“Yet, instead of having a national discussion on making it easier to lock up psychotics, the left would much rather discuss restricting the rights of law-abiding citizens to own guns and defend ourselves. Passing additional gun laws may make the left feel good, but it won’t do good. The left’s “treatment plan” of more gun control won’t work, and anyone with an ounce of common sense knows it. What the left’s plan will ensure is more massacres at the hands of psychotics like the Joker.” – Ted Nugent

Recommended For You

65 Responses to Quote of the Day: When He’s Right, He’s Right Edition

  1. A lot of gun rights advocates don’t like Ted, but I think that as long as he’s not terribly incensed about something, he is a very eloquent and sensible guy.

    • You call that eloquent? And Dan says he’s right?

      First of all, the Left does not say “restricting the rights of law-abiding citizens to own guns and defend ourselves” is the answer. We say restricting the ability of nuts like Holmes is what we need to do. So, Ted is lying and you lot are letting him get away with it. The reason, is because that’s one of your favorite lies too. You use it all the time.

      “the left’s plan will ensure is more massacres at the hands of psychotics like the Joker.” You agree with that? How? The Left would keep guns out of the hands of some of the nuts. How would that lead to more massacres?

      • Mike, you know as well as I do that “restricting the ability of nuts….” is just the gungrabber’s latest lure onto the slippery slope. You can’t with a straight face tell us that the ultimate goal of most left-wingers is not total disarmament and that they won’t use ANY excuse to chip away at that goal one law at a time.

        And for your question “how would that lead to more massacres”? Again, you’ve been reading us long enough to know that every major mass gun shooting has occurred in a gun-free zone where citizens have been disarmed.

        Be honest with us and stop with the coy, disingenous thing.

      • OK, I’ll bite.

        So please explain how “restricting the ability of nuts like Holmes” is to be done effectively without infringing on my rights as a sane, law-abiding citizen, and assuring that I, a sane, law-abiding citizen, can exercise those rights without being unfairly or unreasonably penalized.

        Any such laws need to impose the burden on the criminal, not the law-abiding citizen.

        • a common tactic amongst leftist regimes is to stiffle dissent by locking dissenters away on bogus insanity charges. guarantee that if mikeybnumders and his leftist buddies put some sort of mental health litmus test for gun owners to pass to keep their guns, none would pass. explains why mikeybnumbers lives in italy. there’s a strong communist movement there.

        • Obviously we have different ideas of what “being unfairly or unreasonably penalized” means.

          The way I see it, eliminating private gun sales without a background check, licensing gun owners and registering their guns, and a few other things amount to little more than inconvenience. That is, if you really are “a sane, law-abiding citizen.”

          But you exaggerate that to be something unacceptable. The result is more nuts have guns and more people die.

        • Mike, all of those things and more are the law in Brazil, and they have a much higher homicide rate, and a much higher homicide rate by firearms than the US.

      • I hate to be the one to tell you this but son when you perceive yourself as eloquent what is actually the case is self-contradiction and hypocrisy. So we all understand and it’s really ok that you have no perception of what eloquence actually is. It will all be okay, buddy, shhhhh. Everything’s gonna be fine.

  2. We don’t all always have to agree in order to all be working in the same direction. There will always be those who “go too far” just like there will always be those who “don’t do enough.”

  3. I’ve said it once and I’ll say it again about the MOTOR CITY MADMAN……”Nugent for prez”….

  4. “Uncle Ted” brings a lot of bad press to be sure but he at least allows common sense to prevail. Well, most of the time at least…

  5. he’s right. he’s passionate and high energy. and he’s telling the truth. gun grabbers are trying to brow beat us and denigrate us at every turn. we need a tasmanian devil to hit back. we cannot appease the grabbers. they have an agenda that i believe will eventually lead to civil war. i hope i’m wrong but they want our guns for a reason and it has nothing to do with crime control.

    • They have an agenda that i believe will eventually lead to civil war.

      As much as I’d prefer it not happen, that’s likely where it will end up. The only ways to avoid it are either gun owners submit and give up their rights and doom the entire nation to look like the UK (or worse) or we get enough people who believe in the second amendment (even if they dislike guns and don’t own them) that we get another amendment made to the Constitution explicitly stating what the rules are regarding arms and any politician who, other than another amendment to the Constitution, tries to infringe on those rights will face life in prison.

        • You’re right – I live in the richest and most powerful country in the world in the most comfortable and privileged time that mankind has ever known, but the reality is that I’m blind to an undercurrent of cranky forum posters that will one day initiate an inevitable and violent uprising to save us from the damn dirty liberals! They blew it up! Ah, damn them! God damn them all to hell!

          I was blind but now can see. Please pass me some of that kool aid so I can wash the sand out of my eyes.

        • And while we’re on the subject of the liberals assaulting our rights at every turn, why don’t we focus that gaze for a moment on the so called conservatives currently in power. If you think that the definition of marriage needs to be regulated at the federal level, or that adults shouldn’t be allowed to decide what substances they’d like to ingest for recreation, or that empowering the federal government to detain people without just cause, trial or any due process, I’ve got some news for ya – you’re just a different flavor of liberal.

          And there aren’t going to be any Civil wars starting over that crap either. If you genuinely believe that a civil war is looming, you’re completely out of touch with reality. The way you discuss it leads me to believe that’s the case.

        • Yea, I ignored the majority of your whining. The fact is that it’s pretty much a guarantee that eventually they WILL start coming door to door to disarm the people and when that day comes, there’s a good chance that the peasants will revolt.

          Yes, I get it, you and your pals are perfectly happy to see rights taken away as long as you have your beer and Jersey Shore. However, an ever growing portion of the population isn’t happy with that and odds are it’s going to come to an unpleasant collision.

        • Toten, based solely on that comment, I’m afraid you would never pass the mental health screening. No wonder you oppose it so strongly.

        • Toten, your comment reads like it was written by a petulant occupy protester. Maybe if you weren’t so busy crying on the shoulders of like minded and delusional lunatics you could actually convince people with the opposing view point that they are wrong and you’re right. Instead, you laying gibberish on top of insanity on top of made up insults – Jersey Shore? LARF! Never been my feeble minded friend. I’m sorry that you don’t possess the mental capacity to present a cogent and coherent argument for your point of view without resorting to painting caricatures of people you know nothing about.

          Again, we’re winning. MikeB and his friends are losing (and guess what – they ain’t all Liberals). Quit whining and get back to the range. Written communication isn’t your thing – you’re embarrassing yourself.

  6. This is what confuses me…Americans, including myself, believe in our freedoms, we will fight and die for them. Locking up or identifying the less sane of us isn’t feasible to accomplish until after the fact.

    Are we to mandate that all people undergo a psychiatric evaluation once a year? I highly doubt most of us would be okay with that. How about being required to have an evaluation done to be able to purchase a weapon? Outrage would ensue(rightfully).

    So i don’t understand just how we are supposed to be proactive in identifying less than stable individuals, without compromising our individual liberties?

    • Jeremy, I believe he’s more referring to things like the fact that Holmes was seeing a psychiatrist (of his own free will) and the shrink reported him to campus police as being violent and a threat to others – but the campus police didn’t feel like making a five minute phone call to the police which would have gotten Holmes banned from buying guns and possibly been monitored by the government so that they could step in if they thought he actually was planning / gearing up for something bad.

      • But—who’s to say the determining factor is only possibility of harming others? Someone who is being treated for depression could easily have their psychiatrist inform the police that he is a danger to himself, then there go your gun rights.

        • If they do it based on the word of one person without investigating, then they should be sued for criminal negligence. If the friends and family aren’t worried about someone going off the hinge and a shrink is, then odds are the shrink is just an asshole.

    • That is exactly the point.

      We would consider it an infringement of our rights if forced to undergo routine pyschiatric evaluations. Yet we’re ok with more laws restricting gun ownership for the majority of the populace who have never done any harm with them?

      There is actually a rather sad history in this country of ignoring the mentally ill and reducing funds for their care. However, even if we were to go back to the old model people like James Holmes would still slip through the system. It’s always easy to spot the crazies after the fact.

    • We cannot be “proactive”, if you mean preventive detention (as practiced in Britain). We can be proactive in carrying the means to defend ourselves from criminals, some of whom are insane. My sympathy for the insane ends when they attack me or my family. At that point, an individual’s sanity or lack thereof is irrelevant to the protection of my life.

      A 17-year old recently (reported Tuesday) murdered 9 people and wounded 5 more, because his girlfriend’s family prohibited him from seeing her. You did not read about this in the paper or see it on TV, because it occurred in China, and the killer used a KNIFE, not a gun. I very much doubt that the Chinese government will give a rat’s a** whether this “teenager” was insane when they execute him. And does anyone really believe that keeping Charlie Manson alive in prison, at taxpayer expense for the last 50 years, was a good idea?

      • A yearly evaluation should first be beta tested on every single member of the federal government and the Federal Reserve. If we need to get the nut cases out of anything it’s the government.

        • The Federal Reserve is a private banking institution, not part of the government. Which is really more outrageous when you think about it.

    • Stephen King wrote an interesting piece years ago; I believe it was right after the V-Tech massacre. Among his interesting points was that he himself was a strange kid, and had he grown up in the late 90’s or 2000’s he likely would have been suspected as a possible mass murderer because he was interested in the macabre and was found to be strange by others. I realize the psychopath that murdered all those innocent people in Aurora didn’t fit that mold, but my point is that just because someone sees a psychiatrist, seems to be “off” or is even reported for being a potential threat doesn’t mean they’re actually going to harm anyone. This kind of murder is exceedingly rare in the grand scheme of things; they’re simply very popular in mass media. NO ONE should be have their civil rights trampled because of the actions of a few monsters, gun owners of course included.

      My ultimate point is that Teddy boy, while technically on our side, should stick to what he does best (like all other celebrities); in this case playing songs that peaked in popularity three decades ago.

      • Well he does have a large front gate at his house with spider webs, and spiders on it. The sconces in his hallway are arms holding candles. His pool is also lit up this bright green, weird nah!!! 🙂
        I do get his point though..

      • Uncle Ted is also an avid hunter, and pretty good at that too. I guess he should also focus on that. Oh wait… that’s right…. THAT part doesn’t fit your profile of him, so it must be ignored. Just like the inconvenient truths that the gun-grabbers tend to ignore while attempting to do Jedi Mind Tricks on us to make us do the same.

        • Will – I don’t think the hunting is an issue – it’s the pure, unadulterated lunacy that pours out of his mouth that harms our cause.

    • which re-enforces the point i made above, mikeybnumbers. you’ve already stated that totenglocke would not pass the mental health standards of your “reasonable requirements” based on 1 statement he made. as i said, under your system nobody would pass and guns would not be in the hands of anyone but cops and soldiers. and you could smugly say that guns haven’t been banned, when in fact they have. fortunately most of us have read 1984 and have your doublespeak figured. and as i’ve stated before you’re playing the devil’s advocate for the sake of arguing. i doubt you believe most of what you spout but this is your way of seeking attention. in your own way you’re as damaged as the “joker”. sad really, but that’s what heavy drug use at a young age produces.

  7. This is what confuses me…most of us, including myself, believe in our freedoms, we will fight and die for them. Locking up or identifying the less sane of us isn’t feasible to accomplish until after the fact.

    Are we to mandate that all people undergo a psychiatric evaluation once a year? I highly doubt most of us would be okay with that. How about being required to have an evaluation done to be able to purchase a weapon? Outrage would ensue(rightfully).

    So i don’t understand just how we are supposed to be proactive in identifying less than stable individuals, without compromising our individual liberties?

  8. Some folks might not like Ted, and he can go off on occassion, but we need to attack, attack, attack without letup. Winson Churchhill said, “An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile hoping it will eat him last.”

    I’d rather hang with Ted, at least he gives ’em hell.

  9. Why does everyone seem ok with having people with a history of psychiatric treatment lose there second ammendment rights? I was put on a 72 hour hold when i was 16 after my alcoholic dad lied to doctors. I will never be allowed to own a gun despite the fact that I have been involved in shooting sports since I was 8. My dad tried to kill himself via an overdose and was sent to rehab but he gets to have a ccw permit and he even owns multiple suppressors, it makes me sick everytime the discussion of mental illness and funs comes up because it seems I am the only one not ok with blindly taking away the riggts of everyone who gets psychiatric treatment. Most psychiatric patients have a history of rape and abuse and have very good reasons to carry a weapon to defend themselves.

    • I couldn’t agree with you more, and I’m truly sorry hear of your experiences. You must be a strong person to endure something like that.

      With no intention of overstepping my bounds, have you considered hiring, or at least speaking to an attorney regarding your situation? Lot’s of people will tell you certain things are impossible, but in my experience ‘impossible’ is a highly variable situation.

      • I’m glad tp hear I’m not the only one that feels this way.unfortunately there is no way to expunge or erase the fact that i was hospitalized. If I had committed a felony i could at least try and get my gun rights back but being involuntarily committed to a mental hospital means no guns for life. There may be some way around it but with this shooting I only see it getting harder for me to ever own a gun.

        • Who you should contact is your local Senator or Representative to see if it’s possible to get the law tweaked. While I fully support keeping guns out of the hands of crazy people, I can also see that the system can get it wrong. It just looks like you fell through a crack. Hopefully you live in a state that supports gun rights and the right to self defense.

        • The problem is in the definition of “crazy people” most of the people you find in mental hospitals are bullied and abused kids. Statistically people with mental illness are no more likely to commit an act of violence then the rest of the population. Of course there are those rare cases of people like James holmes but why disarm all
          “Crazy people” because there are a small percentage of them that are murderers. That makes no more sense then disarmingall civilians because some of them are murderers. And besides you can’t keep people like james holmes from getting guns anyway, all of the arguments we use against anti gunners about how gun control is useless still apply. I dont understand how you can ” fully support disarming crazy people” its much more complicated then that. And where do you draw the line of crazy? Should kids with add and adhere never be allowed to own guns, because those are “psychiatric conditions” to. Ironically I live in colorado whose laws keep me from owning a gun because I was hospitalized but James Holmes was never committed so he got to keep his gun rights.

        • Q,

          I used the term “Crazy People” as a generalized term. Certainly there’s more to it than that. To that end, I think you’re making a reasonable point. To that end, I’ll qualify my statement to reflect a preference for keeping guns out of the hands of crazy people with a propensity for violence. I’m sure you’d agree,

          Now, how do you define who’s who? Crystal ball I guess.

        • The problem is in the definition of “crazy people” most of the people you find in mental hospitals are bullied and abused kids. Statistically people with mental illness are no more likely to commit an act of violence then the rest of the population. Of course there are those rare cases of people like James holmes but why disarm all
          “Crazy people” because there are a small percentage of them that are murderers. That makes no more sense then disarmingall civilians because some of them are murderers. And besides you can’t keep people like james holmes from getting guns anyway, all of the arguments we use against anti gunners about how gun control is useless still apply. I dont understand how you can ” fully support disarming crazy people” its much more complicated then that. And where do you draw the line of crazy? Should kids with add and adhere never be allowed to own guns, because those are “psychiatric conditions” to. Ironically I live in colorado whose laws keep me from owning a gun because I was hospitalized but James Holmes was never committed so he got to keep his gun rights

  10. Why does everyone seem ok with having people with a history of psychiatric treatment lose there second ammendment rights? I was put on a 72 hour hold when i was 16 after my alcoholic dad lied to doctors. I will never be allowed to own a gun despite the fact that I have been involved in shooting sports since I was 8. My dad tried to kill himself via an overdose and was sent to rehab but he gets to have a ccw permit and he even owns multiple suppressors, it makes me sick everytime the discussion of mental illness and funs comes up because it seems I am the only one not ok with blindly taking away the riggts of everyone who gets psychiatric treatment. Most psychiatric patients have a history of rape and abuse and have very good reasons to carry a weapon to defend themselves

    • I don’t see how you can’t own a gun? It usually requires a doctor or judge order a hold to restrict you. Not a parent or self admit even if the parent lies to doctors. Plus your were a minor . Unless its required by your state?

  11. Ted is someone I wouldn’t mind meeting. I’d be glad to shake his hand and break bread with him. Can’t say that I’d do the same if I had an occasion to meet Obama.

      • Still rather meet him than Obama. 😉

        Ted an I would probably get along just fine. I do happen to sport one of the finest sets of manboobs ever seen. Course, if he tried to touch em, I’d have to shoot him. They’re only for the BuddhaBabe.

  12. Jared Loughner tried to enlist in the Army but was refused because he was a drug user and a nutcase. The military did not report its findings to anyone out of concern for Loughner’s — please don’t laugh — privacy rights. The same goes for Holmes, who his own psychiatrist believed was a danger to himself and others.

    These two cases prove that insanity is not limited to the insane. The theory of privacy has morphed from “the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures” and “a man’s home is his castle” into something unrecognizable and bizarre, entitling psychopaths to arm up and kill at will.

    Enough bullsh!t already. The madness promulgated by the Warren Court must end. No more emanations and penumbras, please. It’s killing us.

    • If medical privacy is stripped from the mental health system people are going to be discouraged from seeking treatment on their own. It’s already a huge thing with vets suffering from PTSD who don’t want to visit the psych because they’re worried their guns will be taken away.

      In Loughner, Cho’s and Holmes’s cases, the authorities knew about each and every one of them. It’s people not doing their ****ing jobs that’s the problem. We shouldn’t trample privacy rights because lazy asses inadvertently let these people slip through the cracks.

  13. y’all still don’t get it/ hmmmm / ok, 40 years ago /and before that/ this “progressives” were called communists, and they were hated, for very good reasons; but due to our awesome education system and the fact that as the commie ship sank, the rats came here // we as a nation now have a major problem// to the pro-hoe’s a free man is a dissident and a free man with a gun is a criminal // that’s the way they think. Now I’m not crazy but communism is an organism, that breaths and thinks collectivelly since to be out of step will kill you. The MSM is not on their side, the media is their mouth, that spouts all the trash that we have to deal with. They don’t tell lies, they speak a “lies language”. Is like they live in an alternate reality. Psychosis must be a beautiful thing, just look at the way they go about it.

Leave a Reply

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