Quote of the Day: Not Really Helping Edition

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]

comments

  1. avatar some_guy says:

    This is why the NRA is garbage. I’m a GOA member for a reason.

    1. avatar Jeremy in AL says:

      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.

      1. avatar Tex300BLK says:

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

        -shudders-

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

        1. avatar William B. says:

          …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.

      2. avatar MarkPA says:

        “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.

    2. avatar Bob108 says:

      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.

      1. avatar Jeremy in AL says:

        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.

        1. avatar BlueBronco says:

          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.

    3. avatar Paelorian says:

      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.

    4. avatar BlueBronco says:

      GOA is a good organization. However, they are more hard line than the NRA.

      1. avatar John in Ohio says:

        The fact that they are more hardline is why they are, IMHO, better than the NRA.

  2. avatar Kevin says:

    Meh.. He’s not wrong. Not being an NRA member is really not helping..

    1. avatar Jamie in North Dakota says:

      Yes!

  3. avatar Alan Longnecker says:

    JEEEBUS!
    Thanks, Uncle Ted.
    Yes I laughed, but you sound just like the antis now.

    1. avatar Cliff H says:

      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. avatar JustYourRandomEuropean says:

    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.

    1. avatar pwrserge says:

      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.

      1. avatar JustYourRandomEuropean says:

        “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.

        1. avatar pwrserge says:

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

        2. avatar Omer Baker says:

          “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.

      2. avatar actionphysicalman says:

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

        1. avatar pwrserge says:

          You’re not clear on the subject of rights are you?

        2. avatar actionphysicalman says:

          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.

        3. avatar BlueBronco says:

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

        4. avatar John in Ohio says:

          @BlueBronco: Spot on.

      3. avatar J. Zoss says:

        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.

      4. avatar Grindstone says:

        Right, that’s why presidential candidates ignore states like Ohio.

      5. avatar Jake says:

        “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.

        1. avatar BlueBronco says:

          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.

        2. avatar Jake says:

          “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.

        3. avatar pwrserge says:

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

      6. avatar MarkPA says:

        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.

        1. avatar Jay-El says:

          Yes. Correct. Important.

    2. avatar Ed says:

      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!

    3. avatar BlueBronco says:

      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.

  5. avatar Chris says:

    I like Ted, but jeez man, what an idiot.

    1. avatar LarryinTX says:

      Be fair. Just like Jane Fonda, he is not popular due to his brain.

  6. avatar Tom in Oregon says:

    Good grief.
    Come on, Uncle Ted. Tone it down a bit.

  7. avatar Fed Up says:

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

  8. avatar AllAmerican says:

    He really needs to STFU.

  9. Not acceptable. Not. One. Bit.

  10. avatar kiluma says:

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

    1. avatar Anonymous says:

      +1

      Hyperbole, use it; know it

    2. avatar Jamie in North Dakota says:

      Exactly!

  11. avatar pwrserge says:

    For people getting on the “OMG Threat OMG” bandwagon… Might want to read this.

    http://www.oyez.org/cases/1960-1969/1968/1968_1107_misc

    1. avatar Bob says:

      ^^ 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.

  12. avatar Anonymous says:

    Distasteful joke guys. He’s not serious. Although it was funny.

  13. avatar Ragnarredbeard says:

    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.

  14. avatar Scott in IA says:

    Why would you shoot your own child Ted?

    1. avatar LarryinTX says:

      Good catch!

    2. avatar Todd S. says:

      Because Harry Reid might break his child’s mind. Nuke it from orbit. It’s the only way to be sure.

      1. avatar Jamie in North Dakota says:

        Nice Aliens reference.

  15. To be clear, most of US know it’s a joke, but it’s going to be used as fodder by the opposition. Just like we use Biden’s gaffes.

    1. avatar John in Ohio says:

      Except, Uncle “Shotgun” Joe ain’t jokin’. *DOH*

  16. avatar M J Johnson says:

    The man is an embarrassment.

  17. avatar Mack Bolan says:

    Ted is crazy…..CRAZY AWESOME!

  18. avatar Don Davis says:

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

    1. avatar Hellbilly says:

      Sounds like he has all of the necessary qualifications to become a politician.

  19. avatar Tommy Kocker says:

    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 !

    1. avatar MarkPA says:

      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. avatar GuyFromV says:

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

  21. avatar Ken G says:

    A whole lot of fainting nancys here, jeez.

  22. avatar Jay-El says:

    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.

    1. avatar Curtis in IL says:

      “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.

      1. avatar Clark says:

        Well..it’s the members who elect the Board members..not the organization (I know as I am a Life member). Want change..join…

      2. avatar BlueBronco says:

        Do you prefer clowns like Norquist?

  23. avatar Pascal says:

    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.”

    1. avatar MarkPA says:

      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.

    2. avatar BlueBronco says:

      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. avatar 2maik7 says:

    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.

    1. avatar FedUp says:

      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. avatar Karl says:

    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. avatar Shwiggie says:

    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. avatar Josh says:

    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.

  28. avatar PeterW says:

    Ted Nugent is one of my favorite cartoon characters.

  29. avatar Red in Texas says:

    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. avatar Buffalo_Bob says:

    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. avatar Jamie in North Dakota says:

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

  32. avatar Johnny B Goode says:

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

  33. avatar asdf says:

    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. avatar Ralph says:

    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.

    1. avatar Geoff PR says:

      “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.

      1. avatar rosignol says:

        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. avatar Former Water Walker says:

    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. avatar BlueBronco says:

    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. avatar wannabe says:

    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.

    1. avatar John in Ohio says:

      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. avatar Royal Tony says:

    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. avatar John Fritz - HMFIC says:

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

  40. avatar foo dog says:

    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. avatar CV76 says:

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

Write a Comment

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

button to share on facebook
button to tweet
button to share via email