Control Group
Member
Let's just stipulate right at the beginning that much of the stuff Ted Nugent says is over-the-top, and not actually an accurate depiction of how most - almost all - gun owners behave. I've seen a lot of people on THR complain about this, particularly his recent comments at an NRA rally. They think that he paints gun owners in an irresponsible light, makes us all look bad, and gives the antis ammunition to use against us. There's something to this, no doubt.
But, consider: how many people on the other side of the spectrum does Sara Brady really represent? How many of the people who tacitly support gun registration because "we register cars," or licensing for gun ownership, or bans on machine guns, actually believe that all guns should be taken away from everyone in the country? My guess is pretty few - otherwise, the antis wouldn't have to couch their confiscation efforts in "reasonable" sounding terms.
How many times has one of the rabid antis said something plainly ridiculous, out-and-out false, and yet pointing this out has failed to change another anti's mind? How frustrated have we all become with the preposterous nature of anti rhetoric, at the public's complete lack of caring how ludicrous it really is?
What makes us think the Nuge is any different?
The other side has their firebrands, their extremists, who push for every anti-gun bill possible while railing against the evil of firearms, bleating about blood in the streets, etc., etc. It doesn't seem to be doing much overall harm to their cause. Perhaps we need the same thing - perhaps Ted Nugent fills a very important role.
Think about it - if you're looking at a used car a guy's asking $1000 for, but you're willing to spend $800 on, how do you respond to his price? By pushing for $800, or by pushing for $600?
You never get what you ask for, because "compromise" is the process by which things get done. You always have to demand more than you really want, so you've got something to give. We need that contrast so that legitimately reasonable stances seem like compromises.
But, consider: how many people on the other side of the spectrum does Sara Brady really represent? How many of the people who tacitly support gun registration because "we register cars," or licensing for gun ownership, or bans on machine guns, actually believe that all guns should be taken away from everyone in the country? My guess is pretty few - otherwise, the antis wouldn't have to couch their confiscation efforts in "reasonable" sounding terms.
How many times has one of the rabid antis said something plainly ridiculous, out-and-out false, and yet pointing this out has failed to change another anti's mind? How frustrated have we all become with the preposterous nature of anti rhetoric, at the public's complete lack of caring how ludicrous it really is?
What makes us think the Nuge is any different?
The other side has their firebrands, their extremists, who push for every anti-gun bill possible while railing against the evil of firearms, bleating about blood in the streets, etc., etc. It doesn't seem to be doing much overall harm to their cause. Perhaps we need the same thing - perhaps Ted Nugent fills a very important role.
Think about it - if you're looking at a used car a guy's asking $1000 for, but you're willing to spend $800 on, how do you respond to his price? By pushing for $800, or by pushing for $600?
You never get what you ask for, because "compromise" is the process by which things get done. You always have to demand more than you really want, so you've got something to give. We need that contrast so that legitimately reasonable stances seem like compromises.
