For those who dislike Nugent

[default]

is disingenuous at best.

As disingenuous as referring to an unarmed person tackling a gunman as an example of a massacre stopped by CCW? I don't know the details of the incident, but it's easy enough to imagine a brave and public-spirited person, however ignorant of firearms operation, seeing someone fiddling with a gun they were using to commit a crime, and making the decision to try and attack them. You don't have to be an HK armorer to know that if a bad guy with a gun is doing something with it other than shooting, there is an opportunity to stop the threat.

But that's not really the point. While I agree with the general thrust of Ted Nugent's article, we really need to be very strict in our presentation of facts and arguments so that what we say cannot be refuted on factual grounds. No distortions, cherry-picking, or glossing.

 

[Double Naught Spy]

Anyone that has the influence to speak on our behalf is a plus, so what if he is not perfect.

It ain't about whether or not Nugent is perfect. It is about his words that are not.

is disingenuous at best.

I read that it was a hunter familiar with firearms. Most unarmed sheeple are not going to be able to tell or even think that they have so many seconds to tackle the shooter. So while he was unarmed, he was "armed" with firearm knowledge.

Yes, many of Nugent's statements were disingenuous in giving a false appearance, but you apparently meant my comment.

Not disingenuous, but statements of fact. The guy was unarmed and went against a guy with a gun and succeeded. It may be much easier and much safer to do it with a gun, but being unarmed should not mean being defenseless and some like the guy in the story understand that critical element. Nugent was not making a statement about not being able to be armed with gun knowledge in gun-free zones, now was he?

 

[Sir Aardvark]

Double Naught Spy:

She failed to carry a gun illegally on her person but reported that she had it in her glove compartment which mean that she drove around with it, illegally

My understanding of this event was that she had a license to carry a concealed weapon, but that Texas law forbade license holders to carry their weapon into any establishment that served alcohol.

Since Luby's served alcohol, she could not carry her LEGALLY POSSESSED HANDGUN into the restaurant without breaking the law, thus, she secured it in her glove box.

 

[chonny]

Ted's rants are inarticulate compared to other voices, and like someone mentioned earlier in this thread, antis are always ready to pounce on anything they can get ahold of so his style and his celebrity is fodder for them. Though he obviously doesn't mean to, I think he diminishes our cause.

 

[helpless]

Some of you guys are reading way to much into this and Uncle Ted. HE is on our side. Period.

 

[T J]

Sir Aardvark,
I think some of your understanding might be a little off.
At the time, no CCW existed in Texas (she (Hupp) was one of the driving forces to get this law passed). There were, and are many ways to legally carry weapons in your vehicle without a CCW, which I presume she was legally carrying in her vehicle under at the time. I have been into several Luby's, including the one in Killeen (after the incident only as best I can remember), and they do not sell alcohol to the best of my knowlege. The Luby's in Killen shut down for a while after the shooting, and then reopened after a period of time. This Luby's stayed open for a few years as I recall, before it finally shut down this location.
T J

 

[fast eddie]

Nugent is a showman. He uses hyperbole to make a point, so what? The leftists want you disarmed and helpless, period. Nugent uses his celebrity to counter the leftists. You don't like his style? Get over it.

 

[Soybomb]

Nugent is a showman. He uses hyperbole to make a point, so what? The leftists want you disarmed and helpless, period. Nugent uses his celebrity to counter the leftists. You don't like his style? Get over it.

So what? If the goal of this is to convert anti's to neutral or pro-gun a spokesman that perpetuates the wild redneck hunter image does us no good. I'd rather have a spokesman that would be articulate, come across as a reasonable normal person, and get people to listen to the pro gun message. "Get over it" isn't getting us any votes.

As mentioned earlier Suzanna Hupp is a fantastic spokesman, nugent is just more of the gun owner stereotype that isn't going to make any progress for us. Like it or not this is a PR battle.

 

[ArfinGreebly]

At the risk

. . . of seeming contrary . . .

I get a sense of "he's not a purist" regarding Ted.

And he may not be.

And he may be a little fast and loose in his storytelling or the way he presents data.

I could be wrong, but it doesn't seem to me that his job is "making people happy with who he is."

It's more along the lines of "turning up the heat on the foolishness of disarming America."

He may draw some fire from the socialists, but it strikes me that he's a big boy, he can take care of himself, and he can afford to bring as much artillery to bear as he needs in making his point.

And his point is our point.

So, style aside, he's doing a job we need done and he's doing it on his nickle.

As long as he's keeping their heads down -- or at least contributing to the high-profile momentum -- we can make progress getting grass-roots activism going.

If what he does offends you, don't watch.

 

[default]

If what he does offends you, don't watch.

That's just it. Who cares if he offends me? We're all in fundamental agreement about RKBA. Neither Ted Nugent, nor you, nor I, need to be convinced. So who are we talking to?

 

[Double Naught Spy]

My understanding of this event was that she had a license to carry a concealed weapon, but that Texas law forbade license holders to carry their weapon into any establishment that served alcohol.

Since Luby's served alcohol, she could not carry her LEGALLY POSSESSED HANDGUN into the restaurant without breaking the law, thus, she secured it in her glove box.

As noted, that understanding is wrong. There was no law at the time that allowed concealed carry in Texas. As for the part about not being allowed to carry in a restaurant that served alcohol, Luby's didn't serve alcohol. It was/is a cafeteria where the strongest drinks are sodas and coffee. The rule on alcohol now is that CHL folks can't carry in establishments getting 51% or more income from the sales of alcohol.

You know, if Luby's had a bar, I might eat there more often, but they don't.

Some of you guys are reading way to much into this and Uncle Ted. HE is on our side. Period.

Then why is the information misrepresented? Are you willing to let anti-gun folks slide on their inaccuracies that they use against the pro-gun cause as you are willing for your Uncle Ted?

 

[230RN]

"Misrepresentation" is itself a misrepresentation.

I'd rather have a spokesman that would be articulate, come across as a reasonable normal person, and get people to listen to the pro gun message.

Like maybe the anti-gunners' Rosie? Whose influence over the "soccer moms" is undoubted?

I had an initial dislike for Mr. Nugent, but I sat down in my "Know Thyself" mode and decided that much of what I did not like about his style was simply that it was too hip, too mod ,for me. The use of u instead of you in modern parlance grates on me, for example.

But on listening to his message, I cannot help but admire the guy, and his quote in the original post demonstrates his intellect and courage.

If there's a couple of minor things factually wrong, that's okay with me. I'm sure he'd be willing to rewrite that quote with some minor corrections and it would still sound the same and still make the same points, and there'D be no more grist for the anti-nuges' mills.

And in my "Casting Stones In Glass Houses" mode:

Who among us has been absolutely factually correct in all our writings? Mr. Nugent is not writing a research paper which requires references. He was making valid points as he understood them. I adjure you to apply the same nit-picking and debating class mentality to almost any of the drivel that comes from the antis.

I, for one, applaud Mr. Nugent. Warts and minor technical errors (not "misrepresentations") and all.

I think the word "misrepresentations" is itself a grossly exaggerated misrepresentation. Shades of DNC debating techniques!

We are not just involved in a PR effort here. We are also involved in countering pure propaganda.

 

[Cesiumsponge]

Comparing a want for an an articulate person to Rosie O'Donnell is no better than the arguments used by anti-gunners. You're falling to the same level of emotional retardation they resort to in an attempt to mask lack of logic with emotion-driven content, and hope that method goes unquestioned. If you're calling every articulate, well spoken person a Rosie, then you've risen no higher than our opponents.

Since we're in the right, there is absolutely NO need to embellish our truth. Writing your material based on rousing emotions is the sign of a talented speech writer, but embellishing an otherwise already factual statement can only end badly. Why? Massaging numbers and embellishing something shows an intention of deceit.

Fudging with facts when you're right to begin with serves no purpose. It's especially bad when someone finds out and discredits you because it takes away all your credibility to an otherwise legitimate fact that you decided to doll up.

People don't seem to get it. Ted Nugent doesn't need to convince us. He already has us. He needs to convince them.

Also stop making excuses for Ted. Being factually correct is the MOST important thing when discussing a topic like this where so much is at stake and fact-driven. This isn't some grade school classroom debate about which crayon is the best. One screwup and it WILL be used against you for eternity. Look at poor Jim Zumbo...he already apologized and disowned his previously ignorant comments after he became enlightened but it'll be used by antis until the end of time against us. If Ted Nugent gets called on a factual error, that will erode his credibility as a gun rights spokesman and give the antis more ammunition against us.

We already take snippets of stupid things anti-gunners have said and used them for our cause. What makes you think the other side isn't looking for the same material? Lets not give them the satisfaction.

 

[Double Naught Spy]

Mr. Nugent is not writing a research paper which requires references.

No, not a research paper, but he is making public statements presented as fact that are in error and doing so as a representative of the NRA and of gun owners.

I, for one, applaud Mr. Nugent. Warts and minor technical errors (not "misrepresentations") and all.

Funny how his "minor technical errors" seem to mostly all favor his position.

 

[230RN]

People don't seem to get it. Ted Nugent doesn't need to convince us. He already has us. He needs to convince them.

Which is why his vibrant, powerful, and pointed message appeared in a more public forum than, say, THR, and with an opposing viewpoint presented.

Now apply your critical acumen to the opposing party's remarks, if you please. And publish them on a non-2A website. Methinks your efforts to demean Mr. Nugent are ill-spent here.

Funny how his "minor technical errors" seem to mostly all favor his position.

You've said that before. I don't find it odd at all.

And if I myself may "nitpick" for a moment, I wonder (but don't want to hear) why you used the qualification "mostly." I'd be willing to bet that you will go on soon with a catalogue of all errors, citing which are "for" his position, and which are "against" and adding them up, one against the other, for a final score to prove your point. I don't think you'll be able to help yourself. It would be in the nature of a sophomore class debating team technique.

I find it more than amusing that you folks are demonstrating my point about debating classes and nit-picking.

Crayons, indeed.

I'm done with this one. Nitpick away to your heart's delight.

For myself, I'm going to write another pro-self-defense letter to the editor. More worthy of my efforts, doncha know.

 

[Joe Demko]

I dislike Ted because he's an obnoxious loudmouth. It's possible to be an obnoxious loudmouth and be correct about the topic on which you are braying. He does little to advance our side. Mostly, all he does is get people already on our side to say "Ted is so kewl."

 

[Soybomb]

Like maybe the anti-gunners' Rosie? Whose influence over the "soccer moms" is undoubted?

That is so precisely my point that I couldn't have said it better myself. We know rosie is an obnoxious loudmouth (thanks joe demko) and won't listen to a word she says. The soccer moms like her message already and are very willing to listen and nod with her. She will never win us over as a spokesman for gun control. Ted Nugent is our Rosie. The people who we want to listen will not listen to Nugent and his in your face style. He can preach to the choir but thats not going to get us any votes.

 

[HuntCast]

He does little to advance our side. Mostly, all he does is get people already on our side to say "Ted is so kewl."

What evidence do you have of this???? None?
I have the evidence of 100's of members of his message board who came for the music, and ended up wanting to learn to shoot and hunt. Many have joined the NRA as well, including a couple from Canada.
If you don't like him............. fine. At least be intellectually honest enough to be accurate about what he does and does not do.

 

[Snowdiver]

I have the evidence of 100's of members of his message board who came for the music, and ended up wanting to learn to shoot and hunt. Many have joined the NRA as well, including a couple from Canada.
If you don't like him............. fine. At least be intellectually honest enough to be accurate about what he does and does not do.

I was one of those guys. I went to his site during the Zumbo thing and after reading some of his writings I rejoined the NRA after 30 years of neglect. I am sure that I'm not the only one by far. Everything he says comes from the heart and I find it difficult to fault that!

 

[Texfire]

Did anyone catch this in the reader comments after his editorial?

Joe Russo, Staten Island, New York
Ted Nugent really has a twisted way of looking at the violence that seems to regularly plague us. As a hunter and gun owner, I do believe in our right to bear arms. However, that right should not include hand guns and assualt weapons.

I really want to believe that this is an ploy by an anti-gunner instead of a genuine comment from a gun owner. :banghead:

 

[Shipwreck]

I know a lot of gun people are on the Nugent bandwagon. While I a glad to have another pro-gun figure.

I do not like him. For 1 thing - he is a racist. Back in the late 1990s, he came to Houston for a concert, and he made some racist remarks. IT was talked about in the Houston Chronicle afterwards. I don't remember what he said exactly - but I thought itw as pretty crappy at the time.

Also, yesterday he was interviewed on the Dallas AM radio station. He doesn't live in Texas now, to my knowledge. I think he lives up north. But, he talked about being a Texan. And he spoke favorably about Govenor Perry - and how Perry is doing his part on illegal immigration, and how he is a standup guy.

Anyone in Texas who actually lives here know that this is false. In fact, the interviewer gave him a pass on this because on any other day, he's ripping down Perry, and rightly so. So, he was talking about stuff there that he really doesn't know anything about.

 

[HuntCast]

He has lived in Crawford, Texas for quite a while now. He still owns his property in MI, put his wife can't handle the climate, so he moved to TX full time.
He was supportive of Perry because he always has been, and worked for his election. What did you expect him to say??

 

[T J]

Double Naught Spy,
Think you had a slight mis-type to my reading. CCW in Texas can carry on businesses that derive LESS than 51% of their revenue from alcohol. Not trying to be critical (I shure have got lit up for typos before here), just for informational clarification.
Thanks,
T J

 

[Limeyfellow]

Anyone that has the influence to speak on our behalf is a plus, so what if he is not perfect.

So did David Koresh when he was still alive and Charlies Manson amongst others. Just because someone can public speak it doesn't mean they are perfect for promoting a cause.

 

[coelacanth]

The only thing I've learned from this thread so far is that Arfin Greebly always manages to say what I was thinking only he does it better than I could. I think that means read more - type less ( grin ). Bag on Mr. Nugent if you like but anyone who has the ability to get pro rkba views aired on CNN brings considerably more clout to the issue than most of us. Comparing his article to Mr Plate's shows me a clear victory in terms of both style and substance. Not perfect but it definitely goes in the win column.