If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(The Raw Story)   Ted Nugent may know a lot of things - how to play the hell out of a guitar, how to hunt with any type of weapon, how to swing from a vine wearing a loincloth - but he apparently does not understand the meaning of the word "treason"   (rawstory.com) divider line 471
    More: Fail, weapons  
•       •       •

20455 clicks; posted to Main » on 23 Jan 2013 at 9:18 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



471 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-01-23 10:53:04 AM

TheBigJerk: david_gaithersburg: I hate to burst your bubble, but England was not a foreign government as you believe, it was our government.

Hmm, a government in which we were afforded no representation.

Kind of like democrats with all the gerrymandering? Democrats aren't represented (fairly) in the legitimate government, demanding we act by revolting against the current government?


Generally its considered proper to attempt legal channels first. And the credibility of this posited revolt is diminished somewhat by failure to address the procedural issues now disenfranchising you when you did hold power, your control over the rest of the government, and your near universal agreement withe Republicans(your alleged oppressors) on every issue of note.

Besides all that though systematic under representation is a decent cause.
 
2013-01-23 10:53:26 AM

Farkage: calm like a bomb: HAMMERTOE: Philip Francis Queeg: They weren't completely against a standing Army. The US Constitution allows a standing army.

And the Second Amendment allowed for the regulation of this standing army by an armed populace.

Did it account for their sheep-like slaughter after trying to enforce this regulation due to their lack of airplanes, tanks, high explosives, and such?

I guess that's why we were done in Afghanistan so quickly too, right?
And that is completely off topic as well. Nice try though.


The most effective weapon for an insurgency is explosives which is why there was such an outcry when ammonia nitrate was heavily regulated following Oklahoma City.
 
2013-01-23 10:53:39 AM

schubie: The scariest thing about Ted Nugent is he claims to have never tried any drug other than "a half a can of beer."


Which isn't even true. He talks about drinking wine in Africa on one of his hunts in his book "God, Guns and Rock and Roll."

The guy is all over the place with his 'never done drugs or alcohol' BS, amongst other things. Seriously, he chastises people for making mistakes with firearms (negligent discharges) but any time he's farked up it was a 'lesson learned' and so on.

Used to like the Nuge - now he's just another blowhard.
 
2013-01-23 10:53:51 AM

Bloody William: schubie: The scariest thing about Ted Nugent is he claims to have never tried any drug other than "a half a can of beer."

Straight edge guys who enjoy the lifestyles or livelihoods of generally drug-riddled artists tend to be the most batshiat crazy, aggressive, and wrecked people.


Now, now...

soundscompelling.com

Though, I wouldn't say he lives the lifestyle of a drug-riddled artist. : )
 
2013-01-23 10:54:05 AM

Farkage: It' been done in the past, so I know you'll get right on that.


Honestly? Would love to. But out here in the real world I readily concede that the NRA won this argument a long time ago, and current sentiment notwithstanding, it isn't going to change. Everybody gets lots of guns, and the price we pay is that occasionally some asshole is going to shoot a lot of people. But we can't discuss rationally what can be done to change this because FREEDOM!!!! Don't even know why I'm bothering, really.
 
2013-01-23 10:54:45 AM

Joe Blowme: Bloody William: Joe Blowme: "I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."

The interpretation of which is generally left to the Supreme Court and our system of checks and balances, not some farkwit "rocker" best known for shiatty lyrics, repetitve riffs, and threatening the democratically elected president of the United States with armed insurrection.

Can you cite the part where he was "threatening the democratically elected president of the United States with armed insurrection" in the article because while he mentions a Concord bridge, there is no direct threat to the POTUS. So if the SC says so you are all for it? You have no sense of right and wrong do you? You have to be told how to think and what is right and wrong dont you? I bet you would have supported slavery too because it was the law of the land huh?


""If you want another Concord bridge, I've got some buddies.""

It's not even reading between the lines. It's reading the lines then understanding what they mean.

"If you want another Fort Sumter, I've got some buddies."

"If you want another Gulf of Tonkin incident, I've got some buddies."

"If you want another Battle of the Trebia, I've got some buddies."
 
2013-01-23 10:55:09 AM

keylock71: give me doughnuts: Do you know what "the right of the people" means?

I do... It means I'm not shiatting my pants that the government is going to come and take the two firearms I do own and that background checks and mandatory firearms training (which I had to pass in order to get my F.I.D.) did not infringe my right, nor prevent me from owning and keeping said firearms... And both firearms are "well-regulated" in both senses of the term. I have no problem with that, at all.

In short, you're barking up the wrong tree with that line of attack, my friend.


The 24 EO's that the president signed closes the gun show loophole, which even most gun owners were OK with.

Requiring a background check for every gun transfer is impossible to enforce.

The president has called for congress to ban semi-auto's. The problem is that the anti-gun folks could not tell you the difference between an M16 and an M4 and a 22 Long rifle. Some look scary, so they have to be banned.

Go ahead, ban all semi-auto's, it's total ignorance and you will start a war.

/Been posting this for 2 weeks now
//No visits from the SS
 
2013-01-23 10:55:22 AM

karnal: Welcome to the liberal mindset. Doesn't matter if you're a musician, author, sports figure or movie star or whatever....once you are tagged a 'conservative' anything you have ever done before sucks and you are an asshat.

/closed-minded reactionaries and bigots


Say, let's talk about The Dixie Chicks, eh motherfarker?
 
2013-01-23 10:55:37 AM

karnal: Welcome to the liberal mindset. Doesn't matter if you're a musician, author, sports figure or movie star or whatever....once you are tagged a 'conservative' anything you have ever done before sucks and you are an asshat.



No. Really. He is a mediocre guitar player at best.
 
2013-01-23 10:56:00 AM
Apparently it's not treason if the President is black.
 
2013-01-23 10:57:22 AM
Still waiting for him to be dead or in jail. Personally, I'm rooting for dead.
 
2013-01-23 10:57:52 AM
United States."

Yes.... That is the role of the President. Yet how many times has the Constitution been modified to reflect changes in ideals over time? Although alcohol wasn't protected by the Constitution an amendment was created and passed that abolished alcohol. When the government saw the amendment caused more problems than it did good? The law was repealed. The same would be true with guns....

Obama doesn't want my rifles and shotguns... Too much of Michigan's (and other states') economy is dependent on revenue from hunting licenses and hunters purchasing supplies, buying gas to go to their hunting grounds, hotels, food purchases, etc. Even with hunting season the number of Deer-Car accidents is still high here (Imagine how bad it would be if the deer population wasn't culled each year). Finally, the animal rights activists might hate hunting seasons.... But I'm sure they'd hate the slow death from starvation animals face without hunting.

Having said that, I don't see a need for assault rifles (*Yawns at the prospect of accidentally starting another boring "automatic v. semi-automatic nerd rage discussion") or even handguns. I don't use either for hunting. Neither does anyone else I know. The argument of "home defense" is often brought up in support of these weapons. If someone broke into my house I suspect the sound of racking a shell into one of my shotguns or into my lever-action Winchester would be enough for them to take what they already have and leave. I don't have a problem with that. My homeowner's insurance covers replacement.
 
2013-01-23 10:58:16 AM

pxsteel: Requiring a background check for every gun transfer is impossible to enforce.


There will be no need to enforce it. I have been told that gun owners are law abiding folks, so I am sure they will all follow the new requirement.
 
2013-01-23 10:59:11 AM

Wrongo: david_gaithersburg: [24.media.tumblr.com image 850x468]

Are you equating Ted Nugent with Peter Fonda, Dennis Hopper and Terry Southern (plus Jack Nicholson by proxy)?

DIAF


.
You do realize that those people are actors who were portraying characters in a story?
 
2013-01-23 10:59:16 AM

karnal: Welcome to the liberal mindset. Doesn't matter if you're a musician, author, sports figure or movie star or whatever....once you are tagged a 'conservative' anything you have ever done before sucks and you are an asshat.

/closed-minded reactionaries and bigots


The Dixie Chicks.

France.

/That is all.
 
2013-01-23 10:59:37 AM

Farkage: I guess that's why we were done in Afghanistan so quickly too, right?


Fighters in Afghanistan and elsewhere all have bombs, booby traps and mortars, things which wannabe American neo-revolutionaries are bared from having by law. This notion of engaging infantry units which outnumber and outgun you by trading rifle shots with them is a ludicrous fantasy.
 
2013-01-23 10:59:49 AM
Crap..... Please add the following information to the post above (I don't know why it was cut off *Shakes tiny fist at the FARK gods*


Joe Blowme: "I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."

Yes.... that is the role of the President of the United States....
 
2013-01-23 11:02:08 AM

Farkage: keylock71: Thune: And you think Obama knows what "shall not be infringed" means?

I don't know.... Do you know what "Well-Regulated" means?

Yes, it means "in its natural state". Look up the dictionary definitions from an 18th century dictionary and see for yourself how that phrase was used when the 2nd amendment was written.


I hardly ever post in Politics threads, and I'm probably just feeding the trolls, but...

I find it the height of ridiculousness that Teahadists and insurrectionists keep trotting out this lame trope when they fulminate about the "true" meaning of the 2nd Amendment ("LOL look it up in an 18th century dictionary libtardz!!!"). I mean, seriously, have YOU ever consulted an 18th century dictionary? Perhaps you should, and the first definitions you should consider looking up would be "gun," "firearm," "matchlock," and "musket". You might be surprised that the all-knowing Founding Fathers had no way of anticipating the leaps in weapons technology that we see today, more than TWO CENTURIES LATER. I mean, today's date and time was an even more remote a future to Jefferson and Adams as the Star Trek universe is to us. Shocking, I know. Oh, and while you're at it, look up the definition of "militia" while you're at it. Then consider consulting an actual history book or two, maybe even some of the writings of the actual Founding Fathers, to gain perspective on what was actually happening at that time and what people actually thought about it.

I know, a truly radical thought. One might even say, revolutionary.

In the meantime, I will continue to enjoy the richly deserved mockery that so richly, skewers, roasts and devours your derp.

/Dammit, now I'm hungry. Roast derp for lunch, anyone?
 
2013-01-23 11:02:58 AM

Diogenes: david_gaithersburg: I have a silly hang up on an odd concept called freedom, and freedom from tyranny. Sorry, but I do not share your desire to be a mere subject to huge and out of control government.

So we should have taken up arms against Bush and his government when they came up with the Patriot Act.  Got it.


.
Yes.
 
2013-01-23 11:04:28 AM

david_gaithersburg: Diogenes: david_gaithersburg: I have a silly hang up on an odd concept called freedom, and freedom from tyranny. Sorry, but I do not share your desire to be a mere subject to huge and out of control government.

So we should have taken up arms against Bush and his government when they came up with the Patriot Act.  Got it.

.
Yes.


So why didn't you? Are you a coward?
 
2013-01-23 11:04:53 AM
One thing the 2012 election did show, very clearly, is that Republicans are sore-losers.
 
2013-01-23 11:06:45 AM

david_gaithersburg: Diogenes: david_gaithersburg: I have a silly hang up on an odd concept called freedom, and freedom from tyranny. Sorry, but I do not share your desire to be a mere subject to huge and out of control government.

So we should have taken up arms against Bush and his government when they came up with the Patriot Act.  Got it.

Yes.



Careful, your patriotism is showing.
 
2013-01-23 11:06:57 AM

david_gaithersburg: Diogenes: david_gaithersburg: I have a silly hang up on an odd concept called freedom, and freedom from tyranny. Sorry, but I do not share your desire to be a mere subject to huge and out of control government.

So we should have taken up arms against Bush and his government when they came up with the Patriot Act. Got it.

.
Yes.


Afraid I have to agree as well.
 
2013-01-23 11:08:38 AM

The Evil Home Brewer: The argument of "home defense" is often brought up in support of these weapons. If someone broke into my house I suspect the sound of racking a shell into one of my shotguns or into my lever-action Winchester would be enough for them to take what they already have and leave. I don't have a problem with that. My homeowner's insurance covers replacement.


Heh... I got a rifle and shotgun in the house, but in the event of someone breaking into my home, I think I prefer to defend my home with the half a hockey stick I have in the closet (next to the gun safe). I like my chances, in my home, in the dark or daylight against any intruder, armed or otherwise....

But that's really just macho masturbatory fantasizing... My home has never been burglarized or invaded and my city has a violent crime rate 5 times the national average. Hell, I can't even remember the last time I had any kind of violent altercation with another person... maybe a first fight or two in high school. It's not my firearms keeping me and the family safe. If anything, it's the fact that every ground floor entrance (doors, windows, and bulkhead) is secured when we're home and alarmed when we're out and I have good relationships with all my neighbors and we keep an eye out for each others' property.

Hell, my elderly Portuguese neighbors, who spend the day peeking between the shades when they hear any noises, are more of a deterrent to scum bags than any firearm.
 
2013-01-23 11:10:11 AM

david_gaithersburg: This person was also guilty of treason.

And this one....

[www.biography.com image 402x402]

And this one too...

[www.biography.com image 402x402]


"Guilty?"

When were the trials?
 
2013-01-23 11:10:22 AM

david_gaithersburg: Diogenes: david_gaithersburg: I have a silly hang up on an odd concept called freedom, and freedom from tyranny. Sorry, but I do not share your desire to be a mere subject to huge and out of control government.

So we should have taken up arms against Bush and his government when they came up with the Patriot Act.  Got it.

Yes.


HAMMERTOE: Afraid I have to agree as well.



I find it hilarious the very people that called Liberals "traitors" for disagreeing/hating/deploring the Patriot Act are the same ones now saying we should have taken up arms against the President because we disagreed with the Patriot Act.
 
2013-01-23 11:10:54 AM
Pants-crapping draft-dodger, pedophile, marginally talented guitarist (hey, he's better than me!), psychopathic chickenhawk...

...can we not all come together and agree that Damn Yankees was a horrible, horrible band?
 
2013-01-23 11:12:21 AM
Does anybody really think that if there ever were another Concord Bridge Ted Nugent would not be unfortunately busy elsewhere?

All talk. That's how you can spot the p#####s. That's why he didn't go to Nam. That's why he should be dismissed as another tough talking coward today with the rest of the anti-tyranny lot. Either we're repressed and you are shirking your duty to resist or we're not and you're lying.
 
2013-01-23 11:12:22 AM

keylock71: The Evil Home Brewer: The argument of "home defense" is often brought up in support of these weapons. If someone broke into my house I suspect the sound of racking a shell into one of my shotguns or into my lever-action Winchester would be enough for them to take what they already have and leave. I don't have a problem with that. My homeowner's insurance covers replacement.

Heh... I got a rifle and shotgun in the house, but in the event of someone breaking into my home, I think I prefer to defend my home with the half a hockey stick I have in the closet (next to the gun safe). I like my chances, in my home, in the dark or daylight against any intruder, armed or otherwise....

But that's really just macho masturbatory fantasizing... My home has never been burglarized or invaded and my city has a violent crime rate 5 times the national average. Hell, I can't even remember the last time I had any kind of violent altercation with another person... maybe a first fight or two in high school. It's not my firearms keeping me and the family safe. If anything, it's the fact that every ground floor entrance (doors, windows, and bulkhead) is secured when we're home and alarmed when we're out and I have good relationships with all my neighbors and we keep an eye out for each others' property.

Hell, my elderly Portuguese neighbors, who spend the day peeking between the shades when they hear any noises, are more of a deterrent to scum bags than any firearm.


We have a long hallway that leads to the bedrooms. Truthfully? If someone came down the long narrow hall I'd probably blindly fire a warning shot and then grab my 1863 Springfield with it's lock-ring bayonet. It gives me about a 6 foot reach. In a narrow hallway? I'm bound to hit enough that the intruder leaves.
 
2013-01-23 11:16:14 AM

HAMMERTOE: ranak: trea·son /ˈtrizən/ Show Spelled[tree-zuhn] Show IPA
noun
1. the offense of acting to overthrow one's government or to harm or kill its sovereign.
2. a violation of allegiance to one's sovereign or to one's state.
3. the betrayal of a trust or confidence; breach of faith; treachery.

So, basically, the entire federal government is guilty of treason at one point or another.


A dictionary definition is irrelevant as it's already defined in the Constitution.

Article III, Section 3:

Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court. The Congress shall have Power to declare the Punishment of Treason, but no Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person attainted.
 
2013-01-23 11:17:11 AM

God's Hubris: I find it hilarious the very people that called Liberals "traitors" for disagreeing/hating/deploring the Patriot Act are the same ones now saying we should have taken up arms against the President because we disagreed with the Patriot Act.


Oh hell no! I decried that piece of crap from the moment it was announced. It is a huge step in the government treating every last citizen as a potential enemy and does nothing but encourage an adversarial relationship between citizen and government. It mad me regret voting for Bush because it made him responsible for the largest growth in government since the New Deal. In short, it confirmed him as a RINO and a traitor to conservative principles.
 
2013-01-23 11:18:01 AM

karnal: Welcome to the liberal mindset. Doesn't matter if you're a musician, author, sports figure or movie star or whatever....once you are tagged a 'conservative' anything you have ever done before sucks and you are an asshat.


Which is completely different than how conservatives react to liberal entertainers - boycotts, destroying their recordings, telling them they should just shut the fark up and sing...
 
2013-01-23 11:19:13 AM

Farkage: Philip Francis Queeg: Farkage: Philip Francis Queeg: give me doughnuts: Philip Francis Queeg: give me doughnuts: Philip Francis Queeg: You might want to check on what the phrase "bear arms" meant at the time.

It meant you could own and use weapons that were equal to, or better than, those used by the most mordern army of the day.

Try again.

Why? I was right the first time.

No, I'm afraid you were not. The phrase "bear arms" referred to formal military service. If we want to go strictly by the common definitions of the time, the 2nd Amendment should be recognized as giving the right for everyone to join the military.

How do you reconcile that with the fact the founding fathers were completely against having a standing army?

They weren't completely against a standing Army. The US Constitution allows a standing army.

"Another source of power in government is a military force. But this, to be efficient, must be superior to any force that exists among the people, or which they can command; for otherwise this force would be annihilated, on the first exercise of acts of oppression. Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops that can be, on any pretense, raised in the United States. A military force, at the command of Congress, can execute no laws, but such as the people perceive to be just and constitutional; for they will possess the power, and jealousy will instantly inspire the inclination, to resist the execution of a law which appears to them unjust and oppressive."

-- Noah Webster - 1787

Now I guess you'll invent something that contradicts this, no?


blogs.phoenixnewtimes.com
/I knew I had you favorited for a reason...
 
2013-01-23 11:19:53 AM

schubie: The scariest thing about Ted Nugent is he claims to have never tried any drug other than "a half a can of beer."


Ages and ages ago (late 80s), I worked a show in Milwaukee (Ted Nugent opened for Aerosmith), and Ted was sitting on a crate backstage chewing on his tongue like a lunatic in the throes of a raging coke bender.  I don't know if that's an indictment of drug use, but he definitely seemed to be on something.

We also couldn't get him to stop farking around backstage. After his set, he hid behind the riser and, like a catty biatch, kept trying to sabotage Aerosmith's set by grabbing Steven Tyler and Joe Perry's ankles every time they walked by (the rumor backstage was that at some point earlier on their tour, Joe pissed Nugent off by calling him "Teddy Two Chords").  Eventually, the problem solved itself when Joe Perry stomped on his farking hand and Ted's bandmates dragged him away before having their tour go up in smoke.

The dude's always been a basket case.
 
2013-01-23 11:20:25 AM

HAMMERTOE: Bloody William: Last time an "armed populace" tried to regulate a "standing army," brother was pitted against brother, slavery was abolished, and the southeast quarter of the country got a 170-year butthurt over the fact that they lost, and hide under the flags of those losers to deny that fact.

Actually, last time an armed populace tried to regulate a standing army, Obama set a timetable for withdrawal.


Link

The U.S.-Iraq Status of Forces Agreement (official name: "Agreement Between the United States of America and the Republic of Iraq On the Withdrawal of United States Forces from Iraq and the Organization of Their Activities during Their Temporary Presence in Iraq") was a status of forces agreement (SOFA) between Iraq and the United States, signed by President George W. Bush in 2008. It established that U.S. combat forces would withdraw from Iraqi cities by June 30, 2009, and all U.S. forces will be completely out of Iraq by December 31, 2011.
 
2013-01-23 11:20:39 AM

God's Hubris: david_gaithersburg: Diogenes: david_gaithersburg: I have a silly hang up on an odd concept called freedom, and freedom from tyranny. Sorry, but I do not share your desire to be a mere subject to huge and out of control government.

So we should have taken up arms against Bush and his government when they came up with the Patriot Act.  Got it.

Yes.

HAMMERTOE: Afraid I have to agree as well.


I find it hilarious the very people that called Liberals "traitors" for disagreeing/hating/deploring the Patriot Act are the same ones now saying we should have taken up arms against the President because we disagreed with the Patriot Act.


That's kind of where I was trying to take this.  And not even necessarily to highlight hypocrisy.  Although I do question the honesty of all the "yes" answers so far.  Since compared to the gun thing, the Patriot Act, NDAA etc. barely warrant a peep.

But to my larger point, not every thing we see as government overreach warrants armed insurrection.  We do have many means available to us to express our disagreement and try and effect change or reverse what the government has decided to do.  Granted, once power is given away, it's very hard to win back.  But that's a truism and not specific to our country or mode of governance.

The real problem...the deeper problem...is our Congress.  It either folds to the will of the Executive or does nothing.  It has not served us for at least the past 12 years now.  We should be putting unprecedented pressure on Congress instead of having pissing matches over which pet Constitutional provision we should take up arms over.  The Congress has an oath to uphold and protect the entire document, as it is what defines this country.  All of it.
 
2013-01-23 11:21:35 AM

odinsposse: farkmedown: REO-Weedwagon: Ted Nugent may know a lot of things - how to play the hell out of a guitar, how to hunt with any type of weapon, how to swing from a vine wearing a loincloth - but he apparently does not understand the meaning of the word "treason"

Not even close, subby.

Exactly. Obama, Biden and many members of Congress regularly violate their oaths of office. By my definition, that's treason. Unfortunately, the three branches of the government don't have the spine to clean house and the citizenry's only legal option is the ballot box.

It isn't. The founders were very clear about what treason is specifically because they knew hysterical nutjobs would throw the term at everyone they disagreed with politically.


If actively working to undermine the constitution he's sworn to uphold isn't giving comfort to the enemy, what is?
 
2013-01-23 11:24:57 AM

devilEther: david_gaithersburg: [Easy Rider pic]

so dirty pot-smoking hippies are cool now? last week you found them despicable.


.
I'm a well armed Dead Head. So now I hate myself, I did not know that.
 
2013-01-23 11:25:36 AM

rufus-t-firefly: Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court. The Congress shall have Power to declare the Punishment of Treason, but no Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person attainted.


Relative part emboldened.

Now, let's talk about Fast & Furious for a moment. In the context of the War on Drugs, wouldn't you say that allowing guns into the hands of the drug cartels was indeed "giving our enemies Aid and Comfort"? Sure, the Administration claims to be ignorant. But when challenged in the courts, they attempt to invoke Presidential Privilege. Sounds like a little evidence of Treason, (and subsequent Perjury in obfuscation of the same,) is liable to be uncovered.
 
2013-01-23 11:29:01 AM

keylock71:
My grandfather pretty much taught me to shoot (using an old clunky .22 at the rifle range at the Newport Naval Base). Seeing the way some folks these days treat their firearms like fashion accessories or political statements would have drove him nuts.

The fetishism surrounding firearms nowadays just astounds me - and I come from what most people would consider a "gun" family. We all train our kids to shoot at 6 or 7 with .22s, we all hunt, we all own and keep guns. I keep pistols and rifles both in the house for hunting, target practice, and home defense. (The latter being slightly more likely out where we are - no police, no cellphone service, spotty landline service, all add up to pretty much self-policing of the community)

I can even understand wanting an assault rifle "just in case there's some prolonged breakdown of law/order and you have to defend your family". Sure, makes sense, it's just being prepared. I've seen some pretty crazy things happen in just a few days without basic services so I can buy the idea that people might lose it if, say, the electric went out for a month.

Toting them around and thinking they give you a snowball's chance in hell against the government, treating any reasonable regulation as if it's the beginning of the Fourth Reich, and ranting about revolution though - that's way over the crazy line.
 
2013-01-23 11:30:46 AM

HAMMERTOE: God's Hubris: I find it hilarious the very people that called Liberals "traitors" for disagreeing/hating/deploring the Patriot Act are the same ones now saying we should have taken up arms against the President because we disagreed with the Patriot Act.

Oh hell no! I decried that piece of crap from the moment it was announced. It is a huge step in the government treating every last citizen as a potential enemy and does nothing but encourage an adversarial relationship between citizen and government. It mad me regret voting for Bush because it made him responsible for the largest growth in government since the New Deal. In short, it confirmed him as a RINO and a traitor to conservative principles.



Fair enough, thank you.
 
2013-01-23 11:31:32 AM
Its a bitter task to type this, but The Nuge actually hails from Arlington Heights Illinois. Arlington Heights has been the home to a hundred better guitar players.
 
2013-01-23 11:31:52 AM

david_gaithersburg: devilEther: david_gaithersburg: [Easy Rider pic]

so dirty pot-smoking hippies are cool now? last week you found them despicable.

.
I'm a well armed Dead Head. So now I hate myself, I did not know that.


it's a good thing we have GED doctors, and other GED professionals on Fark to tell us all about ourselves since we apparently are unable to reconcile our own internal conflicts and such.
 
2013-01-23 11:35:41 AM

HAMMERTOE: rufus-t-firefly: Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court. The Congress shall have Power to declare the Punishment of Treason, but no Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person attainted.

Relative part emboldened.

Now, let's talk about Fast & Furious for a moment. In the context of the War on Drugs, wouldn't you say that allowing guns into the hands of the drug cartels was indeed "giving our enemies Aid and Comfort"? Sure, the Administration claims to be ignorant. But when challenged in the courts, they attempt to invoke Presidential Privilege. Sounds like a little evidence of Treason, (and subsequent Perjury in obfuscation of the same,) is liable to be uncovered.



In this case, Enemies is uppercase, meaning a title given to an advesary as defined by Congress' declaration of War. Which enemy combatants defined by our government were given guns?

/thinks F&F was the most ridiculous idea next to the Iraq War which costs thousands more lives, hundreds of billions of dollars more, but nary a peep from the Right.
 
2013-01-23 11:39:05 AM

SixOfDLoC: I can even understand wanting an assault rifle "just in case there's some prolonged breakdown of law/order and you have to defend your family". Sure, makes sense, it's just being prepared. I've seen some pretty crazy things happen in just a few days without basic services so I can buy the idea that people might lose it if, say, the electric went out for a month.


This. The people declaring tyranny for "taking away their guns" are the same ones pissed that the government spends money on infrastructure. A stockpile of weapons won't do you any good if our woefully obsolete power grids go offline. Go cry, Emo. Your fiscal priorities are way off-balance.
 
2013-01-23 11:41:41 AM

GiantRex: Speaking to fans during an NBC-sponsored gun show, Nugent said that Obama "is attempting to re-implement the tyranny of King George that we escaped from in 1776," adding: "If you want another Concord bridge, I've got some buddies."

Acts committed by King George which led to the American revolution:

- Navigation Acts (blocked American trade with the French, Spanish, and Dutch)
- Molasses Act (tax for the purpose of making the British export cheaper than that from the French West Indies, "encouraging" colonists to buy British)
- Royal Proclamation of 1763 (restricted settlement west of the Appalachian Mountains)
- Sugar Act (enacted because of colonial evasion of the Molasses Act, also known as the American Revenues Act)
- Currency Act (regulated and restricted the paper money issued in the colonies for the purpose of preventing British creditors and merchants from being paid in depreciated colonial currency, resulted in a shortage of coin in the colonies and complicated the payment of debts)
- Quartering Acts (primary reason for the existence of the Third Amendment)
- Stamp Act of 1765 (required printed materials to be printed on special paper with an embossed revenue stamp, stamps had to be purchased with hard currency [see Currency Act], tax levied for the purpose of paying for the Seven Years' War)
- Declaratory Act (asserted that parliament's authority was the same in the colonies as it was in Britain and therefore could pass laws binding on the American colonies... despite the colonies having no representation in parliament)
- Townshend Acts (series of five laws enacted for the purpose of forcing the colonies to subsidize British occupation and law enforcement in the colonies)
- Tea Act (tax/racket enacted for the purpose of forcing colonists to buy off the surplus of tea from the British East India Company, resulted in the infamous Boston Tea Party)
- Quebec Act (extended Quebec's boundaries to the Ohio River, shutting out territorial claims of the 13 colonie ...


well to be fair he did expect you to at least stump up some of the cash for defending the colonies from the french.
 
2013-01-23 11:42:50 AM

david_gaithersburg: Wrongo: david_gaithersburg: [24.media.tumblr.com image 850x468]

Are you equating Ted Nugent with Peter Fonda, Dennis Hopper and Terry Southern (plus Jack Nicholson by proxy)?

DIAF

.
You do realize that those people are actors who were portraying characters in a story?


No, I realize that Peter Fonda, Dennis Hopper and Terry Southern were the screenwriters for said story, a movie about freedom and oppressive rednecks who spoiled the day of our two freedom lovers because they acted out their lack of understanding of freedom by misusing their 2nd ammendment rights. Yes, Nicholson was an actor who had nothing to do with the script. I add him as a "by proxy" 'cuz his not so then withered ass was in the shot you posted.
 
2013-01-23 11:45:10 AM

HindiDiscoMonster: david_gaithersburg: devilEther: david_gaithersburg: [Easy Rider pic]

so dirty pot-smoking hippies are cool now? last week you found them despicable.

.
I'm a well armed Dead Head. So now I hate myself, I did not know that.

it's a good thing we have GED doctors, and other GED professionals on Fark to tell us all about ourselves since we apparently are unable to reconcile our own internal conflicts and such.



It's kinda like when Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck and Ann Coutler tell us what Liberals think, eh?
 
2013-01-23 11:45:28 AM

karnal: Welcome to the liberal mindset. Doesn't matter if you're a musician, author, sports figure or movie star or whatever....once you are tagged a 'conservative' anything you have ever done before sucks and you are an asshat.

/closed-minded reactionaries and bigots


Personally, I think Tom Selleck is a pretty decent actor, as were Charlton Heston and Dennis Hopper. Neal Peart is one of the best rock drummers ever. I read PJ O'Rourke whenever he publishes. Ted? Ted's just mediocre. So, I think you wished to discussed closed-mindedness.
 
2013-01-23 11:47:55 AM

catchow: Farkage: keylock71: Thune: And you think Obama knows what "shall not be infringed" means?

I don't know.... Do you know what "Well-Regulated" means?

Yes, it means "in its natural state". Look up the dictionary definitions from an 18th century dictionary and see for yourself how that phrase was used when the 2nd amendment was written.

I hardly ever post in Politics threads, and I'm probably just feeding the trolls, but...

I find it the height of ridiculousness that Teahadists and insurrectionists keep trotting out this lame trope when they fulminate about the "true" meaning of the 2nd Amendment ("LOL look it up in an 18th century dictionary libtardz!!!"). I mean, seriously, have YOU ever consulted an 18th century dictionary? Perhaps you should, and the first definitions you should consider looking up would be "gun," "firearm," "matchlock," and "musket". You might be surprised that the all-knowing Founding Fathers had no way of anticipating the leaps in weapons technology that we see today, more than TWO CENTURIES LATER. I mean, today's date and time was an even more remote a future to Jefferson and Adams as the Star Trek universe is to us. Shocking, I know. Oh, and while you're at it, look up the definition of "militia" while you're at it. Then consider consulting an actual history book or two, maybe even some of the writings of the actual Founding Fathers, to gain perspective on what was actually happening at that time and what people actually thought about it.

I know, a truly radical thought. One might even say, revolutionary.

In the meantime, I will continue to enjoy the richly deserved mockery that so richly, skewers, roasts and devours your derp.

/Dammit, now I'm hungry. Roast derp for lunch, anyone?


So you are okay with restricting freedom of the press to hand set printing presses?
 
Displayed 50 of 471 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report