Nuge-Close_jpg_800x1000_q100

“If your child is dying and there is only one way to get to the doctor, would you get on Harry Reid’s boat to get there? … I’d get on the boat, get there, and then I’d shoot him.” – Ted Nugent at the NRA Annual Meeting [via mediamatters.org]

RELATED ARTICLESMORE FROM AUTHOR

96 COMMENTS

    • Ok it is hyperbole obviously. Lighten up Francis.

      He is playing to people in the NRA base, who like me were driven off after NRA supported Harry Reid against his tea party opponent.

      As much good as the NRA does for our rights, I am not a one issue person. There are more aspects of freedom besides 2A. 2A is the backstop. Harry Reid has done more to erode our liberties across the board than everyone except his master. NRA, it will take some time to forgive you.

      • “He is playing to people in the NRA base…”

        -shudders-

        You mean there are others like him? And they are the NRA “base”?

        • …and by “like him,” you mean those that do not share Tex300BLK’s sense of humor? Dumb joke to make, as it gives the left figurative ammo to use against us? Yep. But anyone who thinks that crazy but lovable ol’ Uncle Ted was serious, or doing anything other than making a joke is a moron. All he meant was that Harry Reid has been horrible for America and bad for the 2A.

      • “Ok it is hyperbole obviously”. It might be obvious to you; it didn’t strike me instantly as such. Struck me as flippant.
        We are fighting a political battle here where our enemies gloat whenever any PotG utters an intemperate remark. Most of us PotG are trying our best to maintain the demeanor of responsible citizens of sober temperament. Even light-hearted remarks tend to undermine our cause.

    • And this is how Bloomberg and his Progressive friends will win – divide and conquer. It is the reason they attack the NRA relentlessly. They know that once the NRA falls, all other opposition will fall like dominos. We are either allies, or we might as well turn in our guns now.

      • Bloomberg’s progressive friends won big when the NRA decided to endorse Harry Reid, a progressive. Am I wrong in that?

        Is it such a big thing to expect the NRA to admit their error in endorsing a socialist?

        And by playing to the NRA base, I meant recognizing that many were offended by NRA’s support of Reid, not that we are crazies.

        • Obviously you haven’t been keeping up. Harry Reid had the rating because of his previous record on 2A issues. Once he sided with Barry-Biden-Shoomer in 2013, they reversed that. I didn’t agree with their choice to back him instead of the Tea Party person. However, he was the majority leader in the Senate at the time and had a good record regrading the 2a. He knows he is toast and retiring. It makes this whole thing moot.

    • I’m a proud member of both. And they’re not the only organizations dedicated to protecting American’s right to keep and bear arms that I’m a dues-paying member of. I think it’s important to support the no-compromise totally pro-gun organizations you really agree with like GOA as well as the big-tent NRA. Having a pro-gun organization with five million members means a lot for our side’s political influence.

    • He just said he’d shoot him. Not like he indicated WHERE he would shoot him, or that he’s shoot him to death.

  4. Hell yeah,

    That’s the kind of charismatic leader you need to win the hearts and minds of those undecided and open masses in the middle…. NOT.

    Someone should give him a sucker and put him back in the corner.

    • Pandering to the “undecided masses” is pointless. Nobody gets a say in our fundamental rights. My right to keep and bear arms is not subject to regulation, legislation, registration, or the democratic process.

      • “or the democratic process”

        Not using your chance to use the democratic process to your adavantage is your first mistake.

        I’m not gonna go into stupid little “What if” scenarios. But I don’t think “Fuck off” will be an option, then.

        • Oh, it most certainly will be. Why? Because my “EXPLETIVE DELETED” will be backed by superior firepower.

        • “Not using your chance to use the democratic process to your adavantage is your first mistake.”

          So it’s ok to use government force to steal money from someone to line my pocket as long as I get more people to agree with me?

          I don’t think so.

      • Unfortunately, your ABILITY to keep and bear arms is subject to regulation, legislation, registration, and the democratic process.

        • Let’s try an experiment to see who is less clear on the issue. Post a video on youtube of you firing an automatic suppressed SBR that you acquired without the BATF’s permission. Inform the audience of your rights and how you didn’t need no stinking tax stamps. We’ll then see where you are living (or not) in a year from now. Rights won’t mean squat when the SWAT team comes calling. Rights don’t mean anything when they are not respected by people with more power than you.

        • That was NOT the intention. Otherwise, they wouldn’t have put “shall not be infringed” in the operative clause.

      • Correct again. Rights are not subject to the popularity of Ted Nugent or anyone else that supports any other right no matter what comes out of their mouth. Someone can say the most beautiful or ugly thing regarding a right and that right is not increased or diminished. I support educating the fence sitters about why a right is absolute but if they require a continuation of the cycle of popularity over substance politics they are a lost cause.

      • “My right to keep and bear arms is not subject to regulation, legislation, registration, or the democratic process.”

        What a relief! Our gun rights are secure.

        Now I can safely spend my vote on Democrats, given that they are closer to my views on the majority of non-gun issues, and I need not worry about Dems infringing on my constitutionally protected 2A rights.

        Did I understand you correctly? Because if I do, I no longer need to worry about NRA board members (or Executive Vice-Presidents, for that matter) saying things that turn off moderates.

        • You mean moderates like John McCain, Chris Christie, and Jeb Bush? Or do you mean moderates like . . . never mind, I can’t think of one in the DNC that would be pro-2A and running for POTUS.

        • “You mean moderates like John McCain, Chris Christie, and Jeb Bush? Or do you mean moderates like . . . never mind, I can’t think of one in the DNC that would be pro-2A and running for POTUS.”

          I was actually thinking of moderate voters. Or perhaps “undecided” would be a more appropriate adjective. I had always thought it would be useful for the cause of POTG to elect as many 2A-friendly legislators as possible. However, as I understand the arguments being put forward in this thread, electoral success is unimportant because we are sufficiently protected by the Second Amendment. That is wonderful news and does much to ease my anxiety over 2016 elections.

        • It’s sufficiently protected when you grow the backbone to enforce the Bill of Rights with your second amendment veto.

      • It’s not about “pandering” to the uncommitted or gun-control-sympathetic voters. It’s about converting a few of them to our cause and diverting the majority from supporting the Antis.

        The strident Antis are too few to control the legislative agenda. Likewise, the strident gun-rights supporters are also too few. Political victory will accrue to whichever side can appeal to the masses in the middle. If we are convinced we have the facts and the reasoning in our favor then it makes sense to argue our case in the debate hall.

    • When you little bitches get your collective governments to give you BACK the guns you don’t have….then you can come back here and comment, until then how about minding your own business? I would give a million euro trash robots like you for one more Uncle Ted!

    • I nominate you to be the one to give him the sucker and put him in the corner. Be sure to tell him you are European.

  7. This, along with his talk of masked SWAT team heroes, makes me wonder if he’s as drug-free as he claims to be.

  10. Come on, he’s being facetious. Lighten up, before you start sounding like the perpetually offended underclass.

    • ^^ This:

      WATTS v. UNITED STATES

      Facts of the Case
      On August 27, 1966 while attending a protest and discussing police brutality, eighteen-year-old Robert Watts stated, “I have already received my draft classification as 1-A and I have got to report for my physical this Monday coming. I am not going. If they ever make me carry a rifle the first man I want to get in my sights is L.B.J.” A federal statute makes it a crime to “knowingly and willfully” threaten the life of the President. Watts was arrested, tried, and convicted in federal court for violating this statute. Watts argued the statement “did not constitute a ‘threat’ within the language of the statute.” On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia rejected this argument, finding that the statement violated the statute even if Watts had no intention of carrying out his threat, and affirmed the lower court’s judgment.

      Question
      Was Watt’s statement a legitimate threat within the meaning of the statute?

      Conclusion
      Decision: 5 votes for Watts, 1 vote(s) against
      Legal provision: 18 U.S.C. 871
      No. In a per curiam opinion, the Court concluded, without hearing arguments, that Watts’ statement was “political hyperbole”. The Court noted, “The language of the political arena… is often vituperative, abusive, and inexact.” Thus, considering the “context, and regarding the expressly conditional nature of the statement and the reaction of the listeners,” the Court ruled that Watts’ statement was not a true threat.

  13. I like Ted, but like that uncle who only comes to the house at Thanksgiving and gets drunk before dinner, he is best taken in small doses.

  18. Just my opinion: Nugent is a crass, loud, foul mouthed, publicity seeking, draft dodging jackass.

  19. This is why sadly, I find myself visiting TTAG less and less. From a solid absolute 2A site, it now whines and gets its draws all bunched up over such comments. I said it last week that Uncle Ted would be ostracized over his views. Ostracized by supposed 2A advocates like TTAG. Oh the horror of the Nuge talking his mind. Oh the world is going to end ! We can’t hurt anyone’s feelings ! Think of the children !

    • I’m not whining; I’m not all bunched-up. In fact, I found the remark amusing, flippant. That said, such remarks are best confined within “school”; i.e., the range, a bar, among friends.
      Ted’s on-stage as a spokesman for the PotG. He has a greater responsibility to the outcome of the political fight to restore the RKBA. When any of us are on-stage our first concern ought to be the political consequences of our speech, appearance an behavior. It’s hard to get this optimally right. It’s good-enough to get it approximately right. We should all be trying to figure out how to avoid being counter-productive.

  20. The Ten Fingers of Doom is just trying to bag some Loonbats with his aggressive trolling technique.

  22. For a person holding a seat on the board of directors of America’s oldest and probably most essential civil-rights organizations, Ted shows a remarkable lack of judgment. Sure, he doesn’t speak for the NRA board or its membership. Like the media, the antis or the voters (who as we speak are deciding on ballot initiatives that may severely curtail our freedoms in multiple states) know the difference.

    Or care.

    Ted is the caricature of everything the antis love to hate about the NRA and gun owners. We need people like John Lott and Alan Gottleib speaking for us, not this assclown.

    • “Ted is the caricature of everything the antis love to hate about the NRA and gun owners.”
      This ^

      And while I support Ted’s First Amendment right to be that caricature, I question the wisdom of electing him to the NRA Board of Directors. I don’t see him as an asset to the organization, or the advancement of the 2A cause.

  23. If you take the comment out of context, sure, Uncle Ted is crazy — this is what was said

    “Nugent’s comment came during a question and answer session where an audience member asked, “How and why did the NRA ever endorse Harry Reid to serve as the front man of Osama Obama?”

    The NRA never actually endorsed Reid, but in 2010 the gun group did donate $4,000 to his reelection efforts. Any goodwill between Reid and the NRA likely ended in 2013 with Reid’s introduction of legislation to expand background checks on gun sales.

    In response to the question, Nugent called Reid a “lying prick,” but described him as a necessary evil, stating, “If your child is dying and there is only one way to get to the doctor, would you get on Harry Reid’s boat to get there? … I’d get on the boat, get there, and then I’d shoot him.”

    In audio obtained by Media Matters, Nugent then further described the NRA’s strategy as infallible, stating, “if you see them endorse someone like Harry Reid it’s because this deceptive bastard actually stood up for our Second Amendment rights contrary to the alternative candidate.” He added, “when the NRA makes a move that you’re not sure about, please give them the benefit of the doubt.”

    • We need to be cognizant of the ugliness of making sausage. Reid is no friend of the 2A; nor of the Constitution in general. What is perfectly clear is that he was the majority leader; that is an unfortunate but incontrovertible fact.
      I do not presume to KNOW with any certainty whether the NRA’s scoring of Reid or its contribution to his campaign was a good/bad use of resources. There is an argument to be made that Reid saw to it that the last round of gun-control legislation did NOT reach the Senate floor. That may be the best the NRA could have made of the situation; i.e., to see to it that Reid was a less-motivated enemy vs. a more-motivated enemy.

    • Its too bad the TTAG blog doesn’t have all that in there for context. They just pulled a Shannon Watts/Gabby Gifford on us.

  24. Nugent is a moron, he always has been. From his tendency to shit his pants to his inane conspiracy theories, the man isn’t worth a damn.

    • Pants-shitting was a joke perpetrated on a jackass of a reporter who wanted to make him out to be a anti-draft activist instead of a guitar player with a education waiver.

  25. So we should censor comments because we don’t like them? Is that what this article is saying? What if you were censored for your comments about Ted Nugent? Bottom line…I wouldn’t have said what he said but censorship sucks!…no matter how you slice it…Ted Nugent or anyone for rhat matter.

  26. I’d personally rather crucify Reid than shoot him, but that’s neither here not there. Much like Nugent’s comment, actually. Don’t make mountains out of molehills.

  27. Nugent is a joke. Google “Ted Nugent”, “Andrew Cuomo” and “Pierce Ammunition” if you want to learn what an enormous fraud he is. The gist is the owner of the ammo company that makes “Ted Nugent ammunition” is based in NY and donated a large amount to the Andrew Cuomo re-election campaign. When confronted, the Nuge denied it and claimed the company “cleaned house” despite clear state records showing the current (and still) owner donated thousands.

  29. So “we” should support open carry activists, however they may come, but Ted makes us look bad?

    Jeez, there is no pleasing some of you. Maybe its just “tax day” that’s got a bunch of knickers in a twist.

  30. Nice one Ted.. I was still laughing about when you said the president was a sub human mongrol.
    ‘Let the jackassness flow through you! And us..

  31. If I were a famous person Like Ted I wouldn’t publicly say that but I do agree with what he said.

  32. One good thing Ted has created so many sound bites for the liberal media they are overwhelmed.

  33. Meh, who cares what that has been says, at least he did not offer to blow any reporters lately. See I am a glass half full kind of guy.

  34. No, no, no. You don’t shoot Harry Reid. That’s unacceptable. You buy Reid’s brother a few beers and he’ll punch Harry’s lights out for ya.

    And I wouldn’t feel safe in Harry’s boat any more than I’d feel safe in Ted Kennedy’s car.

    • “You buy Reid’s brother a few beers and he’ll punch Harry’s lights out for ya. ”

      For those not aware, there is an un-substantiated rumor that Harry Reid’s brother gave Harry a world-class beat-down that nearly left him blind in one eye.

      IF that’s the case, it couldn’t have happened to a more deserving jackwagon.

      • Lots of speculation about who did it, ranging from ‘mobsters’ to ‘Santa Claus’.

        I’m skeptical that it was Santa Claus. Even if Harry is on the ‘naughty’ list.

  35. UNCLE TED FOR PRESIDENT! And what the hell was wrong with draft dodging during Vietnam?!? I’m glad I didn’t have to make that choice. I’d love to volunteer to kill ISIS. I don’t think an old guy in his 60’s would be of much use…

  36. Harry Reid was talking about shooting ranchers and Oath Keepers in Nevada last year. Turnabout is fair play for old Dingy Hairy. Reid threatened Dick Cheney a few times as well.

  37. Nugent jumped the shark back with his “sub-human” comment re: Obama. I despise Obama’s divisive left wing identity politics as much as the next gun nut, but you don’t call a black man a sub-human in the USA unless you are a genuinely racist POS. I’m done with Nugent.

    • you don’t call a black man a sub-human in the USA unless you are a genuinely racist POS.

      Implying that calling a white man or a woman a sub-human in the USA doesn’t mean you are a genuinely racist POS? Also, how do you know that he was referring to Barry’s black half and not his white half? How do you know that he was referring to race at all?

  38. Well… He sure kicked ass when I saw him play at The Catalyst in Santa Cruz, CA of all places. 2010 I think? Either way, such an event happening in the middle of a stronghold for “progressive” bums and burnt out socialists was a thing to behold.

  39. I see Uncle Ted has been doing some online course work at John Fritz’s Tact & Subtlety Academy.

  40. I wont even click on a mediamatters link, not even to refute an author. Here is why:

    MM is an agitprop site, desinged specifically to counter news facts delivered by successful news organizations on the center and right, for example Fox. Agitprop in reality, disinformatzia, to be specific.

    1. Independent thinkers dont go to MM for news. Its all spin, for Kim Kardashian Kool Klub Kids to know what to say in the lunch room, to sound smart on issues. While discussing Lena and Girls for serious issues…

    2. The groupthink is cult-level crazy there, even worse than WAPO or NYT. You aren’t going to persuade anyone. It is not even good practice to try to provide facts and reason, because you wont get the same in return. Starbux types pretending to be someone, using sophomoric rhetoric and fallacies.

    3. Judging by too common member behavior, I suspect MM employs people to fake users, and troll dissenters, to manage the narrative, and uplinks. No proof but would not be surprised to see hidden mod censorship or NYT type “curation”, and paid for clicks by collaborative group manipulation of upvotes, reddit-style.

    4. Disqus, the comment provider, is by its nature, a data aggregator and seller, and simply by partner selection is providing networking messaging effect and echo chamber functionality to OTHER left-progressive websites, as faux, planted “news” content, to “trade it up the chain” for credibility at Mainstream Media.
    (see top ten list of partners, and read “StoneWalled” by Sharyl Atkisson on ‘trade’ concept)

    MM is a central mechanism in a political machine network specifically designed to spread false information.
    See George Soros Open Society network, Center for American Progress, and read Discover the Networks.

    4. Lastly, why give a left-progressive anti-gun propaganda outlet ANY revenue and credibility by clicking on them? You might as well write a check to Bloomberg.
    http://www.forbes.com/sites/ryanholiday/2012/07/16/what-is-media-manipulation-a-definition-and-explanation/

    About the only reason I can see going there would be to plant comments and links back to TTAG.

  41. Ted is Ted but comments like that don’t help the cause. We need help not threatening speech.

Comments are closed.