anti-Semite (or anti any particular race) is antithetical to Libertarianism, which holds individual liberty and free markets of both property and ideas as its central pillar.
“BDub says:
February 9, 2016 at 10:57
Um….BULLSHIT. Extremist Libertarian? Just admit you have know idea what you’re talking about and we can all move on. ”
I won’t admit any such thing. See my response to neiowa below where I address the rest of your points.
The extremist libertarian. hahaha. Oh no, the libertarians are gonna take over and, and, leave everyone the hell alone. what a joke
That is an absolutely stupid statement.
The most “extremist” libertarianism is anarcho-capitalism: the total elimination of government at all levels. The Austrian school of economics, a leading anarcho-capitalistic philosophy, was started by Jewish economists in Vienna. Many of its current proponents are Jewish.
Racism is an inherently institutional phenomenon. In an anarcho-capitalist world, with no government, the sort of blanket discrimination racists propose is impossible.
The people you think are libertarians are about as libertarian as Hillary Clinton or Donald Trump. Perhaps they believe in small government, but they want it to strictly control society to promote their bigoted principles.
Mr 308.
To mention Infowars and Zerohedge as proof of any serious assertion of a link between anti semitism and libertarianism just confirms BDub’s assessment of you.
You cannot brain today because you haz the dumb.
“John says:
February 9, 2016 at 12:25
Mr 308.
To mention Infowars and Zerohedge as proof of any serious assertion of a link between anti semitism and libertarianism”
Serious assertion of a link? Doesn’t seem to me that you read my comment very well. It is sites like those that call themselves liberterian, not me. Are you trying to tell me you do not find anti-semitic comments all over places like that?
Seems pretty clear to me.
Yes, you will especially see this with the conspiracies about the Federal Reserve being a privately-owned banking cartel, with the assertion by many that it’s how the Jews supposedly secretly control the world.
I’d say it’s more on the Paleo sites (such as Vdare, Taki) than the Libertarian sites. I get in arguments all the time on Taki, calling the anti-semitic idiots out for their idiocy. Even there, it’s not everyone, just a vocal minority who can’t see a traffic light turn red without blaming the Jews. It’s a shame, because I agree with many of the other ideas those sites promote, shorn of the anti-semitism.
You may not be aware of racist libertarians, but they do exist (and yes, that’s what they call themselves).
Basically, these guys believe that libertarianism (usually in its minarchist) kind is the perfect model for human societies – but only if they’re white (and so long as they remain white). They believe in fundamental genetic difference between races that causes that to adopt different models of society and governance – e.g. they think that Asians are inherently more statist and totalitarian, while Europeans are inherently more anarchist and freedom-loving.
And quite a few of them believe that Jews are “parasites” on other societies.
It really comes from so called “right wingers”.
I am somewhat associated with the Mises Institute (a libertarian think tank), Mises was Jewish as was Murray Rothbart one of the leading libertarian thinkers. Had it not been for Rothbart, Austrian economics and genuine libertarian thought would have died out in the 1990’s
I don’t know about the extremist libertarian crowd, but if you want to understand “anti-Semitism,” read Kevin MacDonald’s work, and go from there. I hear David Duke’s work is good too (though I have not read it), if MacDonald’s work is too dense for you (I found it very readable, given its serious and academic nature).
But of course, you don’t want to understand. You just said exactly that. I don’t find it at all odd that someone who doesn’t want to understand something, in fact doesn’t understand. Seems perfectly natural.
Mr 308
You certainly would be correct to observe anti-semitism among the ‘progressive” crowd
I don’t know what a libertarian crowd is. 500 chiefs and no cooks doesn’t make a crowd, group, or movement. IN fact taking out the idiot potheads I’m not sure what a libertarian is. Can’t be part of a group label if there isn’t even a group
So it’s not Nugents photo? Or is it? Is it an accurate “list” a tiny part of the antiConstitution, antiUS, antigun progtards “intelligentsia”? I didn’t even notice the Israeli flag until I looked closer to see what the heck the whining was about. I don’t think any of the twits in the photo are Israeli though if they are Jewish I guess that is all that may be required to request citizenship in Israeli. Would the US be better of if any/all accepted the offer and moved to an where/Israeli? Ummmm YES.
I think you’re looking for offense.
“I don’t know what a libertarian crowd is. 500 chiefs and no cooks doesn’t make a crowd, group, or movement. IN fact taking out the idiot potheads I’m not sure what a libertarian is.”
Haven’t you ever looked over at Infowars? Zerohedge?
Sure seems like a crowd to me, and they have a distinct Libertarian philosophy.
And I don’t know about you, but I see lots of talk in these forums blaming the Jews for all manner of ills. No it’s not every single Libertarian who thinks this way, of course not. And I think liberterianism gets a lot of things right. Yes I am painting with a broad brush, but the fact remains, you will find anti-semitism all over the comments at these forums. And I reject this.
That’s all I have to say about that.
@ Mr. 308 – Once again, it is more than obvious that you have no idea what a “Libertarian Philosophy” is. You are just applying a word you don’t understand or know anything about to a group of people you don’t particularly like, and consequently just pissing in the face of actual Libertarians.
In fact, you are doing exactly what “the Nuge” is doing in this particular narrative.
“BDub says:
February 9, 2016 at 13:05
@ Mr. 308 – Once again, it is more than obvious that you have no idea what a “Libertarian Philosophy”
Oh good grief, I’m not equating anti-semitism with Libertarian philosophy, I am pointing out that you find many anti-semitic posts on supposedly libertarian forums. It’s a pretty simple statement and it’s demonstrably true.
“I didn’t even notice the Israeli flag until I looked closer to see what the heck the whining was about. I don’t think any of the twits in the photo are Israeli…”
Right, they’re Americans and the Israeli flag is on there to indicate “Jew.” Using an Israeli flag as a symbol for “Jew” is a bit ignorant for sure and maybe offensive depending on how you look at it. Certainly pinning a yellow fabric star of David to their sleeves to identify them as Jews would be in bad taste, no? The flags in this case are being used for the exact same purpose. Note that some of the text on the photo drives the point home, e.g. referring to Bloomberg as the “Jew York mayor” and highlighting other Jewish-related things and heritage. The clear message of the photo meme thing is to say that Jews are behind gun control.
I’m happy to give “Uncle Ted” the benefit of the doubt. Maybe he missed the finer details and just saw a photo of some of the big names in gun control as neiowa and other comments said they did. Maybe he didn’t see the Israeli flags or all of the “Jew” text that’s on the photo. The text written by Nugent to go with the photo certainly didn’t mention anything of the sort. At any rate (zero sarcasm, just to be clear) I don’t think he intended to make an anti-Semitic statement even though the picture he shared sure as hell, absolutely positively does.
The Federal Reserve IS A PRIVATELY OWNED and FOR PROFIT enterprise which has never been audited. The US Government does not even own one single share. More disturbing is that the member banks that collectively own the Fed are the very same banks that were bailed out in the TARP and related shakedown programs. Private independent competing banks were allowed to collapse, while the Fed handed out Billions on the taxpayers tab to the very people responsible for the crisis……its’ own majority shareholders. This was the largest vertical consolidation of financial power in the history of banking.
I don’t care whether it is (supposed) Christians, Hindus, Jews, or little green men who are responsible. That is a counterproductive thing to focus on. I’m not an anti-semite and I judge each individual person on their own merits. That being said, I also have witnessed people who are Jewish playing the “race card” by accusing people of being anti-semitic for pointing out when they have been caught with their hand in the cookie jar. Just as it is an injustice to cast aspersions on someones character because of race, religion, or ethnicity; it is also an injustice to allow them to use that very same trait as a defensive mechanism to deflect accusations.
This is where PC leads. We cannot criticize one person without “balancing” and criticizing another. I cannot criticize Muslim terrorists, without, in the same paragraph, condemning the Oklahoma City Bomber, I cannot criticize the old Black Panthers without, in the same paragraph criticizing the Klan. I cannot criticize King Herod without criticizing all the non-Jewish rulers of the times.
The photo array of suspects shows the people most capable of directly damaging the nation. If they are all Jewish, that is an artifact that does not mitigate the fact they are all leftists, vote Democrat (if they are legal voters), and are trying to install a totalitarian state. By the way, being “anti-” whatever is not yet a crime in this country.
Personally segregating/collecting, in my mind, people into groups is not illegal. There is nothing in our founding documents that mandates “fairness” and “non-discrimination” in our personal lives. If we, on this blog, become afraid of offending someone, the blog is pointless. If the mere posting of thinking that might actually offend the leftists and professional crybabies is objectionable, the left has won even here.
In a sane world, the fact that the “murder’s row” depicted in the article are all Jewish should have no bearing on the matter. PC is a mental disorder, and it will get us all killed.
I do thank you for taking time to reply to one of my comments. I know you are busy keeping the circus rolling.
” . . .If they are all Jewish, that is an artifact that does not mitigate the fact they are all leftists”
Well said, Sam. To the best of my knowledge, Ted has always been a staunch defender of Israel and an absolute hammer regarding the racist Muslim jihadists who seek an end-all “solution” to Israel and it’s Jewish population. That said, Ted Nugent has never been particularly punctilious about his comments, either in print or in person. At best, he’s a piss-poor editor. Ignoring the Jewish symbolism in order to make his point about gun-control was a typical ‘Nuge cheap-shot expedient. He is not a closet hater of Jews.
I agree with everything you said, Sam, including that these people are all anti-gun because they are Leftists. While we agree that the fact these people are Jewish has no actual bearing on the matter, the whole point of the photo is to suggest they’re all anti-gun because they’re Jewish. It’s explicitly saying that Jews are behind gun control. Not just these particular people, not just liberals or Democrats or leftists in general, but Jews. Remove the “Judenstern” from each thumbnail and the various Jew-related text from the photo and it would be a different story. As “blame the Jews” campaigns have instigated multiple expulsions and genocides and all sorts of oppression of Jews in the past, it isn’t something Jewish folk like to see, and it’s precisely the intent of that image.
On a related note, if somebody does actually want to single out Jews then I’m cool with that. Obviously people are going to freak out about antisemitism and such, but that would be expected about blanket comments directed at pretty much any religion or race or nationality or whatever. (Except of course white males, Christians, and Americans since apparently none of this stuff applies to whoever’s perceived to be king of the hill.) Anyway if a private business wants to put up a “no Jews” or “no blacks” or “no gays” or whatever sign and choose not to service those people, as they’re often allowed to for those carrying concealed or exposed firearms, I think they should be able to. Your property, your rules. Same with free speech. But if they do that then they should expect verbal backlash, which should also be both allowed and protected.
We agree, backlash might be expected (if one parsed everything looking for something to lash-out about). I am badly making the point that the backlash has overcome the message, which is how PC works. Just hate to see our side engage in the self-destruction so rampant among the Left.
I don’t know how much there exists, but I’ve seen it personally. I stopped engaging a coworker on a personal level once that sort of nonsense started coming out. He was staunchly libertarian, and I enjoyed talking to him and getting his perspective. But when the “neo-con” this, and “Zionist” that started coming out, I had enough.
Being against Zionism isn’t necessarily antisemitic. There are Jews who oppose Zionism, because they see it as a fascist philosophy.
Opposing the way the Israeli government treats its neighbors and the Palestinians is also not inherently antisemitic.
The State of Israeli is a government. Judaism is a religion.
Anti-Semitism does not mean anti-Judaism. It means anti-Jewish. The state of Israel represents Jews (not Judaism), just like the US represents Americans. Would you say that not liking the US is separate from not liking Americans? And, of course, it’s perfectly fine to support Mexican drug cartels and other prominent human rights groups because the US mistreats its neighbors!
Is the term “neo-con” racist now? Sounds like you were looking for a reason to not like this guy.
Did I say that “neo-con” was racist?
No, actually, I really liked the guy.
As I’ve tried explaining to Mr 308, this is the same fallacy that is at work in this story. You may encounter an anti-Semite who identifies as a Libertarian (though clearly lack understanding of Libertarian principles, it would seem), but there is nothing inherently anti-Semitic about Libertarianism, just as in this case there is nothing inherently zionist/jewish about the anti-gun movement. Neither scenario is mutually exclusive, and it is incorrect and ignorant to attribute any causal connection.
Except that, I committed no such fallacy – explicitly so, since I pointed out that I could not indicate any correlation between the two.
And this comes across very much as a No True Scotsman fallacy.
Here, we agree completely.
Opposing the way the Israeli government treats its neighbors and the Palestinians is also not inherently antisemitic.
No, but a lot of the criticism is grounded in thinly-veiled anti-Semitism. The entire first year of the existence of the UN Human Rights Council, the only country it criticized was Israel.
Let’s be honest…ANY criticism of Israel or its policies is ALWAYS branded as anti-Semitism.
It is intellectually dishonest, and it doesn’t help that AIPAC members have complete double standards for what is socially acceptable policy here vs Israel. I don’t ever hear anyone condemning Israel as racist for having laws prohibiting Jews from marrying non-Jews.
Great evidence for why euphemisms like “neo-con” and “Zionist” are a waste of time. Jews get so much special protection, so much sniffing out of the “disreputable” and “unfashionable” cardinal sin of criticizing the Jews, that anything that could be construed as the dreaded “anti-Semitism” might as well be.
I figure the hell with all the hemming and hawing. Every time I see a racist, anti-white article from the press by an ostensible white, he’s got a Jewish surname. I see the monumental anti-white culture of critique, and the overwhelming Jewishness of its authors. I see blacks criticizing whites, whites criticizing blacks, hispanics criticizing whites, whites criticizing hispanics. Everyone feels free to criticize Protestants, Catholics, Mormonos, etc. Everyone criticizes everyone…
Except Jews.
I see no reason why they should be immune.
Rob, calling a jew a jew and noticing that cultural Marxist hide behind the Jewish faith to advance an agenda of tyranny and death is not “anti-semitism”, its not hateful to notice treads of subversive and destructive groups and elements within a nation, nor is stopping them.
I have a problem with anyone who support such laws, actions, ideals, etc. I do not care who they are, I oppose them if they were White Protestants, Japanese Shintoist, or African Witch Doctors.
But it is not those groups who are behind it, supportive of it, or funders of it are they? In fact when you look at the core supporters, founders, or financiers of groups that push mass immigration, multiculturalism, cultural relativism, and gun control you will notice that an overwhelming majority of them are Jewish/cultural marxist.
If they want open borders/mass immigration and civilian disarmament then they can have all of it as much as thy want in Israel, NOT America.
I don’t care if they call me an anti-Semite. I don’t care if I am an anti-Semite. I’m going to continue to call Jews out for their malfeasance.
Most people are far too cowardly (or corrupt) to do so. This creates a perfect environment for Jewish malfeasance to flourish.
If you want people to get up to no good, make them immune from criticism.
RF, we have read YOUR garbage about your hatred of Israel,
Sam I Am, you apparently missed the Israeli flag under each of those portraits. If you had noticed it, you’d have caught the implication without Nugent’s vile textual spew.
I agree with Robert. NRA needs to run Nugent out on a rail, and it needs to do it about five minutes ago.
Yes, I did miss the flags. That was because I instantly recognized a display of “the usual suspects”, and thought nothing about blood lines. I concluded the collage was a depiction of well-known and powerful leftists/statists/demoncrats, needing no further scrutiny.
Run someone out of the NRA because we don’t like what or how they say something? Using that criterion, this blog would have about three visitors a month. Once we begin to establish what is and is not acceptable speech, we are establishing limits on rights. If limits to one of our “rights” are acceptable, then opposing limits on other rights becomes an exercise in personal preference. Is that where we want to go?
I just love watching you people eat your own. While you are consumed with purification rituals, the message of common sense gun control advances.
“While you are consumed with purification rituals, the message of common sense gun control advances.”
https://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/nics/reports/nics_firearm_checks_-_month_year.pdf
You have a lot to say about messages and this elusive thing called ‘common sense’ and ‘MAYBE’ this and maybe that. Fact however don’t seem to be your forte. The fact is that more guns are being sold in thus country than ever before, thanks largely to Obama and his extremist progressive party and their message.
And crime is down.
Both of those things are good. More guns is good. Shall I repeat that for you, in case you missed it? More guns is good. More guns in the hands of law abiding citizens is a good thing.
Gun sales are up, no question. That is good….for the gun and associated industries. Crime overall is down. Guns didn’t make it so. “Common Sense” tells us that deadly weapons in the hands of an untrained, un-certified, wildly emotional and irrational citizens is not something that promotes harmony and safety among a civilized citizenry. The calls for restrictions on gun rights are designed to keep innocent life safe from careless and negligent behavior of people who no longer consider it their obligation to be part of society, but to be eternally outsiders who pretend to be polite, but are always planning to kill fellow citizens.
Fact: there is no definitive proof that unfettered proliferation of guns and gun ownership improve safety and lower overall crime. Yes, I do accept that there have been numerous situations where “a good guy with a gun stopped a bad guy with a gun”. But the infrequency of those events is not justification for the real and present danger that one of you folks will negligently destroy lives.
BTW, I’ve heard all the mindless slogans; not persuasive. Gun lovers have not yet made the case that the country and it population are so at risk of being annihilated that the only thing standing between the republic and the forces of darkness are guns in the hands of private citizens.
@2Asux
I just love watching you people eat your own. While you are consumed with purification rituals, the message of common sense gun control advances.
It’s called ethics. Something completely foreign to the gun banning community. They’ll associate themselves with the worst Hitler-loving pedophiles if it will help promote their cause.
If by “common sense gun control”, you mean
* The bills that have failed to get through the House or Senate,
* Obama’s unconstitutional attempts to rewrite laws that have no funding to move forward,
* The recent court ruling (by Obama appointees) that the second amendment does protect the right to own “assault weapons” and any law regulating that is subject to strict scrutiny, or
* The vast majority of Americans who say in poll after poll that gun control is not a priority, that we don’t need more gun control in this country, and that further gun control won’t reduce crimes or prevent mass shootings,
then yeah, it’s advancing like a cheetah…suffering a heart attack.
It’s called ethics. Something completely foreign to the gun banning community. They’ll associate themselves with the worst Hitler-loving pedophiles if it will help promote their cause.
– – sorta like allying with Joseph Stalin
If by “common sense gun control”, you mean
* The bills that have failed to get through the House or Senate,
– – a loss on legislation does nothing to detract from the actuality of “common sense”. We will be back, again and again. Your side eventually tires of the battle.
* Obama’s unconstitutional attempts to rewrite laws that have no funding to move forward,
– – agree; executive orders are truly a double edged sword
* The recent court ruling (by Obama appointees) that the second amendment does protect the right to own “assault weapons” and any law regulating that is subject to strict scrutiny,
– – a 2 to 1 split. en banc will be an entirely different matter
or
* The vast majority of Americans who say in poll after poll that gun control is not a priority, that we don’t need more gun control in this country, and that further gun control won’t reduce crimes or prevent mass shootings,
– – priorities are what they are; just because a matter is not the highest priority does not equate to majority agreement
then yeah, it’s advancing like a cheetah…suffering a heart attack.
– – animal hater !!
I did notice the Israeli flags and still agree that the religious/political association in the photo collage, as Sam mentioned, was an “artifact” and incidental to the individuals’ gun-control ideology. Robert is correct in pointing out that Ted’s mixing of contexts undercuts his point about the individuals’ support for gun-control. That said, Ted Nugent is not an enemy of Jews.
@Garrison
Yes, that’s precisely the point. Being Jewish is rightly secondary to their gun-grabbiness. You understand that, I understand that. Unfortunately, the fuckwit who made the graphic does NOT understand that, so he chose to highlight their Jewishness and draw the implication that Jews want to grab your guns. Nugent (apparently) missed their point, assumed it was nothing but a bunch of gun grabbers being pictured and retweeted it. He didn’t notice it was actually a piece of anti Semitic propaganda.
My issue (now that I think he probably didn’t mean to endorse the anti-Semitism of the picture) is that his attitude towards complainers hasn’t been “oops, I didn’t mean to endorse those shitheads” but rather, “eat me.”
2Asux,
“Common Sense tells us that deadly weapons in the hands of an untrained, un-certified, wildly emotional and irrational citizens is not something that promotes harmony and safety among a civilized citizenry.”
Who says citizens are untrained, un-certified, and wildly emotional/irrational?
Being honest, how many people who use this blog received:
– any firearms training at all ?
– any formal course of firearms safety and operation that granted NRA (your guys) certification ?
– any graded shooting evaluation ?
– any formal training in use of force ?
– any formal training in responsibilities of owning/carrying a gun?
– any formal certified training in armed first response?
– any formal certified training in treating gunshot trauma (if you shoot someone, who is responsible for first aid at that moment) ?
– any formal certified training at one of those wonderful terrorist training camps like Gunsight or Frontsight ?
Remaining honest do you not see:
– the anger with which some people must express themselves ?
– the callous trading of personal toys of satisfaction for life-threatening situations caused by poor gun handling?
– people whose ability to reason their way through a discussion forecasts their inability to reliably and accurately identify threat targets (what rule is that???) ?
– insistence that preservation of a hobby (gun totin’) at the expense of the safety of the public ?
This blog alone is sufficient justification for all the gun control efforts, past and present. And this is just one such blog.
There are too many readers of this blog to respond to your question (or care to). I, for one, had all of the above listed training (save for trauma treatment). No doubt many, many others have as well. If you’ve ever been to Frontsight (the terrorist training camp, you called it, although I’m sure you would call La Mumba university in Moscow a place of higher learning…), you would get an appreciation for how many people do get excellent training in the use of a firearm. In fact, much better training than driver ed, that puts potential little killers behind a wheel…
I am sincerely impressed that you have all that training, and thankful. The issue is that so many have not, and you and they want me to trust my safety, and that of my family, to a un-trained populace of gun owners (and being honest, you must concede that of the millions of gun owners there are very few who are trained at all, or even think training necessary).
Therein is the justification for smart methods of gun control.
Yes, there are many untrained or poorly trained gun owners. Perhaps spending more effort to train them, or to make training available, is a better choice then making it more difficult. Personal example – years ago, when I lived in NJ, I had a shotgun for personal protection. But there was no facility available to train with it, because it was NJ. Wouldn’t it had been better to provide an opportunity to practice?
The fundamental difference between people that want freedom and those that want socialism is that the first group allows everyone freedom to think and act, which builds up character through responsibility, when as the socialists think of everyone as teenagers incapable of independent anything. Naturally, the second group never grows up and proves their masters right.
You were on to something, then fell back to sloganeering.
More training is definitely a positive step. But why is this not being done? Why do the pro-gun people, and gun industry lobbyists, even organizations such as the NRA not organizing a campaign of free gun training for anyone who wants it? Why are these groups not establishing provision of gun safety training (annually) in order to become members? Why are cities and towns not funding firearms training conducted by police? Why is the pro-gun crowd content to just let things continue, continuing to risk the innocent, with no concern that their people walk around oblivious to the danger they pose?
Why am I coming up with workable ideas, and not your side?
As far as I know, all 2A friendly states have facilities for training. I’ve gotten all my training only after I moved to a 2A friendly state. Some of the ranges are free; I am a member of a very inexpensive range. The classes are universal and quite affordable. Personally, I do not believe in “free training” because “free” simply means that someone else pays for it. But the big problem is in the anti-2A states or cities – trying to have pistol training in NYC?!, where you will be arrested for having a BB gun! Schools used to have airgun training, often progressing to .22 rifle training – try showing up to a school with a gun picture on a t-shirt nowadays. Looks like you can blame yourself for that lack of access. However, lack of ability to train did not reduce crime (the opposite, actually, as statistics show that crime rose in areas where guns are prohibited), nor did it reduce the need or perceived need for self-defense. But it did increase risk. Than again, socialism is not about logic.
I grant there is some downright stupidity in some state laws, but where those laws are not present, I never see any organization clamoring for every gun owner to come and take training classes. If a voluntary organization uses its financial resources to provide training free to whomever, I see no problem with that (it would actually remove any need for government involvement, which should be appealing to anti-government types). The simple fact is so little is done on the safety side (once-a-life powerpoint presentation is not sufficient) by those who promote the use and possession of a deadly tool. Most of what seems to come out of the pro-gun side is focused solely on having a right, not the judicious, safe use of the gun. Why do the members of the NRA, and like organizations, not have enough money to have nation-wide firearms training at every gun range in the US at least once a month? Is it because the members don’t really care about the danger of inept gun owners? That the members are interested only in feeding a never-ending quest for more and more firepower?
I don’t know how much you are involved in the gun community or which state you live in, but it seems to me that you don’t have good facts on this subject. For example, the gun club that I belong to has 500 members (that’s 500 families!). All persons that I have ever observed on the firing line know the rules, practice/follow safety procedures and I regularly observe parents training their children, as do I. We have never had an accident and I am very happy with the observed training level at all ages. If you are truly concerned about the relatively small number of negligent discharges and the resulting deaths, I suggest that you focus on demographics vs general gun owners. From the reports that I’ve read, with very few tragic exceptions, these “accidents” happen to people that no amount of training would help and if they don’t kill themselves or others with a gun, they are not shy to employ other methods, from knives to overdoses. So, don’t lump everyone into the same boat.
Demographics are statistics; dead people are people. It is sad to see how many gun owners simply write-off innocent deaths and injury as being of no consequence, or at least nothing to spend any time or effort trying to reduce.
The four rules of gun handling are not enough. Does anyone have information on how many accidental deaths, injury or damage was done by people informed about the four rules? I don’t, but it would be useful in working to improve safety. Gun range etiquette is one thing, but there is a whole wide world of things that a gun owner needs preparation to face. To drag unrelated circumstance into the conversation, communities demand that doctors, lawyers, cops, dentists, financial planners, teachers and a whole host of other professions have formal and continuing education and training. To own a gun, all that is required is money and passing a background check. To claim that a “right” does not need, nor can it be tethered to any requirements of proficiency puts into question the required education and training of others who do not wield a deadly weapon in public.
And no, the government does not need to be involved in improving gun safety/public safety.
I think that this is a non-argument. Every responsible gun owner will support safety and other levels of training. I don’t know of anyone who would disagree.
See, you qualified the sample. I am talking about those gun owners who have not and will not take the time to become truly safe and proficient. Given the number of gun owners, the lack of mandatory minimum training, the propensity of humans to succumb to inertia, I would bet the large majority of gun owners have never been trained, or (qualification coming) only had one episode they believe is good for a lifetime. This is the picture of gun owners that will convince others that having a third of the populace walking around with little or no regard for training to control a deadly weapon is a good idea?
I am not willing to say that most have not been trained. I do not have that data. I will say that anyone who wants to be trained can easily arrange for the training (unless they live in states that have essentially eliminated the Second Amendment). In my mind, that is good enough. I believe in freedom – freedom to be smart and freedom to be stupid. I have also taken additional driving instruction (I used to autocross) which saved my life on more than one occasion by helping me avoid car accidents that would have been ugly. This instruction is available to anyone who cares to have it – but most don’t and 30,000 die every year. That is their choice. That is the price of a free society.
I do not have the stats, thus the bet based on a notion.
I believe people should be free to be stupid….but not with a gun.
Firearms are extremely simple machines. One can become proficient in their safe handling and use in as little as five minutes.
And yet: 100 million firearm owners in the US, and only 500 accidental deaths each year.
Is there any other cohort that has anything even approaching that kind of effective safety record?
Chip, you are better than this.
The success or failure of safety measures in any other area you want to identify is completely irrelevant to a discussion about improving gun safety, and getting rid of negligent owners. Hiding behind other stats means people are afraid for their assumptions and hardened minds when it comes to guns. As if even considering an effort to reduce the 505 to a smaller number means they have to admit an ocean of guns can present a public safety risk, that any acceptance of responsibility for negligent gun-handling will somehow mean they will be forced to admit that some sort of increased scrutiny of their actions will lead inexorably to gun confiscation.
Be brave, stick to the point.
You are suggesting a reduction in individual liberty, as a matter of public safety. Thus, it is entirely reasonable to compare the actual public safety risks of exercising the liberty that you are suggesting be curtailed. In that comparison, it is plainly obvious that the suggested curtailing of one individual liberty a woefully imbalanced as compared to other individual liberties that cause far more risks to public safety.
Oddly enough, the ocean of firearms keeps rising, and the number and rate of accidental injury/death caused by negligent discharge of those firearms keeps falling. Thus, it is demonstrably false that the “ocean of guns” presents a public safety risk.
Can you cite anyone here who has advocated for not accepting responsibility for negligent handling (or discharge) of firearms?
I’m talking in simpler terms: individual liberty. The state has no business dictating to me what or how many firearms I own or carry, or the manner in which I own, store, or carry them. The state’s only interest is in holding me accountable when my use of firearms leads to harm to another.
You’re the only one talking about confiscation.
2Asux, deaths to negligence with firearms are at an all time low. Swimming pools are the cause of death for substantially more people. FACT: Increasing passage of gun legislation has no effect on rate of negligence with firearms. Why are you concerned about something already so low as to be practically nonexistent? Guns don’t cause crime and any intelligent person knows this fact. You said that there was no direct cause-effect relationship between the cc’ing of more firearms and the lowering of the crime rate. What is proven, to the shock of anti-rights cultists such as yourself, is that the amount of guns increased astronomically while the murder rate began to plummet. To focus only on the small of amount of negligence that does occur as the reason for the adoption of your gun laws shows your ignorance on this topic and your cowardice in general.
There is nothing negligible about 500 or so unintentional deaths by gunfire. No other risk is under discussion on a gun forum, only guns. So lets try something….~500 deaths per year due to negligent gun handling, but one of them is a close family member (and part of the 500), is the matter now so easily dismissed? Are you really going to come out in public and declare something along the lines of, “Well, we are sad, and all that. But stuff happens, and sometimes we have to pay a price for the ability to live our lives without restrictions on gun ownership.” If you would do such a thing, does every member of your family know that? And they approve?
Once again, solving problems regarding gun ownership is completely unrelated to solving problems related to any other risk factor humans face.
“To focus only on the small of amount of negligence that does occur as the reason for the adoption of your gun laws shows your ignorance on this topic and your cowardice in general.” Another attractive snippet of the mind of the gun nuts that would feature prominently on a anti-gun forum. Thanks for the contribution.
Let’s be intellectually honest, for a moment – the anti-Second Amendment movement, including Obama, Biden, Holden, Blumberg and Feinstein, do not give a rat’s ass about the deaths due to negligent gun use or accidents. In fact, even if the number of those deaths was one hundred times higher, they still wouldn’t loose sleep over it, let alone shed a tear… The real reason for gun control is people control – as we all know (not taught in schools, but we should know) — every tyrannical government has always taken arms away from the citizens. That is also the reason for the Second Amendment in the first place — the Framers of the Constitution did in fact study history and considered that a small amount of accidental deaths and injuries is preferable to a large amount of oppression. The 20th Century had proven them right. Are you so sure that the 21st Century is a good time to make ourselves open to the march of tyranny and despotism? Perhaps you are, I don’t know; but I am not.
Why does the government need to be involved? Is there nothing to be done using private resources? To borrow a favorite phrase I see written here often, “…..they did nothing about the 500 innocents killed, then it was another 500 and another 500, and one day it was me.”
I have no desire for the government to be involved in anything, for it should be obvious that anything that the government touches it makes worse.
Glad we at least agree the private sector should step-up on this one.
Nice try 2Asux. Oh, and glad I can be of service. We can argue all day about the significance of 500 deaths, which anti-gun legislation will have no effect on, but hopefully you’ll use that brain and realize that it is not. Gun nuts? You’re a simple bigot who once again shows his myopia and hate-filled heart with what you call intelligent discourse. So lets try this since you like to play games. Gun sales go up and negligence is now at an all time low. As guns were being purchased in astoundingly increasing numbers the negligent rate at which people were killed or hurt simultaneously went down. Wow! No way the bigot says! Yes sir. It be true yo. This once again proves that all you support are lies that hide under the veil of increasing safety when they have nothing at all to do with making anyone safer. Try again.
I never wavered from the fact that 500 unnecessary gun deaths are 500 too many, no matter how many people have guns, no matter how many guns are in play, no matter what the murder or any other crime rate is. My position has been that gun lovers are not concerned with a “negligible” number of unnecessary deaths due to negligence. I don’t hate gun owners, I just think they present an unwarranted risk. If society is becoming so much safer at the same time gun ownership is skyrocketing, then why the need for more guns? Since there is (and probably can never be) any direct proof that guns reduce crime, why do people keep making the comparison? I think it is in order to justify the pleasure of having guns, and more guns. Would you like to be on the casualty support team for every unnecessary death by gunfire, and stand in front of the bereaved and tell them, “Well, stuff happens. But there is nothing to be done about it.” ? When you do, please provide video.
More people have been killed due to words than due to guns. Remember, Hitler never killed anyone with a gun, only with words. And yet, people keep accumulating more and more words, in written, oral, electronic – all forms. Should they be allowed to?
Good points, but how do they reduce the number of negligent death and injuries caused by people with guns?
Why such an unhealthy fixation with guns? Are you concerned with reducing the “number of deaths” from any cause or only from guns? Is the death from a gun any deadlier than a death from another entity? With the example above, I’ve demonstrated that words are deadlier than guns, so why not regulate the words? The Nazi’s have done it, the Soviets and the Red Chinese have done it; we’re on the same path – once the your favorite 2A is gone, the 1st will follow shortly. It is inevitable; in fact, the political correctness movement has already implemented this – PR is nothing more than censorship that we are only too eager to enact. It is only a matter of time.
This is a blog about guns, about gun use, about gun development, about gun rights. Thus the focus on gun deaths. Focusing on “all deaths” in a gun blog seems senseless. It is not necessary to solve all safety issues in all situations prior to taking action to reduce negligent death by gunfire. Nor is it necessary to solve all safety issues concerning guns prior to taking action on any or all other risk elements we face.
I think that Chip said it well a few minutes ago – I am not willing to sacrifice liberty, and I would add possibly all of it, to prevent a few idiots from being idiots.
If gun safety can be improved, and negligent deaths reduced even more, without gun confiscation that might be the way to go. Given the nature of the opposition to any effort to voluntarily get to the goal, other measures may be unavoidable. If “liberty” is summed up with a simple declaration of, “I have a gun”, it is a stark and barren liberty. Where is my liberty to be safe and secure in my person, papers and property?
“Saving lives” is a buzzword. The anti-Second Amendment crowd doesn’t give a rat’s ass for any lives, but their own. Guns are a threat to the statists’ hegemony. Everything else is window dressing. There’s never been, and unlikely to be, a socialism regime that gave any damn for the life of any individual.
If you truly believe our government fears guns in the hands of the public….Ruby Ridge, Waco, two armed confrontations with the Bundy clan. Where was the outrage, where were the posses, where were the minutemen, where were the patriots turning back a tyrannical government? About a hundred years ago, the threat of a civilian uprising might have been real. At this point you are so far beyond where the founders refused to tolerate government overreach….if not already, why not? And what changed to energize the populace (well, maybe half the populace) ? The last time the country was so split over an issue, the government won. Americans had no problem turning guns on fellow Americans who were deemed a threat to union and tranquility of the nation,
Actually, the only time America had a Civil War was in 1775-1783. And it was a close-run affair. The war in 1861-65 was not a civil war by any means – it was a war of Southern Secession. The North won, we know that. But it was not a civil war – no neighbor tried to kill his neighbor. In case of an economic collapse, which is possible, the US will likely have a civil war, as the nation will be divided between producers and parasites. That is when neighbors will kill neighbors; that is what the government is afraid of, not negligent discharges of drunk or stoned few.
Trying to get across the fact that private gun ownership no longer intimidates government. The founders intended gun ownership to keep the government in check, but that moment has long come and gone. Thus, the justification for universal gun ownership has not logical or rational support. There might be a place for guns as a self-defense tool, but uncontrolled proliferation of guns has not proven to be effective in lowering crime, overall. With society foregoing the original purpose of the second amendment, with overall crime at a low point in modern times, with society evolving more modern and compassionate means of moderating bad behavior, just what is the purpose for unfettered/unrestricted gun ownership?
Why do you keep deviating from logic and facts? There is a plethora of data that areas that have a large number of guns in civilian hands have the least crime; areas that have the most gun control have the highest incidents of crime. But that’s not the important part in xenophobic attempts by the statists to get rid of the 2A. You have no data to indicate in any way how effective or ineffective civilian gun ownership may be in case of a civil war. Neither does the government and that is what scares the statists. Your statements to the supposed ineffectiveness are wishful thinking, but will a statist bank his life on it? The fact that we hadn’t had the Stormtroopers blow up the holdout in Oregon is proof enough that no one knows how effective those guns will be.
There is data everywhere. Robert Farrago gave is hilarious examples of data correlation that makes not sense. There is not direct data demonstrating that guns lower crime anywhere. That guns have much influence among several factors that result in lower crime rates.
As to government, history, recent and ancient, shows us that in this country, government is not afraid to use mass force on its citizens. Soldiers and police have no compunction about shooting at American citizens (oh yeah, I forgot about the federal shooting of unarmed students at Kent State University in about 1968). It is delusional to believe that private gun ownership is THE one and only thing that keeps tyranny at bay. What we accept as normal would have never been tolerated by the generations that would use guns to defy the government. It is delusional to think widespread gun ownership has very much influence in an internal debate about how to deal with a rebellion (in the first Bundy, the government was fully cocked to kill the ranchers. Only the carnage being broadcast on 24/7 TV stopped that from happening. In Oregon, the government was more patient, but still willing to eject the Bundy group by force of gunfire. There was no patriot uprising in the rest of the nation, was there?
What’s your stance on the dangers of household stairs? Or pools and bathtubs? Or household chemicals? How about automobiles?
In a free society, people will exercise the right to act stupidly. There is no way to prevent such stupidity. Said more accurately: I’m not willing to sacrifice liberty to the extent required to prevent such stupidity.
The concerns you mention are irrelevant to discussion of gun safety. The premise is that all other sources of risk must be eliminated before talking about increasing gun safety. That is deflection. Stay on point. As I already noted a number of times, proclaiming that all the ills of the world must first be settled prior to talking about making gun ownership and handling safer is avoiding the issue. Working to solve one problem is not mutually exclusive of working to solve other problems…except in the mind of gun owners.
Are you familiar with risk assessment? Are you familiar with the concept of diminishing returns?
If the harm intended to be eliminated is human injury and/or death, then you absolutely must consider all causes of that harm when determining where to focus finite resources.
When attempting further to reduce the number/rate of incidents of that harm for a given cause that has as low of a probability of occurrence as firearms handling, the cost of further reduction becomes exponentially higher, and one has to evaluate the cost of further reduction of that cause compared to the costs of further reducing other causes.
If, in that evaluation, the cost of reducing firearms handling-related human injury/death by one incident equals the cost of reducing human injury/death from some other cause by 10, where would you invest your finite resources?
The harm under discussion is death and injury caused by negligent gun owners. The issue at hand is gun safety, nothing else. At all. For this discussion, I am not interested in how I, or any one else, analyzes risk in their daily lives. That discussion is for a different forum. I am amazed at how quickly the idiocy of a drunk shooting a woman while sitting in a movie theater is dismissed. Just because you weren’t shot this time doesn’t mean you cannot be one of the 505. I am not willing to simply willing to write-off 500 lives because “stuff happens”. More can be done to reduce the 505 to something much less. People (except a few) here refuse to entertain any notion that they have an obligation to the society around them regarding keeping that society safe from their self-indulgent fetish about guns.
For this blog post, there is nothing about non-gun risks that is germane, interesting or up for discussion. Guns, people. Try to herd you minds onto one topic, please.
So, you’re admitting that your irrational fear of gun owners causes you to disregard the orders of magnitude more people who are killed accidentally each year due to non-firearms-related causes?
For every 1,000 people who die annually via accidental causes, 3.9 of them due via negligent discharge of a firearm. I care about the other 996 people, and refuse to exclude them from the discussion.
Indeed, because you apparently are unwilling or unable to use risk assessment to allay your irrational fear of gun owners.
True, I could be. Or I could be hit by a a bus, die in a car crash caused by someone else, get hit by lightning, fall down the stairs, or be a victim of medical malpractice. I can’t control any of those things, either, yet I don’t harbor irrational fears of them, any more than I would harbor an irrational fear of other gun owners.
But you are, apparently, “willing to simply write off” the 124,500 people accidentally killed through non-firearms-related causes for every 500 people accidentally killed through negligent firearm discharge, by excluding them from your efforts to reduce accidental deaths.
Please provide specific examples of what more can be done, and provide data that supports the claim that such efforts will further reduce the rate of accidental injury/death due to negligent discharge of firearms.
Actually, this entire line of commentary is off-topic for the original blog post. Since we’re already off-topic, why do you think you get to dictate the boundaries of the discussion?
Change your name? Gun lovers? Why do you freaks always fetishize firearms when no gun owner does? Oh that’s right, something about projection and such…Its quite humorous when your answer to everything regarding guns is more legislation, more laws. Instead of working towards actually intelligent solutions you concede that all that is needed is more legislation, whose only effect will be the increase of negligence. The solutions offered by the NRA, such as the eddie eagle program, have been instrumental in reducing negligence with firearms. Get this, you anti-rights cultist actually resisted such things showing that you don’t care about safety. You anti-rights nuts only vie for more control. More more more. It will never be enough but know that we will always fight the tyrants of our day.
The only time I mention legislation is when used as a reminder of just how powerful political action can be. So far, I have not recommended any governmental action, just pointed out that governments can be energized to act against segments of their national populations. I would be too glad to endorse wide-spread activities by all the gun rights groups to improve on the handling of firearms, with one goal being to reduce to near-zero the number of accidental deaths. What is fascinating is the disarray in gun supporter organizations, each focused on a narrow issue, while allowing the reputation of gun owners to continue to be demeaned. The NRA early training program is a small, and somewhat ineffective effort in the right direction. Why are people required to pay? If you believe in gun safety, in training people to be safer with firearms, why the monetary charge. If you want to get attention to positive things, why tie one foot behind your leg?
This string has been interesting because so few of you actually accepted the challenge to do something positive. Except for a handful, the responses have been what anti-gun advocated recognize as the banner of gun rights: belligerent, arrogant, ignorant, callous.
What’s with this socialist fixation on “free”? Why should safety classes be free? Are driving classes free? Should they be free? What does free means? It means that someone else is paying for it, who may not want to pay for. while the person receiving the “freebee” does not value it, since its free. The welfare apartments cost the tax payers more than a typical middle class apartment or mortgage, but all of them are garbage dumps because, since they are “free” to the recipient, they are not valued and abused. When firearm safety courses become free – we’ll be in real trouble. Just look at the “quality” of state-mandated internet based courses that have to be taken to get a concealed carry permit!
Stay on topic; we are talking guns here, not cooking classes and such.
Why shouldn’t gun training be free? Why make it more trouble to get all gun owners trained in proper handling and use of firearms. If you are committed to guns, why not develop a corps of people whose skills and reliability do not present an opportunity to attack gun owners as dangerous, irresponsible, inconsiderate, cement-headed? Is there a possibility that if training in safe use and handling of firearms would be less attractive if free? Fewer people would want to attend free classes? Not talking socialism (which is government-centered), but the action of individuals committed to making sure their members are not easily dismissed as a wild bunch of gun nuts?
My first pistol training class was $50, for a 6 hour live fire class on the range. Unofficially, kids and adults get free instruction on the range just for the asking from many who are willing. What else is needed? I don’t see an issue here. Am I, as a gun owner, should be chasing people and corralling them into classes? Is someone not able to afford $50 for a possibly life saving class? Are you making an issue where one doesn’t exist?
I applaud (not that it matters) your club for free classes. It should be a wave of activity across all gun clubs and dealers and ranges.
2ASux, I admit I only read the last two or three comments in this long thread here as I was scanning down the page, but just thought I’d mention that The Eddie Eagle GunSafe program is free and it isn’t tiny; it has reached more than 28 million kids. If you want to go all-out with the program and include materials like kids activity books, instructor guides, DVDs, brochures for parents, reward stickers for the kids, posters, etc, there are grants to provide these things free of charge as well. But the course material and educational videos are “open source” and free: https://eddieeagle.nra.org and the website for kids to access is here: http://www.eddieeagle.com/#/
On a related note, gun accidents are at an all-time low and actually are, as you put it, “near zero” statistically. They account for less than one half of one percent of all unintentional fatalities in U.S. (specifically, it’s 0.39%). Most other household items present significantly higher risks of causing injury or death to kids or adults. In fact, I don’t believe accidental firearm death even makes the top 10 for any age group even after factoring out vehicular accidents. After car-related stuff it’s usually drowning, falls, poisoning, fire, crushed by something (usually a heavy piece of furniture like a fridge or dresser), suffocation, getting struck by an object, machinery accident, etc. Here’s your most recent stats collection on accidental firearms death & injury: http://nssf.org/PDF/research/IIR_InjuryStatistics2015.pdf
Firearms ownership is at an all-time high, and accidents are at an all-time low. You were quick to discount Eddie Eagle, but the free program has been a success and it’s (by far) the #1 game in town when it comes to firearms safety messaging for kids.
Is the Eddie Eagle program getting much press on the gun-rights side of things? Haven’t heard of it, so nationally it is not effectively playing as an example of good things gun rights people do. At the moment it sounds like a once in a lifetime event. Better than nothing at all, but lessons fade over time, and it is all too human to believe that one session of training prepares for all our lives. But I guess a start is a start.
Thanks for the information.
About that 0.39 percent (not 39%), every digit represents lives destroyed. I was not talking about near-zero percentage, but near-zero events. Every life accidentally destroyed is a travesty in an advanced society (assuming we are).
Eddie Eagle has been around longer than I remember. It is advertised in all NRA publications (there are several). I think that gun owners are well aware of it. As to the “lives destroyed” – that really does need to be taken in perspective – every society will have accidents, preventable and not. People make choices and sometimes they make bad choices. Do you want to keep everyone in the Matrix to assure that bad choices, by your definition, or by the definition of whoever makes the rules, do not occur? Maybe you shouldn’t play god and allow each individual to have and end his life as he chooses?
A person who intentionally makes a decision to risk whatever in order to accomplish some task is purposely choosing to engage in that interaction. A person sitting at home, sitting at a bus stop, attending a movie or other public event, did not intentionally agree to the risk of being shot by some bungling rube with a gun. A child doing homework at the kitchen table did not knowingly and advisedly decide to receive a stray bullet fired by someone who should have never been allowed a gun in the first place. This is not the Wild West, nor the Pioneer Days, where unexpected risks were rule of the day. Anybody who says I must accept the risk of being accidentally killed so that person can have fun with guns is not someone society should tolerate.
Most of those “accidents” involve either the holder of that gun being shot or his or her buddy, often just as drunk or stoned.
Logical conclusion being that drunk or stoned people deserve what they get? Their lives are unimportant to anyone because they are doing something you find reprehensible?
Those are their choices, and they have consequences. I am not their god or their mother. I do not see their behavior as a tragedy for the society or for me. On the other hand, if they kill an innocent bystander, that is a tragedy. You will also find that many of those people already have criminal records and have that gun illegally. So making more laws will not change the fact that they don’t give a damn for laws.
Is reducing the potential for a drunken, drugged-up “good guy with a gun” to negligently kill someone worth pursuing?
Yes. The question to ask is at what price? Education, sure. Personal responsibility, yes. Universal civilian disarmament – no.
Anyway, to be continued tomorrow …
Civilian disarmament is the hammer, should actions to reduce negligent death and injury not be forthcoming, nor effective. The point of all this back-and-forth is to get your side to start thinking. Knee-jerk reaction produces no positive outcomes and only reinforces efforts to do away with all guns.
The fact is that 90%+ of gun owners do get training (of some sorts) and religiously practice the safety rules. Thus, preaching about training and safety is very much preaching to the choir. There are some idiots who do not get it through their skull, but preaching to them is kind of pointless. The question, really, becomes of how to separate a few idiots from the good people. This question is by no means limited to ownership of guns – every endeavor in life has this problem. However, if we allow the government to make that selection, the risk to liberty and, eventually, to life, is greater, in my opinion, than the relatively rare cases of bystanders accidentally being killed by an idiot. In fact, cops kill more innocent bystanders – perhaps your energy in reducing innocent bystander deaths would be better directed there. Although, I have to admit, by seeing some of the comments and vitriol in this thread, my estimate of the number of idiots is climbing…
Nicely done.
I have never seen the 90% figure before. It seems strange that it would be so. Perhaps the 90% includes over-the-counter instruction by the gun sales person. My thinking is that a once-a-live review of the four gun safety rules is insufficient, that annual or semi-annual formal, professional training should be the standard.
I am happy to see non-governmental action that can lead to a noticeable reduction in negligent deaths. But pro-gun supporters seem very reluctant to propose new ideas. I should think pro-gun people would want to propagate an array of initiatives to prove they are not the picture that they allow to be painted.
Police definitely need attention. Curious that pro-gun, pro-police people are not leading that charge.
I don’t know, nor does anyone know for sure, how many are trained. In my experience, everyone (100%) of people that I’ve observed at the range, follow safety procedures and even the slightest deviation from multiple redundant procedures get an immediate correction from someone. Over the years, I have seen only one adult ignoramus, and I took the gun away from him. Meanwhile, I see parents train their children and I do the same on a regular basis. Of course, more training is always good, and it’s fun! I have also been to Frontsight and was amazed how many people get trained there.
With personal liberty comes personal responsibility. If one chooses to use his liberty to play stupid games (such as getting drunk/stoned, and then playing with a firearm), then one as a consequence risks winning a stupid prize (such as shooting himself or someone else).
Maybe we should try prohibiting alcohol, in order to prevent that from happening. I wonder if that’s ever been tried before….?
Feel free to go find a Safe Space in which to live, then.
By choosing to live in a free society, then you choose to accept all manner of risks. It’s a package deal.
And by what authority do you dismiss as heresy any discussion of improving gun safety, of reducing further negligent deaths? Or as my SEC friends used to say, “Who died and left you God?”.
Just because people believe that what is current is celestially fixed doesn’t mean it cannot be changed.
So start a safety education program. I suggest that you will achieve the best results in places that have guns, but where citizens are not allowed to practice. Setup ranges, pay or “free,” either way. Have instructors. Recommend you start with NYC, San Francisco, Connecticut – they really need instruction and safety training there.
What does that have to do with accepting the inherent risks of life that are present in a free society, where individual liberty is respected?
Cough, Cough, projection. (I.E. I can’t handle it – so you can’t either).
I think 2Asux is saying he doesn’t believe we are proving ourselves immune to negligence, and that is a threat that need to be reduced further. He hasn’t yet said whether is is afraid of guns, so I don’t see any projection of his fears about that. There have been some comments where he talks about safety measures short of confiscation, and a willingness for private industry to be part of the solution, with government action if the situation doesn’t change.
@Chip,
Don’t bother, 2asux has already been presented with such:
http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2016/02/dean-weingarten/defensive-gun-use-of-the-day-la-ccw-stops-mass-shooting/#comment-2479424
He is a safety > Freedom guy, and wants it forced on everyone else. Definitely not of “a live and let live” personality.
@2asux,
Negative. The premise is: In a free society, people will exercise the right to act stupidly. There is no way to prevent such stupidity. Said more accurately: I’m not willing to sacrifice liberty to the extent required to prevent such stupidity.
Which you absolutely continue to deflect away. What amount of “risk” would you actually… actually tolerate, to allow any freedom at all that generates that risk? Be it guns, stairs, swimming pools, etc. Your complete nonsense about all other sources of risk needing to be eliminated before guns is ridiculous. They are dynamic and share a common idea. The idea of freedom. You want to ban guns. But you don’t want to ban stairs, or swimming pools. You acknowledge the positives of stairs and swimming pool ownership, but not those of firearm ownership. Your fear of guns is irrational and your prioritizing of safety is as out of calibration as much as your fear of guns:
2013: United States:
Death from Disease: 320,065
Accidental poisoning: 38,851
Motor vehicle accidents: 35,369
Accidental falls: 30,208
Accidental drowning: 3,391
Accidental exposure to smoke, fire, and flame: 2,760
Death from pregnancy complication: 1,111
And the absolute smallest one amongst the entire list:
Death from accidental discharge of firearms: 505
http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr64/nvsr64_02.pdf
Citation needed, from any legitimate source: the right to act stupid and kill or harm others.
Whoops: sorry, you don’t get to move the goalposts. Nobody made that argument. Nice try.
To this – I’m just going to reference you here:
http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2016/02/robert-farago/the-only-thing-that-stops-an-anti-gunner-from-making-a-documentary-is-nothing/#comment-2487871
Recommend everyone read it
In other words… if it saves one life we should do it 😀 haha.
http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/337324/if-it-saves-one-life-charles-c-w-cooke
Recommend everyone read it
“If is saves one life” compares Incommensurable terms.
Even the atlantic thinks it’s a bad argument:
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2012/12/why-if-we-can-just-save-one-child-is-a-bad-argument/266379/
I think we can all imagine “safety” taken to it’s logical extreme. No thanks for me.
Is is worth it to save just one life? Ask a dead person for an opinion. Or, find a person about to be killed by a negligent gun owner, and ask that person how much time, effort and money should be spent to keep the about-to-be-victim from being killed.
The argument you are using is spurious…if we would be silly to spend whatever in resource and liberty to save “just one life”, we should spend no resource or liberty to save 400 additional lives.
Your arguments are becoming illogical. Are you applying the same illogic to automobiles, swimming pools and stairs? And I’m sure glad that you’re not in airplane designing business. The most protected environment is a jail, yet people get killed in jails all the time. Certain amount of risk is inherent in life and accepted universally. Why do you have such a fixation with risk specifically in this area? Is it a phobia or what’s behind this totally illogical zeal?
Incompetent, irrelevant and immaterial. When you resort to diverting attention you are losing the discussion. If you want to wait until all the world’s problems are solved before we can work on reducing gun-related negligent homicide, then please go and work on all those other problems, leave guns to people with more to offer than platitudes.
Fortunately for the public (yet unfortunately for your irrational fear of us), the people with guns have pretty much the best safety record of anyone.
Sure. But first, you have to ask the 400 people about to be killed by the non-firearms-related cause.
It’s not a matter of such expenditure being silly; rather, it is a recognition that resources are finite. If the opportunity cost of expending additional finite resources to reduce firearms-related accidental deaths by one is that those finite resources cannot be expended to reduce some other, non-firearms-related accidental deaths by 400, then you are effectively sacrificing 399 lives to save one life.
That would be just fine, except that the image comes from an site that is heavily populated by neo-Nazis. How Ted found the image is anyone’s guess. How about I show you another version of this image? A simple image search would have shown you where it comes from.
https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-DyrWj7VyxKY/UmhxkqzFWLI/AAAAAAAAH_g/JI5DJ0MvW7U/s640/Jews_want_your_guns.png
So? Omg, who the f–k cares where it came from? The point is an NRA board member posted this, and the NRA better do the right thing. Otherwise, this Jew will not be in the NRA anymore.
I agree, but this is a response to the claim that it somehow isn’t anti-semitic to post an image like that or that he couldn’t have known it was a racially charged image. It is obvious to anyone that isn’t delusional that this is the case, and you are right, if he isn’t expelled from the NRA, I will no longer be an NRA member.
Gee, guys. If I had known that all it takes to defeat the 2A acolytes, is to find something distasteful in their financial backers and celebrities, I would have spent more time researching how many people who support 2A are Jew-haters. Gives me something else to do with my time.
Is your support of gun rights so fragile that an insult is all it takes to remove you from the playing field? We love to talk about how the “Left” cannot tolerate any inconvenience, how they are always crying for a reason to be offended, how their precious little minds are incapable of dealing with denial of anything. Should we not emulate such behavior?
Look at Israel, they have real skin in the game, yet they take our money and accept our military equipment. Being allies in an effort does not mean we love each other.
In the instance, I was not looking to ferret-out and proclaim antisemitism (which, by the way, is not illegal…just impolite). I was looking at the picture pack as a reminder of rich and powerful people who are afraid of the citizenry of this country. The proclamation by Nugent was nothing insightful, merely a repetition of how crass, vain and dangerous those depicted are. Then I responded to RF that trying to police (directly or influentially) “race-bating” was accepting that PC has a place in a free republic.
Antisemitism is impolite? Really. That’s the understatement of the century. No, antisemitism is bigotry, and it is hateful. It is also wrong. Things can be wrong without them being illegal. Ted Nugent has the right to say whatever he wants about Jews, Arabs, blacks, and everyone else. That’s all legal, but I have every right to call him out on his bigotry, and so does everyone else. He doesn’t have a right not to be disliked for his comments.
The reason the NRA should not keep associating with him is because the continued association says to everyone that the NRA approves of those comments. There is nothing PC about not wanting to be associated with a bigot.
Please, elaborate: what, precisely, was Ted Nugent’s bigotry? If he said something bigoted, I’ll join you heartily in calling him out on it.
The political spectrum is a sphere. Eventually Left and Right meet at the same place. PC demands curtailment of speech and opinion; “some things are simply just not said” (I grew up in the South, I know the phrase…it is the same attitude of the demoncrat party; always has been). Once you begin to treat speech as too unlikable to tolerate, the Left and Right are merged.
Would you deny people their “God-given, natural and civil right” to hate everyone but themselves, and say so?”. Yes, it is quite fitting to say that someone’s speech is despicable. It is not becoming of people to demand that person be ostracized. If the Right insists they be acceptable socially to the Left, Right and Left merge.
I’ve found that any criticism of Israel will inevitably lead to accusations of antisemitism. Its a brilliant tactic. The perennial victims could never, ever be the oppressor, right?
Has anyone here read up on the USS liberty? Israel clearly executed a premeditated attack on one of our ships, going as far as napalming the deck and gunning down the life boats.
Does anyone here know the history of Israel? A surprisingly convenient patch of land was reserved for them after the “good” war. Very intriguing.
Learn about Zionism. Many jews oppose Zionism yet anyone who condemns this movement is called an antisemite.
Read up on what Henry Ford and many other great men throughout history have said concerning the jews. They’ve been expelled from more than 100 countries throughout history.
It reminds me of the type who is constantly fired yet blames his employers. You gotta think when assessing this situation – maybe its you.
I’ve got to hand it to you, RF: you’ve really brought them out of the woodwork with this one. If your objective was to contrast Nugent’s non-antisemitic post with actual antisemitism exhibited in the comments to a post about Nugent’s non-antisemitic post: well-played.
Indeed.
So posting an image calling New York “Jew York” isn’t bigotry? Calling Michael Bloomberg a “9/11 Israeli agent,” as if Israel has something to do with 9/11 isn’t bigotry? Because last I checked, the only people that believed that kind of stupidity were Neo-Nazis, not to mention the fact that the image is lifted straight out of a Neo-Nazi site.
But that’s not the best part. The best part is that he put up an image plastered with the Flag of Israel, when these people aren’t Israelis. Maybe the bigotry would have been more clear if he used a yellow star instead?
As for criticizing Israel, I’m not opposed to that, in fact, I criticize Israel heavily, and my distaste for antisemitism has nothing to do with whether or not I support Israel.
But let’s not forget that Ted Nugent called Obama a “subhuman mongrel”. That isn’t bigoted to you?
But I get it, you’ll turn away from seeing the very obvious fact of the matter, that Ted Nugent is a bigot and shouldn’t be associated with an organization like the NRA.
I was simply not looking for something to offend me. I looked at the pictures (briefly) and the warning that the faces of those people should never be forgotten because of the damage they have done and intend to do.
And no, I do not care what type of bigotry a person possesses, so long as they put their time and effort into preventing the destruction of 2A rights. In a fight to the death, I will not refuse the help of my worst enemy, or even the worst person in history. If I live, then I will deal with my alliances.
Hey, 2Asux, you would have fit in perfect with Lenin and Stalin. With your zeal, you would have been running a major department, killing at least a few hundred people per day and you would have lasted about six months. Then a 7.62×38 Nagant bullet to the back of the head would have been the end of your career. Oh, yes, your photographs would have been removed and destroyed as well.
My bad.
“Has anyone here read up on the USS liberty? Israel clearly executed a premeditated attack on one of our ships, going as far as napalming the deck and gunning down the life boats.”
Both the Israeli and American governments determined that the attack was a case of mistaken identity. The Israelis had no clear motive to attack the Liberty, in fact they great motives to not attack.
Honesty, this sort of thing happens in war all the time. Israeli planes bombed an Israeli armored column south Jenin shortly before. I doubt if that was deliberate either. It has happened plenty of times among American forces.
Besides, if it was deliberate, then why didn’t the Israelis finish the job? Napalm? That’s not an efficient killer of steel hulled ships.
” Why on earth would such extreme measures be taken if the holocaust indeed happened? Makes a man with a brain think…” — I’m afraid that our friend Sam is going to think himself out of a brain… But, meanwhile, to slightly exercise that stump, imagine if the US had a law against burning the US flag – would that be an indication that the flag doesn’t exist?
I remember the event clearly. There were thousands of Arab and Palestinian ships off the coast of Isreal, and only one American ship. Given such a confusing situation, the Israelis simply failed to see the US markings or confused those markings with those of the Arabs and Palestinians. The Israelis attacked an the only American ship in the area, the only American ship with a sigint mission. The only American ship that just might be intercepting Israeli communications. The only American ship that just might be sharing sinint with Arabs and Palestinians.
Yep, that is pretty much how it happened.
Are you just stupid or blind to the fact that the meme is meant to be fodder for anti-semites? If the meme had any real purpose (such as showing us the people who oppress our rights to own guns), it’d have a few images of those that don’t align with the Jewish faith – who are more powerful, hold more influence, and/or have done more damage through voting for stricter measures of gun control.
I did admit to having made a cursory glance at the photo array.
But if I understand you, truth is predicated completely on it coming from a source you agree with, or like. That is close to saying, “I don’t care what you say unless it tickles my ears and leaves me with pleasant feelings and comfort in my prejudices.”
Old sage advice from a billionaire business owner, “Winners want results that are pleasing; Losers want methods that are pleasant.”
Or something like that.
No, I don’t care that someone feelings are hurt. Sometimes you guys have as much a sense of humor as the Taliban.
Freedom of speech?
Absolutely.
He can say whatever he wants.
And I can condemn him for it as much as I want.
And the NRA, if it’s wise, will invite him to continue freely speaking without being on their board of governors making them look like a bunch of antisemitic turds, just like he is.
Is anything in there remotely false? If there is a conspiracy in the elitist portion of the Jewish community to support Nazi style gun control, then at the very least, the irony has to pointed out and hammered home. To me, that post rang the hypocrisy bell rather loud.
To me, the post was more suggesting that *all Jews* support un-Constitutional gun control. As a Jewish supporter of firearms freedom, I found it extremely offensive to insinuate that just because these Jews hate guns, all Jews are bad. Thats what the post said to me, and for that I cannot forgive Mr. Nugent. I used to think he was just crazy, but now I realize he’s a hateful idiot.
I did not, did not, equate this gang-of-twelve with anything other than tyrants and wannabe tyrants. But now that it has been called to my intention, I do not equate this gang-of-twelve allegedly Jewish people with the entirety of Jews around the world. I think it is unkind and insulting to imagine that everyone would simply associate any array of Jewish people as representing the entire ethnic group. But if everyone in the picture is Jewish, so what? They are still dangerous to a free society. Ethnicity has no meaning when describing truth or fact.
And since someone brought it up….the “Arabs” of the Middle-East are Semites (Persians are Aryan). Making it hard for Syrians (or others) to be anti-Semitic in their dealings with Israel. Little bit of cocktail party trivia for ya’.
“Is anything in there remotely false?” Pwrserge, did you read the text associated with each pic?
That’s no different than “Thug Lives Matter” activists getting offended at the statistical fact that a black man is seven times more likely to commit a homicide than a white man. (It’s sad but true if you compare the FBI-UCR data to census data.)
Nobody (sane) is claiming that “All Jews” are conspiring to disarm Americans. If you read that from this post, that’s more of an inkblot test effect. What that post is claiming is that prominent members of the Jewish community (the one group in the US who should know better) are supporting things that policy. If anything, it’s a warning for the Jewish community to take a look at their leaders and examine if they really represent the values of your community.
“To me, the post was more suggesting that *all Jews* support un-Constitutional gun control. As a Jewish supporter of firearms freedom, I found it extremely offensive to insinuate that just because these Jews hate guns, all Jews are bad.”
That is why this should be concerning. Yes, our folk are vehemently anti-gun and progressive liberals…but this type of propaganda encourages people to think of all Jews this way which is simply untrue. People will make their own decisions, but let’s be real here: people are stupid and repeat what they hear.
I am not the only one who read the piece and did not come close to associating the rogues gallery with all Jews. Unfortunately, we don’t have at least one comment from every blog reader that would tell us if the majority of readers were looking to find something offensive here.
If gun rights advocates, supporters, funders and voters are every kind of offensive belief help defeat the gun-grabbers, then I willingly accept their participation. We can clean house (if that is really necessary) after we have obliterated opposition to gun rights essentially forever. If we are going to have a membership committee to approve who may “be one of us”, then I withdraw right now; I don’t know of any social, golf or tennis club who would have me.
Try it with Muslims and see what happens. The Jews are too kind. There is no free speech when it is hate speech. Furthermore, no one is asking the government to do something, it’s the NRA that should.
“There is no free speech when it is hate speech”
Show me where in the Constitution it says that.
In fact I’d say it’s entirely the opposite. The speech that needs to be (and is) protected by the 1st A is precisely the speech that people find repugnant, offensive, hateful, extreme, anti-government, anti-majority, etc. Polite speech doesn’t need protection. Only the sorts of ideas that the government or the majority would want to suppress are the sorts of ideas and speech that require the enumerated protection, and it’s precisely the speech that was meant to be protected.
There is no such thing as a “hate speech” exception to the 1st amendment. That’s already been decided. Or do I need to remind you of the Skokie case?
FLAME DELETED Free speech only means there is no criminal consequences from the government. The consequences from a moral society can be whatever is appropriate.
Muslims aren’t financially supporting disarmament, at least not as vociferously as the influential jews are.
Isn’t it interesting that holocaust denial will get you arrested in the European union? Why on earth would such extreme measures be taken if the holocaust indeed happened? Makes a man with a brain think…
Hate speach laws are nothing but a more subdued and clever version of Orwellian dystopia.
Wow. A Holocaust denier in the flesh!
“Isn’t it interesting that holocaust denial will get you arrested in the European union? Why on earth would such extreme measures be taken if the holocaust indeed happened? Makes a man with a brain think…”
Because YOU Holocaust Deniers forced their hands. In spite of all the documentation, you people deny that the Holocaust happened.
Mister fleas apparently detests free speach. Truth does not require such extreme measures of protection, it should stand on its own merit.
Never forget that Bolshevik/communism is a uniquely jewish machination.
General Pattons thoughts on post war Germany…
“There is a very apparent Semitic influence in the press. They are trying to do two things: first, implement communism, and second, see that all businessmen of German ancestry and non-Jewish antecedents are thrown out of their jobs.
“They have utterly lost the Anglo-Saxon conception of justice and feel that a man can be kicked out because somebody else says he is a Nazi. They were evidently quite shocked when I told them I would kick nobody out without the successful proof of guilt before a court of law . . .
You must hate Patton for his views. Good thing we teamed up with Stalin/internationalism inc. to destroy those evil nationalists. Afterall, we are a global community, right?
Rustle, the lack of historical knowledge is — well, given the benefits of public education… There were many Jews in the Bolshevik / Communist movement, but to label it as “Jewish” is beyond a stretch. Was Stalin Jewish? Lenin (1/4) and hundreds of other criminals? Education is such a forgotten art…
“If it was an accident, it was the best planned accident I’ve ever heard of” – USS Liberty survivor
Robert Macnamara and LBJ made damn sure that this was simply an accident. Great guys, weren’t they?
I trust the survivors.
— Vladimir Ilich Lenin
“There the great world-progressive features of Jewish culture stand clearly revealed: its internationalism, its identification with the advanced movements of the epoch (the percentage of Jews in the democratic and proletarian movements is everywhere higher than the percentage of Jews among the population).”
— Lenin, Vladimir Ilich. “National Culture” in Lumer, Hyman. Lenin on the Jewish Question. International Publishers. New York. 1974, p107, via Philip Mendes, THE NEW LEFT, THE JEWS AND THE VIETNAM WAR, 1965-1972, Lazare Press, North Caulfield, Victoria, Australia, p 9.
And “Islam is religion of peace.” G.W. Bush, from a mosque, without shoes, nationally televised, shortly after September 11, 2001. If you going to present something out of context and not matching reality, might as well start with the above (although in this case, Bush meant it, although it still doesn’t match reality).
The first ammendment does not protect you from criticism, it protects you from legal sanctions (fine/imprisonment). Therefore it is inappropriate To shout “first ammendment freedom of speech !” When someone utters something horrid, unless someone is calling for the maker of such statement to be fined/imprisoned/executed/etc.
I was hoping you would comment on this RF ( I saw this yesterday on FB) I was disgusted by it. At the very least this crap suggests a conspiracy to disarm based solely on their their faith and ethnicity.
Someone seems to have forgotten about JPFO.
And that same someone needs to be kicked out of the NRA so hard he ends up in the middle of next week.
As the day wore on it became more and more clear to me that Nugent himself isn’t anti-Semitic, so I apologize for making the claim.
But he foolishly re-posted an anti-Semitic graphic (apparently failing to spot the flags and text, as many others here did). When called on it, his response was “eat me” rather than “Oops. I guess I shouldn’t have posted that, it gives people the wrong idea about where I stand.” This is childish behavior on his part, and he should still be booted from the NRA board. I don’t insist people never make mistakes, but I insist that people of such prominence own the ones they do make.
There are definitely many shades and religions that populate the pro 2a group I am a liberal native American pagan who supports the right to keep and bear arms
Nugent is a shifty pos anyway. He’s only interested in things that benefit him. If it’s beneficial to the common man, it’s only a side effect for him.
He’s a draft dodger too.
[Citation Needed]
Here’s several:
http://www.rutlandherald.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060528/NEWS/605280335/1017/FEATURES08
http://www.thesmokinggun.com/buster/ted-nugent-draft-dodger-467132
http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=9a1_1250550290
http://www.snopes.com/politics/graphics/nugent.jpg
And this one, which includes the link above, which indicates that it is unclear and ambiguous:
http://www.snopes.com/politics/military/nugent.asp
Having once been faced with being drafted, I am very familiar with the process. The form you provided indicates Nugent reported for his physical exam (as a result of receiving a draft notice), and was rejected. Why is that draft-dodging?
Unfortunately, I think this was over the line. I wouldn’t toss Nugent overboard for it, but a sincere apology for, at the very least, piss-poor judgment, is required.
As a Jew, it galls and embarrasses me how many prominent Jews seem to be at the forefront of the civilian disarmament movement, especially the midget who seems to be bankrolling the whole thing. Of course, part of it is the historical link between Jews and political leftism due to both discrimination and over-education, and part is the urban-rural divide and the fact that European Jews were historically very urban (not really by choice) and brought those habits, trades and values to the New World.
Oh yes, he should tossed out of the NRA permanently. He’s a scumbag.
The Truth About Ted is he, unlike most Americans, takes full advantage of his Constutional Rights.
Oh no, he said something that you didn’t like. Waaaaaa waaaa, grown the fuck up dude.
AnoninCt, This is one of the more thoughtful remarks I have seen on this matter.
Ted is definitely not a saint and probably not a rocket scientist. This was a poorly executed (by him) post to make a point.
The fact that the folks in the photo are all Jewish and anti-gun is not open for debate. Should he have included some non-Jews in the photo? Probably that would have made the post less explosive. The inclusion of the flag of Israel was a needless antagonism in my view and hence the anti-semitism charge.
Though not a Jew (Scotch-Irish here), I have strong sympathies for the “never again” sentiment. I’m married to a Jewish woman who abhors anything firearms related. I however make up for it with my passion for firearms related excesses, buying, shooting, training, etc.
Anyway, I will give Ted the benefit of the doubt based on his past performance and his ability to pi$$of our enemies who are ready to tear any of us apart for straying for any liberal orthodoxy.
As for the likes of A2SUX, you can piss off!
Why most historically discriminated against and oppressed groups gravitate so heavily towards the D party and Leftist ideas in general I’ll never understand. It’s completely insane. Majority rule was the cause of basically all of these peoples’ historical (and current, in some cases) suffering, yet here they are voting for the party of majority rule and championing causes that remove power from the individual and give it to the government and/or to the majority.
The political science and sociological answer would be that groups that have suffered from historical discrimination tend to gravitate to political movements that place a larger emphasis on positive liberty. Specifically where the power of the state is used to establish neutral requirements and provide protections that would make it difficult to reenact modern equivalents or variants of historical discrimination and injustices. This would be done by directing the force of Law against those that did so.
NRA has a very large board and some members will be crackpots like any other large organization. Nugent is a fool and a massive negative for NRA. I am and remain a life member, and I have no trouble saying this is bigoted of Nugent.
But the gun control movement is run 90% of funding and organized by one guy, Bloomberg, and Nugent is nowhere near as bigoted as Bloomberg. Bloomberg claimed at Aspen that “95%” of shootings are committed by young minority males (3% of the population). In fact that 3% commits only 50% of US shootings.
The racist subtext of the “more gun control” lobby is clear and has been around for decades. Yet even when it comes out in the open, as occurred with Bloomberg at Aspen, it never gets covered
.
Just because they are anti-Constitution and happen to be Jewish, does not mean that they are anti-Constitution because of their religious affiliation. I think we are all smarter than this. Conversely, if you go to Israel, you’ll find the majority are pro-gun.
And its not that they are anti-Constitution. What they are are Americans, who’s religion – as much or as little as they may individually practice it – happens to be Judaism, who do not interpret and/or understand the 2nd Amendment the way that almost every commenter on this site does. It is important to remember that until Heller a majority on the Supreme Court did not interpret and/or understand the 2nd Amendment the way that almost every commenter on this site does. And even in the Heller decision Associate Justice Scalia indicated, in line with almost every previous Supreme Court decision dealing with the 2nd Amendment, that reasonable regulation is permitted at the Federal, state, and local levels. This doesn’t make him anti-Constitution, nor does it make his colleague anti-Constitution, nor their predecessors. Despite Associate Justice Scalia’s own stated preference for originalism, every justice has always had to grapple with the Constitution in regard to the time period that they lived and were formulating decisions, concurrences, and/or dissents. This was why Associate Justice O’Connor was such a good Supreme Court Justice – she had held elective and appointed office and she understood that the rulings of the Court would have to be implemented at the Federal, state, and/or local level. This got her labeled a moderate. In reality it made her a realist with actual experience that almost no Supreme Court Justice has had for decades. But not being a 2nd Amendment maximalist doesn’t make one anti-Constitution. It just makes one a fellow American with a different understanding/interpretation/opinion of what parts of the Constitution mean. Disagreement isn’t a sign of treason or sedition or alienness. It is simply disagreement.
Sophistry. Jews are anti-2nd-Amendment (see my comments elsewhere in this thread). I don’t really care why. I’m not in the business of reading minds.
Similar sophistry:
Just because they are German and happen to be Nazis, does not mean that they are Nazis because of their German-ness.
And yet, we invaded Germany. We didn’t ask German soldiers if they were Nazis before we killed them. We didn’t poll German cities for their “anti-Semitism” or levels of Nazism before we firebombed them.
(And sure, in Israel, the Jews are pro-gun…for Jews. They don’t want the Arabs armed. They don’t want the Palestinians in the occupied territories armed. And really, Israeli gun laws are hardly the model for 2nd-Amendment advocates. They’re pretty restrictive, last time I heard. More to the point, Israeli Jewry (pro-gun-for-Jews) and American Jewry (anti-gun-for-goyim) are BFFs. Each literally has no closer friend in the world. I’ll leave you to do the math on that one)
Obviously the original creator included the call out to these folks being Jewish in the anti-semitic way that you describe. While I believe that Nugent is an intelligent man, I also believe that he is quite prone to engage the mouth before engaging the brain. Which can both be a good thing and a bad thing. While I can see how the image would push you towards seeing the anti-semitic, I wonder if the same message would have been perceived had the image not had the references on it that it does, and as you said, had it included many of the other players on the anti-gun side of things. It seems to me that Nugent could quite possibly have missed the Jewish connection in the photo and his post would be what we have come to expect from him. Obviously he isn’t using a PR firm to filter his public comments through, and he really wouldn’t be Nugent if he did.
One thing on which we agree absolutely is that there isn’t enough net “good” that comes from him representing the NRA. At least from an overall perception of people of the gun.
I would be very surprised if Mr. Nugent failed to understand the anti-semitic implications of the image or his remarks. And equally unimpressed.
I believe being unimpressed is probably the right option here. Before I read your article, I looked at the picture, read the names, read Nugent’s comments, and I completely missed the flag on each of the photos. Didn’t jump out at me at all until after I read the article.
I didn’t notice the flags till after I read the comment as well. But they were noticed and I’m sure I would have noticed them before reposting it. Maybe the Nuge didn’t have his PC third eye open on this one. I think he should at the very least provide clarification.
Maybe Ted just F’d up?
http://reason.com/blog/2016/02/09/ted-nugent-claims-wildly-anti-semitic-ar
[the nuge’s] point, he insists, was that Bloomberg et al. are betraying their own people by seeking to disarm them.
It may be that Ted screwed up, and that he is not anti-Semitic. That graphic that he posted, however, is very much anti-Semitic.
I think he f’d up not looking at the picture carefully enough, and now he is doubling down with “if you think I hate Jews you’re just crazy” statements because he just doesn’t want to admit he made a mistake. I doubt anything will come of it. This is only an issue to the Facebook/Twitter perpetually offended types who will move on in few hours. Ted should just post a picture on himself holding a Tavor next to a couple of Israeli models and be done with it.
he just doesn’t want to admit he made a mistake.
If he’s that petty, that’s not a good thing.
He needs to apologize, and clarify his stand…which I HOPE is that he’s disgusted with people who haven’t learned the lesson of their own ancestors’ history. Instead of saying “eat me” like a two year old.
I’m trying to remember the last time I heard a Jew apologizing for being anti-white-gentile. Examples of the latter are legion, but the former…yeah, I’m drawing a blank here.
E.g:
Susan “the white race is the cancer of history” (a sentiment you will find enshrined in (disproportionately Jewish) American academia) Sontag; did she ever apologize for saying that? Nugent didn’t say anything even approaching that about Jews, did he?
In case you were wondering if Susan Sontag meant to include Jews in that statement:
Susan Sontag’s Jewish World
Yet Nugent must abase himself, grovel out an apology to God’s Chosen People (at which point the great and the good will pile on even more, having gotten their admission of guilt, as they always do (apologizing never saves anyone, just ask James Watson)).
I think “eat me” is a perfectly apt response.
“And equally unimpressed.”
Exactly, Robert. You have neatly described Ted Nugent’s lifelong public persona which, for as long as I’ve known about him, has rather gleefully embraced egregious bad taste whenever possible. He undoubtedly noticed the Israeli flags . . . and didn’t much care about the symbolism because the photo collage made his point. Ted’s always been a “use a bigger hammer” kind of guy and this is no exception.
Re: symbolism. Although I seriously doubt ‘ole Ted gave this much thought, the fact that the folks pictured in his post, ardent supporters of Israel—a state born out of the Holocost and fighting for its very existence ever since its founding—also are equally ardent supporters of the very gun-control policies that kept Jews from having the option of self-defence, is pretty obvious. Ted’s not very big on the irony thing but, in retrospect. . . ? Just sayin’ . . .
Thank you for this post, it seriously means a lot.
I have never liked the guy, and I always thought his thinly-veiled bigotry shouldn’t be accepted. At least now it’s out in the open. Gun owners should not associate with idiots like him. We’re talking about the man that called the president a “subhuman mongrel,” and nobody thought he was a bigot then? I don’t care if you don’t like the president, but facts are facts. Ted Nugent has been an open bigot for a long time and nobody cared to question it because at least he hated individuals we hated, even if his reasons for hate were different. Now that we find out he’s also an anti-semite, it’s suddenly time to distance ourselves from him.
As amusing as Ted is, mostly it’s because of the nuttery, not despite it.
He’s the old acrylic click-clack balls from the 70s http://www.burlingamepezmuseum.com/bannedtoy/
he will frag, you won’t know when, and it will likely be painful. I understand the NRA getting in bed with him to a point, but they had to know that they were (figuratively) putting their d in crazy.
Ted’s never done drugs, and I have always harbored a sneaking suspicion that may be part of the problem…
“Ted’s never done drugs”
He does push an anti drug message, and I have no doubt he stays away from the stuff for the most part. But you can’t say never, he did do a bit on Anthony Bourdain’s show on Food Network (I think it was FN but I could be wrong) and did have a beer with Bourdain, so there’s that.
Oh yea and as his name came up, Anthony Bourdain is an anti second amendment hating jerk. His first book (Kitchen Confidential: Adventures in the Culinary Underbelly) is a great read though.
Anthony Bourdain is an anti second amendment hating jerk.
One of Bourdain’s shows (Parts Unknown?) featured a Koreatown chef whose family was on a rooftop during the riots. I can assure you that there was absolutely nothing in that show that was anti-gun. On the contrary, it was a powerful statement in favor of self defense.
Maybe he’s changed, I haven’t watched him much since he left FN, but the guy I have seen was a full on NYC progressive. I admit, this was a while back.
I would add – he has written a bit about guns and you could say maybe he’s on the fence about it – this is a lot more open minded than I remember him being.
http://anthonybourdain.tumblr.com/post/62424540749/guns-and-green-chile
“Though I do not own a gun—I would, if I lived in a rural area like, say…Montana—consider owning one. Whatever my feelings about gun regulation—and my worries, as a father, about what kind of world my daughter will have to live in, I think I should have as many guns as I like. Even Ted Nugent should have guns. He likes them a lot. They make him happy—and as offensive as I may find a lot of what comes out of his mouth, I’m pretty sure, based on first hand experience, that he’s a responsible gun owner.
You, however, I’m not so sure about. And my next door neighbor. I’m not so sure about him either. I’d like to know a bit more about him before he takes possession of an M-16 and a whole lot of extra clips. If we accept the proposition that that a gun is simply a tool—with potentially lethal properties—it follows that it’s not too different than a vehicle. And I would like to know a LOT more about you before I’m comfortable putting you behind the wheel of a sixteen wheeler. I’d like to know if you’re a maniacal drunk or crackhead before allowing you to barrel down that highway with three tons of trailer swinging behind you. If you favor an aluminum foil hat as headgear, I would have concerns about entrusting you with so much power to harm so many in so little time. That’s a reasonable thing for a society to ponder on, I think.”
Having watched Bourdain over his (televised) career, I would really say he has no problems with guns, or firing them, dispatching that which would later become dinner. In fact he espouses that, rather roundly.
That said, I don;t know him personally, and really don;t know how he is about guns in the abstract big picture. i would hazard the guess that his real opinions are kind of irrelevant, he knows what the system wants, despite his devil-may-care persona.
16V, I figured jlp would be all over this one with the whole Hitler thing he’s got going on.
No kidding, I do kinda wonder where he’s at, ‘enlightened’ Muslim that he is. He’s obviously someone who fights for everyone’s rights and what not. He’s so ‘assimilated’ and all…
It’s another good day at the factory.
Still sniffing that glue?
From reading his comments I believe 2asux is autistic. Probably best to just not engage him.
The crazy thing is that Jews, given their history of persecution, should be more pro-gun than most other ethnic groups.
I had a crazy pro-Israel Zionist English teacher in High School. She was all “NEVER AGAIN!!” and all that. And she was vehemently anti-gun. Cognitive dissonance anyone?
This was before the Interwebs so I couldn’t just send her to the JFPO web site.
The worst thing is that having grown up in a primarily Italian and Jewish area, her opinion was not unique.
Don
And this was my take. If anything we may be guilty of profiling. I would assume that ALL Jews would never want to be subjugated ever again. That, among all of the people on this Earth, they would be most sensitive to that which would inhibit their ability to defend themselves. I would think that if those in the picture all resided in Israel that their perspective on firearms would be significantly different. And it makes me wonder what reason could they possibly forward for an anti-gun position. Are they deluded by our “polite” society to think it could never happen again? There are forces moving in this world that would eradicate every Jew if given the chance. To believe otherwise is delusional.
“I would assume that ALL Jews would never want to be subjugated ever again.”
The irony: many (if not all) of the people in that photo want to subjugate everyone else!
That does not — in any way, shape, or form — mean that all Jews want to subjugate everyone else. The problem is self-appointed elitists of all stripes who want to subjugate everyone else. That picture simply shows 12 such elitists who happen to be Jews.
I wasn’t there, am not a descendant of prison camp survivors…but, I did read widely about the times. It maybe that, “Never Again” is actually shorthand for creating a society of laws that make pogroms illegal. Of having rules and regulations that prevent the rise of politicians that would seek to destroy an entire people. It just seems there is an inordinate trust in the law, just as there was when persecution by the state began. Concluding from just general observation of literature and watching developments unfold, there were very few episodes such as the armed uprising of Jews in Warsaw. So, dependence on the law vs. dependence on armed self-defense is a strong cultural element. If so, a dislike of guns would be expected.
Bolshevism is alive and well.
Yes. Amazingly though, according to polls, Jews have the highest support for gun control of all religious/ethnic groups. (This is from the book Why Are Jews Liberal by Norman Podhoretz.)
I believe these surveys covered only American Jews. I don’t know about Israelis or Jews in other parts of the world.
When is Uncle Ted up for re-election to the board? He needs to go.
Nugent’s been doing more harm than good for at least a decade now. This isn’t the first time that he’s nodded toward bigotry disguised as protest.
we are all objectionable to someone, somewhere, sometime. if nugent is putting his money into pro-gun rights, then we should be happy and grateful. the anti-gun has a huge roster of moneyed bank-rollers. dollars are fungible. don’t cut-off your own air supply.
Maybe it’s from growing up with a wide range of ethnicities, but I don’t get the whole race thing….neither the demonization of a race or the “oh my, I can’t believe he said that”…. everyone forgets to practice what MLK said…..it’s about their character.
Any group that has been persecuted that does not back the right and means to self defense will end up getting what they deserve.
Here we go again with the “anti-Semitic” LIE. 90% of israelis are ashkenazi jews (they admit to this). Look up “ashkenaz” in Genesis 10:3 or wikipedia and LEARN that they descend from Japheth. REAL SEMITES descend from Isaac or Ishmael.
So, 90% of israelis are NOT SEMITES. They’re FRAUDS. They’re Khazars. They’re as Semitic as if a Chinese person declared that they were a Jew!
Now you know. Remember it!
They just use that claim for PITY by the sheeple.
PS: 6 million did NOT die in the holocaust. Research it as I have.
“Now you know. RemeSo, 90% of israelis are NOT SEMITES. They’re FRAUDS. They’re Khazars. They’re as Semitic as if a Chinese person declared that they were a Jew!
mber it!”
Sssuuuurrrreeee.
:They just use that claim for PITY by the sheeple.
PS: 6 million did NOT die in the holocaust. Research it as I have.”
What happened to them then? Were they taken up to Heaven in a fiery chariot? Move to Miami, New York City, maybe Boston?
They were murdered by the same scumbag, Jew-hating, people who say the Holocaust was not real but want another one.
Perhaps they were transported to an inexplicable new country, made possible by the “good” war? Israel officially ( almost magically) became a nation in 1948. Guess it pays to be a perennial victim.
Why would Germans, already at the crux of a logistical nightmare, spend the invaluable resources to gas jews when they could put a bullet in their head? Have you even given this a moments thought?
There is no solid evidence backing these absurd accusations, just the security blanket provided by yelling anti semite as loudly and often as possible.
No solid evidence?
The Holocaust is one of the most heavily documented events in Human History. There is more solid evidence documenting it than you’ll ever be able explore. The Nazis kept very detailed records. The Nazis actually built infrastructure to implement genocide.
Denying that the Holcaust happened is like asserting that the Earth is flat. It is what you choose to see, but it’s not the truth.
Wait aren’t these the people referred to as “kapos” by jpfo?
Meh. Uncle Ted’s an attention whore. This seems par for the course. Don’t take the bait. Guilt by association is un-American.
The real shame is that the message itself is not incorrect, but the delivery screams “Pro-Gun folks are bigoted a-holes.” It may as well say “we have no valid pro-gun argument, so we’re going to smear the anti-gun position with something arbitrary and unrelated.”
Very well put.
I’ve met, spoke, had dinner with, and hung out with “Uncle Ted” many times. I’ve never heard him say anything remotely anti-Semitic. But this one image, this one alone, without a forthcoming public apology, is enough to make me never want to talk to him again and changes my opinion of him. I thought it was dumb and weird when I saw the pic. After all, I think maybe one person there actually has dual citizenship, and the rest aren’t Israeli at all. But I was disgusted when I read the text associated with each pic. It is clearly Jew hating, un-American, filth.
You know what’s unAmerican? The Jewish people in that picture trying to take away our rights. It’s not an bigotry when you’re stating proven facts.
FLAME DELETED
You’re right, Publius, that IS un-American.
But that doesn’t make this POS bit of propaganda, implying that gun control is some sort of Jewish conspiracy, in the least bit appropriate.
Conspiracy? No, they’re quite open about it. Hardly a week goes by without a Jewish group / Rabbi / synagogue speaking out against our rights or a Jewish politician attacking our rights (and it’s hardly a secret that the overwhelming majority of Jews in the US are Democrats). There’s the fringe group for pro-gun Jews (Jewish Firearms something League), but that’s probably less than 1% of all Jews in the country.
I don’t give a damn what silly book of fairy tales someone believes in, the fact is that most Jews in the US – ESPECIALLY the ones that are politicians – are vehemently anti-gun. This is not a “conspiracy theory”, it’s a well documented fact. Kick and scream all you want, but facts are not biased.
Yep, and an overwhelming majority of Blacks and Hispanics are also Democrats and are also anti-2A. Betcha you would like to take care of that problem too…
That still leaves the question of correlation vs. causation wide open. Do you actually believe these people or “most Jews” are anti-gun because they’re Jewish? What about African Americans, women, or other historically-oppressed groups? The majority of these people are also anti-gun. But an even bigger majority of all of these people are Democrats or otherwise Liberal or Leftist, and an overwhelming majority of Dems/Libs/Leftists are anti-gun. It’s one of that party’s and ideological position’s most important tenets. Now, what causes these minority groups and historically-oppressed groups to vote Dem, toe that party line in most cases, and overwhelmingly go ideologically Liberal? No idea. But it certainly is not a uniquely Jewish thing by any stretch of the imagination.
I think most reasonable people are utterly gobsmacked that any Jew would ever be in favor of civilian disarmament.
And I think that’s part of the disconnect in this instance: I think the vast majority of pro-2A people see an image like the one posted, and see a complete paradox in that some of the most influential people in the civilian disarmament movement are Jews. We don’t see a picture like that, and think that it is saying “all Jews are for gun control”, because the idea that all Jews favor gun control is inherently ludicrous.
I think that idea was the farthest thing from Nugent’s mind. People jumped to their own conclusions, based on their own psychological projection mixed with copious amounts of logical fallacy, and the result was needless pearl-clutching.
But because we apparently live in a post-logic world, that’s almost to be expected.
Very well, let’s apply logic. Please let me know if I stray away from a logical course here. We have 12 faces. All of them, 100%, are Jewish. They are all, 100%, evil. Each one has an Israeli flag by their name (even though none are Israeli and some are anti-Israel), anti-Semitic slogans and anti-Jewish catch words are interspersed throughout. Meanwhile, I hope that there is no need to prove that evil exists among all nationalities and races; it is not 100% confined to Jews. Likewise, all nationalities and races in America have plenty of spokespeople that are anti-Liberty and anti-2A. And you still think, logically, that this picture was not meant to be anti-Semitic and that anyone who is not delusional would not see it as intentionally anti-Semitic? Logically, of course.
You skipped the part where you proved that Ted Nugent’s message had anything to do with the original intent of the image.
I’ll wait.
Ok, I have not done any original research on this issue and basing all I know on what’s been published here. That is, accepting as fact that Ted Nugent posted (or re-posted) the image that I see on the top of the page. Seems to be a direct connection here. Have I missed something? I’m hearing that perhaps he did not pay enough attention and didn’t notice what was obvious? I’m not a shrink and certainly not his shrink – I don’t know what was in his head. But he is a public figure and that comes with certain responsibilities (if simply being human is not enough to have certain responsibilities). Perhaps re-posting all filth from the Internet without filtering is not fulfilling any of those responsibilities.
Yes: context.
Nugent posted that picture, along with specific comments. His original comments indicated that he was referring to specific people who are behind the gun control agenda. He then followed that up with additional comments, that explicitly refuted the allegations being levied against him with respect to bigotry toward Jews.
Did Nugent likely re-post that image without considering all of its details? Possibly. Probably. Heck, I still don’t even know what all the commentary text says. I didn’t even notice it when I first saw the picture. Should Nugent take responsibility for re-posting an un-vetted image? Sure. That’s completely valid criticism.
My problem is taking the further, unfounded leap that Nugent’s comments and intent were bigoted against Jews.
“My problem is taking the further, unfounded leap that Nugent’s comments and intent were bigoted against Jews.” You know, reading some of the filth that is percolating here from some people, I can see how Nugent may have seen an obviously anti-Semitic post as just part of an everyday conversation.
I don’t understand. The picture I get. But I don’t view it as anti-Semitic. And to me, his comments are true about this group, their heritage aside. Like I said before, I simply cannot understand, considering recent history, how any Jew could support gun control and abridging freedom. I’m not saying I’m right or wrong, that’s just my perspective. If I were a member of a club of people who were systematically slaughtered and oppressed I would do everything in my power to ensure it never happened again. Maybe not all Jews see life that way, I don’t know.
The fact that it’s a bunch of ethnically Jewish people running this very pro gun website should be a strong indication that the disarmament philosophy is not universal among the Jewish people?
That’s exactly the opposite of what I was saying. I simply can’t rationalize how any Jew could take the anti-gun position.
Let me put it this way. As a parent, I could never allow my children to be harmed by another without doing everything in my power to stop them. And I can’t rationalize how any parent could take a position so as to allow another to harm their child without doing everything in their power to stop them.
Gman, I fully agree with you in being baffled why any Jew would oppose the right and practice of self preservation. When I initially read your post I saw it as you saying that you didn’t understand why Jews thought this way, not why any Jew would think this way. I see now that I was mistaken and I apologize.
John,
No need to apologize. Effective communications requires transmission and feedback. This is the least effective form of communication available, especially when folk like me may not accurately write exactly what they are trying to relay in a manner in which it was intended. Keep up the good work.
G
Are all Jews anti 2a? No. But, as you can see, the large majority are democrat and Liberal, and thus anti-2A… See https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/US-Israel/jewvote.html
I am a Jew, and, like RF would probably admit, have seen that the majority of Urban Jews are anti-gun, liberal, and believe that only the police should be able to own guns. Sad to say, but stereotypes do hold some level of truth, but we need to judge a person upon their actions, not that of their associates.
“…baffled why any Jew would oppose the right and practice of self preservation.”
Agreed. Especially a religious one. All relevant Jewish teachings not only allow for the defense of self and other innocents, but consider it a duty. Deep dive on the subject: http://www.davekopel.com/2A/LawRev/The-Torah-and-Self-defense.htm
I consider Ted Nugent’s (re)post to be, at worst, in poor taste. First of all, I don’t see anywhere where Ted calls on anyone to harass or murder ALL Jews. Second of all, Ted Nugent did not call for the execution of gun control advocates in the link: rather he called for Congress to try and convict Hildebeast and Dear Leader for treason in their handling of Benghazi.
And hang them.
Well, yes, that is a likely penalty for treason. And if Congress acts in compliance with the U.S. Constitution and convicts Hildebeast and Dear Leader of treason, then I stand behind any sentence that Congress delivers.
The important point is that Nugent did not call for the wholesale arrest, imprisonment, nor murder of Jews nor anyone else who is not actively trying to harm us
Let’s look at it this way. Gun-control advocates are calling for government to disarm the good people of the United States who own firearms and have harmed no one — knowing full well that government will authorize itself to use any force necessary, up to and including deadly force. And many gun-grabbers have called for the outright execution of good people who own firearms and have harmed no one. This is a concerted public effort to attack good people. Is it really that reprehensible when someone says we should fight back against the instigators?
Fvck! It’s the Jews! The Jews! Lol!
Pretty sure there is a host of other non Jewish people that are anti gun. (e.g Shannon watts)
I’m sorry, Robbie – are you trying to deny that the main people who are pushing to ban guns (as well as other parts of the Constitution) are Jews? Your bias is showing.
Define “main people.” Also, please read the post.
The overwhelming majority of anti-gun Democrat politicians are Jewish, this is no secret and you’re well aware. You’re intentionally ignoring this though because you’re Jewish and think people shouldn’t be allowed to criticize “your people”. It’s no different than when blacks get outraged when someone points out that their culture idolizes criminals and thus leads to black teens committing crimes.
I don’t dislike Jews any more than I dislike anyone with a low enough IQ to believe in a 2,000+ year old book of fairy tales and honestly thinks that they have an invisible friend with magical powers who will protect them and grant their wishes. This is purely a statement made on the fact that most Jews in the US vote Democrat and most of the ardent anti-gun politicians (on the national level, at least) are Jewish. You can play they Democrat card and call me “racist”, “sexist”, “ableist”, “anti-semite”, “bigot”, etc if you want – I really don’t care, because those words are simply used in lieu of saying “I do not have a fact based argument and must resort to insults instead”.
PEOPLE !!
This is not about who is Jewish and who is not. This is not about the horrors of WW2. This is not about marking a particular group of people as some sort of lepers. This is about a reminder of who some of the most powerful and destructive people are, and the damage they can do. Period.
Save the mauling of each other over origins to some other day, and some other reason.
Well Robert you asked and I will proved. But in doing so I hope not to slight you, I am a big fan of the site and love to find leads stories for you and the readers.
You understand and value the 2nd Amendment like few people have and have enlighten many millions over the years which is a service in the cause of Liberty that we are all vastly thankful for.
But if you do value liberty and the means to protect it, then you must protect it from any and all threats and attacks no matter who is behind them.
Congressman Emanuel Celler wrote and introduced the Gun Control Act of 1968. He based it on the Nazi Gun Control Act of 1938.
Undetectable Firearms Act of 1988
Senator Howard Metzenbaum co-sponsors a bill – S.2180 – to ban, or limit/restrict, so-called “plastic guns.”
Gun-Free School Zones Act of 1990
1990: Senator Herbert Kohl(W-D) introduces bill S.2070, Which banned unauthorized persons(anyone but police) from having a firearm on school property.
The law was found unconstitutional in United States v. Lopez as it violated the Commence Clause, it was also the first time the Supreme Court made any ruling that involved the Commerce Clause since the New Deal.
The law still stands in many states.
The Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act. 1993
written and introduced by Howard Metzenbaum (OH-D) and passed in a by a wide mirage thanks to the Democrats in office..
Luckily private sales are still legal and and it was rule by the Supreme Court unconstitutional in Printz v. United States one the grounds it violated 10th amendment rights of gun owners, law enforcement officers and the states they live in.
The “Assault Weapon” ban of 1994. 1994
The bill was written and introduced by Dianne Feinstein (CA-D)
Gun-Free School Zones Act of 1995. 1995
Senators Kohl(Wi-D), Specter(PA-D), Feinstein(CA-D), Lautenberg(NJ-D) and many others try to version of the 1990 school-zone law which was struck down in court as being unconstitutional by United States v. Lopez
The Lautenberg Domestic Confiscation provision. 1996
The Lautenberg Domestic Confiscation provision It was sponsored by Senator Frank Lautenberg(NJ-D). It bans people convicted of misdemeanor domestic violence from ever owning a gun.
It even retroactively punished people for a crime they committed before this bill became law, in same states even just yelling at your wife is considers domestic violence.
In the United States, the Congress is prohibited from passing ex post facto laws by clause 3 of Article I, Section 9 “No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed.”
Once again a feel good law that harms people, strips away their rights, and does not do anything to reduce crime. And oh what do you know, guy which member and party are behind it.
The following is a list of bills that failed to make into law due to the tireless efforts of The NRA, GOA, JPFO, The GOP and tens of millions of Americans..
January, 1999
The American Handgun Standards Act of 1999. 1999 Senator Barbara Boxer (CA-D) Would have made it next to impossible to make handguns without a list of safety features that did not exist and still do not exist.
Child Safety Lock Act of 1999. 1999 Senator Kohl(WI-D) It would to require a child safety lock in connection with transfer of a handgun.
February 1999
The Stop Gun Trafficking Act of 1999. 1999 Senator Frank Lautenberg (NJ-D)
the Gun Show Accountability Act of 1999. 1999 Senator Frank Lautenberg (NJ-D)
Both laws would have made all private sale of firearms next to impossible.
March, 1999
The Gun Industry Accountability Act of 1999. 1999 Senator Lautenberg(NJ-D)
The Large Capacity Ammunition Magazine Import Ban Act of 1999 Senator Feinstein(CA-D)
May, 2000
The Firearm Licensing and Record of Sale Act of 2000, is submitted by Senators Feinstein(CA-D), Senator Barbara Boxer(CA-D), Sen. Lautenberg(NJ-D) and Sen. Schumer(NY-D)
It is a plan for a national firearms licensing system. Which is violation of the Firearm Owners “Protection” Act and the 4th Amendment.
January, 2001:
The Firearm Licensing and Record of Sale Act of 2001, is sponsored by Feinstein(CA-D), Schumer(NY-D), and Boxer(CA-D) It is a nation-wide gun registration plan, I mean just the same bill with the date in the name changed..
May, 2003
Senators Feinstein(CA-D), Schumer(NY-D), Boxer(CA-D) and others introduce legislation that would reauthorize the 1994 federal assault weapons ban, and, close a loophole in the law that allows large-capacity ammunition magazines to be imported into the U.S. The ban is scheduled to expire in September, 2004.
October, 2003: Senators Feinstein(CA-D), Lautenberg(NJ-D), Levin(MI-D) Schumer(NY-D)
Co-sponsor bill S.1774, designed to stop the sunset [ending] of the Undetectable Firearms Act of 1988.
March, 2005:
Senator Lautenberg(NJ-D) introduces bill S.645, “to reinstate the Public Safety and Recreational Firearms Use Protection Act,” Which would reinstate the 1994 assault-rifle ban [also known as the “Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994”] which expired in late 2004.
March, 2005:
Senator Feinstein(CA-D) introduces bill S.620, “to reinstate the Public Safety and Recreational Firearms Use Protection Act,” in other words, to reinstate the 1994 assault-rifle ban [also known as the “Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994”] which expired in late 2004.
December, 2012-January, 2013
Assault Weapons Ban of 2013 introduced in by Senator Feinstein(CA-D) It was defeated in the Senate on April 17, 2013 by a vote of 40 to 60.
Stephen Breyer, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, and Elena Kagen all voted AGAINST Heller.
Stephen Breyer, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, and Elena Kagen all voted AGAINST McDonald.
Now Robert, care to guess what all of those people have in common?
Actions truly speak louder then words.
I have a problem with anyone who support such laws, actions, ideals, etc. I do not care who they are, I oppose them if they were White Protestants, Japanese Shintoist, or African Witch Doctors.
But it is not those groups who are the vast ma behind it, supportive of it, or financiers of it are they? In fact when you look at the core supporters, founders, or financiers of groups that push mass immigration, multiculturalism, cultural relativism, and gun control you will notice that an (not all but an) overwhelming majority of them are Jewish.
To notice this,speak out against them, and foil their goals would not be wrong if their were White Protestants, Japanese Shintoist, or African Witch Doctors just as it is not wrong to stop them because they are or hide behind the Jewish faith.
To the best of my knowledge, none of the people that you’ve listed are of the Jewish faith. They are of Jewish nationality, but their faith is not Judaism; their faith is Socialism, just like Obama’s, Biden’s, Holder’s, Lynch’s and numerous other non-Jewish socialists.
To say nothing of the fact that you just created a huge wall of text, to say you don’t care that these people are Jewish, yet laying out tons of evidence that a lot of Jews support gun control.
Methinks you care a lot.
Before this conversation started, I saw these people and saw a bunch of gungrabbing pukestains.
All too many others, apparently, saw a bunch of Jews. Bigots, all, and that includes you, Henry Bowman. You’re a disgrace to the character you named yourself after.
Correlation is not causation. Conflating Judaism with anti-gun advocacy is bigoted. It is anti-Semitic.
Caution sir. You believe it is yet that does not make it so or not. I am pro life, yet others claim I am a warrior in the war on women.
Why was Hillary Clinton excluded?
Why did each picture contain an Israeli flag?
That some of the most prominent gun control advocates, who are not Jewish, were excluded from that list, and that the picture of each person on that list contains an Israeli flag makes it so.
I posted this above, but it fits your ill informed comment as well.
Hardly a week goes by without a Jewish group / Rabbi / synagogue speaking out against our rights or a Jewish politician attacking our rights (and it’s hardly a secret that the overwhelming majority of Jews in the US are Democrats). There’s the fringe group for pro-gun Jews (Jewish Firearms something League), but that’s probably less than 1% of all Jews in the country.
I don’t give a damn what silly book of fairy tales someone believes in, the fact is that most Jews in the US – ESPECIALLY the ones that are politicians – are vehemently anti-gun. This is not a “conspiracy theory”, it’s a well documented fact. Kick and scream all you want, but facts are not biased.
Of course facts aren’t biased, but you’re arguing that simply being a Jew is an automatic qualifier for being anti-gun, which is utter nonsense. Did you know that 75% of American Jews live in New York, New Jersey, and Connecticut? Have any of those places been significantly populated with liberty-minded folks, let alone gun rights advocates in the past 50 years? Do the math. Simply being a Jew doesn’t automatically qualify you as the next Feinstein. Growing up in an environment/around people who are hostile to the 2nd Amendment because of regional politics almost always will, regardless of who or what you are.
Robert, why did you pick so many other Jews to work for you? Not really diverse..
Aside from Jeremy, our regular writers are non-Jews. Our Testing and Evaluation Editor (and part owner) Nick Leghorn is Catholic. No one was selected on the basis of their religious affiliation. In case you weren’t kidding.
And their resident redneck JWT is full on Southern Baptist. (And maybe a little Taoist cause they seem to intersect a lot.)
FYI I’ve been writing for TTAG for over 3 years (2.5 actually on staff) and RF didn’t know I was Jewish until I visited him in Austin a month ago and it came up in conversation. If anyone cares, it’s more of a heritage/ancestral thing for me as I’ve been an atheist for as long as I can actually remember (and, yes, I realize that being an atheist tends to anger even more people than being a Jew haha). But I was born to Jewish parents, was Bar Mitzvah’d, etc. If asked I’d answer “I’m not religious” but if pressed might explain that I’m Jewish by birth and heritage or whatever.
Jeremy, I am exactly as you note, save for the fact that i saw the hypocrisy at age 12 and refused to partake in any bar mitzvah. So technically, like you, i do not believe in or partake, so not classified as such by religion. If one cannot distinguish ones “race” walking down the street, one has to forego classifying “Jew” as a race IMO.
Of note, I did travel to both Brooklyn and Jerusalem, spending a week in each, and found in both cases the most unpleasant, woman hating people i ever met was the Hasidim – pretty much similar to hard line Muslim from what i observed.
Now…back to guns
Jeremy, welcome to the club of being hated for not believing in bronze-age sand cults. You’re in good company.
jjimmyjonga, As someone who spent my teens and early 20s in ‘Hebrew rich environments’ there’s never been one of the many tens of thousands I couldn’t spot was a ‘member of the tribe’ (ethnically speaking) from a hundred feet. I’m sure it’ll happen one day, but I’ve been batting 1.000 for the last 40+ years. Not that it matters, just that I don’t think it’s as stealthy as you might believe.
(I just care that you’re not a Hasidim whack-job. After that, you’re smart enough not to believe the nonsense, which is the thing that matters. I care not about your race.)
” If one cannot distinguish ones “race” walking down the street, one has to forego classifying “Jew” as a race IMO.”
I mentioned this in a comment below somewhere, but I’ve been identified as Jewish countless times based on my facial structure and probably hair (alas, it used to be thicker and curlier. Sigh). Random strangers ask me if I’m Jewish, I dunno, a few times a year maybe? I don’t know what counts as a “race” or doesn’t, but, YES, I can be identified as ancestrally Jewish while walking down the street.
jjimmy and Jeremy,
You guys might not think “Jewish” is a race. I’m afraid there’s a whole host of Israelis who disagree, not to mention their government which is as blatantly racist as can be, and makes no apologies for it.
From televised (in the US!) Israeli ad campaign that urges Israeli ex-pats to not only not intermingle with US Jews, and that they will ‘always be Israelis’, not to mention ads placed in Jewish newspapers in NYC that says things like “Don’t pollute the race, avoid the goyim”, I assure you those guys certainly do see Judaism as a race, and one that they intend to “remain pure”. They are as racist as the Klan, difference being, we allow it for some odd reason.
Catholic! Full on gun grabbing religion that ought to be banned. 🙂
“Voodoo Idolatry!”, as my pastor used to say. I keed. I keed.
I was born in WV and raised hellfire and brimstone southern baptist. Jews, Catholics and blacks were all the same to them.
While, I’m not an aethiest it’ll be a cold day in hell before I join an organised religion. My wife is Mormon. You oughta heard the shit fit that caused.
Nugent thinks he’s our friend,
but he does us more harm than good.
NRA needs to create some distance from him, ASAP.
Ted “Crap” Nugget needs to go away. He is a draft dodging POS who does not speak for me as an NRA member.
I’m gonna guess he found an image that collected a bunch of powerful anti gun people together, and somehow, ignored the jewish flags in the image, and how it could be portrayed. I didn’t see anything in the text shown in the image from FB, that was specifically anti-Semitic
Never attribute malice to something that can be explained with stupidity/ignorance/laziness
That said, I’m not a Nugent fan. Kind of a knucklehead, like that cracy uncle whose actions gives the family a suspect name.
Ok I’ll poke the bear bait. A non Jew, post pictures of anti gun Jews, some who work against Israel, and said got to take them down, from office I assume…then 3 Jews who blog a pro gun site, who referring to mass murder of Jews, rightly states NEVER AGAIN are against the non Jew who brought it to pro gun Jews attention. Considering there are Jews in America supporting Hamas…the crossroad is…does one support Jews or others even if they and other infringe on rights to bear arms or support efforts to end Israel?
http://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/261760/insanity-jewish-philanthropy-funding-hamas-daniel-greenfield
This FB post is and, obviously, was meant to be anti-Semitic. But it is also incorrect. First, as RF pointed out, there are plenty of non-Jews in America that are anti-liberty and anti-2A. But the FB post is also incorrect with labeling the pictures with an Israeli flag, for although it seems that the majority of American Jews are anti-2A, the Israelis mostly support civilian gun ownership. Furthermore, the country of Israel, or the citizens of Israel, have nothing to do with Americans’ attitude towards the 2A. Having an Israeli flag to label American citizens, even if of Jewish decent, is just wrong.
Meh. If the yarmulke fits, wear it.
There were plenty of Jewish Nazi collaborators, too. I expect in any struggle you’ll find members of a given group on opposing sides. If any inferences are to be drawn, then it’s not on the basis of there being some representation on both sides. That would only invalidate the entire premise of drawing inferences, no matter how tenuous the counterargument or trace the representation. Rather you must go by the measure of central tendency, which is not made moot by a few outliers.
With all due respect to the few firearms freedom defending Jews out there, the facts remain that Jews in this country overwhelmingly vote Democrat, the Democrats are overwhelmingy in favor of civilian disarmament, and many of the most prominent gun grabbers, in office or not, are Jewish.
Deny it, I dare you. Just be prepared to change the web address to thetruthaboutguns-exceptforinconvenienttruththattouchesarawnerve.com
That’s a bit unwieldy, but I’m sure people would bookmark it and traffic wouldn’t fall off.
As for Nugent’s alleged call to violence, that’s debatable, by someone else who cares. I will say that if there were evidence of that, he’d be charged and convicted of that. I’m not even seeing an arrest.
What does that have to do with calling New York “Jew York”?
Not sure, but i do know people who identify as “Jewish” make up almost 20% of NYC, vs. less than 2% nationally (and, sadly less than 0.2% in u.s. military service – more Buddhists serving http://www.vosizneias.com/43746/2009/11/25/new-yor,-should-more-Jews-join-the-u-s-military/
8%
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_New_York_City#Religion
i seem to remember a movie a few years back called “new jack city”. what was up with that?
Is it? Why is it “wrong” when a gangbanger demands your gun and “right” when a politician demands your gun?
Gun-grabbers already portray gun owners as bigoted insurrectionists. Remember, Homeland Security secretary Janet Napolitano already labelled over 100 million people in the United States as potential domestic terrorists — such “dangerous” people as veterans, Christians, people who believe in the supremacy of the United States Constitution, and people who express libertarian philosophies.
Rather than worrying about whether or not gun-grabbers will try to use something against us, we should be excoriating the people who espouse the nonsense that Janet Napolitano stated in public office.
This article with associated commentary proves that the right-wing gun-toting bible-thumping NRA members are in fact Jew-hating azzholes. FLAME DELETED As a Jew and pro-2a I will never join the likes of the NRA or any other right wing gun nut organization. I believe that Jews need firearms to actually be safe from some of the anti-Semitic phucks that post here.
Stan,
First of all, I cannot recall a single anti-Semitic comment from anyone on this forum. Any such comments would be an infinitesimal fraction of all comments. Regardless, I and everyone that I know don’t care if someone is white, black, brown, red, yellow, polka-dotted, striped, plaid, Asian, African, European, Australian, Pacific Islander, American, Jew, non-Jew, young, middle-aged, old, or any other possible demographic designation for which someone has or will coin some term. All we care about is that someone is a fellow human being and follows the “live and let live” mantra.
More importantly, I question the exact definition of “anti-Semitic” that people so often throw around. As far as I can tell, “anti-Semitic” in the United States almost universally reflects a negative affinity for the traits embodied in the quintessential New York City elitist Jew. Make no mistake, that angst is a response to the elitist nature of such people, not their ethnic nor religious background.
First of all, I cannot recall a single anti-Semitic comment from anyone on this forum.
Then check out the shit that Publius is slinging right here on this topic. After dismissing JPFO as a insignificantly small percentage, it’s basically “Jewish identically equal to anti-gun” for him.
“First of all, I cannot recall a single anti-Semitic comment from anyone on this forum.”
I have in the past, but TTAG is pretty good about making them evaporate in short order.
Stan – take a breather. the NRA is pro 2a not anti- Jew. Nobody here is anti-Jew. Did you read Nugents response: ?
http://reason.com/blog/2016/02/09/ted-nugent-claims-wildly-anti-semitic-ar
I would at least say the Nuge definitely made an error in an assumption/oversight on his part. His response provides clarifications. If he reaffirmed the perception/implication that he was anti-Semitic, I would say yes – screw the Nuge, but that didn’t happen. Old people have brain farts, and the Nuge is not immune to this.
So, you agree with the Nug’s comment “Jews for gun control are Nazis in disguise” as the 1st thing the Nazis did was to dis-arm the Jewish population.
Regardless of their nationality or religion, they are, first and foremost, socialists. National socialists, democratic socialists, fascists – same thing, same goal, sometimes somewhat different methods.
TTAG Should do a post and list of some of the powerful and influential gun rights supporters with Jewish heritage. (RF for one)
Good vs Evil is ridiculously over the top, but the correlation of Jews/gun control although covered several times here on this site and on JPFO, continues to boggle peoples minds including mine.
Please keep in mind RF does this for the money.
Nugent never mentions Jews, or even suggests it in any fashion. I saw the photos and the first two are Bloomberg and Feinstein, two highly visible rich, powerful, piles of human excrement who are haters of the Constitution except how it benefits them. I didn’t even notice the flags and would not recognize an Israeli flag without the vitriol posting by TTAG staff. Based on the comments, many didn’t see the nuance of a religious connection.
If the shoe fits and these people in the photos are anti-2A, we should get them out of positions of influence. And the same for any other similar high level influencers.
Agree with a comment that this boilup is PC gone amuck.
“Nugent never mentions Jews, or even suggests it in any fashion.” — if you are that blind, I’m not so sure that you can be trusted with a weapon…
Your attack of me aside, the fact remains true.
I can only assume you did not read the captions of the photos. Words like “Jew York”, are definitely mentioning Jews.
I have no doubt of Ted Nugent’s patriotism and love for this country, but it’s stuff like this that makes me think he should remove himself from the NRA board of directors. He’s doing more harm than good at this point.
If the image didn’t have the Israeli Flags, good chance it wouldn’t be viewed as “anti-Semitic”.
But hey, to make it fair, there should be a image with politicians of Catholic faith that are anti-2a as well. Maybe with a little Vatican Flag or something.
The pics calls Bloomberg the mayor of “Jew York”. I think even without the flags people would be offended by that.
Mr. Farago, you should be advised that the link to your “Jewish organizations” goes to the ADL – and the ADL supports gun control.
http://archive.adl.org/civil_rights/2008_policy_priority/gun_control.html
Read the Nuge’s response here:
http://reason.com/blog/2016/02/09/ted-nugent-claims-wildly-anti-semitic-ar
You’re committing a logical fallacy. Asserting a true statement that “all A are B” does not imply an assertion that “because all A are B; therefore, all B are A”.
If Nugent had said or implied that, “because all these gun-control advocates are Jews; therefore, all Jews are gun-control advocates”, that statement would have been both untrue, and bigoted. But Nugent didn’t say that.
Also:
One could argue that it is. You list people who are primarily the spokesmouths for the disarmament agenda; the people in the picture are either bankrolling that agenda, or attempting to enact legislation to further that agenda.
If “know them”, “tell others about them”, and “raise maximum hell to shut them down” constitute a “thinly veiled call for violent action”, then the standard for calls for violent action is low, indeed.
This is all much ado about nothing. I couldn’t care less about offending the delicate sensibilities of the easily offended, perpetually aggrieved civilian disarmists.
“Now you could say that the photo gallery of Jewish gun control advocates shows some of, if not the most powerful proponents of civilian disarmament. I wouldn’t argue the point.”
Well, OK then. The thing that offends is the pasting of the flags on the pictures, not the particular selection of gun-grabbers chosen. And I won’t get my back up over offensive speech.
Freedom of speech is the freedom to offend. Don’t let squabbles over political correctness divide us when our main goal is to protect the second amendment. The gun-grabbers WANT us to fight each other over that silly PC stuff. Don’t fall for it.
According to the Jewish Virtual Library, American Jews overwhelmingly vote for Democrat/Socialist/Progressive presidential candidates. Maybe that’s a good proxy for gun control support, maybe it’s not.
An inflammatory image like the one he posted, sadly, further diminishes the chances of swaying people in that group to our side. The infighting I’m seeing over this doesn’t help the cause of gun rights one bit.
WHEEEEE! Social Justice for you and all your readers with a splash of race baiting and an almost fatastical stretching of reality. You really should go write for the Daily Mail, or Wonkette.
Regardless of your perception, he has a right to say whatever the hell he pleases. If you are offended, not only is that good, then the message was received as intended. It made you think, and your first reaction was to respond as any good SJW would; Restrict HIS speech because it hurt your delicate sensibilities.
His statement does not indicate any hostility towards Jews directly. Rather towards Gun Control advocates. The fact that they are Jewish is just a matter of fact so trying to spin this as anti-Semitic is a lie.
Personally I am most offended by the use of the flag of ISRAEL. Sorry-I support Israel Ted. And I agree that a lot of the Jewish community hates my gun rights. A lot of black people vote for evil democrats too. So what? MY black wife doesn’t. And my Jewish lawyer buddy doesn’t hate guns. Yes-the NRA needs to rid themselves of this dim bulb. He ain’t helping. You can believe whatever you want(I see you have stormfront scum here today RF). That doesn’t mean you won’t have consequences…
Biden, Malloy, O’Malley, Pelosi, Murphy, Cuomo, the Bradys, Durbin, Gillibrand, Menendez, Jack Reed, Markey, Patty Murray, Bob Casey, Pat Toomey, McAuliffe, Pat Leahy, every Archbishop in the US — I could go on all day. They are all Catholic. So where’s the outrage?
Let’s face it — it’s no longer fashionable to hate Catholics, but hating Jews never goes out of style.
No longer fashionable to hate Catholics?
The current Pope helped very deliberately move the child molesters around. Mother Theresa was an all-round piece of human garbage, who got beatified before people had a chance to learn what scum she was. Taking money from the Duvalliers, who took it from their peasant population…
Anti-women’s rights, Vatican bank corrupt from day one until right now, against condom use in AIDS-infested Africa, the list goes for miles.
Plenty of reason for thinking people to hate them. Or, at least, their “church”.
I am going to express my humble opinion. Just my thoughts and observations.
After WW2 (in terms of the RTKBA), Jewish folk went in 2 separate directions. Both carrying the phrase “Never Again”.
1. This side believes that in order to never let this happen again, the RTKBA must always be protected for all people. Any human with a gun can resist. Never again, for ANYONE.
2. This side believes that in order to protect Jews, only Jewish people can be in positions of power. All others must be disarmed, so as to never be a threat. Even if they are Jewish.
But like all quests for domination and control, even if they started out from a moral high ground, end up being exactly what they claimed to have been fighting against.
The Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership, and this site, are examples of the first.
The list Nuggent put up, are examples of the second.
You are completely incorrect in your assessment – the vile people in the FB post’s picture do not identify themselves as Jews (and the Israeli flag is completely inappropriate). First and foremost, they identify themselves as Liberals/Progressives/Socialists. Everything else is irrelevant to them. None of their policies have ever been for the benefit of Jews or Israel; in fact, often to the detriment. They happen to be Jews, due to their parents’ identities, but not by their own choice, desire, interest or devotion.
Most Jewish folk I have met identify themselves as Progressive, Left-Leaning, Democrats. My experience, of course, is not the end-all, be-all, totality of everything.
The NY/NJ/CT Progressive/Liberal Jews seem to have a genetic defect. I have also been to Israel – they are not afflicted with this disease.
Nicely put.
We will likely never really know, but yours is one of the most plausible explanations for the phenomenon.
From one NRA, gun-toting, MoT to another. Keep up the good work. I love reading your stuff and am heartened to hear you guys are all fellow Jews.
What are your thoughts on Ted’s follow up post?
So when RF doesn’t like what someone has to say he goes full SJW, borrows from the anti-gunner playbook and tries to have that someone removed from the board of a non-denominational civil rights advocacy organization rather than do the intelligent thing and either ignore it or write an objection article that doesn’t call for removing a staunch advocate of freedom from the board of an organization that represents all gun owners interests.
Just because you Bobby don’t like anti-semites doesn’t stop the fact that they exist or that some of them are gun owners interested in the cause and that the NRA is there to fight for all of us, not just those that adore jews. This is the pot calling the kettle black while insulting the immersion blender. It’s fully inane and illogical as hell.
This whole article is nothing but micro-tyranny and crybaby butthurt. Bobby, nobody gives 2 consecutive damns about your adherence to the teachings of a book written by bronze age primitive tribesmen nor about the (funny as hell and incorrect) idea that believing that particular line of bronze age bull puckey qualifies jews as a race. It don’t. Race, as a social construct, is a group of people who share similar and distinctive physical characteristics which makes you a honkey.
Even more, one cannot be “racist” against an ideology or a belief system which is what judiasm is. You’re white Bob, time to face it. You’re white as the driven snow. So you’re white and a jew and you gave yourself some butthurt after noticing something the Nuge’ reposted and to which he says nothing about their religion but rather just notes that they are always acting like you’re acting now. Like tyrannical punks.
It could be argued that RF isn’t a Jew. He’s a self proclaimed atheist. If you don’t adhere to the religion, you cant claim it.
That is unless you are following Hebrew law.which states the children of a Jewish mother are in fact “Jewish”. So you see the logical fallacy of his position.
Like most “Social Liberals” he self identifies as some sort of perceived minority, and appropriates cultural elements to perpetuate his aggrieved status as it suits him.
It could also be said that the most Anti-Semitic position to have is claiming to be Jewish, when in matter of fact and application they are no more Jewish than a turnip.
One can very much be racist against Jews if one believes them to be a race. The Nazis saw them as sub-human for example.
I understand where Nugent is coming from. There is a thesis advanced in “The Culture of Critique” which boils down to “wherever they go, jews tend to do things to disrupt the local culture and elevate the non-majority in order to provide cover for themselves.”
There is a picture like this showing the “icons” of feminism, as well as those pushing most loudly for “diversity.” There is a detectable pattern which is a bit uncomfortable for anyone paying attention.
Not his picture, only his comments.
1 Nugent didn’t mention Jews as such in his first comment at all. He calls them “punks”. So far as I know, the term punk is not anti-Semitic.
2 In his 2nd comment mentions that “Jews for gun control are Nazis in disguise” not anti-Semitic as such, but an observation that has some basis in truth.
3 His next mention of “Jews” is “The founder of Jews For the Preservation of Firearms Ownership called me his 2nd Amendment/Freedom hero.” Again, this is not anti-Semitic.
Looks like an anti-2A attack on the Nug. I think he could have been a bit more discrete, considering the Israeli flags, but these punks are not Israeli anyway. Mostly they go along with their leader’s anti-Semitic activity towards Israel, so statement #2 is all the more true.
+1 I think he saw a picture of the usual gun control suspects that sorta looked good, wrote a rant, and hit post without looking at the fine details. Which people never do on Facebook… yeah.
I going to give Ted the benefit of the doubt on this one. The guy is vulgar and has a huge ego but I don’t think he really believes in some weird Jewish gun control conspiracy unless someone can find more obvious anti-semitic behavior.
Then he needs to explain his fuckup, apologize for his error, explain that he understands the need and desirability of Jews (in particular) as well as everyone else to be armed.
Instead of saying “eat me.”
I agree that an apology would defuse this for most people, but I am not sure if that’s in the nature of Ted Nugent. It’s like asking Trump to apologize. More likely he will continue to double down with “I love Jews! If you think I’m anti-semitic, then YOU have the problem!” But maybe he will apologize, who knows.
“I love Jews! If you think I’m anti-semitic, then YOU have the problem!”
That’s a pretty good rebuttal, honestly. It’s clear he went into this without anti-semitism on the mind, whereas RF sees the specters of holocaust 2.0 everywhere he goes.
“I love Jews! If you think I’m anti-semitic, then YOU have the problem!” — that reminds me of a scene from Mel Brooks’ “History of the World,” when Louis XIV says “I love the peasants, they are my people, pull!” and a peasant is catapulted into the air for his skeet practice…
@Triple
Assuming that’s true, the proper thing is to say, “Whoops, I didn’t realize the picture was full of Jewbaiting. I can see why that’d confuse you. My bad. Sorry about that.” Then use this as an opportunity that if anything, Jews need and should exercise the 2A more than anyone else.
Instead, we got “eat me.”
No, he can’t admit he’s responsible for the misunderstanding. He’s too small for that.
@SteveInCO
The proper thing to say? According to which style manual?
Offense isn’t given, it’s only taken. Toughen up a bit.
In this *particular* case I believe he gave an impression he really didn’t want to give.
Then he has the gall to criticize those who justifiably drew the wrong conclusion.
It’s not a matter of not pissing all over the opposition. I’d certainly not apologize to them, they can eat a dick. Rather, he pissed all over people on his own damn side, unintentionally, AND made the NRA look bad in the bargain (not that it needs any more assistance, there). He should at least explain that he didn’t mean to say what it looked like he said.
I’m not one of those folks who thinks an apology will make a *genuine* ill-spirited comment OK. The maker of the comment is still a bigot. In this case, Nugent appears to have inadvertently passed along tripe he doesn’t agree with. I should think he’d want everyone to know that’s not what he’s about, and admit he made an error passing it along without looking at it closely. We all make mistakes (I certainly phrased myself poorly once here and had a ton of shit rain down on me) and I’d have no beef with him if he’d admit to one.
Instead, we got “eat me”
He takes no responsibility for his role in this misunderstanding. Which means he’s one of those arrogant pricks incapable of admitting error.
The image has Sen. Lautenberg who has been dead for 3 years!
It also has Bloomberg as a “9/11 Israeli Agent”
Ted screwed this one up. regardless of what the Stormfronters want to think
First, let’s not get our panties in a mobius twist until we hear from Ted. I’m sure that most people here know that Ted is not exactly known for fretting over the embroidery. After reading about it, I had to put on my glasses to recognize that it was an Israeli flag on the photos. Even with glasses, I couldn’t read what text was on each photo. I had only one view of the photos: if they were elected, liberal, politicians. Most were. Their Jewishness (aside from the word “antisemitic” in the headline), was not the lens through which I view them,…but their linkage to liberal, anti-gun causes, is. Oh, but wait a minute, is it now against the law to point out that many, many, Jews are, in fact, liberal, democrat, AND anti-gun? Come to think of it, has anybody ever really bothered to point out that little, but consequential, inconvenient truth? Not that I can recall. Feel free to name one person who has spoken about this, apparently unspeakable truth. Are all Jews liberal anti-gun cranks? No. But there are a lot more Jews, than anyone is willing to acknowledge, who are. Including those working at TTAG.
Donald Trump dared to bring up the illegal immigration problem and border issues, and yet we cheer him and suggest he would be a good president, even though there are liberal forces that scream that Trump is a racist for pointing that out. Ted appears to agree that there are many prominent, as well as, elected Jews, who are as anti-2A as they come, but we’re supposed to throw Ted to the wolves? There seems to be quite a lot of shoot first, ask questions later, comments here.
As a Sephardic Jew who served in both the IDF and US Army I CANNOT stand the American Jewish establishment or their bizarre leftist inclinations. Jews above just about every other ethnic group should know the benefit of the right to keep and bear arms. The left hates Israel and Jews and I hope these Kapos wake up to that.
However these guys are against our natural rights because they are freedom hating, left worshiping statists.
NOT because they are Jews.
Ted is an idiot for this comment among others.
However these guys are against our natural rights because they are freedom hating, left worshiping statists.
NOT because they are Jews.
Thank you. You’ve encapsulated the proper point there, perfectly.
Never again!
Semites pushed American into war against Europeans, for jewish agendas.. NEVER AGAIN!
Oy Vey!…Stop already.
To hear Ted Nugent say it…he apparently saw a picture of twelve people he knew to be anti-gun pukes, tweeted it and called them a bunch of punks…and somehow missed the Israeli flags below each photo, and the captions that implied that gun control is some sort of Jewish conspiracy.
If he’s that blind…he needs to be shown the door by the NRA on the grounds that he’s a threat any time he opens his pie hole. And far from taking a “bite me” attitude like he did in his response, he should be apologizing for his fuckup. One COULD take those twelve pictures, remove the flags and captions, and headline it, “When will these Jews realize what ‘Never Again’ means?” and it would be good. But he chose to repeat it without stripping it of the Nazi baiting.
If he ISN’T that blind, then he’s a liar and “anti-Semitic” (yes, I realize that Arabs are Semites too, but “anti-Semitic” is the word we’re stuck with anyway).
I am well aware a lot of prominent Jews are anti-gun. It’s a source of WTF? for me every time I think about it; if anyone damned well ought to know what being disarmed enables, then that “anyone” would be a Jew. (At gun rallies, if I see someone who is obviously Jewish and pro-gun, I make sure to thank them for understanding and bucking their prominent co-religionists. Never again, but just as importantly, never forget!)
It’s not racist to say, hey why are all these prominent Jews being so clueless about guns and the holocaust? It’s racist to claim there’s some massive conspiracy by Jews to disarm everyone, and invite people to be disgusted with any and all Jews.
Are jews a race, now?
Regardless has anyone noticed the large amounts of hypocrisy exhibited by the “Israel Firsters” in our government? The same jewish politicians who push diversity and gun control while decrying a border wall fall all over themselves for Israel. Israel, who is not big on non-jewish immigrants, allows personal firearms and is a big fan of building border walls…
Are jews a race, now?
An interesting (but not really relevant) point. But I’ll address it anyway. Jews are the “race” that isn’t really a race, not even really a nationality. But the error, of attributing attributes to every member of group X just because some members of group X have it, as if it’s genetic, is basically the same category of error, whether that group is a race or nationality or even, descendants of people of a particular religion (not all people in the group known as “Jews” are actual practitioners of Judaism). And it’s still an error even if it turns out that MOST people in Group X have that characteristic, to assume that ANY member of Group X has it.
“Racism” is just an inapt handle for that category, because quite often the person making the mistake IS making it about a race.
Right, I’m glad we all took logic lessons at university. I’m interested more in general trends though, and I think it’s a true statement that “the overwhelming majority of jewish American Senators and Reps hold hypocritical views on personal firearm ownership, diversity and border control.”
I have counted as of late, but I’m willing to be this is still true.
There’s no doubt in my mind that the vast majority of prominent Jews, maybe even most Jews period…are anti-gun
As I said earlier, that’s a WTF? moment for me every time I think about it.
Makes me want to go buy an Uzi, it does.
“Are jews a race, now?”
Any subset of people who have remained in pretty tight communities for many generations might be considered a “race” after enough time. I am not religious. However, I’m still Jewish and could not even tell you how many random people have assumed I’m Jewish based on how I look. And I don’t mean how I dress (jeans, t-shirt), I mean how my face, hair, etc look. The last time I recall specifically was in San Francisco when a homeless guy on the bus looked up at me for a few seconds and then said, “you’re Jewish, aren’t you?” Run a DNA panel and it would tell you the same. Heck, two Jewish people of eastern/central-european heritage having a baby together would likely elect to have a blood test to check for Tay-Sachs disease, since that’s the specific population by far most likely to carry it. Anyway, maybe this isn’t enough to truly be considered a “race” or subset of a race, but as people seem to have no issue visually identifying my Jewish lineage I don’t think it’s much of a stretch.
@Jeremy–and of course some people have “the map of Ireland in their faces” and it seems very easy to spot a Slavic face as well. So yes, you can often identify who someone’s ancestors were, even within the subset of humanity that is “Caucasian” (now, how the Caucasus mountains came into it, I don’t know) “race”. I find this true among people of other pigmentation as well once you get past “oh, he’s ______ (fill in color).” Nonetheless, there seems to be this idea that pigmentation defines “race” while those other factors define “ethnicity” as a subset of race. (This of course doesn’t take into account people being naturalized into a country whose population they don’t look like.)
And yet, looking at genetics and the amount of interbreeding between population, there’s apparently no scientific way to define “race.” And IMHO no real need for one, since the only real use for it ought to be to quickly describe someone’s appearance, rather than to indicate their character.
Jews have been a race for over 3000 years. They say so themselves. (Unless it’s inconvenient at the moment.)
The “chosen people”? What the eff is that, if not a race? Begin, Sharon, the hundreds of others are as racist as racist can be.
You stupid ignorant dumbphuck. Those are all lies.
Sometimes having someone on the inside pissing out is just as bad as on the outside pissing in. Crazy Ted just showed how big of a jackass he is, again. While I am not a Jew, I do have a German Jewish ancestor who immigrated to the U.S. in the 1800s.
Like me.
Hitler would cheerfully have stuffed either one of us into the gas chamber, if he could have (I suspect BOTH of us would have ended up dying in a pile of hot brass first) on account of that ancestor… but no, not Jewish here either.
Why give this kind of drivel more publicity? It has been covered elsewhere.
Anti-Israel and Anti-Zionist does not equal Anti-Jewish nor Anti-Semetic.
There’s a HUGE distinction that needs to be made between the politics and the Religion.
Call me what you will, but I am Anti-Zionist, but have multitudes of Jewish friends.
Muad Dib!
“Call me what you will, but I am Anti-Zionist, but have multitudes of Jewish friends.” I got it; it’s kind of like saying that I’m OK with the Southern Baptists, but I’m anti-American.
FACTS are facts. Get over it. Own it. Truth is out of style in Amerika.
Semites are anti-white. So of course a major agenda for anti-whites living in and exploiting white countries is “gun control” (registration and confiscation). The people in the photos are jews, and jews continually push for anti-white legislation in many forms, and sponsor anti-white TV programs and sports players.
Wow, the comments. I could believe I was in 1938 reading a lot of these. To see the twisted back flips some do to be anti semitic and prove they’re not is incredible.
At least louis marschalko amd moore bacon are honest in their bigotry. Stupid, but honest.
Wow, just can’t say that enough.
Care to rebut anything Moore Bacon said or are you just going to cry “racism?”
I didn’t cry racism. You’re just wound up and feeling guilty for defending an indefensible load of tripe. Prove he’s got it right.
And don’t forget to rebut the flat-earthers while you’re at it. Everyone deserves a response!
Holocaust deniers fall into 5 catagories.
1. Stupid
2. Evil
3.Stupidly evil
4. Evilly Stupid
5. Iranian
Hmmm… Can’t really add anything that hasn’t already been said but will say that, as a constitutionalist-minded Jew, I find the anti-2A position of most other Jews repugnant and willfully ignorant. While it is true that most American Jews are progressive libidiots, there are some of us out here who live in reality!
Guy’s a nut and has been a nut for a long time. He will get nuttier as time goes on.
Ted N>>>>>Farago…
Like all of TTAG’s staff, Dan, Jeremy and I aren’t just fighting for our right to keep and bear arms. We’re fighting for all Americans’ natural, civil and Constitutionally protected right to keep and bear arms — regardless of their race, color, creed, religion, political affiliation or sexual orientation.
Keep up the good work, I appreciate it.
The 2A Is For Everyone.
The image was not created by Nugent, but it pop-ups most regularly on anti-Semitic and white nationalist conspiracy sites, and is meant to dishonestly convey the idea that gun control is a Jewish or Israeli plot against the U. S. Constitution.
Although Ted also posted another interesting rant on his fake book page.
http://bearingarms.com/ted-nugent-criticized-sides-anti-semitic-facebook-post/
Per Ted Jews for gun control are Nazis in disguise. JFPOF seems to like him. My Dad killed Nazis and saved Jews in WWII. Eat me.
Maybe they need to put little Nazi Flags where the Israeli Flags are?
That would certainly make Ted Nugent’s point for him (provided he also removes the text captions below the portraits). It would upset a LOT of people…but they’d be the people who NEED to be upset, i.e. the twelve pukestains in the pictures. Meanwhile the rest of them would understand the message–these people are betrayers of Jews.
I doubt the originator of the graphic would want to make that change, however…the originator is full-on anti-Jewish.
Given Mr. Nugent’s history of calling for the execution of gun control advocates,
There are days….
Our belief in — and hard work for — gun rights is rooted in our heritage and our recent collective past, which saw the systematic extermination of millions of defenseless Jews. “Never again” means never again will we be defenseless against our enemies. Never again will we be disarmed.
Just wish more people had that attitude.
Although a lot more groups than Jews have been persecuted and exterminated.
I don’t think that a truer statement than your last sentence, can be made.
Well, lot of emotional comments here it seems. I guess I’m an Irish Scotch hillbilly from Mi. My take, and not that it matters, is l don’t care what you are. I want you to live and enjoy this life as much as anybody else. Isn’t that what this country is about? If we have enemies, it’s definitely those who want us disarmed. That, l think we all agree with…
Doc,
As a Jewish gun enthusiast I completely agree with you.
People have mentioned here about the Jews for preservation of firearms ownership organization several times.
Is no one going to mention “Defiance”?
The true story movie about the Bielski brothers partisan resistance in Belarus during WW2.
They saved 1,200 Jews by armed resistance. Took a lot of casualties during the war. Dished some out also.
A very powerful argument for Jews arming themselves.
I was born in 1997. In the 20th century there was more than one holocaust. Governments of the world put something like 262 million people to death. I can’t find the source for that, I’m sorry. Just think about that number. 262,000,000. KPeople can’t trust their neighbor with a gun but they can trust the .gov? People need to stop being offended by everything. People need to stop being ignorant. “Never again” shouldn’t be a Jewish model, it should be everyone’s model.
Ted is right, if somewhat ham-handed. Why do so many Jews want to negate our 2nd amendment ? They have a lot of non-Jewish company, I know, Still, only tyrants are driven to disarm the citizenry. As long as Ted is telling the truth, let him be. Let’s investigate those who would side-step the 2nd amendment, not those who protect the 2nd amendment.
The issue is that what he actually said rather disastrously misaligned with what he wanted to say. All of this is assuming I read him correctly. What he wanted to say, I would agree with wholeheartedly. But he not only didn’t say that (not even ham handedly or rudely), he said something very different from what he meant, and that something was truly awful.
Oh yeah? You want Jews to wear yellow stars too? Phuck you azzhole.
I went to the NRA web site, to call for Nugent’s removal. I followed the link in this sentence:
“For legislative or political questions please contact us *here*.”
The link was https://secure.nraila.org/Contact.aspx. The link is broken.
Did response to this story take their site down?
TTAG ,
You missed the boat on this one. There’s nothing anti-Semetic about the post at all. The problem with these folks is not that they are Jewish. It’s that they are leftist Democrats. The problem is that they are ALL statist and care not one bit about your inalienable rights.
Their Jewishness is incidental.
Their Jewishness is the CENTRAL POINT of the graphic that Nugent re-posted, which is full of anti-Jewish slurs.
^^ This. There seems to be no purpose other than highlighting their Jewishness. Using the Israeli flag to “mark” them is kind of funny because I doubt many of them are true supporters and probably fall right in line with Obama’s opinion of Israel…
Someone grouped everyone in a particular religion as anti gun. I wouldnt know anything about that as a Roman Catholic….
I went to this link: https://contact.nra.org/contact-us.aspx
My message: It’s time for Ted Nugent to go.
Smoove, RF. Now you know who to ban. And the dummies volunteered.
Most of the real dirtbags aren’t regular commenters, fortunately. Though there’s one regular and quite frequent commenter who seemed to be teetering on the edge.
The Jew-hating phucks commenting here just proves that the right wing gun nuts are no friends of the Jews. The leftists are jew-haters as well as the right. Both sides can drop dead as far as I’m concerned. But today’s little exercise just goes to show that the NRA is a haven for conspiracy theories and lies about Jews. So yes, never again will I join you douchebags in support of the 2A. Instead, I will support more intellectual, more reasonable and more tolerant organizations that fight for 2A rights. I will not give you redneck, bigoted, ignorant, knuckle-dragging, mouth breathers a single thought, instead I will be suspicious of everything you fight for.
Bye, Felicia.
Get a grip. If you have anything intelligent to say, it got lost in the ad hominem blizzard.
Anyone can comment on here. We see comments from the extreme left, anti-gun side as well as the extreme right. There’s no reason to believe any of the comments you’re referring to were left by right wing and/or gun nut and/or NRA folks.
So let me get this straight… because Ted Nugent posted a picture insinuating that Jews are “the problem” of gun control and because a few posts on a blog in the internet are anti-semitic, every member of the NRA are “conspiracy theorists and liars about Jews” and are “redneck, bigoted, ignorant, knuckle-dragging, mouth breathers??”
It’s time for Bill Bernstein to replace Ted Nugent on the NRA board. Not sarcasm.
I’m a 50 year old, Jewish, militant supporter of the 2A, a lifetime member of the NRA and a strict constitutionalist. I also proudly wear a III% tattoo, surrounded with 13 stars with the words “True-Born Son of Liberty” above and below it. With that said, I’m disheartened to hear Ted reveal his true heart. Yes, it’s undeniable that some very prominent News are at the forefront of gun control. But they pale in numbers compared to the thousands of others that are part of that fight. Other than the Manchin Toomey Bill, it’ll be nearly impossible to find a gun control bill not sponsored by a democrat, the real folks who as a group want to disarm us. Tomorrow morning I’m calling the NRA and will terminate my membership if they don’t take appropriate action. Unfortunately, the message was so heinous, and impossible to misconstrue, an apology won’t remedy the damage he’s done.
Best TTAG story of the year. And I mean the comments, of course.
I didn’t think I’d ever see conservatives explaining other conservatives why something is offensive, repeating liberal social studies professors word for word in the process, and yet here we go (BTW, since I’m a liberal, it’s not an insult coming from me – just an amusing observation).
Special thanks to 2Asux. You’re getting better at this, especially given that you have unmasked yourself at the end of the last performance – and yet you have performed so convincingly this time that, apparently, many of the same people have engaged anew – and it’s already longer than last time. Hat’s off to you, sir.
Then there’s the epic shitstorm of “I’m not a Jew hater, but …” coming-out-of-the-closet in the comments. Looks like some people were unpleasantly surprised that fellow POTGs and self-professed die-hard conservatives can be quite anti-Semitic – you just never bothered to ask the “right” questions to find out. Consider (an advice not just for conservative, but for everyone) this a reminder to not assume so much, and ask those questions in general. It might reduce your faith in mankind, such as you may have, but it may also add to it in unusual places – and in any case, better be aware of the reality.
Finally, just to encourage further healthy debate, an observation – is it just me, or did most of the names preceding various “well they do have a point” / “but they’re really Jews!” comments here correlate pretty well with those who want to “make America great again” whenever the topic of Trump vs Cruz vs … comes up? ~
Well, int19h, good for you to join, especially to help 2Asux – he’s been running out of arguments as to why we need to sacrifice our liberty for the very important mission of saving a few idiots from themselves…
Anyway, I still feel comfortable with Trump while still despising Progressives/Democrats/Socialists (I wish they would just pick one name and stop hi-jacking other names to keep hiding their true nature). Meanwhile, I do not think that all Jews are progressives/… or that all Progressives/… are Jews. And part of the vile of that FB post was not just race/Jew baiting, but lying and misrepresentation. Having been in Israel, I know first hand that Israeli Jews are not against self-defense and are not against civilian gun ownership, at least the people that I interacted with. I could only wish that their laws would allow for less restrictions, but they don’t have the 2A, unfortunately. However, when it comes to the prototypical NY/NJ/CT Progressive/… Jews, I do believe that they have a genetic defect in that department. I don’t believe it is curable.
Thank you, thank you. (wild applause). I couldn’t ask for a better moment to sign off. A gun nut finally stated the truth: people killed and injured by negligent gun owners are idiots. The man said it himself….”2Asux – he’s been running out of arguments as to why we need to sacrifice our liberty for the very important mission of saving a few idiots from themselves…”
He is all yours, gun lovers. Signed, sealed and delivered. Your spawn. Made the case for immediate strong gun control. But he is to be given honors for being the one and only person on your side to tell the truth, the true motivations behind the gun-rights movement. You care only about yourselves and, yes, your toys.
That was a completely foolish comment, on your part. Most of the so called “accidents” (there are a fee tragic exceptions) are drunks or stoned idiots killing themselves or other stoned idiots. And I am supposed to sacrifice my liberty for them? Why? If you value their lives so much, please, by all means, get them off the drugs and make people out of them. Anytime, please. But don’t sacrifice my liberty or my money or my anything for your cause. Your cause is your cause, not mine.
It is being so dismissive of the lives of other people that will be your undoing.
Your Liberty is not superior to mine. You are asking me to accept potentially immediate and accidental termination of my liberty, but are unwilling to give up any of your own. I don’t care who the lost innocent lives are, they have a right to life until adjudicated as destined for execution by the state (representing the people). You, the private citizen have no moral, civil or God-given right to force on me a risk of death so that you are not inconvenienced in your pursuit of a hobby.
Please, don’t trivialize this – we’re not talking about a “right” to a hobby or a “right” to hunt Bambi. We are talking about, primarily, the ability to prevent a government from becoming tyrannical and the ability to defend oneself and other innocent life from a murderous attack by a criminal(s). Not the same thing as playing with my hobby gun… As to termination of someone else’ liberty and innocent life, like I said earlier, there are a very small number of true accidental deaths, and those are tragedies. But the majority involve the idiot shooting himself or his or her equally drunk or stoned buddy. Sorry, but my heart does not bleed for them.
I appreciate you honesty; some lives just are not worth your time.
Private ownership of guns does not and will not fend off a government. The idea that the armed citizenry will rise up and overthrow a modern US government is fantasy, and events in the last 30yrs prove otherwise. Based on your construct of constitutional government, you are living under tyranny already. Consult the letters of the founders and see if they would have tolerated what you see about you. The population of this nation has agreed that a government’s obligation is to see to the satisfaction of its people. Since the society accepts a government-centric lifestyle, and given the overwhelming force government can bring to bear, lightweight firearms will not prevent anything from government. So, putting aside that guns are the single means of self-defense, accepting that self-defense can take on many forms, that there is no need to hunt animals for survival how can a gun be anything other than a hobby?
“Private ownership of guns does not and will not fend off a government.” – So far, aside from your assertions, you have not provided any factual basis for this claim. Perhaps it boils down to one’s beliefs. I believe that 100M armed citizens are a significant and effective deterrent to tyranny and I am not willing to compromise on this all important issue.
Ok, here it is again….the US government has won every armed conflict with its citizens, since 1789: Whiskey Rebellion, Civil War, WW1 Bonus Marchers (in downtown D.C.), Waco, Ruby Ridge. For the latter two events, there were over 10 million gun owners in the US. They did not rise up and overthrow the government for what your side should have clearly seen as a government out of control. You will not be able to successfully rebel against a government when you have only small arms. And no, successes by rag-tag groups in underdeveloped countries is not the same as going up against a modern, integrated military. Our revolution was possible only because the citizens had firepower equal to the British. No such parity exists today.
Let’s get back to discussing the common sense measures that can be taken to reduce the number of negligent deaths committed by gun owners.
I consider myself a sufficiently good student of history and military tactics to disagree with your assessment.
And vice versa. I have a God-given right to act in my own self-defense, and in defense of my loved ones. FULLSTOP.
False equivalence. Please quantify the risk of “potentially immediate and accidental termination” that you face. Then, demonstrate that my exercise of my own liberty contributes to that risk.
Please demonstrate how my exercise of my own liberty forces upon you a “risk of death”.
The real irony is: those who own/use firearms in part as a hobby are probably even less likely to be involved in a firearms handling-related incident that leads to accidental human injury/death.
Here’s a protip, though: if you don’t want to be shot, don’t hang around people who are likely to shoot you. I’ll leave it up to you to determine who those people might be, though. As for me? I’ll stick with the people who include “hobby” among the reasons they own/use firearms.
“And vice versa. I have a God-given right to act in my own self-defense, and in defense of my loved ones. FULLSTOP.”
– Yes you do; never said different….unless you, like so many refuse to accept that “self-defense” is not a code word for “gun”. You have a right to defense, you do not have a right to any weapon you chose. If so, you would be legally able to buy any weapon you can afford, regardless of configuration or characteristics, but you willingly accept that you cannot own rocket launchers and rockets, grenades, self-propelled artillery, 37MM canon, etc.
“Self-defense” does not mean only concealed carry or having a gun in a drawer at home. “Self-defense” means capable of fending-off any attacker, including the government. Your founders understood that, but having allowed convenience and laziness and “common sense” to erode your individual freedoms (as declared so often in these blog postings and comments) so that you now are helpless in the face of a SWAT team sent by a “tyrannical government intent on enslaving you”.
So, restrictions on when, where, how many and how you use firearms is legitimate. The problem is you want to pick and chose the restrictions you like and deny choice to the rest of us.
“so that you now are helpless in the face of a SWAT team sent by a “tyrannical government intent on enslaving you”. So, restrictions on when, where, how many and how you use firearms is legitimate.” — Another example of lack of logic. The restrictions are real, yes, due to the fact that the government has a bigger gun, but what made you come to the conclusion that they are “legitimate”?
That’s like saying I have a right to eat, but I don’t have a right to acquire food.
A firearm is the most effective and efficient means of providing for self-defense; therefore, yes, I do have an inherent, natural, God-given right to acquire firearms to use in self-defense.
Where did I ever say that I willingly accept that I cannot own such arms? As a matter of fact, I do not accept that I do not have a right to own such arms. Restrictions against owning such arms are an unconstitutional infringement of second amendment-protected rights.
So, your argument is that, because society has generally abdicated responsibility for self-defense and for holding the government in check, that further infringements upon my individual rights are legitimate? How does that make any sense?
@2asux,
I laughed at this. A little bit.
You are living a dream world if you think for one moment that you can possibly be free from risk of death while at the same time sharing a living space with other people. In this realization, gun ownership is no different than anything else. You accept a risk when you drive your car, when you walk on the sidewalk, when you pump your gas in the dark of the night. You continually equate your safety with freedom which are Incommensurable terms. When it comes to safety and freedom, you really cannot have both completely and we know which one you prefer. Of course your preference illogically addresses the risk of very low probability, and at the cost of 318,900,000 people’s freedom. Why you don’t apply the same logic to vehicles, stairs, or swimming pools shows your irrational fear and anti-gun bias.
We are talking about the risk of being killed by a negligent gun owner (and you are all one unthinking action away from an ND). It is not required that all risks be neutralized in order that reducing reckless gun owner-caused death and injury be tackled. The ongoing insistence on bringing non-germane issues into this discussion indicates great fear drives gun owners into grasping at any ephemeral cloud to avoid discussing their harboring people who have no business with scissors, much less a gun. All in the name of the fantasy of countering government overreach or tyranny.
Any fears that fun owners may have are dwarfed by your own, wholly irrational fear of gun owners, and/or of being injured/killed by a negligent discharge from a gun owner.
Welcome to a free society that cherishes individual liberty. It seems you would prefer a Nanny State.
Alexander, that’s a great idea! Let’s make a roster right here. Post something like this in reply to my comment:
“I think this post is anti-Semitic, because it highlights the fact that all these people are Jews, which is completely irrelevant to their anti-gun stance, or their politics in general. I support candidate X.”
or, for another example:
“I think this post is not anti-Semitic, because it just points out that all these people are Jews, which is correct. And while I’m not a Jew hater, and there are good Jews, there’s obviously considerable overlap between liberal Jews and gun grabbers in US, and it is important to draw attention to it. I support candidate Y.”
Let’s test my hypothesis.
(And to clarify, the hypothesis is that for Republicans, anti-Semitism will strongly positively correlate with support for Trump, and negatively correlate with support for other candidates, especially strongly so for Cruz.
For Democrats, it would positively correlate with Sanders supporters and negatively with Hillary supporters, but this is not the place to test it, obviously.)
I don’t see the correlation. Anti-Antisemitism is generally an illogical hatred, so unless there is an openly anti-Semitic candidate (like Hitler), how would you get a correlation to one candidate or another? Take Bernie, for example. He is Jewish, does not deny that, has lived in a kibbutz for a few months (in 1963), but his policies are very much anti-Israel – so will the anti-Semites vote for him?
>> Take Bernie, for example. He is Jewish, does not deny that, has lived in a kibbutz for a few months (in 1963), but his policies are very much anti-Israel – so will the anti-Semites vote for him?
Oh yes. Further to the right, the kind that differentiates between “that solid Jewish guy whom I know personally” and “those liberal elitist banker Jews in Washington”. And further the left, those who are anti-Israel because they’re pro-Palestine, and have been at it for so long they have started seeing agents of Zionism in every Jew they see (except for those who agree with them on their matters of importance – and since Bernie strongly dislikes Netanyahu, it could well be interpreted that way).
What can I say? Bigotry is a very phucked up business…
And as to my basis for suggesting these correlations – I would argue that “illogical hatred” is basically the Trump’s platform condensed in two words, so…
First, I am a Christian but a dues paying member of organization Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership, What happened to Europe’s Jews is one of our best arguments as to why every free man need to own a firearm,
Second, I never understood the fascination with Ted Nugent. If he were not “pro-2nd Amendment” none of us here would have anything to do with him. By looks, lifestyle and intelligence he is just short off a street thug. When you place you faith in a character like that don’t be surprised when you get burned.
While I am a life a life member pf the NRA and a shooting instructor certified by them, they are just a money making outfit, a near subsidiary of an advertising agency. Their “Board” means nothing (anytime you have a Board of Directors or trustees bigger than 12 or 18 that means it has no power, the staff is running things), So it doesn’t matter whether Nugent comes or goes with the NRA. The real progress against the gun grabbers has been made by the 2nd Amendment Foundation and attorneys like Alan Gura (who I admit is a friend). They took the risk in spite of the NRA and were successful in having the 2nd Amendment incorporated against the states. They continue through legal action to win small battles that don’t get publicity.
My fascination with Ted Nugent began with this interview:
https://youtu.be/e6snW6KXQZ4
He may not be the sharpest around, but he is amazingly entertaining to watch (When he is not doing stupid stuff like implying Jews are the problem). No doubt about it.
I am an NRA member. I am completely aware the NRA is a money making outfit. I find their emails, phone calls, and letters hilarious for their quest to suck some money from me. I am partly aware they are in the business of scaring gun owners into giving them some money. Which is fine. I give them money anyways. Years before “jackbooted thugs” the NRA was pro gun control. After their transition to supporting gun rights (certainly more than prior), they got my support, and the reason is the massive grass roots effort by millions of gun owners to become part of an organization to pressure politicians into respecting the 2nd amendment.
I agree with your statement on the SAF. They are doing great things.
Our side is just so stupid sometimes. Nugent’s life story would put him in the “White Trash” category if not for his moneymaking. Then when he came out pro-2nd our side just gushed all over him. Most actors, singers, and other talent have got brains the size of a birds and when they are on our side that means eventually they are going to blow up.
Do you remember a poll repeated here maybe 6 months ago which was “The 100 most important people fighting gun control” Of course people like Nugent were at the top. Absolutely missing from the list were 1. Alan Gura (counsel in the Heller and McDonald cases and a number of others around the country. I saw a lot of lawyers in my 20 years on the bench, then spent two days with Alan last year. He is the smartest lawyer I have ever known). 2. Clark Neily, Gura’s co-counsel in Heller and McDonald and senior attorney at Institute for Justice. 3. Bob Levy, former chairman of the Cato Institute. He pressured Alan through his father to take the Heller case promising to raise money, which he did, Bob does not even own a gun. 4. Dick Heller, who has gotten a little full of himself, nevertheless he put his name on the line as the plaintiff and I am sure there were negative consequences for that. He speak to pro-2nd groups now. 5. Otis McDonald (deceased last year) the grandfather who was tired of being burglarized in Chicago also put it on the line. 6. Alan Gottlieb with the 2nd Amendment Foundation. 7. Tom Gresham whose nationwide radio show reaches a lot of listeners.
I mean people like Rush Limbaugh were on the list.
That shows how much people really know. You know, I am really just a dumb hick but I have spent an inordinate amount of time studying RTKBA as well as the U.S. Constitution as I practiced some Constitutional Law before I was a judge (and applied it while I was a judge). Every year I made it a point to either debate a left wing Constitutional law professor over RTKBA. This is a Law Prof. from Georgia State I debated two years ago: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ySFLHkIJYXU That was actually FUN. I had one of the justices of our supreme court there rooting for me (he is an old friend). I also made sure I talked at my old law school every year (The University of Alabama; a top 25 law school) and last year we went to the shooting range afterwards (I brought some exotic firearms). as well as give a C.L.E. related the firearms rights.
After going to one of the boring Friends of the NRA Dinners, in which they played CDs during dinner, I called the organizer the next day and said “I have a pretty good 30 minute lecture with PowerPoint (with embedded videos) tracing the Right from Rome until today. I will be glad to be the speaker next year unless you have somebody better” (I was elected in a county of 400,000 unopposed 4 times and was the first Republican circuit judge ever). The answer was “well we kind of decided we didn’t want any more speakers, they just slow things down”. O.K. stay stupid.
Heck 3 years ago I knew the President of the NRA, Jim Porter from Birmingham, but I didn’t want to go to him just see what the normal chain of authority would do. So on my gold embossed letterhead and envelope I wrote the proper department volunteering to be a pro-2nd Amendment speaker within 200 miles of where I life. No cost to them, I would pay all my expenses. I finally got back an speakers bureau list, as if I was requesting a speaker.
So now I spend my pro-2nd Amendment time as the permanent guest on a Springfield, Missouri talk radio show a friend of mine has every Saturday from 7am to 10 am. It is actually the Number 1 rated program on the weekend from 7am to 9am. If you ever want to listen live online the link is: http://www.ksgf.com/ or you can listen to the podcast: http://www.scrippsmedia.com/ksgf/podcasts/the-gun-show/ I may have to teach a self defense class this weekend and if so I will have to skip the show.
But I guess the point of my rant is we are winning in spite of the NRA
Take Care
As opposed to running a benefit auction where each one of about half a dozen pieces of kitschy art (yeah, it was painting after painting of deer in the woods) took five to fifteen minutes to hammer down because they keep pleading for a bidder willing to pay about six times what the art is actually worth…since it took them two minutes to find a bidder willing to bump the bid from four times, to five times what it was worth, already.
That doesn’t slow things down at all.
At least the woman walking around holding the “artwork” in the air was good looking,
US Jews generally support Democrats and their disgusting platform against the Bill of Rights. Thats just a fact. You have to seperate US Jews from Israeli Jews, because they are two completely different things.
US Jew Democrats support Obama and his plot to destroy Israel. in that sense Nugent is correct, they are the enemy of freedom.
I have no explanation for left leaning US Jews and their Democrat leanings. It seems to fulminate from the fact that Jews mostly landed in NYC after leaving Europe, and have taken on “city” sensibilities, which include Democrat ideals of banning guns. But there can be no doubt that the MAJORITY of US Jews support Democrats and their anti Bill of Rights platform. This includes the Hollywood media left coast establishment of Jews and the east coast NYC contingency of Jews that inhabit the news media and DC. Thats just reality.
The point is that they have NOTHING to do with Israel, that Ted Nugent openly attacks Jews and Israel, mocks the Holocaust, and endorses the total BS that Israel was behind 9/11. Anyone who does that is a Jew-hater and a liar. Period.
So phuck you, bigoted POS.
Ted should be praised for telling the absolute TRUTH! Anyone that condemns him is still brainwashed and a slave. Just remember that those that scream the loudest are the most guilty. A few words to sum this up: “Truth sounds like Hate to those that Hate Truth”
The point is that they have NOTHING to do with Israel, that Ted Nugent openly attacks Jews and Israel, mocks the Holocaust, and endorses the total BS that Israel was behind 9/11. Anyone who does that is a Jew-hater and a liar. Period.
So phuck you, bigoted POS.
OK troll bot. I am sorry that you still believe the brainwashing you were taught as a child. One day you will see the light and join the side of GOOD. Now crawl back into your mothers basement and watch porn. You truly have no business spewing bullshit you know nothing about!
Why on TTAG do we only hear the politically correct version of events? Any negative narrative, true or false, regarding Jews is anti-Semitic, yet anything anti-Catholic(or pick another religion or denomination) is fair game? Is TTAG part of the solution, or part of the problem?
Would love to hear what JPFO has to say too.
-D
From jpfo.org:
Sounds up he used up whatever goodwill he inherited from Zelman.
Oy vey-this sure took on a life of it’s own. I went to the Nuge’s FB page-what an azzwhole…ditch him NRA.
Yes. Because we must never question Jewish authority or criticize them in any way. No Jew has ever done anything wrong and it is anti-Semitic to point out anything that is unflattering about them.
If it appears that the main proponents of gun control are Jews and the major force behind destroying our First and Second Ammendemnt are Jewish politicians and organizations, it is pure coincidence and certainly anti-Semitic to think so, let alone utter a word about it.
If in the effort to deflect from their supposed attack on our Second Ammendemnt, they need to suppress our First Amendment, that’s perfectly acceptable. The ADL says that the First Amendment has it’s limits and any criticism of any Jew should be immediately shut down. They have managed to make it illegal and punishable with jail or imprisonment in Europe, Canada and Australia for ever saying anything negative about Jews in those countries and they are working on getting legislation passed under “hate crime” laws in the United States because it should be illegal to hurt a Jew’s feelings in this country too.
They had a holocaust where 60 trillion of their people were instantly gassed by our evil White European brothers, so we must never say anything bad about them or be strictly punished.
Certainly, Ted Nugent should never be allowed to speak out even if what he says is true when it comes to the Jews.
Pointing out the obvious is crossing the line. Right FWW? I think you need to read the Constitution, specifically the First Amendment. Then you can at least understand what you are proposing
And plastering the flag of Israel on 12 photos makes Nugent an azzwhole. Defend him all you want troll(or go hang out with your stormfront puzzies)…you DO understand this site is owned by a Jew and he ALLOWS shite like YOU to comment?
How admirable that a Jewish owned publication allows for free expression of thoughts and opinions. That’s more than can be said for you.
Nugent’s right. Jews are the vanguard of the anti-2nd-Amendment movement. If you haven’t noticed, it’s because you haven’t looked.
2nd Amendment advocacy is thus inherently “anti-Semitic,” unless one is content with ignoring who one’s enemies really are.
“To learn who rules over you, find out who you are not allowed to criticize.”
The point is that they have NOTHING to do with Israel, that Ted Nugent openly attacks Jews and Israel, mocks the Holocaust, and endorses the total BS that Israel was behind 9/11. Anyone who does that is a Jew-hater and a liar. Period.
So phuck you bigot.
Mocking the holocaust is the ultimate expression of freedom in our zealously philo-Semitic zeitgeist. The holocaust narrative has long since become a state religion, Holocaustianity if you will. I have no respect for any truth that needs zealous bigotry like yours to prop it up. I have no respect for secular religions that cannot be discussed or criticized openly without fear of reprisal.
The post-modern religion of holocaustianity is begging skeptics and truth-lovers to mock and belittle it.
As for Nugent and his beliefs, the only one I agreed with is specified in the comment you replied to.
You have a nice day though.
I might add that I learned this skeptical, iconoclastic, critical approach to religion (secular or otherwise) from you Jews.
Oh yes, I forgot “irreverent,” “spirited,” and “combative”; I learned my irreverent, spirited, combative approach to dissenting from the dominant secular religion from you guys, too. So thanks.
JQP – I’m curios, have you been collecting all this bile that you’re now spewing out for a while? You do look like a biological weapon generator; perhaps there’s some Alien blood in you? Slow down, all that foaming at the mouth is not a good indication of your health.
Classic projection.
You have a nice day, now.
What a weak reply. You are thoroughly brainwashed. “They have nothing to do with Israel.” “They aren’t religious Jews”, “Bigot”, “Jew hater”. “Anti-Semite”. Your words mean nothing when compared to the truth.
Go to hell you punk. You are as bad the Jews you blindly defend.
Of course he should catch Hell. You can’t go criticizing your betters like that and get away with it! Jews are GOD’S CHOSEN PEOPLE!
Criticize the “WASPs,” the white people, the Protestants, the Catholics, the Mormons, the Rednecks, the corn-pone flyovers, any whites you like.
But…do…not…criticize…the…Jews.
Hey, I don’t make the rules.
And you don’t understand them as well. It’s called bigotry azzhole. What the Jews have given to the world, the world should be thankful for. And selecting a few individuals for their particular political views and blame an entire nation (yes, the Jews are a nation) is vile anti-semitism. So phuck you, stupid pr!ck.
Go away troll bot. Nobody believes the lies you spew.
“What the Jews have given to the world, the world should be thankful for”…Be very specific, but keep in mind this can go both ways.
(Ever notice how often “anti-Semitism” is paired with words like “vile,” “odious,” “virulent,” “noxious,” etc? I suppose it suggests that “anti-Semitism” needs a bit of propping up, maybe has difficulty standing on its own as a pejorative. Or maybe it suggests that there is a form of “anti-Semitism” that isn’t vile, odious, virulent, or noxious, that deserves not to be tarred with such adjectives.)
Gotta say though, Stan, you’re a marvelous spokesman for your people.
As for what the Jews have given the world, it is dwarfed by what European peoples have given the Jews. That’s leaving aside all the God-awful things that Jews have “given” the world, like Bolshevism and Soviet mass-murderers, the culture of critique, the Frankfurt School, Freudian quackery, degenerate Hollywood & media, tons of slumlords and predatory capitalists, the “Russian” oligarchs, Apartheid Israel, Neocon adventurism in the Middle East, etc.
As for being selective, well, turnabout is fair play; the Tribe’s been doing the same like it was a national sport for generations now.
I will point out one thing for the gallery: you don’t see many Jews who won’t take their own side in a fight. Can’t say the same about most whites; pretty much the opposite, actually. This can’t be hard to notice, even for the anti-anti-Semites among us.
Objectivity looking at mainstream culture paints an eye opening picture. Caddy shack comes to mind, an obvious allegory of Jewish dominance over the alleged WASP ruling class. This is just one example of too many to mention.
The ignorance and bigotry of the people that read this website is disappointing but not surprising. Too bad TTAG will not delete the vile comments of these bigots. Had the remarks been toward muslims, black, hispanics, women, homosexuals, or and other “protected” groups, you bet they would have been removed. But apparently, the owners of this site are too cowardly to act when blatantly obvious neo-Nazis show up.
BS Stan. Jews are politically favored, especially compared to most if not all the groups you mentioned. This site has in the past posted articles and tolerated anti-Catholic, anti-Muslim posts, but that didn’t seem to bother you.
>> Had the remarks been toward muslims, black, hispanics, women, homosexuals, or and other “protected” groups, you bet they would have been removed.
I have to ask – have you actually read TTAG comments before? I don’t think so. Let me show you why.
https://www.google.com/search?q=site%3Athetruthaboutguns.com+islam+death+cult&oq=site%3Athetruthaboutguns.com+islam+death+cult
So anyone who says anything unflattering about God’s chosen people even if it is true are “neo Nazis”?
This is admirable. You guys sound like Righteous Jews. I’m sure for you three, that’s what “Never Again” really does mean. But it doesn’t mean that for the large majority of Jews – not at all. Pro-2nd-Amendment Jews are very much in the minority.
American Jewry is in the tank for the Democrats. In presidential elections, for example, Jews vote 75-85% for Democrats, and more than half of the money donated comes from rich Jews.
presidential elections money donations jews
‘JTA’ reports that as much as 2/3 of Democratic money comes from Jewish donors
Sorry, did I say more than half? I meant “as much as two thirds.”
(Think about the hypocrisy of American Jewry supporting the very armed “settler” (colonist) movement in the occupied territories, then turning around and voting for and donating to the anti-2nd-Amendment party so heavily)
The Jews’ “culture of critique” is a vast cultural and academic edifice to racism against white “gentiles” Are you willing to call Jews out for that? Is it racist the way Jews have “grouped” whites together for opprobrium? Is it racist when blacks criticize whites? When hispanics criticize whites? When Jews criticize Palestinians?
Having made my opinions plain in this thread, I am compelled to say, I do admire this blog’s (largely/entirely Jewish) owners and founders. Their commitment to free speech is admirable. As far as I am aware, I have never once had my opinions censored at this blog. That is far more than I can say for most Americans’ commitment to free expression and American values.
Agree.
Take, for example, Stan, above, who says:
I’d far rather have TTAG’s Jewish founders in a fox hole with me, than I would Stan. I’d push Stan out of my fox hole.
My outside life has kept me away from the blog recently. Hopefully that will change soon, but I read this story and I wanted to make a point of coming to this site and stating this clearly:
I stand with what RF said in the above post.
-JKP
What a bunch of deflecting disingenuous comments. This is the biggest load of crap I have read since logging onto the ADL website.
Sure the Federal Reserve being controlled by Jews is a conspiracy theory. Forget that every single Fed Chairman for the last 30 years has been Jewish, that’s just wild conspiracy talk.
The fact that every single Jewish politician in America is pro-gun control and anti-Second Ammendment is just pure coincidence. The fact that Jews have led the charge in gun control going back to Frank Lautenberg in 1968 and continue to be at the forefront of this movement to destroy our Second Amendment is coincidental.
“You must not question our authority Goyim. That is anti-Semitic”, and all of you brainwashed cattle fall in line and start making excuses for them.
This blog can no longer be taken seriously.
And a stray dogg that wandered over from stormfront can be taken seriously?
I guess that depends on how seriously you value the truth.
There is no truth at stormfront.
What does Stormfront have to do with this website? I realize that when a person cannot refute facts, they will deflect and redirect the topic to a “straw man” argument when they refuse to concede a point.
How difficult would it be for you to simply acknowledge that while not all Jews are against the Second Ammendemnt, the overwhelming majority of them are, and that Jews are over represented in the pro-gun control movement?
Why is this obvious fact so devastating to you that you would resort to the worn out and tired ad hominem used by so many to demonize anyone who says anything that is unflattering about Jews?
As a previous commenter pointed out, there should be no sacred cows when it comes to protecting our natural rights. Until we can call out all enemies of our Constitution, we cannot prevail in defending our position.
Dude, you talk pretty. But if you can’t aknowledge that the nooge put a foot wrong this time then you’re being willfully blind.
Are you one of those guys that want to protect the constitution for the white race? The constitution allows people to speak out and attempt to modify it. Even those jooz.
And come election time we have the right to speak out ourselves and make a pro gun statement.
Please explain. Are saying that the major proponents of gun control in this country are not Jews or are you upset that someone pointed it out?
Anyone who is paying attention already knows they have led the anti-Second Ammendemnt/pro-gun control charge from the beginning and that every Jewish politician and major Jewish organization in America are pro-gun control.
On the ADL’s own website, while denouncing Ted Nugent and feigning outrage that anyone would suggest such a thing, they have a link to an article bragging about their strong position on gun control.
How about a little honesty and stop pretending to be outraged about something that is common knowledge?
This dialogue reads like the same kind of defense that blacks try to come up with for thugs like Michael Brown and how he was gunned down for the color of his skin and not because he tried to kill Darren Wilson with his own gun.
moo.
Thanks for being the only other one on this comment blog to call out these Jews. Notice that the ADL and the apologists haven’t tried to deny that these gun control freaks are all Jews. They will point out an isolated example of a Jew who isn’t promoting gun control. Who cares about a handful of Jews who aren’t pro-gun control? The ones that matter are holding positions of power in our government and they are the ones to be concerned about.
More people need to wake the hell up and stop sucking up to these parasites who feel perfectly comfortable with attacking our Constitution and using their holocaust story as a shield to hide behind.
Until people stop being afraid to name the Jew, we cannot win this struggle.
People need to educate themselves and learn that the creators of Communism were Jews. In the 1930’s in America, it was called the Jewish Disease. We currently have a Jew running for president who spent time in an Israeli Stalinist Communist Kibbutz in his youth and follows that political philosophy, but people tip toe around the subject and call him a Socialist because that what he says he is. If we are not careful and get out and vote for Donald Trump, we will end up with a Jewish Communist dictator ruling over us.
Senator Joseph McCarthy was a strong man who stood up and called them out and they used the power of their media to destroy him.
They would abolish our Constitution if they could. Jews are the major force behind gun control.
I can’t wait to read the replies calling me a Jew hater, anti-Semitic, ignorant and every other name they use to deflect from the truth.
“I can’t wait to read the replies calling me a Jew hater, anti-Semitic, ignorant and every other name they use to deflect from the truth.” — No, i wouldn’t. No need. You have already called yourself that – Stray Dog.
So? Does that make you any less of a brainwashed punk? If you can’t stand up for the Second Amendment because you are afraid of being called names by Jews and their apologists, then you are no better than they are.
Turn in your guns and join their ranks.
I think that those of use who want to “join their ranks” won’t be so quick to surrender our guns, precisely because we have to contend with the existence of people like you. The only thing that stops a neo-Nazi with a gun is a good guy with a gun, and all that.
Luckily, despite the anti-Semitic vitriol outpour here, I’m confident that there are way more good guys with guns in this country.
Does it strike anyone else that such a small people (meaning small population among the world) can be the cause of so much unhappiness for the rest of the planet? Yet they withstand every attempt to wipe them out?
Why are you unhappy? Would wiping someone out fix that problem?
Thankfully, most – if not all – of that vitriol is coming from drive-by commenters who were somehow attracted to the story. They’ll be gone again, soon enough.
In order for there to be anti-Semitism, there has to be Semitism. That is irrelevant to the fact that Jews line up on the side if gun control. If stating that is anti-Semitic, then so be it. Denying that fact does little to support your argument and calling people names shows you can’t deny it.
@Chip: That type will eventually do justice and rejoin their brethren by flushing themselves down the toilet.
I’m watching the comments trickling in, and keep wondering how far RF’s patience can stretch. Talk about stirring up the hornet’s nest!
Yes, and I never imagined that there was so much filth hiding behind the Constitution.
Semites include arabs
Meh
Ted Nugent, Donald Trump clowns gonna clown.
Pithy.
Who are the original dindunuffins: Jews, or blacks?
Magic 8 Ball sez: “toss-up.”
Sorry, but https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gabrielle_Giffords#Early_life.2C_education.2C_and_business_career is actually a Jew.
Most U.S. Federal gun control legislation has been written, introduced, and sponsored by Jewish Congressmen and Senators.
U.S. Federal Gun Control Legislation, 1968 – present
1968: The Gun Control Act of 1968 comes from Congressman Emanuel Celler’s House bill H.R.17735. It expands legislation already attempted by the non-Jewish Senator Thomas Dodd. America’s biggest and most far-reaching gun law came from a Jew.
1988: Senator Howard Metzenbaum sponsors Senate bill S.1523. It proposes legislation turning every violation of the Gun Control Act of 1968 into a RICO predicate offense, allowing a gun owner to be charged with federal racketeering offenses.
1988: Senator Howard Metzenbaum co-sponsors a bill – S.2180 – to ban, or limit/restrict, so-called “plastic guns.”
1990: Senator Herbert Kohl introduces bill S.2070, the Gun-Free School Zones Act of 1990, which bans gun possession in a school zone. The law will later be struck down in court as unconstitutional.
1993: Senator Howard Metzenbaum sponsors Senate bill S.653. It bans specific semiautomatic rifles, but also gives the Secretary of the Treasury the power to add any semiautomatic firearm to the list at a later date.
February, 1994: The Brady Law, which requires waiting periods to buy handguns, becomes effective. Senator Howard Metzenbaum wrote the Brady Bill. Senator Metzenbaum sponsored the bill in the Senate. The sponsor of the bill in the House was Congressman Charles Schumer.
1994: Senator Howard Metzenbaum introduces S.1878, the Gun Violence Prevention Act of 1994, aka “Brady II.” Congressman Charles Schumer sponsored “Brady II” sister legislation [H.R. 1321] in the U.S. House of Representatives.
September, 1994: The Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994 goes into effect, including a provision that bans the manufacture and possession of semiautomatic rifles described as “assault weapons.” [Note: true assault weapons are fully automatic, not semiautomatic]. That gun-ban provision was authored in the Senate by Senator Dianne Feinstein and authored in the House by Congressman Charles Schumer.
1995: Senators Kohl, Specter, Feinstein, Lautenberg and others introduce the Gun-Free School Zones Act of 1995, an amended version of the 1990 school-zone law which was struck down in court as being unconstitutional.
September, 1996: The Lautenberg Domestic Confiscation provision becomes law. It is part of a larger omnibus appropriations bill. It was sponsored by Senator Frank Lautenberg. It bans people convicted of misdemeanor domestic violence from ever owning a gun.
1997: Senate bill S.54, the Federal Gang Violence Act of 1997, proposes much harsher sentences for people violating minor gun laws, including mandatory prison sentences and forfeiture of property. It was introduced by Senator Dianne Feinstein and Senator Hatch, among others. It returns the idea of turning every violation of the Gun Control Act of 1968 into a RICO predicate offense.
January, 1999: Senator Barbara Boxer introduces bill S.193, the American Handgun Standards Act of 1999.
January, 1999: Senator Herbert Kohl introduces bill S.149, the Child Safety Lock Act of 1999. It would require a child safety lock in connection with transfer of a handgun.
February,1999: Senator Frank Lautenberg introduces bill S.407, the Stop Gun Trafficking Act of 1999.
February, 1999: Senator Frank Lautenberg introduces S.443, the Gun Show Accountability Act of 1999.
March, 1999: Senator Frank Lautenberg introduces bill S.560, the Gun Industry Accountability Act of 1999.
March, 1999: Senator Dianne Feinstein introduces bill S.594, the Large Capacity Ammunition Magazine Import Ban Act of 1999.
May, 2000: Senators Feinstein, Boxer, Lautenberg, and Schumer sponsor Senate bill S.2515, the Firearm Licensing and Record of Sale Act of 2000. It is a plan for a national firearms licensing system.
January, 2001: Senators Feinstein, Schumer, and Boxer sponsor Senate bill S.25, the Firearm Licensing and Record of Sale Act of 2001. It is a nation-wide gun registration plan [apparently there were two versions of that Firearm Licensing and Record of Sale Act bill].
May, 2003: Senators Feinstein, Schumer, Boxer, and others introduce legislation that would reauthorize the 1994 federal assault weapons ban, and, close a loophole in the law that allows large-capacity ammunition magazines to be imported into the U.S. The ban expired in September, 2004.
October, 2003: Senators Feinstein, Lautenberg, Levin, and Schumer co-sponsor bill S.1774, designed to stop the sunset [ending] of the Undetectable Firearms Act of 1988.
March, 2005: Senator Frank Lautenberg introduces bill S.645, “to reinstate the Public Safety and Recreational Firearms Use Protection Act,” in other words, to reinstate the 1994 assault-rifle ban [also known as the “Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994”] which expired in late 2004.
March, 2005: Senator Dianne Feinstein introduces bill S.620, “to reinstate the Public Safety and Recreational Firearms Use Protection Act,” in other words, to reinstate the 1994 assault-rifle ban [also known as the “Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994”] which expired in late 2004.
July, 2005: Senator Dianne Feinstein introduces bill S.A.1621 – Fifty-Caliber Sniper Weapons. This amendment would convert all .50 BMG firearms to NFA weapons.
July, 2005: Senator Dianne Feinstein introduces bill S.A.1622 – Fifty-Caliber Exclusion to S.397. This amendment would modify S.397 to allow suits when the firearm involved was a .50 caliber weapon.
July, 2005: Senator Barbara Boxer introduces bill S.A.1633 – BATFE Safety Standards. This amendment allows law suits to continue/be brought if the product did not meet the safety standards as defined by the BATFE.
July, 2005: Senator Barbara Boxer introduces bill S.A.1634 – ‘Sporting Use’ on Domestic Handguns. Applying ’sporting use’ clause requirements to domestic handguns could, almost completely, dry up the handgun availability in the United States.
Have to break your wee little heart but the fact is that Ted Nugent has called out every non-jewish political for their anti-2nd amendment stances also. He’s been doing it for decades while most of you spewing venom at Ted were all still in diapers. So fact is you have absolutely no case against Ted Nugent…….period!
Best view i have ever seen !
Comments are closed.