mediamatters.org is no friend to gun rights. Neither is Ted Nugent. I’ve said this before and I’ll say it again: the Motor City Madman and NRA Board Member does more harm to the RKBA cause than good. His endless, infantile desire to earn populist approval by shocking media gatekeepers with “outspoken” conservative views leads him to make comments so offensive they’re bizarre. And vice versa. And now, on October 10, the Discovery Channel will give Uncle Ted his own prime-time freak show . . .

“In Discovery Channel’s all-new one-hour special TED NUGENT’S GUN COUNTRY, premiering October 10th at 10PM E/P, viewers will get an inside look at American gun culture through the eyes of staunch second amendment defender Ted Nugent.”

Did I say his own freak show? Not quite. Well not to everyone, anyway.

Make no mistake: many members of TTAG’s Armed Intelligentsia will be nodding their heads and saying “fuck yeah” as Nugent does the FPS Russia thing and “tells it like it is.” Also no mistake: the result will not be well received by gun owners and non-gun owners who need to get off the damn fence and support the Second Amendment.

And make no mistake about me saying make no mistake: I agree with everything Ted Nugent says about gun rights. It’s just that he’s Ted Nugent. A man who killed his credibility a long time ago.

Which brings us back to Media Matters. First, they note that the Disco channel felt compelled to distance themselves from the views expressed by Nugent; past, present and (presumably) future:

On October 10, the Discovery Channel will air a special on gun culture in America starring Washington Times columnist and National Rifle Association board member Ted Nugent. In doing so, the channel will give mainstream treatment to a divisive right-wing figure who has made countless inflammatory remarks on the topics of race, religion, LGBT equality, politics, equal treatment of women, immigration, and vigilantism.

They got that right. Click at the link at the top of this post for MM’s recap of all the stupid shit Ted Nugent has said over the years on the topics mentioned above. Then tell me that the author of “Kiss My Glock” is a suitable spokesman for American gun rights. Or not.

90 Responses to Uh-Oh: Ted Nugent Represents Gun Owners on Discovery Channel

  1. Honestly, to the Media Matters crowd, Ted Nugent is considered no crazier than anyone who has ever spoken in defense of the Second Amendment; especially anyone on this site.

    • Exactly.
      As far as MM is concerned, Elmer Fudd is a gun toting mass-murderer in all but deed.
      Condemning Nugent for his “outspoken” commentaries is pandering to the enemy.

      • Exactly right! Worrying about what the anti-gun commie left has to say about Ted is tantamount to empowering their lies and propaganda; and inappropriately draws the center of attention to HOW the left wants to portray us. This article’s premise essentially creates a self-fulfilling prophecy at worst, and at the least reinforces incorrect thinking among RKBA activists. Activists should be exposing the collectivist, anti-libertarian mentality of the enemy and getting the fence-sitters off the damn fence. Ted’s way of doing things is to ‘burn the damn fence down’. Inelegant, but effective. We should be concentrating on being a force for good so that the commies wreck their own credibility with the undecideds when they attack us with their pejoratives, bullshit ‘statistics’, and other lies.

        Don’t worry about Nugent. He doesn’t represent gun culture, this show is not the only gun-oriented show on DSC, and but one of MANY gun-oriented shows on TV. This is a whole lotta hand-wringing over nothing!

  2. Then tell me that the author of “Kiss My Glock” is a suitable spokesman for American gun rights.

    Who else would you like? Presumably some OFWG with the screen personality of Milton from Office Space bashing everyone over the head with the four rules for 45 minutes? Yeah, that’ll get viewers. Both of them.

    Drama sells, which is why Discovery produces these shows. It also gets eyeballs on mostly responsible use of firearms by mostly sane people in a positive light. Several million of them, in fact.

    Newsflash: Mostly positive exposure to the gun thing is better than what has been the norm for the last few decades– none, in the form of the six viewers some of the outdoor sports channels enjoy, or endless negativity, in the form of the media.

    No doubt Nugent, and every other somewhat oddball personality featured in such shows will cause some eye-rolling and stereotype reinforcement among the blithering idiots of the world. They’ll also bring firearms into the public eye in a mostly positive light.

    You do want to win hearts and minds, yes?

      • While I’d enjoy it, I’m not the problem. The problem is with people who think an AK47 is evil incarnate to one degree or other. Those people aren’t going to get much out of firearms minutiae, cool as it may be that you can use Glock 20 magazines in a Glock 29.

        Get a foot in the door with the public at large, and in a decade or so, then something like the Hickock show may well have wide enough appeal to make it onto a mainstream network.

  3. But it’s OK for Nickelodeon to promote Jason Biggs on and put this foolon despite the vulgar and disgusting things he says on his twitter feed. Nice to see big media being selective about their outrage as usual

  4. Did you read the Nugent quotes?

    I’m not saying a celebrity spokesperson has to be milquetoast. But Ted shot his proverbial wad credibility-wise a long time ago.

    • Did YOU read the quotes??

      Tell us all which ones he’s wrong about (because, that’s what credibility is all about – making statements that are incorrect).

      Seriously… you may not like the form of his presentation, but do you disagree with what he’s said?

      If not, then your argument is only over form. Nugent might argue that your approach is far too bland, boring and tame to be effective. That wouldn’t make you wrong… just bland, boring… but not necessarily less credible.

      • “I’m beginning to wonder if it would have been best had the South won the Civil War. Our Founding Fathers’ concept of limited government is dead.” Be that as it may, it would not have been best in the South won the war. A war that was fought to end slavery (even if it created another form).

        For example.

        • Sorry Mr. Farago – you have bought into the revisionist notion that the ‘Civil War’ was principally about slavery. It was not – as any serious student of history will tell you. Yes, slavery was (and still is – worldwide) a serious issue but state’s rights and the limitation of the federal government’s power were at least as important issues.
          Quick proof: IF slavery was the principal issue, why did ‘honest abe’ (he of the suspension of Habeus Corpus) wait for nearly 2 years to ‘free the slaves’? BTW, that was ONLY in the ‘South’ – not the north, where slaves were still owned.
          Talk about losing credibility…………….

        • I am no Ted Nugent fan and agree with your general premise, but believing the marxist — and that is not hyperbole since Marx himself praised Lincoln and wrote him a letter congratulating him for putting a stop to the concept our founder’s designed of the individual states having a check on the central govt via secession that even the federalists like Hamilton agreed with — propaganda about Lincoln fighting the war to end slavery is right up there with how the second amendment wasn’t about an individual right to own firearms that public schools, Hillary/Obama, and the media all completely agree with you about. I won’t get into too much detail, but that is awfully strange of Lincoln to have supposedly fought a war to end slavery when he did the following:

          1) Offered a permanent amendment to the constitution allowing slavery in exchange for the states not leaving the union, since his main concern as a lifelong proponent of the Henry Clay/Hamilton style crony capitalism was a strong central government — but secession as advocated by Jefferson was the ultimate check on a federal government engaging in unconstitutional acts if nullification did not work

          2) While at the same time as repeatedly showing his desire to compromise on slavery and allow it forever, he threatened military invasion of any state not collecting the full tariff rate in his first address to the nation

          3) Did not actually free a single slave, since he wrote the Emancipation Proclamation to only apply to areas where the northern troops did not occupy at the time — this “Lincoln freed the slaves with the EP” is another great myth that Marxist historians have repeated to the point that it is generally accepted in American culture. It is a not a coincidence that Lincoln mandated the same govt schools that indoctrinate the youth today with nonsense in the South after the war to make sure lies like this were told and accepted. It is also why Jefferson Davis was never brought up on treason charges before the Supreme Court — it was widely accepted at the time that Lincoln would lose

          4) Had an “anywhere but here” plan to deport ALL blacks, whether they were slaves or not, to Libya, Haiti, or “anywhere but here” to go along with an entire political career of race baiting and making speeches that would make a Grand Wizard of the Klan blush. In fact, Lincoln repeatedly argued that it wasn’t fair for whites to have to go up against cheaper black labor, which formerly freed slaves certainly were. That was one of the many reasons Lincoln wanted all of the blacks gone.

          5) As has been pointed out a number of times, why didn’t Lincoln simply offer to buy out the slaves if the real goal was to end slavery and not an ideological violent crushing of doubts of the central government’s supremacy, just as virtually every other government in the world like Great Britain did? As Jefferson stated, how absurd was it to trust the federal government to be the arbiter of what the federal government did to the states and the individuals? Nullifcation and secession were two of the very few things states could do as a check on EXACTLY the kind of government we have now, and his point about them being the judges on their disputes with the states was proven completely correct with the Obamacare decision. If states don’t have the threat of nullifying or leaving, what is there to stop the fed govt from getting more powerful like we see every day?

          6) Lastly, to trump anyone who may quote some of the elitist southern plantation owners who had their politicians issue statements about slavery in state govts prior to secession, no better than the foremost abolitionist of the time William Lloyd Garrison said about Lincoln that, “He did not have an abolitionist bone in his body.” Enough said.

          I won’t even get into the other things Lincoln did that are oddly similar to Obama and what the right often view him as being capable of doing — taking away Habeas Corpus and simply throwing people in prison indefinitely (NDAA, anyone?) without charge or trial, how he deported a congressman, how he broke his own principles of secession not being legal by creating West Virginia, how he shut down some of the many newspapers that were criticizing him and accurately saying he was not fighting this war to end slavery, how he launched a blockade on the South despite viewing them as the same nation, took away 2nd amendment rights from citizens, intentionally targeted civilians with death and destruction with Sherman’s March etc. – yet the same people who go crazy over Obama and what he might do seem to love Lincoln. Go figure.

        • Whenever people say that “Lincoln freed the slaves with the EP” I always ask them if they have read the document. 100% of the time they have not, and the few who actually read it are shocked to see exempted from this “freedom” just happened to include every area that the South still controlled, even down to individual LA parishes and counties in other Southern states.

          Then the reality starts to sink in: if our school system and media were able to lie about something so basic and blatant, what else have they managed to lie about? It turns out that it has been a whole lot.

          There is a reason that the same leftists wanting to ban all guns love Lincoln, and that Marxist historians almost all idolize the man and his actions. Not many stop to think about why that is.

        • Thank you for writing this. Anyone who wonders if the South should have won the Civil War is not the best person to be speaking for gun rights.

          And anyone who puts forth the argument that the South did not secede over slavery is either a dishonest revisionist or simply doesn’t know history.

          “Our new Government is founded upon exactly the opposite ideas; its foundations are laid, its cornerstone rests, upon the great truth that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery, subordination to the superior race, is his natural and normal condition.”


          “The new constitution has put at rest, forever, all the agitating questions relating to our peculiar institution African slavery as it exists amongst us the proper status of the negro in our form of civilization. This was the immediate cause of the late rupture and present revolution. “

          http://teachingamericanhistory.org/library/index.asp?documentprint=76

        • I bet YOU don’t agree with everything you said twenty years ago.

          I’ll take 75% of Ted Nugent over ZERO % of Media Matters, OR anyone who carries their water.

          Media Matters is the enemy of the Constitutional Republic known as America.

          You need to decide how much you want to expand your click rate vs sacrificing the core principles of the majority of your readers who stand with the USA vs Media Matters.

  5. If it isn’t extreme in some manner, its not show worthy. I would say RJF has been a blow to the gun smith industry with their infantile work and sloppiness. The Ted is fun, has his own opinion and should be celebrated for that. Have him get the kids to the range and let the pros teach them what reality is. The biggest problems the industry suffers from today is age. The lack of young interested folks. Too many old guys smelling of bengay creme and gun powder. Have you ever thought that Ted is hamming it up for the camera? That’s what keeps a show on the air.

  6. I’ll take Ted over just about anybody else in the pro-liberty world. If you care about what others think of what you or someone else says then you don’t really care about freedom or liberty.

    I’m not saying a celebrity spokesperson has to be milquetoast, they just need to STFU and fly below the radar. /sarcasm

  7. I am sure Ted is a nice guy, heck I would love to sit with him, have a beer and shoot the bill.
    On a national platform he needs to choose his words wisely which he doesn’t always do, see link in article. This certainly gets him shock value, but it might also turn off an entire segment of our society. That being said I am sure they will get ratings, which is their job.
    Then again most folks wouldn’t want to sit and watch a PBS or John Bachalor style show which goes in depth into history, our consitution and our liberties. I would be fascinated, but most would just turn it off. People want to see stuff blow up!
    My personal opinion is if Mr. Rogers was still alive he would be a great spokesman! Who doesn’t love Mr. Rogers! A decorated Marine and paster. He knew of god and guns, but never forced those on anyone.
    Inteligent discussion and thought provoking study of our history would do more, but the antis and folks like Ted will never see eye to eye.

    • Fred Rogers never served in the military at all, much less the Marines, but he was an ordained Presbyterian minister.

    • HIS choice of music is a turn-off to some. Then again for those some, THEIR music is a turn-off to him.

      IF you got someone who is getting everyone siding and agreeing, he’s either tickling ears with some smooth-talk OR stating the obvious. NOBODY agrees with everything or antic of one person all of the time.

      • “Who doesn’t love Mr. Rogers!”

        I don’t. The man was an effeminate, pencil necked, panty waste, sweater draped dork. The patron saint of weak, ineffectual, non threatening white wimps. The personification of the feminist ideal in submissive white male eunuchs. A man with the testosterone levels of a castrati.

        • Good thing we’ve got Clint Eastwood to represent the other side of the spectrum. 82 years old and still a man among men.

        • When you start seeing feminist subversion everywhere, it’s time to go outside and get some fresh air.

        • In defense of Mr. Rogers……the audience was children of a very young age. I think tying your shoelaces was the biggest hurdle to cover.

      • For the record, I was referring to “The Nuge.”

        Mr. Rogers’ view of guns, to the best of my recollection, was never made public.

  8. Yeah, Ted is the Thomas Paine of gun rights. Paine used outrageous rhetoric to shame the summertime soldiers and sunshine patriots. Nugent is doing the same thing. Bravo, Ted. You may be a nut, but you’re our nut. And you’re right. Well, some of the time you’re right, and that’s enough.

      • You are correct. I’m sure when Ted dies he will neither be an alcoholic or poor as was Paine when he died.

    • Agreed. I don’t remember electing an official spokeperson for 2a rights. Weall speak our own minds and screw those that don’t like it.

    • What libel! You disgrace Paine’s work and legacy by comparing Nugent and him.

      Nuge reminds me more of Andrew Jackson on amphetamines than any of the American revolutionaries.

    • This as a fascinating TTAG thread, another one in which Robert is at odds with the majority of his commenters. Ted Nugent is a total idiot and you guys should be embarrassed to be on the same side with him. About this I am in agreement with your blog host. It’s fascinating that most of you are not.

  9. Using Media Matters as your source? David Brook’s funhouse funded by Georgie “breakin’ the Bank of England” Soros? Sure The Ted said all of those things for shock value/entertainment. I guess Ted can’t exercise his 1st amendment rights in what he believes?

    You don’t have to watch the teevee show with The Ted if you don’t want too.

    • “Georgie ‘breakin’ the Bank of England’ Soros”

      Why do you hate capitalism?

      Mr. Soros’s only moral obligation is to make money.

      • So if I rob a bank, I’m makin’ money and it’s just capitalism? Glad to know that. I’ll try this as a defense when I’m on trial.

      • So making a profit is the same as robbing a bank?

        George Soros “is known as The Man Who Broke the Bank of England’ because of his US$1 billion in investment profits during the 1992 Black Wednesday UK currency crisis.

        In politics and economics, Black Wednesday refers to the events of 16 September 1992 when the British Conservative government was forced to withdraw the pound sterling from the European Exchange Rate Mechanism (ERM) after they were unable to keep it above its agreed lower limit. George Soros, the most high profile of the currency market investors, made over US$1 billion profit by short selling sterling.

        Would you have been happier if George Soros had made un-profitable investments? When did “The Truth About Guns” become occupied by smelly Occupy Wall Street liberals who hate capitalism and speculative markets?

        And what must you think of Mitt Romney, a self-made titan of the financial industry who has made hundreds of millions of dollars by profiting from the debts of others? You probably think that’s a bad thing, too?

        Instead of repeating the talking points of that communist 0bama, why don’t you educate yourself about reality and read Atlas Shrugged? If that’s too hard, there’s a movie version.

        And then you will realize, that when the the sterling collapsed, the only moral obligation that George Soros — a currency market investor — had was to make a profit.

        What do you think he should have done instead?

        The amount of hate directed toward George Soros is surprising. If we were living in an Ayn Rand novel, he’d be the hero.

        • NO – soros would NOT be the ‘hero’ in any Rand novel – he would at best be an anti-hero. Those of us who have seen thru his facades realize that he is only about 2 things: making money, by absolutely ANY means necessary (check out what he did during WWII to his own people – both religious and country) and the amassing of personal power based on how much he can manipulate people and governments thru the use of that money. Hardly ‘heroic’ by anyone’s measure.

        • So George Soros is the moral equivalent of IBM? Or any other large corporation?

          Except that George Soros was 13 f***ing years old when the Nazis occupied Hungary! He was 15 when World War II ended. What is it that he did as a child that was so reprehensible?

          Especially compared to what IBM and other American corporations (Ford, General Motors, Chase Manhatten Bank, etc.) did. Or the Bush family or Rockeffeler family. But since capitalists celebrate sociopathy-in-pursuit-of-profit as the highest possible virtue, and think that emulating the Khmer Rouge is a good idea, I’m not sure what you’re grievance is.

          Let’s face it: the only reason we’re supposed to hate George Soros — a true-life Ayn Randian hero — is becuase he supports Leftist causes. All the other reasons are simpy working-backwards-from-a-conclusion, a “reasoning” technique employed by anti-gunners.

          Unlike most readers of TTAG, George Soros will be invited to Galt’s Gulch.

        • Hilarious trying to segregate the planet’s billionaires.

          They all did immoral and nasty things to get ahead, that’s why they are.

          It’s really hard to put a few million together without taking advantage of someone, let alone 1000 of them. Or 50,000 million.

      • George Soros is a Caddilac Communist who started out with his father fleecing Jews on the way to the camps.

        Soros may MAKE his money playing with capitalism but he funds hundreds of anti-capitalist, anti-freedom, pro-gun grabbing, pro-jihad groups all around the country and the world.

        Anyone who admires Soros is either uninformed or is a stealth pro-jihad, anti-Constitutiion, gun-grabbing traitor.

  10. I believe a proponent for the 2A can be effective and fun without being obnoxious. Terrible Ted is entertaining for a lot of us. His tendency to be obnoxious during his tirades is not effective at convincing fence sitters that pro 2A advocates are law abiding everyday people. IMHO.

  11. Multiple arrests, convictions, threats, unthinking sperm donor and abandoned kids. Yeah he makes us all look wonderful. RF you said it all.

    • Multiple arrests? On what charges?

      The only criminal conviction I could find (actually, a “no contest” plea, so not a conviction) had to do with an illegal hunting incident in Kalifornia, for which he paid a fine.

      Clearly Nugent has never been convicted of a felony (or even a violent misdemeanor) or he wouldn’t be the owner of over 300 firearms.

      I think you’re probably wrong about “arrests” – but if you’re not just making it up as you go along, feel free to provide proof. Otherwise it might be a good time to admit your error.

        • You can check out a knife conviction early on. Several hunting arrests in texas and alaska. Look, you can google Ted and you ‘ll find his checkered background. As for being able to get class iii, well he has lots of money that pays for good lawyers. He admits also to the underage kids and the abandoned children. I ‘m just not a big uncle Ted guy.

        • Thanks for paying attention to this episode of “Knowin’ the Nuge”.

          Sweaty Teddy may not have done drugs but he did everything with a moist hole that one could wango tango. Old Mary’s legs weren’t what kept atrocious Theodocious swinging from that rope wearing a loin cloth at Cal-Jam II, it was the never-ending stream of junior high-school groupies that would put him up there with Gene Simmons for raw scores. Perhaps ahead.

          That he isn’t already dead from gonnasyphaherpleaids is a tribute to the health benefits of banging them as young as they can find their way backstage.

          He’s an embarrassing white-trash POS. I met him shortly after his BK and couldn’t get far enough away fast enough. The only reason he isn’t in a straightjacket, jail, or some combo-platter thereof is a big pile of wampum. Nothing more.

  12. This site routinely gives voice to those that make all gun owners look bad. If that’s how you’re judging Ted this site has that guilt also.

  13. I bet more people on the fence about whether to become involved in shooting and 2A rights or the casual shooter on the fence about becoming a 2A rights activist will listen to Uncle Ted then some OFWG talking about how to safely shoot for 20 minutes before actually shooting, slow fire, at a target, at a range.

    If you guys haven’t noticed, or haven’t cared to notice, Americans on the fence think we’re all OFWG or militiamen waiting for Armageddon. We NEED someone who is charismatic, fun, funny and politically IN-correct to show us in the modern light that is needed.

    There are Americans that will never change their views that guns are evil, we can’t get them. The Americans on the fence and casual shooters are who we need on our side and Uncle Ted is the best person to get them.

  14. I’ve come to the conclusion recently that when the tide turns against 2nd Amendment rights, a lot of 2nd Amendment supporters will have to share the blame. Every movement contains within it the seeds of its own demise, and the 2nd Amendment movement is no different. We are helping to make the case for the curtailment of the 2nd Amendment. How? We do a lousy job of policing our own ranks. We make silly and extreme statements. We countenance buffoons like Nugent. Across the board, we lack the ability to view our own actions critically. You made a good call here, Robert, and it’s sad to see how many people do not agree with you.

      • Interesting that you read my post to say that I wanted to police the ranks. I just said that WE do a lousy job.

        Your post is a case in point.

        Thanks for the evidence.

        • Phil, lets divide the shooting world up a little more…
          You sound like a fud. Are you?

        • Hey Phil, when you’re walking down a dark street, who do you wish was with you? Ted Nugent, or the guys from Media Matters?

          (if you say the latter, is it because they could scream out “We Back Obama All The Way, we have a ghetto pass!”?).

    • Well Phil H, I and many others don’t think a tide will turn against the 2A. Quite the contrary based on gun sales, laws, policy shifts and recent SCOTUS decisions.
      Me thinks you are stuck in 1992 on this. A lot has changed and we are indeed winning the day.

      And you were/are suggesting we self control our community of gun owners. To some arbitrary standard which is in itself another form of control. That’s not possible nor practical. We are a law abiding group as a whole and that’s what matters. Inflammatory opinion is the spice of life.

      I don’t think Ted is an eloquent spokesman for gun rights anymore than than Bloomberg is a spokesman for gun control Both are over the top in their rhetoric and hurt their cause with ridiculous statements, Mike asking cops to go on strike unless we turn in our firearms was a recent example.

      So you very wide general statements about how we condone all this “across the board” and illustrating how “a lot” of people sow seeds of demise come off as very negative and self defeating.

  15. And lest we forget that firearms enthusiasm is seen as an old person thing. I am 25 years old and I am the youngest guys in my club by about 12 years. We need more young blood in this club!

    • , I’m five years older than you but I’m also the youngest in my club. E need more young people to shoot.

  16. I like Ted, I’d like to go shooting with him, even hunting with him. My brother has had the pleasure of meeting Ted in a pre-concert get together. In a room of 10 or 12 people, Ted turns down the volume and the retoric quite a bit. Do I consider him the poster child for second amendment rights? Not really,because of his controversial statements on other non-related issues being a big distraction. But who else could pull off a show about shooting, hunting and the second amendment with a built in audience? Massad Ayoob is a really good writer, but pretty dull to listen to on video. Jeff Cooper is dead. Charlton Heston is also dead (but he would have been a GREAT choice!). Tom Selleck is pretty busy with a hit TV show. Wayne LaPierre? No, I don’t think so. The guys on “Sons of Guns” and “American Guns” don’t come across as natural on camera. No one is gonna watch a wooden faced guy that is obviously reading a script, sylable by sylable. So Ted gets a show, and he has enough star power to attract some interesting guests. I can see Emily Miller as a possible guest. I’d LOVE to see Ted interview someone like Rosie O’Donnell. Ted’s other advantage is that he is a pretty smart guy, and well versed on second amendment issues. That allows him to more than hold his own in a debate (if he stays focused). And the biggest plus I can see is if it’s Ted’s show, his answers that are on point won’t get edited out like they typically would on any of the mainstream media news shows. I’m looking forward to seeing this, and I hope Ted can be focused and not verbally bury himelf with one of his “out there” tirades. This has the possibility of being a really great show in favor of the second amendment, but the risk is with Ted, you can never be sure where he is going while he is discussing something. A bit like watching a high-wire act, and that can hurt us and the cost us the ground we have struggled to hard to gain against the antis.

  17. This is going to be a disaster of a show. Nugent just spouts off stupid shit for attention. It’s hard to take a man seriously when he runs around the woods wearing a loin cloth. There are so many other solid gun personalities out there who could easily represent us better than him. Someone already mentioned the Moss Pawn guys. Hickock45 is entertaining. Even nutnfancy would make for better TV (though each episode would have to be about 3 hours long).

    • cigr – Who has ever heard of nutnfancy, hickok45 or Moss Pawn OUTSIDE the diehard gun and gun rights community? These are not people that will get the uninitiated into shooting. Ted Nugent has a wider base of people from his time in music and TV besides his gun views. He is the best choice out of all the OFWG’s you just brought up.

  18. Bobby
    The Left says the Exact Same Thing about G. Beck (your TX Neighbor), (of course they also attack him as being a Morman and anti-semite) but Beck, and those others that speak what’s in thier heart trump the Socialist Media Propaganda everywhere that men yearn to be free.
    So I have a hard time understanding how you as a American who apparently stands 4 Square behind the US Constitution can be so down on a sober, clean living fellow Citizen who Lives his Freedom’s LOUD and PROUD

  19. the fact that media matters has a file on hims is a good sign . they don’t waste time hating the ineffective.

    I think Ted will be great. They will always hate us. no matter how the message is presented. people only listen to interesting messages.

    I for one am sick to death of listening to people whe measuer and plan every word not to upset anyone. It gets so bland after a while.

    If we wait till we have flawless , perfect spokesmen who have never made a mistake , we will be forever silent.

  20. I’ll take Uncle Ted, thanks.
    Perfect? Certainly not. Mouth gets ahead of brain? Oh yeah. Definitely.
    But one thing Ted does not lack, is an infectious enthusiasm.
    I remember Anthony Bourdain (No Reservations- a favorite show of mine) visiting him, and in the narration, saying somethinh along the lines of “Before long, I found myself nodding along with things I never would have 5 minutes earlier.”
    The guy is having fun, and people want to have fun with the guy having fun.

  21. The sentiment here seems to be the RKBA is under attack, or at least at much greater risk, because the attackers find gun owners crass and rude. I don’t think that is the case. If it were, Hurrah!, we just have to be polite, and we’re home free.

    It smells to me rather a bit more like Armed Intelligentsia snobbery. Live and let live a little.

  22. Fuck Soros’ MediaMatters.

    For that matter f*ck ANY “pro-2nd Amendment” organization who sends a lawyer to DC vs. Heller hearing and actually has the gall to repeat word for word rabid anti-gun, liberal gungrabbing assault/kidnap/torture/rape/murder-enabler’s go to propaganda/canard: “airport x-ray defeating all plastic Glock… reasonable regulation.”

    Yes, for those of you who never actually bothered to hear the NRA lawyer at the DC vs. Heller hearing, you should, because THAT, is exactly what he said.

    ‘Legally’ speaking, what DC vs. Heller decision actually did was to open doors for state-level “reasonable regulations.”

    Now, if EVERY legal professional actually understood the original meaning of the term “regulate” in the 18th century lexicon, which literally meant “to make regular” as in “honest weights and measures,” “well calibrated,” “kept up to date,” “to make ready,” none of us will be having this ridiculous incessant conversation about what “well regulated” means!

    Perhaps the Founder should have simply put the Latin version: Para Bellum. Because essentially, that’s what it explicitly states; “for the security of a free state,” as in: ‘to enure a free society free of tyranny the individual citizen need an access to be ready to be a bulwark against such possibility again, thus need to be able to keep and bear (as in carry!) arms!’

    Not to mention the fact that there were TWO versions of the 2nd Amendment!: one that was actually submitted by Thomas Jefferson himself which only had ONE comma at the individual state govt levels, vs. THREE commas in the one actually sneakily ratified by CONgress:

    There are several versions of the text of the Second Amendment, each with slight capitalization and punctuation differences, found in the official documents surrounding the adoption of the Bill of Rights.[5] One version was passed by the Congress,[6] while another is found in the copies distributed to the States[7] and then ratified by them.

    As passed by the Congress:

    A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

    As ratified by the States and authenticated by Thomas Jefferson, Secretary of State:

    A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.[8]

    The original hand-written copy of the Bill of Rights, approved by the House and Senate, was prepared by scribe William Lambert and resides in the National Archives.

    And, in regards to Common Law, there is a world of difference between the two.

    T. Jefferson’s original had smallcase “s” in the “free state,” as in a state of YOUR being: free from govt tyranny, NOT “free State” as ratified, which referred to THE State, the Leviathan, aka the govt.

    You mention ” The Leviathan” to any of the Founders, they immediately understood it to be a reference to Hobbes’ treatise on what a legitimate form of govt is, and is not, and was not: something lost on the sheeple ‘peons’ of our brainwashed/socially engineered educated idiots of the ‘modern’ contemporary pseudo intelligentsia of the 21st century.

    If anyone thinks that one explanatory subclause of TJ’s original 2nd Amend. vs. the TWO conditional clauses of the actual ratified versions differed in capitalization and punctuations, for no reason at all, they’re being utterly naive.

    So, lest any purported ‘pro-2nd amendment champion’ who doesn’t ‘get’ that the 2A merely CODIFIED a pre-existent unalienable natural universal human right of right to self-defense, that the Constitution was written to strictly to limit the Fed. govt, NOT the individual, nor does it ‘grant’ anything but only delegates (without giving up ANY powers already reserved to We the People), thus making 1934 NFA, 1968 GCA 1986 FOPA and 1993 Brady Bill all null and void as per Mack-Printz v. United States and pushes for immediate repeal of ALL Federal “gun regulations” (state level would also be nice but that’s a wholly another matter) along with abolition of ATF, they’re no “friend” of our unalienable Natural Right of Self Defense, aka. the Second Amendment, at all!

    • This times 1000.

      Screw the NRA. They tried to derail Heller.

      I was at the GRPC in Phoenix, which was right after the Heller decision.

      To say the room was unimpressed with the speaker from the National Judenrat Association is an understatement.

  23. Did anyone else notice that Eric (I think his name is) from Moss Pawn aka Iraqveteran888 from youtube is on this show?

  24. I’m looking forward to the audience response to Ted’s machine gunning of wild pigs from a helicopter. That ought to make it easier for me to argue for all of us loonies who own guns, eh? Let’s engage the emotions since there is no intellect left to engage. Lots of flash, bang and bad behavior will get those utes into the gun ranks. Why bother? Just get the gang bangers who are already armed to sign up for the NRA as a condition of their parole. Then you will have accomplished your goal and not have to cover up for us fat old white guys any more.

  25. All this bombast has made me want to watch Ted Nugent’s show. I read his Media Matters quotes and was surprised at myself because I THINK I followed each of his points, although not agreeing with him on all of them. He’s on the extreme, extreme end of the Bell Curve here, but not so much with WHAT he says but HOW he says it…Captain Obvious…I know…I know….I think those of you who say Nugent just says what he says in the way he says it for attention and to give his Fans a thrill are probably closest to the truth.

    He definitely would scare old ladies, Soccer Moms and Left-wing Professors and probably is a sort of “darling” for the Brady Bunch…aka a source of proving their contention that all Gun Owners are nut cases. Bet he’s way up on Mikebnumber’s list of “…you guys (that) aren’t fit to own guns…”

    I am not sure who would make the best spokesperson for gun rights in the Media. I haven’t seen that person yet

  26. I have been to at least 6 events including on campus college crowds where Ted has discussed hunting, the 2nd Amendment, firearms, freedom, and the current anti-freedom politicians in DC. These events allowed free questionaing by the members of the audience, something our President in DC does not allow. The campus crowd was anti-hunting when he arrived and when he left they had been shut down by logic and resaoning. The same is true on a more recnt event on CNN with Piers Morgan. Ted shut anti-gun Piers down with the same reasoning and logic. RJ needs to show himself on with Piers and do the same.

    • I’ve seen that happen too. That’s “nice Ted.” The problem: the Motor City Madman, the Kiss My Glock guy, is never far from the surface. He is a loose cannon.

  27. I think you may be over analyzing this. Some people man be offended by Ted on both side for any number of issues. Yes Ted rants and raves , saying some things that many people would prefer he not say. However there are people in the gun movement who prefer someone who tells the government to kiss his a$$ and gives them the finger. These people are gun owners and we need them to. Ted is over the top for me. He seems like a nice guy and I have seen him discuss his war issues. Please do not dismiss those people who prefer a more verbose push back. Some people ,like Ted, say we should draw a line for gun control.

  28. Ted Nugent is a crucial part of Second Amendment advocacy.

    The staid, button-down, narrow-minded, “conservative” 2nd Amendment advocates may disagree… but that’s what makes them staid, button-down, narrow… well, you get the idea. Nugent is pro-gun. Period. Lots of “pro-gun” types are “pro-gun” with an asterisk. From there the slide is into “reasonable” gun control and from there to confiscation.

    In case you haven’t noticed, politics in America has become about “getting to the middle”. That’s how we wind up with two mediocre (at best) candidates for president from the two major parties. They are compromises. They compromise your values. They compromise your confidence. They compromise the budget. They compromise the standing of America in the world community. Take someone like Ron Paul who is painfully honest, has a long track record of being right, who predicted today’s problems and had actual (painful) solutions. He doesn’t stand a chance. Because he’s not “centrist” enough. He’s too “extreme.

    Ted Nugent is not about compromises. The fact that so many anti-gun types are horrified by his antics is part of his value. In their eyes, he might as well be Stalin, or Hitler, or a Grand Dragon of the KKK or Godzilla. He’s EXTREME

    Which makes people like Robert Farago look “reasonable” by comparison.

    Make no mistake…” if not for Ted Nugent, Robert Farago might be seen as outspoken… bizarre… a freak show. It’s just a question of what scale you measure on.

    Add to that the fact that mostly Nugent is not wrong…

    Yes, I read all of the Nugent comments on the mediamatters link, and except for the last one, I pretty much agree with him. (I don’t think that people should be punished for what they do to themselves – consequently, there should generally be no prohibition on drugs – including methamphetamines, LSD, heroine, cocaine, pot…) But Obama, Boxer, Feinstein all worthless pieces of crap? Who here does not think that Obama, Biden and Holder are criminals? Who here does not believe that Hillary is “a toxic cunt… a two-bit whore for Fidel Castro”? Objecting to an NBA player being fined $100 grand for not being “sensitive” to queers? Saying we’d be better off if the South had won the war? Yeah. I agree with Nugent 100% on all of that. Shooting criminal invaders from other countries? Nugent puts it in context of “if they’re armed”. I wouldn’t. I’d drop them at the border the second they crossed.

    So the bottom line is: Nugent is right. And while his in-your-face honesty and coarseness may offend some, the fact remains… he’s right.

    Maybe part of the problem is that we keep dancing around the issues related to our rights. Maybe doing the Farago minuet isn’t the only way to get things done.

    It’s sort of like those in the U.N. who wheedled and pleaded Khadaffi not to engage in terrorism. He didn’t get seem to be listening. Then the US sent a flight of FB-111 bombers to “Ted Nugent” his house. He got the message.

  29. While Ted’s STYLE in presenting our message may not be to everyone’s taste, if you’re a reader (or even quite likely the writer) of this, and other 2A oriented websites, magazines and such, you simply cannot deny his heart-felt BELIEF in the core of that message, and that, in and of itself, is sometimes enough to bring certain segments of people to also believing and then adopting the message.
    I’ll agree if you want to say that sometimes Ted seems a little “out there,” in how he expresses himself. (note: I did NOT say I disagree with his facts) But, you’ll have one helluva damn hard time convincing me that ANYONE is doing more, on a daily basis, to promote our good message to the largest possible audience.
    Peel away the garish methods if you like, but, if you listen…the message is there, and he WILL motivate you.

  30. Ted probably is a hell of a guy but he isn’t who I’d like to be our 2a spokesman. I’m 24 and if the fight to keep our 2a rights continues to be as polarized as it has, guys like ted will be our downfall.

    The media takes any opportunity to create a fuss or scandal even where there was none, we all know that. Sheeple tend to listen to the bs intently, transfixed on what they believe is the truth, again we knew that. Anti’s by majority believe us to be hill billys, wearing camo waders to the waffle house, with no teeth, and a severe problem with movie attendees. So why give the podium to the guy who represents, to them, %100 percent of the problem. The 2a fight isn’t Right vs. Wrong, its about politics and Ted isn’t fit for it.

    The last thing I need is people thinking that me driving out to the desert to shoot steel and paper is somehow training for a future masacre. We need to stop allowing ourselves to look like the crazy war vets who shoot at the mail man and start looking like everyone else, just with a hobby. That doesn’t mean giving up our rights. It doesn’t mean supporting anti 2a legislation. It means stop wearing shirts that proclaim how I will climb up the water tower with my fullautoboltactionexplosivetipgrenadelaunchingthermalhollowpoints rifle, if obama is re-elected. Stop making a point to stand out as a gun owner, and instead treating it like its something they don’t have to worry about. Instead of this “over my dead body” bs, start talking politics.

    Jerry Brown just passed a bill that he would have likely signed either way. But he used gun owners, open carrying en masse for protest as a sign of potential danger. Firearms can be used to kill people, and thats the only part of it all that they care about. Stop looking like a militia and make them believe thats the only reason we have firearms.

  31. With all due respect Mr. Farago you are wrong.
    Please look in to the concept of the Overton window and how to change the “Window”. From this you will may come to find that if you want your freedoms back Ted may not be radical enough.
    But he may be a perfect starting point to undo this manipulation that was already done to us.

  32. Mr. Farago,
    You are wrong, the ‘Nuge is EXACTLY what the gun rights crowd needs. Look at the response here on a “pro gun” web site! We NEED to bring gun issues into the real world, not let wishy washy “Pro Gun” people lead from behind. We NEED to be outspoken and out front.

  33. Mr. Farago, I read your replies to readers and you’re wrong on all counts, sorry. Wrong about the causes of the Civil War (actually The War Between the States, not a genuine civil war); about the form of government our founders gave us (The Articles of Confederation created a confederal form of government in America, decades before the CSA came into being); the reasons for The War Between the States, which had to do with State Sovereignty vs. Centralized Government (which was anathema to the founders); among other issues.

    You’re wrong about fretting over Uncle Ted. He is not going to become the Pope Of Gun Culture just because he scooped up a deal with DSC. We should not be formulating gun defense strategy based on the fear of what the anti-gunners may think or say. We will be ruined as a movement if we think reactively to the bullshit that spews from the Media Matters bunghole.

    Google says “Don’t be evil”. I say “Don’t be a Prag.”

    I would encourage the readers here to visit and get the take of the readers over there.

    Anti-gunners are NOT misguided but well-meaning people. They are enemies of liberty itself and need to be thought of in precisely those terms. I grew up and went to school with a liberal friend, who, as my political growth eclipsed his arrested development, became an ideological opponent on the subject of guns. He told me that it’s OK to have ‘acceptable losses’ of innocent citizens in an effort to rid global society of privately owned firearms. I asked him how many was ‘acceptable’? 250,000? a million? He answered ‘yes’ without hesitation, “If it gets the job done”.

    Knowing the roots of all mega-death genocides in the 20th century originate in gun control, I asked ‘What about 7 million?’ He answered “No problem”. I pointed out that Nazi Germany killed 6 million unarmed Jews and another 7 million dissidents, gypsies, mental & physical defectives, and Protestant Christians who opposed Hitler’s policies. I pointed out that over 100 million unarmed Chinese died under Communism, etc. I asked, “Is there ANY upper limit to how many you would sacrifice on the altar of gun control?” And this fellow, who was NOT the elite of the radical left by any means, but who was intelligent enough to understand the intellectual foundations of the leftist elites, answered “No”.

    The enemies of liberty are comfortable with the extermination of even up to 90% of all humanity because the globalist elite have actual plans for global depopulation. To achieve these one-world-order goals, gun confiscation is a necessary element; and the only way to take away the guns is a comprehensive program of rolling back our liberty… a program that has actually already begun. I’m old enough to say that we are not as free as we were 15 years ago, let alone 40 years ago. So I mean it when I say that the enemies of liberty are going to be the death of us all if we don’t fight them to the last. I think Ted Nugent really understands who the enemy within is, and I think his comments illustrate the utter contempt that this enemy with is deserving of.

    LIVE FREE OR DIE. 3%

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *