Do you have adblock enabled?
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  
•       •       •

20475 clicks; posted to Main » on 23 Jan 2013 at 9:18 AM (3 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread
 
2013-01-23 09:02:53 AM  
Maybe he's just working his way up to his eventual suicide because Obama won.

img1-cdn.newser.com

Time to nut up or shut up, Teddy Boy. Can't shiat your pants on this one.
 
2013-01-23 09:06:23 AM  

BronyMedic: Maybe he's just working his way up to his eventual suicide because Obama won.

[img1-cdn.newser.com image 240x160]

Time to nut up or shut up, Teddy Boy. Can't shiat your pants on this one.


Sure he can, don't the bowels tend to release when death occurs?
 
2013-01-23 09:07:59 AM  
He must have really enjoyed his last visit from the secret service to ask for another one so soon.
 
2013-01-23 09:09:30 AM  
How to hunt?  Well, if you call sitting off a guaranteed kill and shooting what amounts to raised cattle "hunting" then...yah.  He's awesome.
 
2013-01-23 09:09:48 AM  
I bet they are, you pants-shiatting coward.
 
2013-01-23 09:14:54 AM  
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 colonies)
- Intolerable Acts (a.k.a. the Coercive Acts, issued in response to the Boston Tea Party, essentially placed the colonies under British military rule. Specifically, Boston Harbor was closed until the debt was paid for the destruction of tea in the Boston Tea Party, the Massachusetts government was placed under the direct appointment and supervision of the British government, trials of accused royal officials were relocated to other colonies or back to Great Britain, and the forced quartering of British troops was expanded.)

The primary theme in all of these acts is governance by a foreign entity and taxation without any representation in parliament.

Similar Acts committed by the Obama Administration:


- ...
 
2013-01-23 09:20:16 AM  
He promised to be dead or in jail by April if Obama won. Hopefully he's a kook of his word.
 
2013-01-23 09:21:01 AM  
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.
 
2013-01-23 09:21:19 AM  
He's really not that great a guitar player.
 
2013-01-23 09:21:26 AM  
Jebus Christmas. He's gone completely unhinged.

It would be hilarious if the government actually did move to take away Ted's guns. -- Not everyone's guns, just Ted's.
 
2013-01-23 09:21:36 AM  
Headline is wrong. He could never play guitar. He can be flashy, but any kid in a Guitar Center for the first time can out play this ass.
 
2013-01-23 09:21:49 AM  
This latest outrage has given me the sudden urge to purchase one of his albums.

/Or shiat myself in homage, I haven't figured out which, yet
 
2013-01-23 09:22:15 AM  
Nugent is about as reasonable and relevant as Trump. I reckon Trump could do more long-term damage to the world with his money (assuming that it is his money, and not a whole shiatload of leveraged debt), but Nugent seems destined to go out in a blaze of idiocy, Ruby Ridge or Waco style.
 
2013-01-23 09:22:22 AM  
That guy is the worst thing to ever come out of Michigan.
 
2013-01-23 09:22:31 AM  
Ted also looks like he doesn't know the meaning of the words "shower," "shampoo," or "deodorant."
 
2013-01-23 09:23:18 AM  
My birthday is April 17 (ya rly) and I cannot think of a better present than this scumbag dead or in jail.
 
2013-01-23 09:23:24 AM  

Coco LaFemme: pants-shiatting coward.


This is all that needs to be said.
 
2013-01-23 09:23:31 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 ...


Yeah, I'm not sure what's more dangerous.  His rhetoric or his understanding of American History.
 
2013-01-23 09:24:00 AM  
Ted Nugent is a popular figure in my town. He visits our little town when he goes hunting in our marsh. He has a zebra striped piece of crap truck. I am waiting to see the truck again so I can slap an Obama sticker on it.

/I hate him
//sometimes it feels like I live in Ted Nugentville
 
2013-01-23 09:24:11 AM  

Alfonso the Great: That guy is the worst thing to ever come out of Michigan.


And that bar is set pretty high already.
 
2013-01-23 09:24:31 AM  
That's a big thing the revolutards can't understand - the vast majority of Americans don't agree with their definition of tyranny or oppression.

There will be no popular uprising, you're going to have to kill your friends and neighbors. This will not work out.
 
2013-01-23 09:25:27 AM  
 
2013-01-23 09:25:34 AM  
"we need to fix this as soon as possible."

We live in a democracy. You had your chance in November 2012, and your next one is around the same time in 2016.
 
2013-01-23 09:25:48 AM  
I don't care if Obama can play guitar, I don't care what Ted says about politics.

/play in your own yard
 
2013-01-23 09:26:00 AM  
Methinks this Wacko will be Janet Reno-ed soonishly.
 
2013-01-23 09:26:03 AM  

olddeegee: Headline is wrong. He could never play guitar. He can be flashy, but any kid in a Guitar Center for the first time can out play this ass.


He's a better guitar player than "hunter". I've only been hunting for a few years and I bet I know more than he does and am a shiatton better than him. I actually hunt animals in the wild.

/ok, I sit in a stand and read/doze off/text friends, but still, I'm better than him
 
2013-01-23 09:26:05 AM  

BronyMedic: Maybe he's just working his way up to his eventual suicide because Obama won.


Some people think they gonna die someday, I got news you never got to go.
 
2013-01-23 09:26:25 AM  
It's one of the few crimes in the actual Constitution. The "piece of paper" these guys are always so up in arms about.
 
2013-01-23 09:26:27 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 ...


You take your 'facts' and your 'knowledge' and you go elsewhere, sir.
 
2013-01-23 09:27:03 AM  
He's pissed because people won't even bit-torrent his albums much less pay for them.

What I would pay for is to watch him keep his April 2012 promise!

/Sure he isn't Palin in drag?
//Has anyone ever seen them together??
 
2013-01-23 09:27:05 AM  
He added that Obama "hires, appoints and associates with communists," and that he's "an evil, dangerous man who hates America and hates freedom. And we need to fix this as soon as possible."

What a farking moron.
 
2013-01-23 09:27:16 AM  
The law enforcement agent who will eventually get to shoot Ted Nugent dead is the luckiest man in the world.
 
2013-01-23 09:27:52 AM  
Ted Nugent's buddies are real tough guys!
 
2013-01-23 09:28:16 AM  
Another Conservative hero.
 
2013-01-23 09:28:54 AM  
Hey Ted, SHUT UP AND SING!
 
2013-01-23 09:29:03 AM  
The man is a coward, a hypocrite, and just an all-around douche bag.

I have no interest in anything he has to say about anything... His music sucks ass, as well.
 
2013-01-23 09:29:24 AM  

born_yesterday: This latest outrage has given me the sudden urge to purchase one of his albums.

/Or shiat myself in homage, I haven't figured out which, yet


Go with shiatting yourself. You won't regret that later.
 
2013-01-23 09:29:35 AM  
Some Conservatives seem to forget that even when your Government does stuff you disagree with, it doesn't mean that they aren't democratically representing you.
 
2013-01-23 09:29:45 AM  
I dunno guys, his insanity is kinda working...

... I wanna buy a gun to protect myself from people like him.
 
2013-01-23 09:29:46 AM  
I'm about as pro second amendment as you can get, but why does anyone listen to this a-hole?

/Mostly Democrat too. That seems to confuse people.
 
2013-01-23 09:29:47 AM  
He's basically making the schoolyard threat that his big brother can beat up your Big Brother.
 
2013-01-23 09:30:44 AM  
It must really hurt to be irrelevant.
 
2013-01-23 09:31:14 AM  
Protected speech.

Probably good for a prolonged and uncomfortable interview with the secret service people.
 
2013-01-23 09:31:36 AM  

Diogenes: He's basically making the schoolyard threat that his big brother can beat up your Big Brother.


His big brother doesn't have Abrams farking tanks, though.
 
2013-01-23 09:32:19 AM  
Jeez, this guy stopped being relevant decades ago. He should just shut up already.
 
2013-01-23 09:32:58 AM  
I like that Ted is upset. It makes me smile.
 
2013-01-23 09:33:07 AM  

born_yesterday


This latest outrage has given me the sudden urge to purchase one of his albums.

/Or shiat myself in homage, I haven't figured out which, yet


You can do a little of both: purchase one of his albums and then empty your bowels on it (rather than in your trousers).
 
2013-01-23 09:33:19 AM  
Dear Ted,
Enjoy your visit from the Secret Service. Inciting people to treason... awesome. (NOT)
 
2013-01-23 09:33:37 AM  
Treason is a charged word, subby.
Its also terribly vague.

The King of England would have charged the Continental Congress with treason for not sitting back and taking his abuse. The Congress themselves found the king to be in violation of our trust as previously loyal citizens.
There's no doubt what either would have done to the other had history delivered one to their opponents gallows.

/To be fair, if a new fracas started as things are now its unlikely to go as either side intends it to.
/Civil wars are messy like that. Which is why they should be avoided.
 
2013-01-23 09:33:48 AM  
Subby forgot "how to avoid the draft."

i48.photobucket.com
 
2013-01-23 09:34:34 AM  

oldfarthenry: Methinks this Wacko will be Janet Reno-ed soonishly.


I hope not. The last thing this country needs is for Ted Nugent to become a sacrifice or martyr. The apocalypse would start (in the mind of the crazies).
 
2013-01-23 09:34:51 AM  
From the article comments: "Advocating for violence is not protected 1st Amendment speech. Declaring yourself ready and willing to foment revolution against a duly elected government is sedition."

I suspect the whole purpose of the first amendment is to protect exactly such declarations.

That aside, people like Nugent don't want democracy, they don't want freedom. They want an extremely authoritarian government that applies its authority to everyone but them and exists mostly to hassle people they don't like. Give an idiot like this enough money to buy a ranch in Texas and he thinks he's a sovreign nation.

And, "hunting" is not shooting domesticated animals on a ranch. Nor does "patriotism" take the form of covering yourself in feces to avoid military service.
 
2013-01-23 09:34:53 AM  

Philip Francis Queeg: He added that Obama "hires, appoints and associates with communists," and that he's "an evil, dangerous man who hates America and hates freedom. And we need to fix this as soon as possible."

What a farking moron.


he is but one mere moron. with access to mass media. the problem is all the sheep who are not famous who also believe and support the same message.

everytime i see one of my fb friends (i have some old friends who are otherwise good people, but they're caught up in the whole crazy right-wing rhetoric) post pics and messages equating obama to hitler i cringe. i want to say something, but can't even think of the words. a comparison to the pure evil genius of hitler is an incredible accusation. obama may or may not be a good president. i don't get into politics. but i assure you he is not in the same league as someone like hitler.
 
2013-01-23 09:35:47 AM  
Meh, bring it. We got guns too and the ones don't shot we can hang.
 
2013-01-23 09:36:24 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 ...

.
I hate to burst your bubble, but England was not a foreign government as you believe, it was our government.
 
2013-01-23 09:36:42 AM  

Hollie Maea: Diogenes: He's basically making the schoolyard threat that his big brother can beat up your Big Brother.

His big brother doesn't have Abrams farking tanks, though.


LOL.  Very true.  But it was a pretty stupid farking argument back on the schoolyard, too.
 
2013-01-23 09:36:43 AM  
Big mouth coward with a gun.
 
2013-01-23 09:36:57 AM  
And you think Obama knows what "shall not be infringed" means?
 
2013-01-23 09:37:55 AM  
Is treason a hangable offense?
 
2013-01-23 09:38:05 AM  

Alfonso the Great: That guy is the worst thing to ever come out of Michigan.



He's sold more albums than Ford sold Edsels so I would disagree with your premise.
 
2013-01-23 09:39:40 AM  

Anderson's Pooper: Alfonso the Great: That guy is the worst thing to ever come out of Michigan.


He's sold more albums than Ford sold Edsels so I would disagree with your premise.


The main problem with Edsels was that they didn't make noise when you wanted them to. Nugent's got the opposite problem; he won't STFU.
 
2013-01-23 09:39:41 AM  
He's a nutcase. In fact, he's just as much as a mouth breathing nutcase as the people in this thread wishing death upon him.
 
2013-01-23 09:39:48 AM  
Nugent also found himself face to face with Secret Service agents last April after he urged fans to "chop [Democrats'] heads off in November," during the presidential election. He also warned, "if Barack Obama becomes the president in November again, I will either be dead or in jail by this time next year."

TED NUGENT COUNTDOWN

97 days and counting!
 
2013-01-23 09:39:54 AM  

HotWingConspiracy: That's a big thing the revolutards can't understand - the vast majority of Americans don't agree with their definition of tyranny or oppression.

There will be no popular uprising, you're going to have to kill your friends and neighbors. This will not work out.


Actually that's exactly what they want. They want to kill people they don't agree with. They just think that there's a vast majority of people who will agree with them. They want to use violence and threats of violence to force their political viewpoints and they think they hold the popular majority opinions.

These people are sick, and they need to be treated by mental health professionals. Ted Nugent is the poster child for those enhanced mental health and background check rules Obama signed as an executive order. This man should not have weapons - he has made it clear he wants to use them to kill Americans who have done nothing more than disagree with him.
 
2013-01-23 09:40:11 AM  

thurstonxhowell: The law enforcement agent who will eventually get to shoot Ted Nugent dead is the luckiest man in the world.


Never happen. Grade A chickenhawks like Nugent never go down in a hail of bullets, they're found hiding ion their closets crying like children.
 
2013-01-23 09:40:24 AM  

keylock71: The man is a coward, a hypocrite, and just an all-around douche bag.

I have no interest in anything he has to say about anything... His music sucks ass, as well.


Well, to be fair, is is a mainstream Republican.
 
2013-01-23 09:40:38 AM  
This person was also guilty of treason.

And this one....

www.biography.com

And this one too...

www.biography.com
 
2013-01-23 09:40:49 AM  

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


I don't know.... Do you know what "Well-Regulated" means?
 
2013-01-23 09:41:27 AM  

strangeguitar: He's really not that great a guitar player.


stranglehold is the jam. it might be easy to play, but can you play it?
 
2013-01-23 09:41:42 AM  

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


Should he give us back our machine guns and rocket launchers? MY RIGHTS HAVE BEEN INFRINGED.
 
2013-01-23 09:41:47 AM  

bungle_jr: Philip Francis Queeg: He added that Obama "hires, appoints and associates with communists," and that he's "an evil, dangerous man who hates America and hates freedom. And we need to fix this as soon as possible."

What a farking moron.

he is but one mere moron. with access to mass media. the problem is all the sheep who are not famous who also believe and support the same message.

everytime i see one of my fb friends (i have some old friends who are otherwise good people, but they're caught up in the whole crazy right-wing rhetoric) post pics and messages equating obama to hitler i cringe. i want to say something, but can't even think of the words. a comparison to the pure evil genius of hitler is an incredible accusation. obama may or may not be a good president. i don't get into politics. but i assure you he is not in the same league as someone like hitler.


I hear you. Unfortunately in my case, the idiots equating obama to hitler are my family.
 
2013-01-23 09:42:12 AM  
"He added that Obama "hires, appoints and associates with communists,"

Nugent also doesn't know the definition of "communist".
 
2013-01-23 09:42:20 AM  
His old wound "from 'Nam" is the diaper rash he got while dodging the draft.

You're a coward, Ted.
 
2013-01-23 09:42:57 AM  
What a whole boatload of treasonous bastards look like. They will kill you in your sleep on Christmas!

www.mountvernon.org
 
2013-01-23 09:43:30 AM  

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


Your hero George W Bush didn't know what the 4th Amendment was, but that didn't seem to bother you guys.
 
2013-01-23 09:43:39 AM  

Hollie Maea: Ted Nugent's buddies are real tough guys!


I can't imagine a man like him actually having friends.

He seems like a crazed drunk born from a rich family that nobody has the guts to tell to go to his room.
 
2013-01-23 09:43:44 AM  
I'm going to guess he doesn't get a lot of Negros at his concerts.
 
2013-01-23 09:43:55 AM  

cubic_spleen: keylock71: The man is a coward, a hypocrite, and just an all-around douche bag.

I have no interest in anything he has to say about anything... His music sucks ass, as well.

Well, to be fair, is is a mainstream Republican.


Seems like his brand of crazy has become "mainstream" in the GOP these days...No doubt.

It is curious that Patriotic Ted decided not to serve his country when called as a younger man... Like a lot of GOP politicians and pundits who like to wrap themselves in the flag these days.
 
2013-01-23 09:44:04 AM  

olddeegee: Headline is wrong. He could never play guitar. He can be flashy, but any kid in a Guitar Center for the first time can out play this ass.


Kids at Guitar Center play out your ass? Do they pay you for it?

/c'mon, admit it - that's funny
 
2013-01-23 09:44:09 AM  

misanthropologist: Nugent is about as reasonable and relevant as Trump. I reckon Trump could do more long-term damage to the world with his money (assuming that it is his money, and not a whole shiatload of leveraged debt), but Nugent seems destined to go out in a blaze of idiocy, Ruby Ridge or Waco style.


I challenge our conservative Farkers who piss vinegar all day long in every thread to find any liberal celebrity who was half as crazy as these two during Bush's tenure.
 
2013-01-23 09:44:11 AM  

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

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


.
I do, and I'm sure you don't. It means in to be kept in working order.
 
2013-01-23 09:44:37 AM  

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.
 
2013-01-23 09:44:44 AM  
I wish the best to Nugent and hope he speaks loud and long. I want him to be heard by everyone and repeatedly. People like him only solidify the idea of the conservative crackpot with a real world example in face, name and word. And at the current rate of rising stupidity among people like him, it is only a matter of time before he says something else so over the top that it points out just how delusional and irresponsible people like him are.

We need more people like Nugent and James Yeager to seal the deal in enacting responsible gun legislation. We need them to be as crazy as possible to point up the folly of the unlimited gun argument. It is the only way to change the mindset of Crazy American Gun Culture from that of a posse lynch mob to the responsible firearms owners they claim they are (but clearly are not at this time).

www.addictinginfo.org | roctherun.com

And if nothing comes of it in the favor or realistic attitudes towards gun ownership, then we pretty much are where we are now. However, sooner or later these people who are advocating this lunacy will have it at their front doorstep. They should be careful for what they wish for.
Sad. Sad. Sad.
 
2013-01-23 09:46:01 AM  

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

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

.
I do, and I'm sure you don't. It means in to be kept in working order.


Hey, an internet dude who thinks words have 1 meaning. Yay, I was SURE there weren't any of these guys left!
 
2013-01-23 09:46:03 AM  
Only slightly-related CSB:

I detest this freako from Pluto, but he did say something I found amusing a while back. In some interview, the interviewer made mention of some comment Paul McCartney had made about the Nuge's hunting and that he (Paul) was a vegetarian.

Nuge responded, "Well, if you dropped as much acid as Paul McCartney, you wouldn't eat anything with a face, either."

/CSB
//humblest apologies
 
2013-01-23 09:46:12 AM  

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 "well-maintained" and "operating correctly."

Do you know what "the right of the people" means?
 
2013-01-23 09:46:18 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]


So was this one..

www.biography.com

And this one..

www.biography.com
 
2013-01-23 09:46:32 AM  
Pants shiatting draft dodger with a penchant for underage girls who is too much of a coward to hunt outside of a fenced in area.
 
2013-01-23 09:46:56 AM  
Nothing says patriotism like inciting an armed insurrection to oust a democratically-elected official.
 
2013-01-23 09:47:17 AM  

misanthropologist: Nugent is about as reasonable and relevant as Trump. I reckon Trump could do more long-term damage to the world with his money (assuming that it is his money, and not a whole shiatload of leveraged debt), but Nugent seems destined to go out in a blaze of idiocy, Ruby Ridge or Waco style.


Maybe he can be head of security at Glenn Becks teatard utopia, then when the whole cult destroys itself, no one will be surprised.
 
2013-01-23 09:48:27 AM  

OhioUGrad: misanthropologist: Nugent is about as reasonable and relevant as Trump. I reckon Trump could do more long-term damage to the world with his money (assuming that it is his money, and not a whole shiatload of leveraged debt), but Nugent seems destined to go out in a blaze of idiocy, Ruby Ridge or Waco style.

Maybe he can be head of security at Glenn Becks teatard utopia, then when the whole cult destroys itself, no one will be surprised or saddened.


FTFY
 
2013-01-23 09:48:38 AM  
Drone strike?

That would be cool, they can show it on MTV.
 
2013-01-23 09:48:39 AM  
My guess is he is dating someone from the secret service and just keeps saying this shiat as an excuse for them to "meet"
 
2013-01-23 09:48:40 AM  
Speaking to conspiracy website World Net Daily earlier in January, the National Rifle Association board member said he believes a new era of civil rights is dawning - one in which gun lovers must become "the Rosa Parks."

You're not helping, asshole.

God, what a farking moran. Put him and Chuck Norris together, and I'd rather spend 6 straight weeks dealing with the bottom of the fark barrel than 5 minutes talking to those two shiatheads.
 
2013-01-23 09:49:19 AM  

vudukungfu: I'm going to guess he doesn't get a lot of Negros at his concerts.


Plenty, but that are all working at the concert venue.
 
2013-01-23 09:49:49 AM  

endmile: bungle_jr: Philip Francis Queeg: He added that Obama "hires, appoints and associates with communists," and that he's "an evil, dangerous man who hates America and hates freedom. And we need to fix this as soon as possible."

What a farking moron.

he is but one mere moron. with access to mass media. the problem is all the sheep who are not famous who also believe and support the same message.

everytime i see one of my fb friends (i have some old friends who are otherwise good people, but they're caught up in the whole crazy right-wing rhetoric) post pics and messages equating obama to hitler i cringe. i want to say something, but can't even think of the words. a comparison to the pure evil genius of hitler is an incredible accusation. obama may or may not be a good president. i don't get into politics. but i assure you he is not in the same league as someone like hitler.

I hear you. Unfortunately in my case, the idiots equating obama to hitler are my family.


luckily, even though the majority of my family are republicans, or at the very least anti-obama, none have shown to me that they are nutjobs about it. i'm neither republican nor democrat...sort of apolitical, i suppose...there is plenty of good and bad on all sides of the political spectrum. in the words of the great violent femmes "i am n-o-t-h-i-n". however, i think obama is trying his hardest (right or wrong, good or bad...but all good in his view) to bring our nation back from the depths that it sunk to in the 8 years prior to his presidency.

and no, i am not blaming bush for all our woes. he and his administration are indeed responsible for a good deal of it, but many of our problems can be traced back to administrations prior to w's time in the white house.

clinton did a lot of great stuff, and under his leadership we grew to the greatest prosperity the nation has seen in my lifetime. but some problems that later grew (whether they started out as problems before or during his term) got pushed off to later year
 
2013-01-23 09:50:00 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]


The primary difference, being the fact that those men were educated. Ted Nugent is not. He knows nothing of American History, or the reasons for the rebellion against the British Crown, nor does he understand one word of the Constitution nor does he care to. He is a slavering, ignorant self-centered reactionary with fantasies of mass murder and total war.
 
2013-01-23 09:50:46 AM  

Alfonso the Great: That guy is the worst thing to ever come out of Michigan.


Even worse than 100 years of auto industry pollution?

Yeah, I think we can agree on that.
 
2013-01-23 09:51:27 AM  

Lord_Baull: Nothing says patriotism like inciting an armed insurrection to oust a democratically-elected official.


.
If the majority voted to ban gay marriage you would be in support of that too?

How about slavery? To bring back the days of your great grand pappy would probably be a wet dream for you.
 
2013-01-23 09:51:40 AM  

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

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


And this is where the ignorance is because you just demonstrated that YOU don't know what "Well-Regulated" means.

Back when the Constitution was written the phrase "well-regulated" meant "in good order" or "well running".

They use to refer to clocks as "Well-regulated".

They didn't mean there were laws written by the federal government about how a clock should run.

The phrase "well-regulated" in the Constitution had NOTHING to do with written regulations by the federal or state government, as the person of today would take that phrase to mean.
 
2013-01-23 09:52:12 AM  
strangeguitar

He's really not that great a guitar player.

olddeegee

Headline is wrong. He could never play guitar



Sure - I agree that he is batshiat crazy, but anyone who says can't play guitar is just ignorant....he's been on several Greatest Guitarists lists....he can definitely play a mean guitar.
 
2013-01-23 09:52:28 AM  

Great_Milenko: He must have really enjoyed his last visit from the secret service to ask for another one so soon.


He probably mentioned Al Qaeda and received a free colonoscopy.
 
2013-01-23 09:52:38 AM  
Well, by definition the Revolutionary War *was* treason and sedition against the lawful government at the time.
 
2013-01-23 09:52:49 AM  

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.
 
2013-01-23 09:53:26 AM  

Deathfrogg: 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]

The primary difference, being the fact that those men were educated. Ted Nugent is not. He knows nothing of American History, or the reasons for the rebellion against the British Crown, nor does he understand one word of the Constitution nor does he care to. He is a slavering, ignorant self-centered reactionary with fantasies of mass murder and total war.


.
Were you wearing a powdered white wig when you wrote that?
 
2013-01-23 09:54:07 AM  
A lot of people seem to be eager to defend a known pedophile like the Nuge.
 
2013-01-23 09:54:09 AM  

HotWingConspiracy: That's a big thing the revolutards can't understand - the vast majority of Americans don't agree with their definition of tyranny or oppression.

There will be no popular uprising, you're going to have to kill your friends and neighbors. This will not work out.


Given that all we've got to go on is big mouthed jackasses flapping their gums and not even any noteworthy riots or organized law breaking of any sort, one wonders how you've divined anyone's criteria of actionable tyranny. Reading chicken entrails?
 
2013-01-23 09:54:18 AM  

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

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

And this is where the ignorance is because you just demonstrated that YOU don't know what "Well-Regulated" means.

Back when the Constitution was written the phrase "well-regulated" meant "in good order" or "well running".

They use to refer to clocks as "Well-regulated".

They didn't mean there were laws written by the federal government about how a clock should run.

The phrase "well-regulated" in the Constitution had NOTHING to do with written regulations by the federal or state government, as the person of today would take that phrase to mean.


And you walked into the trap.

So, if according to you, we can't use "well-regulated" because it's outdated compared to the common venacular of today, then you can't mean "militia" to mean whatever you think it means today because back then it meant something else.

Double-edged swords - how do they work?
 
2013-01-23 09:55:13 AM  
GiantRex

The primary theme in all of these acts is governance by a foreign entity and taxation without any representation in parliament.

Well one of the bigest complaints about Obama from his oposition is that he allows the UN and world opinion to hold too much sway over our actions, and the second is he is recklessly taxing and spending without enough oversight.

Surely the comparison is exagerrated and overblown in every possible way, Rather like comparing a schoolyard bully to Hitler, but it isn't completely from left field.
 
2013-01-23 09:55:27 AM  
Doesn't Ted realize that only so-called-progressives have the right to freedom of speech?
 
2013-01-23 09:56:02 AM  
Far more tame than the crap you and yours spew.

I recall your side walking down the streets with signs saying you want to kill US soldiers and Bush. But you like that.
 
2013-01-23 09:56:14 AM  

Farkage: I'm about as pro second amendment as you can get, but why does anyone listen to this a-hole?

/Mostly Democrat too. That seems to confuse people.



Because he speaks NRA, the only language some 2nd Amendment people seem to speak. I'm an Independent who likes my guns, but I won't associate with the National Retards Association, not only do they NOT represent the actual best interests of gun owners, I also don't want to be on a "list" anywhere... NRA is second only to PETA when it comes to a special interest group with no farking clue how to represent their interests effectively.
 
2013-01-23 09:56:44 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.



Actually I was quoting from the 1st and 4th Amendments, but you just keep right on jumping to the wrong conclusions.
Universal background checks on firearm transfers, and manadatory training for concealed-carry permits are a great ideas.
 
2013-01-23 09:56:46 AM  
All aboard the crazy train............

oops, wrong musician..
 
2013-01-23 09:56:48 AM  

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

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

And this is where the ignorance is because you just demonstrated that YOU don't know what "Well-Regulated" means.

Back when the Constitution was written the phrase "well-regulated" meant "in good order" or "well running".

They use to refer to clocks as "Well-regulated".

They didn't mean there were laws written by the federal government about how a clock should run.

The phrase "well-regulated" in the Constitution had NOTHING to do with written regulations by the federal or state government, as the person of today would take that phrase to mean.


You might want to check on what the phrase "bear arms" meant at the time.
 
2013-01-23 09:56:48 AM  

Dr. Whoof: These people are sick, and they need to be treated by mental health professionals. Ted Nugent is the poster child for those enhanced mental health and background check rules Obama signed as an executive order. This man should not have weapons - he has made it clear he wants to use them to kill Americans who have done nothing more than disagree with him.


Bears repeating. The guy is a nutjob.

Wikipedia has other choice quotes from the nutter.
 
2013-01-23 09:56:54 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]


Most people are aware of that. Here's the thing though: If they lost the war, they'd have been put to death.

Those who did not support their war likely would have supported that result. If Ted Nugent and his buddies take up arms against the US, that's what will happen to them and many in this thread would support it.

Thinking the American Revolution was necessary and proper in no way obligates me to believe that Ted Nugent's revolution is necessary and proper. Why you think it does is a mystery to me.
 
2013-01-23 09:57:06 AM  

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

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

And this is where the ignorance is because you just demonstrated that YOU don't know what "Well-Regulated" means.

Back when the Constitution was written the phrase "well-regulated" meant "in good order" or "well running".

They use to refer to clocks as "Well-regulated".

They didn't mean there were laws written by the federal government about how a clock should run.

The phrase "well-regulated" in the Constitution had NOTHING to do with written regulations by the federal or state government, as the person of today would take that phrase to mean.

And you walked into the trap.

So, if according to you, we can't use "well-regulated" because it's outdated compared to the common venacular of today, then you can't mean "militia" to mean whatever you think it means today because back then it meant something else.

Double-edged swords - how do they work?


The militia was, and is, the body of the people. It has been clearly stated back then as well as recently. Feel free to look that up yourself.
 
2013-01-23 09:57:12 AM  

RevMercutio: A lot of people seem to be eager to defend a known pedophile like the Nuge.


Uh, who has defended him? There seems to be universal hatred for Nugent.
 
2013-01-23 09:57:26 AM  
1.bp.blogspot.com
 
2013-01-23 09:57:44 AM  
24.media.tumblr.com
 
2013-01-23 09:58:02 AM  
grew up thinking Ted was cool, he was respected by the ubiquitous hunter culture in Michigan for the most part. You can't go ten steps without hearing 'Fred Bear' within a week of Nov. 15th around here. I saw him in concert 3 or 4 times growing up...whiplash bash was always a good time.
I've played guitar for a couple decades and although I never considered him one of the greats, some of his stuff is ok by me.

all that said, the shiat that has come out of this a-holes mouth in the last several years has been absolutely ridiculous, embarrassing, pants-shiattingly stoopid, Victoria Jacksonian garbage.

I'm sorry this guy was and is associated with Michigan. As a life long Michigander, I'm sorry everyone...very very sorry.

he wont go out in some fire fight, he's a coward, he's all talk. He'd like to incite others to take up arms and go to war, but he sure as hell wont be in the crowd.
He may end up getting in trouble with his mouth, but a guy like that always backs down when real shiat is happening.
 
2013-01-23 09:58:17 AM  
Terrible Ted need a good prescription for multiple mood stabilizing drugs.

/2000mg of lithium per day would be a great start.
//Nugent got out of serving his country by showing up at his draft appointment in filthy clothes and crapped pants. What a patriot.
 
2013-01-23 09:58:51 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]


Are you equating Ted Nugent with Benjamin Franklin and Thomas Jefferson?
 
2013-01-23 09:58:56 AM  
KingKauff:
He's a better guitar player than "hunter". I've only been hunting for a few years and I bet I know more than he does and am a shiatton better than him. I actually hunt animals in the wild.

/ok, I sit in a stand and read/doze off/text friends, but still, I'm better than him


I'm sure you are. You even got one this year.
 
2013-01-23 09:59:17 AM  

Farkage: I'm about as pro second amendment as you can get, but why does anyone listen to this a-hole?

/Mostly Democrat too. That seems to confuse people.


You want confusion? Wear one of these to the range next time:

skreened.com
 
2013-01-23 09:59:21 AM  

Holocaust Agnostic: HotWingConspiracy: That's a big thing the revolutards can't understand - the vast majority of Americans don't agree with their definition of tyranny or oppression.

There will be no popular uprising, you're going to have to kill your friends and neighbors. This will not work out.

Given that all we've got to go on is big mouthed jackasses flapping their gums and not even any noteworthy riots or organized law breaking of any sort, one wonders how you've divined anyone's criteria of actionable tyranny.


They're happy to tell you. Even if you don't want to know. Apparently we've been under a tyrant for years now, they're just waiting for someone to start shooting I guess.
 
2013-01-23 10:00:06 AM  

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.
 
2013-01-23 10:00:08 AM  

scarmig: Well, by definition the Revolutionary War *was* treason and sedition against the lawful government at the time.


Yes it was, and without the French naval blockade, Corwallis may have reinforced his troops and won the day at Yorktown.
 
2013-01-23 10:00:32 AM  

david_gaithersburg: Lord_Baull: Nothing says patriotism like inciting an armed insurrection to oust a democratically-elected official.

.
If the majority voted to ban gay marriage you would be in support of that too?

How about slavery? To bring back the days of your great grand pappy would probably be a wet dream for you.


You think that voting in slavery is the same thing as electing a president?
 
2013-01-23 10:00:40 AM  

manimal2878: RevMercutio: A lot of people seem to be eager to defend a known pedophile like the Nuge.

Uh, who has defended him? There seems to be universal hatred for Nugent.


The Romney boys think he's the best thing since sliced bread. Even Mitt likes him because he has low self esteem and likes anyone who says something good about him, or hell even someone who merely says something bad about an opponent of his.
 
2013-01-23 10:00:44 AM  
Cornwallis, rather.
 
2013-01-23 10:00:46 AM  
Ted won't be part of any revolt. That would require a spine.


photos.imageevent.com
 
2013-01-23 10:01:08 AM  

thurstonxhowell: 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]

Most people are aware of that. Here's the thing though: If they lost the war, they'd have been put to death.

Those who did not support their war likely would have supported that result. If Ted Nugent and his buddies take up arms against the US, that's what will happen to them and many in this thread would support it.

Thinking the American Revolution was necessary and proper in no way obligates me to believe that Ted Nugent's revolution is necessary and proper. Why you think it does is a mystery to me.


.
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.
 
2013-01-23 10:01:10 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]


hmmmf, just two over-educated elitists who certainly wouldn't fit in with the 21st Century "I got common sense" Real American Patriots.
 
2013-01-23 10:01:12 AM  

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.
 
2013-01-23 10:01:13 AM  

Anderson's Pooper: Alfonso the Great: That guy is the worst thing to ever come out of Michigan.


He's sold more albums than Ford sold Edsels so I would disagree with your premise.


Perhaps. But today the Edsel is considered collectible. Ted won't be.
 
2013-01-23 10:01:32 AM  

give me doughnuts: Actually I was quoting from the 1st and 4th Amendments, but you just keep right on jumping to the wrong conclusions.
Universal background checks on firearm transfers, and manadatory training for concealed-carry permits are a great ideas.


Well, shiat. Sorry about that. Hard to tell intent from 12 point Arial sometimes.

Though, I think anyone who want to own any kind of firearm, whether it's concealed-carry or not should have to pass a training course. Seems like common sense to this gun owner.
 
2013-01-23 10:02:26 AM  

JusticeandIndependence: 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]

Are you equating Ted Nugent with Benjamin Franklin and Thomas Jefferson?


No, it's just that "treason" can look vastly different depending upon where you are standing.
 
2013-01-23 10:02:54 AM  

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.


That's not what we disagree on. Grow up.
 
2013-01-23 10:03:12 AM  

HotWingConspiracy: david_gaithersburg: Lord_Baull: Nothing says patriotism like inciting an armed insurrection to oust a democratically-elected official.

.
If the majority voted to ban gay marriage you would be in support of that too?

How about slavery? To bring back the days of your great grand pappy would probably be a wet dream for you.

You think that voting in slavery is the same thing as electing a president?


.
Please show where I said that? Now voting down the Second Amendment like they just did in NY.......
 
2013-01-23 10:03:33 AM  

david_gaithersburg: thurstonxhowell: 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]

Most people are aware of that. Here's the thing though: If they lost the war, they'd have been put to death.

Those who did not support their war likely would have supported that result. If Ted Nugent and his buddies take up arms against the US, that's what will happen to them and many in this thread would support it.

Thinking the American Revolution was necessary and proper in no way obligates me to believe that Ted Nugent's revolution is necessary and proper. Why you think it does is a mystery to me.

.
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 when are you going to take up arms, Patriot Hero?
 
2013-01-23 10:03:35 AM  

czei: "He added that Obama "hires, appoints and associates with communists,"

Nugent also doesn't know the definition of "communist".


Just one of the many words Ted doesn't know the meaning of. Like "Patriot" and "American".
 
2013-01-23 10:03:54 AM  

thurstonxhowell: The law enforcement agent who will eventually get to shoot Ted Nugents dickdead is the luckiest man in the world.

 
2013-01-23 10:04:19 AM  
Everyone always talks about his pants-pooping draft dodging, but people rarely mention his having himself declared the legal guardian of his 17-year-old girlfriend, when he was 30. That's pretty gross, too.
 
2013-01-23 10:05:03 AM  
Some people grow out of that pathetic grade school bullying phase. And some people, like Ted, instead fully embrace it.
 
2013-01-23 10:05:38 AM  

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
 
2013-01-23 10:06:22 AM  

keylock71: give me doughnuts: Actually I was quoting from the 1st and 4th Amendments, but you just keep right on jumping to the wrong conclusions.
Universal background checks on firearm transfers, and manadatory training for concealed-carry permits are a great ideas.

Well, shiat. Sorry about that. Hard to tell intent from 12 point Arial sometimes.

Though, I think anyone who want to own any kind of firearm, whether it's concealed-carry or not should have to pass a training course. Seems like common sense to this gun owner.


And once upon a time (adjusts onion), the NRA was all about marksmanship and gun safety courses. Hell, I went to a summer camp that had an NRA-sponsored marksmanship/safety class, and I knew a bunch of guys that did it with the BSA.
 
2013-01-23 10:06:26 AM  
FTFA: "The comment was a reference to the Battle of Concord, in which a British soldier broke a standoff and fired upon assembled American militiamen, in what later became known as "the shot heard around the world" that helped launch the Revolutionary War."

...uh, not exactly. Sure, Nugent's comment referenced the Battle of Concord, but the rest of the paragraph is bullcrap of the highest order. The problem is that no one knows who fired first. Americans at the time claimed the Brits shot first, Brits claimed Americans shot first.
 
2013-01-23 10:06:28 AM  

Alfonso the Great: That guy is the worst thing to ever come out of Michigan.


www.peoplequiz.com

It's close, but I think you're right.
 
2013-01-23 10:06:47 AM  

someonelse: Everyone always talks about his pants-pooping draft dodging, but people rarely mention his having himself declared the legal guardian of his 17-year-old girlfriend, when he was 30. That's pretty gross, too.


Yep... Creepy as fark.

I don't know the man personally, of course, but in all the years I've, unfortunately, been aware of Ted Nugent, I've yet to see one redeemable quality in the man-child.
 
2013-01-23 10:07:01 AM  

david_gaithersburg: HotWingConspiracy: david_gaithersburg: Lord_Baull: Nothing says patriotism like inciting an armed insurrection to oust a democratically-elected official.

.
If the majority voted to ban gay marriage you would be in support of that too?

How about slavery? To bring back the days of your great grand pappy would probably be a wet dream for you.

You think that voting in slavery is the same thing as electing a president?

.
Please show where I said that? Now voting down the Second Amendment like they just did in NY.......


There ya go. I'm willing to accept you're just an idiot that doesn't actually read what he's quoting though.

Also, the 2nd Amendment wasn't voted down in NY.
 
2013-01-23 10:07:42 AM  

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.
 
2013-01-23 10:07:59 AM  

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


George Washington: Men, you face a brutal enemy, determined to crush you...uh, I say you and not we, because I've been shiatting in my pants for a couple of days so...


/what have you done for Ted lately?
 
2013-01-23 10:08:49 AM  

give me doughnuts: And once upon a time (adjusts onion), the NRA was all about marksmanship and gun safety courses. Hell, I went to a summer camp that had an NRA-sponsored marksmanship/safety class, and I knew a bunch of guys that did it with the BSA.


Hell, the first safety course I took was an NRA course. It was excellent.

Having said that, I want nothing to do with the modern NRA. They're not defending my interests or freedoms, they're defending the interests of gun manufacturers with deep pockets.
 
2013-01-23 10:08:49 AM  
Ted Nugent is one of those artists from the '70s that I've heard of, but whose songs I've never actually heard. A bit like Peter Frampton and Gary Glitter.

Frampton only wanted Sonic Youth's watermelon, so I'm going to give him a break.

Glitter and Nugent is a bit of a toss-up. But I'm going to say Glitter was the better human being.

Glitter just farked kids.

Nugent was fine with shiatting his pants so that some other poor bastard would be drafted in his place, and then epitomising the term chickenhawk for the rest of his days.
 
2013-01-23 10:09:07 AM  

maram500: FTFA: "The comment was a reference to the Battle of Concord, in which a British soldier broke a standoff and fired upon assembled American militiamen, in what later became known as "the shot heard around the world" that helped launch the Revolutionary War."

...uh, not exactly. Sure, Nugent's comment referenced the Battle of Concord, but the rest of the paragraph is bullcrap of the highest order. The problem is that no one knows who fired first. Americans at the time claimed the Brits shot first, Brits claimed Americans shot first.


America won. Therefore the British shot first. qed.
 
2013-01-23 10:09:10 AM  

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

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

And this is where the ignorance is because you just demonstrated that YOU don't know what "Well-Regulated" means.

Back when the Constitution was written the phrase "well-regulated" meant "in good order" or "well running".

They use to refer to clocks as "Well-regulated".

They didn't mean there were laws written by the federal government about how a clock should run.

The phrase "well-regulated" in the Constitution had NOTHING to do with written regulations by the federal or state government, as the person of today would take that phrase to mean.

And you walked into the trap.

So, if according to you, we can't use "well-regulated" because it's outdated compared to the common venacular of today, then you can't mean "militia" to mean whatever you think it means today because back then it meant something else.

Double-edged swords - how do they work?



Where did i change the definition of "Militia" from its historical norm?

The use of the term "militia" in 1776 actually supports the case i'm making.

misplaced snark - how do they work?
 
2013-01-23 10:09:59 AM  
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 ...

You take your 'facts' and your 'knowledge' and you go elsewhere, sir.
I hate to burst your bubble, but England was not a foreign government as you believe, it was our government.


I don't agree with the comments, I do agree with the point being made. Overall none of it matters as our level of apathy will do us in anyway, one look at a sweet boobie and we have forgotten the subject at hand. God Bless America! (Though I am not sure that is high on God's "Things to do today list.") And, oh yeah, Nugent is a major A-Hole. Maybe he should try "Hunting" IED's in the Big "A".
 
2013-01-23 10:10:05 AM  

keylock71: someonelse: Everyone always talks about his pants-pooping draft dodging, but people rarely mention his having himself declared the legal guardian of his 17-year-old girlfriend, when he was 30. That's pretty gross, too.

Yep... Creepy as fark.

I don't know the man personally, of course, but in all the years I've, unfortunately, been aware of Ted Nugent, I've yet to see one redeemable quality in the man-child.



If I were to pick someone to be the exact opposite of Ted Nugent, it would have been Woody Allen.
Back to the drawing board.
 
2013-01-23 10:10:15 AM  

BronyMedic: Maybe he's just working his way up to his eventual suicide because Obama won.

[img1-cdn.newser.com image 240x160]

Time to nut up or shut up, Teddy Boy. Can't shiat your pants on this one.


If every Liberal Democrat who proclaimed in 2000 and again in 2004 that they were leaving the US if George W. Bush were elected had actually done so, there would have been no Barrack Obama presidency. If everyone on the Left who said/did something that could be considered disloyal to the US where executed, then we would have had to suffer Jane Fonda workout tapes.

Insurrections are done in support of a nation as well as in opposition to it. They start with people like Uncle Theodore here and the movement grows over time...or not.

I do not support insurrection at this point, I do however very much understand why people would feel that way.
 
2013-01-23 10:10:47 AM  

dc0012c: Farkage: I'm about as pro second amendment as you can get, but why does anyone listen to this a-hole?

/Mostly Democrat too. That seems to confuse people.

You want confusion? Wear one of these to the range next time:


Holy shiat do I need one of those, lol!
 
2013-01-23 10:10:58 AM  
The biggest threat to the Second Amendment isn't liberals, it's idiots like this speaking on behalf of the Second Amendment.
 
2013-01-23 10:11:04 AM  

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.
 
2013-01-23 10:11:05 AM  

give me doughnuts: 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 "well-maintained" and "operating correctly."

Do you know what "the right of the people" means?



And which arms have been taken out of your hands?
 
2013-01-23 10:11:44 AM  

jchic: BronyMedic: Maybe he's just working his way up to his eventual suicide because Obama won.

[img1-cdn.newser.com image 240x160]

Time to nut up or shut up, Teddy Boy. Can't shiat your pants on this one.

Sure he can, don't the bowels tend to release when death occurs?


I don't think butting up was an option but it would be the end result one way or another.
 
2013-01-23 10:12:09 AM  

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.
 
2013-01-23 10:13:09 AM  
Seems like as good a place as any to voice an idea I've had about your gun laws.

Personally, I think every last American citizen does have the right, guaranteed by your Constitution and committed to by your fore fathers, to own, posses and use firearms. I think every American should own a gun.
That being said, you should have access to those weapons at any time.
In a supervised and restricted setting.
My idea, is you can have your weapons and use them. Only at an approved gun range under the supervision of a range Marshall. You can go, use your guns, but you can never remove them from that supervised setting for any reason. If you want to move them, you must use a bonded mover that will move your weapon from point a to b. Ammunition can only be purchased at an approved gun range for use only at that range. Each round of ammunition has a micro dot stamp embedded in the casting which is impossible to remove. If purchased ammo is used in an illegal setting, the ammunition can be traced back to the seller and owner.

It needs some tweaking, but, it get's around the complaint that politicians want to remove your access to guns. It gets around your possession and use laws and restricts those uses to the intended environment.

Fill in the blanks, be my guest. Your country needs to move forward on this.
 
2013-01-23 10:13:09 AM  

Lord_Baull: give me doughnuts: 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 "well-maintained" and "operating correctly."

Do you know what "the right of the people" means?


And which arms have been taken out of your hands?


That was dealt with way up-thread. Try to keep up.
 
2013-01-23 10:13:20 AM  

give me doughnuts: If I were to pick someone to be the exact opposite of Ted Nugent, it would have been Woody Allen.
Back to the drawing board.


I can see that... Though, Woody doesn't tend to publicize his mental problems as often, and I'd give Woody the edge in artistic talent. : )
 
2013-01-23 10:13:30 AM  

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?
 
2013-01-23 10:13:55 AM  

oldfarthenry: Methinks this Wacko will be Janet Reno-ed soonishly.


This comment speaks volumes.

You see, it's not so much that the libs are "anti-gun"; it's that they are "anti-independence". They are all for guns, as long as those guns are handled by the government-approved, jack-booted "wacko" thugs they have deluded their selves that they have some marginal amount of control over, despite any and all history lessons to the contrary. '
"We live in a democracy!" is their universal cry, ignoring the fact that the Native Americans who were all but exterminated for their claim to a Democracy, lived in a "democracy" too. And ignoring that their "Democratic" government hides more from them than it reveals these days. How can you even remotely rationalize that you live in a "democracy" when you aren't even half-aware of the conditions of your existence? You are less than pawns in a game played by the rich and influential. Bodies to be thrown at their enemies in wars to protect their cash-flow and their monopoly on control. Just like the Judiciary frowns upon the subject of Jury Nullification because it lessens their absolute rule over the court, those who seek totalitarian rule by the other branches of government have got to lessen the influence of the average citizen through the ability to project force, because that's the role of government, when you distill it down to its bare essence. They always seek to ridicule, "We're not trying to totally disarm the 'gun nuts'!", implying that you've got to be crazy for suspecting that their final goal is totalitarian control. They're not stupid. And they know you're not stupid. So, their only possible resort is to question your sanity and hurl insults. They've got to get you angry so they can paint you as "out of control" and rationalize to their selves and anybody who will listen that you're better off being defenseless and at the mercy of the power-hungry. They ignore the tens of millions of responsible gun owners and focus upon the criminal acts of the extremely few people who don't have any business possessing a gun in the first place, then seek to implicate the responsible gun owners by association.
 
2013-01-23 10:14:01 AM  
The Nuge doesn't go huntin'. The Nuge goes killin'. If the animal in in a pen, it ain't huntin'. But then I wouldn't expect much from a draft-dodger.
 
2013-01-23 10:14:26 AM  

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.



And I'm sure you have a vast list of historical citation to prove this assertion?

/we really need a sarcasm font
 
2013-01-23 10:14:42 AM  

david_gaithersburg: Lord_Baull: Nothing says patriotism like inciting an armed insurrection to oust a democratically-elected official.

.
If the majority voted to ban gay marriage you would be in support of that too?

How about slavery? To bring back the days of your great grand pappy would probably be a wet dream for you.



Sounds like you're not familiar with how elections work.
Actually, that's the only coherent thing I could glean off your post, sorry if I was mistaken and there really isn't any coherency.
 
2013-01-23 10:15:04 AM  

Blue_Blazer: My birthday is April 17 (ya rly) and I cannot think of a better present than this scumbag dead or in jail.


I can't think of a better birthday present for me (September 11th) than to have the DEA raid your house by mistake executing a "no knock" warrant, and lose control of their trigger fingers.

See how that works? Stop wishing people dead or in jail simply because you think the 1st amendment is only for people who agree with you.
 
2013-01-23 10:15:41 AM  

Fart_Machine: The biggest threat to the Second Amendment isn't liberals, it's idiots like this speaking on behalf of the Second Amendment.


Exactly. It's why the rest of us can't have nice things.
 
2013-01-23 10:15:50 AM  
The guy is a miserable musician <b>subby</b>. Quick! Think of a Ted Nugent song! You can't, because his stuff is crap. The pinnacle of his artistic "achievement" was, if I recall correctly, a song whose lyrics include, "Whang, dang, sweet poon-tang." His music is crap, his lifestyle is crap, and his social commentary is crap.
 
2013-01-23 10:15:55 AM  

SixOfDLoC: I suspect the whole purpose of the first amendment is to protect exactly such declarations.


Free speech has limits to its protection such as "clear and present danger" and "imminent lawless action". Basically if Ted's words could be construed as inciting acts of violence or other unlawful activity in the immediate future then it's not protected speech and he could be charged with conspiracy, inciting injury, sedition or whatever.
 
2013-01-23 10:15:59 AM  

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.
 
2013-01-23 10:16:25 AM  

hdhale: If every Liberal Democrat who proclaimed in 2000 and again in 2004 that they were leaving the US if George W. Bush were elected had actually done so, there would have been no Barrack Obama presidency. /i>

Why should we leave? A dumb asshole being elected by a bunch of dumb assholes isn't reason enough for me to leave my country.

 
2013-01-23 10:16:31 AM  
Also crap, my HTML skills.
 
2013-01-23 10:16:51 AM  
This whole idea of revolution (and succession) disgusts me. Obama didn't steal the election... He was elected by a majority of the voters and earned the majority of the electoral votes. These "patriotic" Americans like Nugent are the real enemy (Just saying.... No real insight in that statement). However, the idea that armed insurrection is the solution because your candidate lost an election? That alone proves that Nugent and his wacko buddies aren't true Americans.

I have several buddies in the military.... and yes, the military isn't overly impressed with Obama (or Democratic candidates in general) but they support their Commander-in-Chief.

Bring it Nugent..... I hope you're smiling when some Republican-favoring Delta or Seal badasses storm your compound and put a bullet between your eyes. Should that happen? Bury him at sea in Lake Michigan so other nuts don't have a gravesite to make a shrine.

/ Michigander who likes Nugent's music but hates his radical ideas
// Yes....Michigan is full of crazy people....Most of them own guns. Show me a state that doesn't have their fair share of nutcases and radicals.
/// I sometimes wish Deer had the intelligence to stalk and shoot idiots like Nugent.
//// Yes.... I own rifles and shotguns.... Yes I hunt .... No I'm not worried about Obama taking my guns away
 
2013-01-23 10:16:51 AM  
I don't think dangerous and crazy people clamoring to be armed with more and more lethal weapons is really going to help their fight against gun regulations.

It's like when you catch a kid scribbling on the wall with a permanent marker, and you take the marker away.  The kid cries, but you don't give him back the marker.  If you do, well...  then you really only have yourself to blame.
 
2013-01-23 10:17:44 AM  

Lord_Baull: give me doughnuts: 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 "well-maintained" and "operating correctly."

Do you know what "the right of the people" means?


And which arms have been taken out of your hands?



They are working on that right now.

And raising objections after the fact is too late.
 
2013-01-23 10:18:42 AM  

calm like a bomb: The Nuge doesn't go huntin'. The Nuge goes killin'. If the animal in in a pen, it ain't huntin'. But then I wouldn't expect much from a draft-dodger.


Pretty much the same as GOP "tough guy", Dick Cheney... And that old asshole can't even do that without shooting someone in the face.

Teddy Roosevelt and Eisenhower would be disgusted with what passes for the Republican Party today.
 
2013-01-23 10:18:49 AM  

HAMMERTOE: oldfarthenry: Methinks this Wacko will be Janet Reno-ed soonishly.

This comment speaks volumes.

You see, it's not so much that the libs are "anti-gun"; it's that they are "anti-independence". They are all for guns, as long as those guns are handled by the government-approved, jack-booted "wacko" thugs they have deluded their selves that they have some marginal amount of control over, despite any and all history lessons to the contrary. '
"We live in a democracy!" is their universal cry, ignoring the fact that the Native Americans who were all but exterminated for their claim to a Democracy, lived in a "democracy" too. And ignoring that their "Democratic" government hides more from them than it reveals these days. How can you even remotely rationalize that you live in a "democracy" when you aren't even half-aware of the conditions of your existence? You are less than pawns in a game played by the rich and influential. Bodies to be thrown at their enemies in wars to protect their cash-flow and their monopoly on control. Just like the Judiciary frowns upon the subject of Jury Nullification because it lessens their absolute rule over the court, those who seek totalitarian rule by the other branches of government have got to lessen the influence of the average citizen through the ability to project force, because that's the role of government, when you distill it down to its bare essence. They always seek to ridicule, "We're not trying to totally disarm the 'gun nuts'!", implying that you've got to be crazy for suspecting that their final goal is totalitarian control. They're not stupid. And they know you're not stupid. So, their only possible resort is to question your sanity and hurl insults. They've got to get you angry so they can paint you as "out of control" and rationalize to their selves and anybody who will listen that you're better off being defenseless and at the mercy of the power-hungry. They ignore the tens of millions of responsible gun owners and focus ...


Come down off your cross. The idiot he's talking about is saying they want an armed revolt.
 
2013-01-23 10:19:00 AM  
You guys are laughing at Ted now but as soon as he gets his shiat together, there's gonna be a rebellion.
 
2013-01-23 10:19:19 AM  

Dr. Whoof: This man should not have weapons - he has made it clear he wants to use them to kill Americans who have done nothing more than disagree with him.


Really? He's been saying this shiat for years. He hasn't hurt or killed anybody who disagrees with him yet, because he's not mentally unbalanced. If that happens I'll gladly agree with you...but I'm pretty sure it's not going to happen. I'm not saying I agree with anything that he says, and I really hope I don't take a blow to the had and start thinking that people as fanatical as himself are correct...because then I might end up on the other side of the debate, agreeing with worthless jackasses such as yourself.
 
2013-01-23 10:19:32 AM  

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.


So within the bill of rights, a group of amendments specifically intended to limit government power, they put in an amendment specifically declaring that the government had a right to have weapons? Just in case the double government tried to disarm them or something?
 
2013-01-23 10:20:22 AM  

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

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


media.tumblr.com
 
2013-01-23 10:21:24 AM  

grokca: You guys are laughing at Ted now but as soon as he gets his shiat together, there's gonna be a rebellion.


He lost his shiat years ago... : )
 
2013-01-23 10:22:20 AM  
I never ceases to amaze me how this guy doesn't drink, or smoke, or do anything of the sort. He is intelligent and very well spoken. Yet, he is such an intollerable, paranoid jerkoff.

And, btw, he is a lousy guitar player.
 
2013-01-23 10:22:55 AM  

Prank Call of Cthulhu: The guy is a miserable musician <b>subby</b>. Quick! Think of a Ted Nugent song! You can't, because his stuff is crap. The pinnacle of his artistic "achievement" was, if I recall correctly, a song whose lyrics include, "Whang, dang, sweet poon-tang." His music is crap


You're absolutely right about that. If you want to know who's a good player, you ask musicians. There are no musicians who respect his musicianship because he has no talent.
 
2013-01-23 10:23:07 AM  
If he cared about gun rights he'd shut the fark up rather than give gun owners a bad name.

\ Is he doing anything but the occasional "Rib Fest America?"
 
2013-01-23 10:23:09 AM  

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, to promote freedom, let's agree with a man who hints we may soon have to kill people who hold different political opinions! After all, freedom doesn't include the ability to have different political opinions, so, WAR TIME!

FOR FREEDOM!
 
2013-01-23 10:23:24 AM  

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.



In other words, the militia. The militia could own and use weapons equal to or better than the militia?
 
2013-01-23 10:24:25 AM  
All I know of Ted is his crazy talk, "Cat Scratch Fever" and that he played at a concert (with Toby Keith) in Germany when my husband was in Iraq.

And now I know about his draft dodging ways. What a prick.
 
2013-01-23 10:24:42 AM  

Holocaust Agnostic: 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.

So within the bill of rights, a group of amendments specifically intended to limit government power, they put in an amendment specifically declaring that the government had a right to have weapons? Just in case the double government tried to disarm them or something?


No it was stating, at least in part, that the government should not be able to ban groups of citizens from the armed forces.If the Government could say that, for example, followers of a certain political party could not serve in the army, it would make it easier for the army to be used as an instrument of repression against that group.
 
2013-01-23 10:24:43 AM  

tuxbabe: All aboard the crazy train............

oops, wrong musician..


The funny thing is, Ozzy sounds like a nuclear physicist when compared to Teddy Boy...
 
2013-01-23 10:25:09 AM  
Interesting Nugent Facts:

Recorded 31 albums 1967-2001.

Sold over 30 million albums worldwide.

Considered #1 guitar showman in the world.

#1 grossing tour act; 1977, 1978, and 1979.

Of the seven albums he released between 1975 and 1980, five of them were certified Platinum or better.

Attempted to buy the background-music company Muzak so he could shut it down; his offer was rejected.
 
2013-01-23 10:25:21 AM  

Hollie Maea: manimal2878: RevMercutio: A lot of people seem to be eager to defend a known pedophile like the Nuge.

Uh, who has defended him? There seems to be universal hatred for Nugent.

The Romney boys think he's the best thing since sliced bread. Even Mitt likes him because he has low self esteem and likes anyone who says something good about him, or hell even someone who merely says something bad about an opponent of his.


So... nobody that has posted in this thread.
 
2013-01-23 10:26:27 AM  

david_gaithersburg: [Easy Rider pic]


so dirty pot-smoking hippies are cool now? last week you found them despicable.
 
2013-01-23 10:26:48 AM  

give me doughnuts: ... and I knew a bunch of guys that did it with the BSA.

Sick.
 
2013-01-23 10:27:06 AM  

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?
 
2013-01-23 10:28:33 AM  

Wooly Bully: You're absolutely right about that. If you want to know who's a good player, you ask musicians. There are no musicians who respect his musicianship because he has no talent. he is of marginal talent.


FTFY. I think he sucks, too, but the guy has sold a lot of albums. You don't do that without at least some ability.
 
2013-01-23 10:28:50 AM  

grokca: You guys are laughing at Ted now but as soon as he gets his shiat together, there's gonna be a rebellion.


Yes. Shiat together. Which will be ... never.
 
2013-01-23 10:29:06 AM  

Great_Milenko: He must have really enjoyed his last visit from the secret service to ask for another one so soon.


Actually he has crossed into the realm of the untouchables. Like the cliche of banks etc being too big to fail, this guy is now too famous (infamous) to be murdered. No different than folks like Limbaugh etc.
 
2013-01-23 10:29:23 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?


You don't believe that the US Constitution allows a standing army? How do you then account for the fact that the United States Army has been in continuous existence since 1789?
 
2013-01-23 10:29:31 AM  

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.
 
2013-01-23 10:30:14 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]


Are you British? Because those guys are heroes in my country, the U S of friggin' A.

Someone who wants to overthrow, by force of arms, the legitimate and constitutional results of an election in the USA is my enemy and a traitor (if a US citizen).
 
2013-01-23 10:30:20 AM  
"... whereas, to preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them..."

-- Richard H. Lee, Additional Letters from the Federal Farmer 53, 1788
 
2013-01-23 10:30:40 AM  

Thune: misplaced snark


"Snark," the last excuse of the loser.
 
2013-01-23 10:30:40 AM  

keylock71: Having said that, I want nothing to do with the modern NRA. They're not defending my interests or freedoms, they're defending the interests of gun manufacturers with deep pockets.


This is pretty much why I dropped out of the NRA as well. It became clear a few years ago that their mission had changed. We really do need an organization like the NRA of the old days, though - I don't think there's enough of an emphasis on gun safety as there should be.

/don't point it at anything you don't want dead.
//always assume it's loaded
///finger off the trigger until you're really ready to fire.
 
2013-01-23 10:31:32 AM  

Philip Francis Queeg: 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?

You don't believe that the US Constitution allows a standing army? How do you then account for the fact that the United States Army has been in continuous existence since 1789?


Neither "the founders were against it" nor "its a bad idea" imply that something is unconstitutional.
 
2013-01-23 10:32:05 AM  

Philip Francis Queeg: 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?

You don't believe that the US Constitution allows a standing army? How do you then account for the fact that the United States Army has been in continuous existence since 1789?


Show me where I said the constitution doesn't allow for it. And by the way, good effort at ignoring the quote I so helpfully provided.
 
2013-01-23 10:32:18 AM  

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?
 
2013-01-23 10:34:08 AM  

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.
 
2013-01-23 10:34:21 AM  
Funny how everyone forgets the time President Washington stomped out the Whiskey Rebellion because moonshiners did not want to pay their taxes.
 
2013-01-23 10:34:51 AM  

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?


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.
 
2013-01-23 10:35:00 AM  
www.ojocientifico.com
Damn he ugly
 
2013-01-23 10:35:18 AM  

SixOfDLoC: keylock71: Having said that, I want nothing to do with the modern NRA. They're not defending my interests or freedoms, they're defending the interests of gun manufacturers with deep pockets.

This is pretty much why I dropped out of the NRA as well. It became clear a few years ago that their mission had changed. We really do need an organization like the NRA of the old days, though - I don't think there's enough of an emphasis on gun safety as there should be.


The country needs more people like you. And if people would acknowledge the Tea Party was formed because the Koch brothers don't want to pay taxes and leave that bullshiat organization then we'd all be better off.
 
2013-01-23 10:36:39 AM  

Farkage: 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?

You don't believe that the US Constitution allows a standing army? How do you then account for the fact that the United States Army has been in continuous existence since 1789?

Show me where I said the constitution doesn't allow for it. And by the way, good effort at ignoring the quote I so helpfully provided.



You said they were "completely against" a standing army. If the were completely against it, it would never have been allowed under the Constitution, nor would one have been in existence continually from the creation of the republic.
 
2013-01-23 10:36:56 AM  
Shut up and fade into obscurity chickenhawk draft dodger.
 
2013-01-23 10:37:00 AM  

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?
 
2013-01-23 10:37:21 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.


I guess it's off topic when I point out that your assertion doesn't work in the real world. Good to know.
 
2013-01-23 10:38:12 AM  

Bloody William: 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?

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.


Bless your heart.
 
2013-01-23 10:39:37 AM  

calm like a bomb: Bloody William: 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?

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.

Bless your heart.


I speak a few words of Southern, and fark you too, buddy!
 
2013-01-23 10:40:29 AM  
"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."
 
2013-01-23 10:41:21 AM  

indarwinsshadow: My idea, is you can have your weapons and use them. Only at an approved gun range under the supervision of a range Marshall. You can go, use your guns, but you can never remove them from that supervised setting for any reason. If you want to move them, you must use a bonded mover that will move your weapon from point a to b. Ammunition can only be purchased at an approved gun range for use only at that range. Each round of ammunition has a micro dot stamp embedded in the casting which is impossible to remove. If purchased ammo is used in an illegal setting, the ammunition can be traced back to the seller and owner.

It needs some tweaking, but, it get's around the complaint that politicians want to remove your access to guns. It gets around your possession and use laws and restricts those uses to the intended environment.

letmelaughharder.jpg

 
2013-01-23 10:41:53 AM  

calm like a bomb: 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.

I guess it's off topic when I point out that your assertion doesn't work in the real world. Good to know.


So it's okay to ignore parts of the constitution if you have determined they may not "work in the real world"? Interesting. I always thought the proper thing to do would be live by the law of the land or change it. And yes, there are established ways to amend the constitution. It' been done in the past, so I know you'll get right on that.
 
2013-01-23 10:42:09 AM  

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.
 
2013-01-23 10:42:29 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]


And this one.....

www.netbrawl.com

And this one.....

media.tumblr.com
 
2013-01-23 10:43:45 AM  

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.
 
2013-01-23 10:45:03 AM  
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.

Modern day penalties for treason include long jail sentances and, in some cases, the death penalty.

So, guess what dipshait, keep egging on the guys with more/bigger guns than you and don't see if they apply this law to your forehead.
 
2013-01-23 10:45:46 AM  
The scariest thing about Ted Nugent is he claims to have never tried any drug other than "a half a can of beer."
 
2013-01-23 10:45:54 AM  
Ted, I think this is a great idea. If I where you I'd attack the US military tout de suite.
 
2013-01-23 10:46:03 AM  
Shut up and fade into obscurity chickenhawk draft dodger.

Sorry, he can't as a director of the NRA it is his job to be a policy wonk.
 
2013-01-23 10:46:25 AM  

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.
 
2013-01-23 10:46:28 AM  

SixOfDLoC: I don't think there's enough of an emphasis on gun safety as there should be.


Completely agreed... Just look at that moron, who was trying to make a "political point" in Utah a few weeks back.

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.
 
2013-01-23 10:46:40 AM  

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


It's a minor quibble, but an important one. After all, if the King could do all these things, nobody would have had representation.
 
2013-01-23 10:47:17 AM  

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.
 
2013-01-23 10:47:29 AM  

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."



And?
 
2013-01-23 10:47:33 AM  

coeyagi: OhioUGrad: misanthropologist: Nugent is about as reasonable and relevant as Trump. I reckon Trump could do more long-term damage to the world with his money (assuming that it is his money, and not a whole shiatload of leveraged debt), but Nugent seems destined to go out in a blaze of idiocy, Ruby Ridge or Waco style.

Maybe he can be head of security at Glenn Becks teatard utopia, then when the whole cult destroys itself, no one will be surprised or saddened.

FTFY


haha nothing of significance will be lost
 
2013-01-23 10:48:24 AM  
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
 
2013-01-23 10:48:59 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."


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.
 
2013-01-23 10:49:09 AM  

farkmedown: Exactly. Obama, Biden and many members of Congress regularly violate their oaths of office.



Wow. You're an intellectual giant who totally doesn't deserve the ignore feature.
 
2013-01-23 10:50:08 AM  

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?
 
2013-01-23 10:50:21 AM  

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.
 
2013-01-23 10:52:36 AM  

SixOfDLoC: o


but of course .... but just like any org with a huge following the majority of it's members are too uneducated or ignorant to realize it. I hazard a guess that most of NRA's members are also 'only' FOX News watchers which in itself explains a lot.
 
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?
 
2013-01-23 11:48:53 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.


i15.photobucket.com

Why don't you get a haircut?
 
2013-01-23 11:50:25 AM  

Philip Francis Queeg: 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?


.
I did my part by voting for Ron Paul and joining the Tea Party. All of that resulted in a mini-revolution via the biggest electoral slaughter in seventy-two years. What have you done for the country lately?
 
2013-01-23 11:53:27 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



I prefer that to the opposite, where it doesn't matter if you're a criminal, a failure or a self-loathing closet gay, once you're tagged as conservative anti-liberal, anything you've ever done before doesn't matter and you're hailed as a hero.

*see Sarah Palin, Oliver North, G. Gordon Liddy or Newt Gingrich
 
2013-01-23 11:55:01 AM  

Farkage:
So you are okay with restricting freedom of the press to hand set printing presses?



Bwahahahaaaaa. What a leap of logic.
 
2013-01-23 11:55:38 AM  

calm like a bomb: 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.


I love Bruce Willis and am entertained by even shiatty Arnold Shwarzenneggar. And Neal Part is awesome. Not Keith Moon awesome, but no living being is or will be.
 
2013-01-23 11:55:43 AM  

david_gaithersburg: I did my part by voting for Ron Paul and joining the Tea Party. All of that resulted in a mini-revolution via the biggest electoral slaughter in seventy-two years. What have you done for the country lately?


LOL!.

I wish I could fit all this on a t-shirt.  It's absolutely precious.
 
2013-01-23 11:57:27 AM  
shiatty Arnold Shwarzeneggar movies. I'm not judging him as a person.
 
2013-01-23 11:57:27 AM  

david_gaithersburg:
I did my part by voting for Ron Paul and joining the Tea Party.


Ladies and Gentlemen, I give you the very definition of FARK Independent.TM
"Waahhh, I hate what Republicans are doing, so I'm going to switch my allegiance to the Republican Party!"
 
2013-01-23 11:57:59 AM  

david_gaithersburg: Philip Francis Queeg: 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?

.
I did my part by voting for Ron Paul and joining the Tea Party. All of that resulted in a mini-revolution via the biggest electoral slaughter in seventy-two years. What have you done for the country lately?


So rather than taking up arms, as you said we should, you voted for a failed political candidate. Cowardice it is. I guess the Second Amendment was meant for better men than you.
 
2013-01-23 12:00:32 PM  
Jake Havechek

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?



The Dixie Chicks alienated most of their 'conservative' base when they started their Bush Hate speech...I don't recall anyone coming out and saying "oh yeah....and they can't sing either."
 
2013-01-23 12:02:20 PM  

God's Hubris: /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.


I'm of two opinions on the Iraq war. Hussein reneged on the surrender agreement, and Bush got us involved in an ill-advised quagmire over what should have taken two men and one bullet.
 
2013-01-23 12:02:33 PM  

gregory311: olddeegee: Headline is wrong. He could never play guitar. He can be flashy, but any kid in a Guitar Center for the first time can out play this ass.

Kids at Guitar Center play out your ass? Do they pay you for it?

/c'mon, admit it - that's funny


Funny enough that your follow up got a funny and a smart.

/Nice catch!
//Kudos on the Burn!
 
2013-01-23 12:03:09 PM  
I'm not saying that anyone in this thread sounds jelly of Ted but the lady doth protest too much, methinks.
 
2013-01-23 12:03:10 PM  

Bloody William: And Neal Part is awesome.


I like that he considers himself a "Bleeding Heart Libertarian" these days...

"For me, [Rand's writing] was an affirmation that it's alright to totally believe in something and live for it and not compromise. It was a simple as that. On that 2112 album, again I was in my early 20s. I was a kid. Now I call myself a bleeding heart libertarian. Because I do believe in the principles of Libertarianism as an ideal - because I'm an idealist. Paul Theroux's definition of a cynic is a disappointed idealist. So as you go through past your 20s, your idealism is going to be disappointed many many times. And so, I've brought my view and also - I've just realized this - Libertarianism as I understood it was very good and pure and we're all going to be successful and generous to the less fortunate and it was, to me, not dark or cynical. But then I soon saw, of course, the way that it gets twisted by the flaws of humanity. And that's when I evolve now into ... a bleeding heart Libertarian. That'll do."
 
2013-01-23 12:03:38 PM  

Bloody William: calm like a bomb: 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.

I love Bruce Willis and am entertained by even shiatty Arnold Shwarzenneggar. And Neal Part is awesome. Not Keith Moon awesome, but no living being is or will be.


Arnie's politics, all things considered, are not that bad. Not that I'd vote for him or anything, but he seems to be a reasonable guy.
 
2013-01-23 12:04:42 PM  
I think this mans only true contribution to the world is the guitar solo in Stranglehold, which is long enough that back in the day, a DJ could grab a cup of coffee, take a dump, or have a quickie with some chick in return for backstage passes for whatever concert was coming to town.

Just go away ted.
 
2013-01-23 12:04:59 PM  

Lord_Baull: Farkage:
So you are okay with restricting freedom of the press to hand set printing presses?


Bwahahahaaaaa. What a leap of logic.


How exactly? We are either defining the Bill of Rights as only applicable to the technology at the time it was written or we aren't. Or does that logic only apply to the parts you decide you think it should?
 
2013-01-23 12:05:38 PM  

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

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

.
I do, and I'm sure you don't. It means in to be kept in working order.


THIS! It doesn't mean forcibly enact regulations stripping the populace of all means of defense more lethal than a rubberband gun and a super soaker.
 
2013-01-23 12:06:09 PM  

david_gaithersburg: I did my part by voting for Ron Paul and joining the Tea Party. All of that resulted in a mini-revolution via the biggest electoral slaughter in seventy-two years. What have you done for the country lately?


So you pissed away your vote and joined the "The Koch Brothers don't wanna pay taxes" party. I joined the greens a while back during Nader's run, and I can say with no reservation that was a waste. Maybe time will offer you some perspective.
 
2013-01-23 12:08:36 PM  

Lord_Baull: So you are okay with restricting freedom of the press to hand set printing presses?


Bwahahahaaaaa. What a leap of logic.


Actually, not so much. If the common citizen's implementation of the Second Amendment is to be so severely limited in degree in proportion to the limits set upon the government's right to arm itself, the First Amendment contains no clause guaranteeing the common citizen's right to sharing information to be so equal in degree, in proportion to the government's ability to spread of "information". After all, the Second Amendment is the ONLY one referencing the "security of a free State".
 
2013-01-23 12:09:20 PM  
Hey submitard,

I'm glad you are an expert on Treason. Where were you when this biatch was engaging in it?

i47.tinypic.com

Oh, when she did it, it was "free speech", right?
 
2013-01-23 12:09:57 PM  
I've heard Ted Nugent called a lot of things in my time, but "rockabilly" is not one of them.
 
2013-01-23 12:10:19 PM  

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.


Farkage, claim your prize.

i1197.photobucket.com
 
2013-01-23 12:10:55 PM  

900RR: Hey submitard,

I'm glad you are an expert on Treason. Where were you when this biatch was engaging in it?

[i47.tinypic.com image 460x307]

Oh, when she did it, it was "free speech", right?


Let it go, man.  Let it go.
 
2013-01-23 12:13:12 PM  

markb289: czei: "He added that Obama "hires, appoints and associates with communists,"

Nugent also doesn't know the definition of "communist".

Just one of the many words Ted doesn't know the meaning of. Like "Patriot" and "American".


The whole premise of him being a "communist" comes from a little list of his influences (which is mentioned in his book). It's riddled with communist, socialist, Anti-Israel, and racism. Take it and do with as you will. :)

Marilyn Katz: SDS, Socialist, CPUSA, CoC, Public Relations to Obama
Carl Davidson: SDS, Marxist Socialist, Professor, Small school workshop, leading activist in the Chicago break away Socialist/Communist, "New Party" founder of Progressives for Obama, DSA, Communist party split organization Committees of Correspondence CoC.
Mike Klonsky: SDS Weatherman, Maoist Communist, Small schools workshop, CoC
William Ayers: SDS Weatherman, Communist, UC Professor who writes curriculum for teaching teachers, Small schools workshop, CoC, Hugo Chavez honored him for his Socialist educational standards introduced to Venezuela.
Bernadine Dohrn: SDS Weatherman, Communist, Professor, Lawyer, CPUSA organization CoC
Mark Rudd: SDS Weatherman, Socialist, Professor, Progressives for Obama
Tom Hayden: SDS Weatherman, Communist, Professor, Advisory Board of Progressive Democrats of America, Initiated Progressives for Obama, CoC
Rev. Wright: Black Liberation Theology (Socialist) Racist Church, Obama's Pastor
Rev. James Meeks: Black Liberation, Racist, Spiritual counsel, adviser, and friend
Tony Rezko: Chicago mobster, business associate, friend
Frank Marshall Davis: CPUSA Communist from Chicago, four year mentor to teenage Obama in Hawaii, on FBI security arrest list from 1957 forward.
Raila Odinga: ODM, Kenya Communist, Obama campaigned for his election in Kenya
Richard Falk: IADL Communist, America hater, Professor and friend until his death
Edward Said: Jew hater, America hater, Obama Professor and friend until his death
Roberto Unger: Communist, Obama Professor, friend
Rashid Khalidi: Jew hater, PLO, University of Chicago Professor friend, Obama fundraiser
John Holdren: (CZAR), Co author, Ecoscience: Population, Resources, Environment, advocates totalitarian world order and mass sterilization of population. I kid you not.
http://zombietime.com/john_holdren/
Gregory Craig: ACLU, Specializes in representing Communists. His clients include Castro and the Nicaraguan Communist Sandinistas. Obama`s White House Council.
Carl Sustein: Progressive (Socialist) Professor, friend. Wants legal 'rights' for livestock, wildlife and pets represented by PETA and ACLU.
Jessica Marshall: Chicago activist, national coordinator Young Communists YCLUSA, friend
Terrie Albano: YCLUSA and editor of the Communist Party USA newspaper Peoples Weekly World was an early and ardent backer of Obama, CoC.
Valerie Bowman Jarrett: Married for 5 yrs to Vernon Jarrett CPUSA member now deceased. Jarrett is the great niece of prominent Democratic Party leftist Vernon Jordan. Personal friend of SDS Socialist Marilyn Katz, Senior advisor to President Barack Obama
Timuel Black: Socialist Party SPUSA, Democratic Socialists of America DSA, Committees of Correspondence CoC, personal adviser and friend.
Alice Palmer: 1991 Illinois State Senator, Soviet world traveler, Socialist/Communist admirer, Chicago journalist, friend and employer of Barack Obama. Hand picked Obama as her senate seat successor and organized his coming out fund raiser at her friends William Ayers and Bernadine Dohrn's home
Patrick Gaspard: New Jersey chapter of the Socialist/Communist, "New Party" Activist in the New Party offshoot, and CPUSA endorsed Working Families Party. White House political director for President-elect Barak Obama
Barbara Ehrenreich: Democratic Socialists of America DSA, New Party NP, Progressives for Obama, Committees of Correspondence CoC.
Lou Pardo: Socialist, DSA, New Party, CoC, organizer with and friend of Obama 1990's
Quentin Young: YCLUSA Young Communist League, DSA, Obama's doctor for 20 years
Rabbi Arnold Jacob Wolf: Democratic Socialists of America DSA, Vice chairman of Chicago Committee to 'Defend the Bill of Rights' the CPUSA most successful creation, friend of Ayers and Dohrn, friend of Obama
Cornel West: DSA vice-chair, New Party NP, Progressives for Obama, Obama's Black advisory Council, Black Liberation Theology speaker, friend of Rev. Wright, friend of Obama
Danny Davis: Democratic Socialists of America DSA, friend, political ally, Davis and Obama joined New Party NP together and were candidates for NP, CoC
Van Jones: Black Nationalist, Black Liberation Theology, Communist party split organization Committees of Correspondence CoC,, (CZAR) to Obama.
Carol Browner: (Global Warming CZAR) Socialist, member Socialist International
Gerald Kellman: Socialist Activist, Obama's boss.
Michelle Robinson, Obama: At Princeton she was Board member of segregationist group Third World Center organization for 2 yrs.
 
2013-01-23 12:13:15 PM  

FTDA: 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.

Farkage, claim your prize.


Sorry to see the truth gets your panties all in a bunch.
 
2013-01-23 12:13:50 PM  

Farkage: 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?


Don't be obtuse. My point was the exact opposite of yours - that the Constitution was never meant to be static, that it's language was a reflection of it's time, and that it should be (and is) continually re-interpreted to reflect changes in knowledge, society and politics (by which I mean regulation and law, which evolve to reflect changes in knowledge & society). Constitutional literalism makes no more sense than biblical literalism.
 
2013-01-23 12:14:40 PM  

thenewmissus: oldfarthenry: Methinks this Wacko will be Janet Reno-ed soonishly.

I hope not. The last thing this country needs is for Ted Nugent to become a sacrifice or martyr. The apocalypse would start (in the mind of the crazies).


Word. I want Nugent to channel the spirit of R. Budd Dwyer.
 
2013-01-23 12:18:57 PM  

Philip Francis Queeg: david_gaithersburg: Philip Francis Queeg: 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?

.
I did my part by voting for Ron Paul and joining the Tea Party. All of that resulted in a mini-revolution via the biggest electoral slaughter in seventy-two years. What have you done for the country lately?

So rather than taking up arms, as you said we should, you voted for a failed political candidate. Cowardice it is. I guess the Second Amendment was meant for better men than you.

.
That grass roots movement is the reason you are getting paid to post here. Suck it baby.
 
2013-01-23 12:19:13 PM  

Alfonso the Great: That guy is arguably the worst thing to ever come out of Michigan.


FTFY. Also...

twimg0-a.akamaihd.net

For your consideration.
 
2013-01-23 12:19:56 PM  

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


I love it when retards try to tell me what's going on in my own mind so that they can "argue" against it.
 
2013-01-23 12:21:01 PM  
2.bp.blogspot.com

OMG, You mean you were serious about preserving and protecting the Constitution? I'm on the losing side! Look at all the Americans marching on Washington! Oh shiat, Obama totally screwed me with his lies ... help me. I was so wrong to believe the Left ....
 
2013-01-23 12:21:46 PM  

People_are_Idiots: markb289: czei: "He added that Obama "hires, appoints and associates with communists,"

Nugent also doesn't know the definition of "communist".

Just one of the many words Ted doesn't know the meaning of. Like "Patriot" and "American".

The whole premise of him being a "communist" comes from a little list of his influences (which is mentioned in his book). It's riddled with communist, socialist, Anti-Israel, and racism. Take it and do with as you will. :)

Marilyn Katz: SDS, Socialist, CPUSA, CoC, Public Relations to Obama
Carl Davidson: SDS, Marxist Socialist, Professor, Small school workshop, leading activist in the Chicago break away Socialist/Communist, "New Party" founder of Progressives for Obama, DSA, Communist party split organization Committees of Correspondence CoC.
Mike Klonsky: SDS Weatherman, Maoist Communist, Small schools workshop, CoC
William Ayers: SDS Weatherman, Communist, UC Professor who writes curriculum for teaching teachers, Small schools workshop, CoC, Hugo Chavez honored him for his Socialist educational standards introduced to Venezuela.
Bernadine Dohrn: SDS Weatherman, Communist, Professor, Lawyer, CPUSA organization CoC
Mark Rudd: SDS Weatherman, Socialist, Professor, Progressives for Obama
Tom Hayden: SDS Weatherman, Communist, Professor, Advisory Board of Progressive Democrats of America, Initiated Progressives for Obama, CoC
Rev. Wright: Black Liberation Theology (Socialist) Racist Church, Obama's Pastor
Rev. James Meeks: Black Liberation, Racist, Spiritual counsel, adviser, and friend
Tony Rezko: Chicago mobster, business associate, friend
Frank Marshall Davis: CPUSA Communist from Chicago, four year mentor to teenage Obama in Hawaii, on FBI security arrest list from 1957 forward.
Raila Odinga: ODM, Kenya Communist, Obama campaigned for his election in Kenya
Richard Falk: IADL Communist, America hater, Professor and friend until his death
Edward Said: Jew hater, America hater, Obama Professor and friend until his death
Roberto Unger: ...


www.dirtandseeds.com
I am proud of you. Keep my legacy alive!
 
2013-01-23 12:21:58 PM  

catchow: Farkage: 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?

Don't be obtuse. My point was the exact opposite of yours - that the Constitution was never meant to be static, that it's language was a reflection of it's time, and that it should be (and is) continually re-interpreted to reflect changes in knowledge, society and politics (by which I mean regulation and law, which evolve to reflect changes in knowledge & society). Constitutional literalism makes no more sense than biblical literalism.


Yes, I'm sure that after committing treason, starting a revolution, and risking their lives for the sake of creating this country that the Founding Fathers fully intended their work to be undone by simply redefining a word or two. Because that just makes sense.
 
2013-01-23 12:22:42 PM  

Vodka Zombie: 900RR: Hey submitard,

I'm glad you are an expert on Treason. Where were you when this biatch was engaging in it?

[i47.tinypic.com image 460x307]

Oh, when she did it, it was "free speech", right?

Let it go, man.  Let it go.


Exactly, that's my point. Treason isn't even a crime any more. If it were, she would still be in prison.

/Actually, that's not true. Jimmy Carter would have pardoned her.
 
2013-01-23 12:23:47 PM  

david_gaithersburg: Philip Francis Queeg: 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?

.
I did my part by voting for Ron Paul and joining the Tea Party. All of that resulted in a mini-revolution via the biggest electoral slaughter in seventy-two years. What have you done for the country lately?


there is something I'd like to ask.
How can the Tea Party etc.. prattle on about 'no taxation without representation' which is a very fair point and then support a bunch of tax dodging dirtbags? you've gone full circle being lorded over by a new breed of little George IIIs who are over represented by their influence in government by basically buying it out (or trying to). What you've got now is 'over representation without taxation' by an elite few and the problem is pretty much endemic to the liberal democracies.
 
2013-01-23 12:24:41 PM  

david_gaithersburg: Philip Francis Queeg: david_gaithersburg: Philip Francis Queeg: 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?

.
I did my part by voting for Ron Paul and joining the Tea Party. All of that resulted in a mini-revolution via the biggest electoral slaughter in seventy-two years. What have you done for the country lately?

So rather than taking up arms, as you said we should, you voted for a failed political candidate. Cowardice it is. I guess the Second Amendment was meant for better men than you.
.
That grass roots movement is the reason you are getting paid to post here. Suck it baby.


And you are posting because you are too cowardly to take the actions you say you support.
 
2013-01-23 12:26:12 PM  

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

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

And this is where the ignorance is because you just demonstrated that YOU don't know what "Well-Regulated" means.

Back when the Constitution was written the phrase "well-regulated" meant "in good order" or "well running".

They use to refer to clocks as "Well-regulated".

They didn't mean there were laws written by the federal government about how a clock should run.

The phrase "well-regulated" in the Constitution had NOTHING to do with written regulations by the federal or state government, as the person of today would take that phrase to mean.

You might want to check on what the phrase "bear arms" meant at the time.


Grizzly Adams would like to have a word with you.
 
2013-01-23 12:29:14 PM  

propasaurus: Ted also looks like he doesn't know the meaning of the words "shower," "shampoo," or "deodorant."


If you think that's bad, you need to look up the story of how he got out of the draft.
 
2013-01-23 12:31:34 PM  

pciszek: propasaurus: Ted also looks like he doesn't know the meaning of the words "shower," "shampoo," or "deodorant."

If you think that's bad, you need to look up the story of how he got out of the draft.


Good for him.
 
2013-01-23 12:32:06 PM  

Zenith: david_gaithersburg: Philip Francis Queeg: 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?

.
I did my part by voting for Ron Paul and joining the Tea Party. All of that resulted in a mini-revolution via the biggest electoral slaughter in seventy-two years. What have you done for the country lately?

there is something I'd like to ask.
How can the Tea Party etc.. prattle on about 'no taxation without representation' which is a very fair point and then support a bunch of tax dodging dirtbags? you've gone full circle being lorded over by a new breed of little George IIIs who are over represented by their influence in government by basically buying it out (or trying to). What you've got now is 'over representation without taxation' by an elite few and the problem is pretty much endemic to the liberal democracies.


.
Wow, you are confused. It's the so-called-progressives in DC going on about taxation without representation. Tax dodging dirtbags? Are you referring to Obama's cabinet and personal advisors. Really, your just all over the field in that post.
 
2013-01-23 12:36:03 PM  

david_gaithersburg: Philip Francis Queeg: 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?
.
I did my part by voting for Ron Paul and joining the Tea Party.


So we should have taken up arms against the government when they passed the Patriot Act, but you didn't because you were too busy waiting to vote in the election that was coming up eleven years later?

So that'd be a "yes, I'm a coward"
 
2013-01-23 12:36:06 PM  
in fact, the "printing press" analogy is so apt, we ought to implement it in other Constitutional Rights as well.

In honor of the 40th anniversary of Roe v. Wade yesterday, we hereby affirm the right of all women to obtain abortions. However, to cut down on the abuse of this right, all abortions in the future must be performed with a coat- hanger, as it was the prevailing technology when the country was formed.
 
2013-01-23 12:36:49 PM  

Capt. Sparkles: Alfonso the Great: That guy is arguably the worst thing to ever come out of Michigan.

FTFY. Also...

[twimg0-a.akamaihd.net image 400x400]

For your consideration.


Oh c'mon, they're funny. Especially "Dating Game."
 
2013-01-23 12:39:50 PM  

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


Do you know what "well regulated" means?
 
2013-01-23 12:41:26 PM  

The Evil Home Brewer: 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.

I've successfullly defended myself in my home from an armed attacker exactly once. It was the late 80's and I was living in town by the university, and they climbed the porch roof, cut the screen in my room and were coming in for whatever reason, pistol in hand. It wasn't the pistol or shotgun I reached for, it was the dead Commodore 64 power supply I kept under the bed. Somewhere out there, there's a mug or morgue shot of a guy with that C= logo branded into his face.

Then there was the time I worked at a crappy Circle-K, also by the university. A guy came in with a bag, loaded it up with athlete's foot spray, then came to the counter and stuck a .25 in my face, demanded the money from the till. I wasn't quite quick enough for his liking, so he attempted to scare me by shooting "near" me - he grazed me on my left side, I still have a divot there. I hit the ground, sure that I was shot through and dying for a bag of athelet's foot spray. Dunno if you've ever been shot before, but it's bloody and pretty damn terrifying. I'm reasonably certain I pissed myself, but there was a lot of blood. Lucky for me, though, about that time someone screeched tires in the parking lot (probably taking off after they heard the shot) and I managed to clock the guy with the claw hammer we kept under the counter. IIRC, he sued Circle K - I wouldn't know for sure because they fired me for the whole thing.

A few years later I moved out here, as far away from any city as possible but still able to commute for work. I still have the C64 power supply under the bed.

Anyway, not to ramble or threadjack, just chiming in on the whole blunt objects versus attackers/intruders thing.
 
2013-01-23 12:42:45 PM  
Farkage:
Yes, I'm sure that after committing treason, starting a revolution, and risking their lives for the sake of creating this country that the Founding Fathers fully intended their work to be undone by simply redefining a word or two. Because that just makes sense.


You're trying to have both arguments at once. EITHER the Founding FathersTM fully intended that the document be static and open only to literal interpretation based on the language, standards and mores of the time (in which case, using your printing press example, anyone who has ever used an electrical or electronic printing device has gone beyond the protections for a free press provided under the Constitution); OR the document was fully intended to (with)stand the tests of time beyond the Revolutionary War. Which is it?
 
2013-01-23 12:43:32 PM  
could there a second amendment solution for ted nugent?
 
2013-01-23 12:46:42 PM  

mentula: could there a second amendment solution for ted nugent?


How? The Second Amendment and Ted both agree. What your actually hinting at is a "Totalitarian Solution".
 
2013-01-23 12:46:58 PM  

mentula: could there a second amendment solution for ted nugent?


I admit it... I would laugh if Nugent had a "tragic" bow hunting accident.
 
2013-01-23 12:47:01 PM  
Actually it appears that the subby doesn't know the meaning of the word.

Like it or not, the 2nd Amendment is about ensuring that should the government get out of hand, the people have the ability to rectify it. Many people feel it is out of hand, and it's hard to argue with their reasoning. Not that I condone it, but I can't argue against it logically either.
 
2013-01-23 12:49:01 PM  

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.


Mr. Queeg, operating on the premise that sea level is 0 and anything below that is negative; I'm wondering how much further down the Mariana Trench your IQ has to sink before it hits bottom.
 
2013-01-23 12:53:21 PM  
Ted Nugent is crazier than a water bucket made out of shiat.

Subby goes too far, however, in mentioning treason. Sedition is a more pertinent legal concept.

Sedition is overt speech or action that is deemed by an established authority as tending to disrupt the established order and tending towards insurrection. It covers actions which are not themselves violent, such as attempting to prove that the Head of State is illegitimate, a tyrant, an alien, an enemy of the people, etc. This leads into seditious libel which has become the stock in trade of many segments of the loony partisan population.

Ted Nugent has clearly quaffed the kool-aid, not from a Dixie Cup, but direct from the plastic barrel, like a football player celebrating a win. I doubt if he is actually in league with foreign agents or even domestic agents of insurrection (although he implies this) but he is clearly a few seeds short of a full gourd.

He may have been drinking from the firehose of Fox Propaganda, as he seems to have blown his brains out.
 
2013-01-23 12:54:48 PM  

catchow: Farkage:
Yes, I'm sure that after committing treason, starting a revolution, and risking their lives for the sake of creating this country that the Founding Fathers fully intended their work to be undone by simply redefining a word or two. Because that just makes sense.

You're trying to have both arguments at once. EITHER the Founding FathersTM fully intended that the document be static and open only to literal interpretation based on the language, standards and mores of the time (in which case, using your printing press example, anyone who has ever used an electrical or electronic printing device has gone beyond the protections for a free press provided under the Constitution); OR the document was fully intended to (with)stand the tests of time beyond the Revolutionary War. Which is it?


To clarify... if you are indeed arguing FOR Constitutional literalism as your post suggests, ergo you are arguing for your own preferred brand of re-interpretation...that the 2nd Amendment really meant (& means) that ANY American can have access to ANY gun (including anything that has ever been invented since 1776) ANYWHERE at ANY time without regulation or constraint. Which is patent nonsense.
 
2013-01-23 12:56:48 PM  

catchow: catchow: Farkage:
Yes, I'm sure that after committing treason, starting a revolution, and risking their lives for the sake of creating this country that the Founding Fathers fully intended their work to be undone by simply redefining a word or two. Because that just makes sense.

You're trying to have both arguments at once. EITHER the Founding FathersTM fully intended that the document be static and open only to literal interpretation based on the language, standards and mores of the time (in which case, using your printing press example, anyone who has ever used an electrical or electronic printing device has gone beyond the protections for a free press provided under the Constitution); OR the document was fully intended to (with)stand the tests of time beyond the Revolutionary War. Which is it?

To clarify... if you are indeed arguing FOR Constitutional literalism as your post suggests, ergo you are arguing for your own preferred brand of re-interpretation...that the 2nd Amendment really meant (& means) that ANY American can have access to ANY gun (including anything that has ever been invented since 1776) ANYWHERE at ANY time without regulation or constraint. Which is patent nonsense.


Dammit! Arguing against your preferred re-interpretation. Preview is your friend...
 
2013-01-23 01:00:34 PM  

garandman1a: Actually it appears that the subby doesn't know the meaning of the word.

Like it or not, the 2nd Amendment is about ensuring that should the government get out of hand, the people have the ability to rectify it. Many people feel it is out of hand, and it's hard to argue with their reasoning. Not that I condone it, but I can't argue against it logically either.


Of course you can argue against that illogical nonsense, citizens should have nuclear weapons and armed drones?
 
2013-01-23 01:03:01 PM  

HAMMERTOE: in fact, the "printing press" analogy is so apt, we ought to implement it in other Constitutional Rights as well.

In honor of the 40th anniversary of Roe v. Wade yesterday, we hereby affirm the right of all women to obtain abortions. However, to cut down on the abuse of this right, all abortions in the future must be performed with a coat- hanger, as it was the prevailing technology when the country was formed.


OH that's the hammer.
 
2013-01-23 01:06:36 PM  

Farkage: The militia was, and is, the body of the people. It has been clearly stated back then as well as recently. Feel free to look that up yourself.


I guess we'll have to rewrite the Militia Acts of 1792 and the Regulations for the Order and Discipline of the Troops of the United States.

/Those Founders were such modern revisionist history trolls.
//Read them so you understand "well disciplined" and "Militia".
///Take your time. We'll wait.
 
2013-01-23 01:06:55 PM  
Ted, you're not shocking or outraging anyone anymore. Get some help. Maybe it's time to start trying some of those drugs you eschewed all those years. Spark up a joint, pop some Xanax and chill the f out.
 
2013-01-23 01:09:07 PM  

david_gaithersburg: I did my part by voting for Ron Paul and joining the Tea Party. All of that resulted in a mini-revolution via the biggest electoral slaughter in seventy-two years. What have you done for the country lately?


This is just the cutest, most adorable thing I've ever read. You're just precious.
 
2013-01-23 01:10:22 PM  

900RR: Vodka Zombie: 900RR: Hey submitard,

I'm glad you are an expert on Treason. Where were you when this biatch was engaging in it?

[i47.tinypic.com image 460x307]

Oh, when she did it, it was "free speech", right?

Let it go, man.  Let it go.

Exactly, that's my point. Treason isn't even a crime any more. If it were, she would still be in prison.

/Actually, that's not true. Jimmy Carter would have pardoned her.


Have you ever considered the possibility that what she did couldn't be defined as "treason"? That she was a part of one of hundreds of delegations from the U.S. to visit North vietnam during the war?
 
2013-01-23 01:10:56 PM  

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

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

And this is where the ignorance is because you just demonstrated that YOU don't know what "Well-Regulated" means.

Back when the Constitution was written the phrase "well-regulated" meant "in good order" or "well running".

They use to refer to clocks as "Well-regulated".

They didn't mean there were laws written by the federal government about how a clock should run.

The phrase "well-regulated" in the Constitution had NOTHING to do with written regulations by the federal or state government, as the person of today would take that phrase to mean.


Would you call shooting up places and killing scores of innocent people a smooth, orderly and well maintained militia/populace? No? I didn't think so.
 
2013-01-23 01:11:14 PM  

Farkage: 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?


Maybe. Think of the dent that would put in Rupert Murdoch's reach. We might even get truly local news back and noncorporatist perspectives on politics.
You'd have to kill of the internet first, though.
 
2013-01-23 01:13:12 PM  
4.bp.blogspot.com

What are these treasons!?!?!?
 
2013-01-23 01:17:22 PM  

buster_v: 78 Days.


hahaha love this part:

On April 12th, 2012 the Motor City Meathead promised us: "If Barack Obama becomes the president in November, again, I will be either be dead or in jail by this time next year."

I assume he was trying to get out the vote for Obama. Anyway, here is a helpful reminder to him. Do the right thing Ted
 
2013-01-23 01:17:47 PM  
The Secret Service is probably drawing straws for who gets to deal with this nutjob next.
 
2013-01-23 01:19:52 PM  

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


I hate to burst your bubble but he didn't say "foreign government" he said "foreign entity". Meaning people across the ocean that were foreign to our land.
 
2013-01-23 01:24:35 PM  
i'd like to take a stab at reframing things slightly.

Not everyone has the same expectations here. I'm a gun nutt. Many of my friends are gun nutts. After talking to them, to others, and poking the interwebs I've come to the following conclusion:

There is a group of people in this nation that believe the gov's job, as defined by the founders and constitution is to not disallow freedom of choice in all things. By that I mean it is meant to do as little as possible so as to not trample freedom of choice and expression.

It's done a poor job of that for a long time now and one could point out a great deal of disenfranchisement that has occurred because of it ranging from gay-marriage bans to jim-crow laws to firearm control measures.

We can argue till we are blue in the face about what the Real Job of gov is however.. that is their stance. Mine may differ. So may yours. Perhaps all of us even have valid positions. But it isn't going to change that they already feel things have been compromised too far and there is a push for more.

Violence has always been part of the political process. In fact, its the point of the political process. Politics exists because its too costly, too burdensome, and too vile to slug out every issue. Once the majority has sorted out its opinion you are still left with an unpleasant fact: what the majority wants will rarely be in the best interest of the minorities.

Minorities end up with one of about three options: Endure, Be obliterated, or resist. This was duely noted by the founders and has been observed over and over again in the past century in this nation and most others. Once you produce a group that feels sufficently disenfranchised you get such things as the KKK, Black Panthers, Abortion Clinic bombers and et al.

You can't satisfy all of them. Never will. Point was to make it a local issue so that if you objected in place A, you had the option of going to place B that suited you better. We don't seem satisfied by that anymore because what our neighbor does or owns offends us. Even if that neighbor is in a different town, city, or state. Because it still represents 'immorality' to us, however we define it. In the current context owning something that might make another 'less safe' is an immorality.

Whats my point? I'm a dirty, dirty sinner and the concept of a 'Moral Majority' terrified me. It was tyranny of the majority writ large based on religious doctrine. The new 'safety majority' also terrifies me. I like my choices, and my risks. Its just another form of not-leaving-me-alone; or, of not-leaving-it-local-so-i-have-some-sort-of-chance-no-matter-how-small -a-minority-i-be.

I'd argue that it is not the purpose of a democratic republic to oppress or dissolve any group or lifestyle; and further, that when you attempt it you'll get backlash in words, sit-ins, and violence. Your individual point of view is irrelevant to this effect as is the will of the majority. It's based out of the minorities point of view.

Hence if you make a group feel cornered and disenfranchised what do you expect to have happen? By its nature they view firearm regulation as being irrational to their point of view. That it has a preceived cost to you is irrelevant; as it has preceived value to them.

I do not claim that most have successfully abstracted to the level written above; but the point of view is probably pretty accurate. And, bluntly, the notion that a gov is of the people but has privileges granted to its agents beyond that of the people is pretty offensive and contradictary. Either we are self - governed by our consent and thus the powers of the gov are a subset of our own; or we are subjects of the government.
 
2013-01-23 01:27:02 PM  
His comment is just as stupid as the guy who compared the NRA to the Nazis.

But an even better gem from that page: Florida cops Taser naked burglar who pooped and masturbated when homeowner pulled a gun.

With a great pic!!
 
2013-01-23 01:31:32 PM  

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.



So you are advocating that the only arms civilians may possess are black powder, muzzle loaded, flint lock muskets. If we are only using 18th century usage of phrases we cannot consider arms to include any modern weapon.

\Bonus: wheel locks could be in there too.
\\could make a case for Napoleonic cannons as well.
 
2013-01-23 01:37:19 PM  
Craptastic

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

I love it when retards try to tell me what's going on in my own mind so that they can "argue" against it.



Not even sure who you are....so not only have I not told you what is going on in your little pea-brain of a mind, I don't even care.
 
2013-01-23 01:45:30 PM  

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 ...


Not to mention the 4 million pound sterling the colonies owed the crown....

Let's see... racking up a bill. Check! Refusing to pay... Check! Acting traitorous... Check! Just like the modern GOP.
 
2013-01-23 01:45:37 PM  
The guns in this country have more rights than I do
 
2013-01-23 01:52:34 PM  

HAMMERTOE: 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.


Nice to see the farktards in this thread are actively self-identifying themselves for us...
 
2013-01-23 01:53:09 PM  
I wonder what old Sweaty Teddy would do in the face of an actual authoritarian government?

Suppose Ted was stuffed into a van, taken to an unknown location, threatened because of the statements he made in public, and dumped out on the street. He returns home to find his house ransacked and several personal items missing (guns, hard drives, etc). He finds himself conspicuously followed and monitored, and quickly figures out that even his private communications are compromised. He is made a pariah in state run media, a smear campaign that destroys his reputation and livelihood. He soon finds that he can't even trust his friends and coworkers. He is eventually formally arrested on trumped up charges, is tried before a kangaroo court, and disappears.

When this happens to him, then I'll pay attention to his whining.
 
2013-01-23 01:56:47 PM  
Olympus Mons

The guns in this country have more rights than I do



You have the right to remain silent....maybe you should use it.
 
2013-01-23 02:06:11 PM  

HAMMERTOE: 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.


This person also agrees:

upload.wikimedia.org
 
2013-01-23 02:07:34 PM  

Ctrl-Alt-Del: So we should have taken up arms against the government when they passed the Patriot Act, but you didn't because you were too busy waiting to vote in the election that was coming up eleven years later?

So that'd be a "yes, I'm a coward"


But he talks tough on the internet. That's a type of bravery, right?
 
2013-01-23 02:09:06 PM  
So you fark tards think you're allowed to take lives whenever your beliefs of what government is doesn't jive with reality?

You know who thought that?

upload.wikimedia.org

Your not patriots your farking traitors who just because things don't go your way in a democracy you think you should force you beliefs on others through force.
 
2013-01-23 02:09:15 PM  
Regarding "Playing the hell out of the guitar," subs, eh. Not really. He doesn't do much but rehash Mitch Ryder and the Detroit Wheels' melodies and hump the pentatonic scale. Playing fast isn't necessarily playing good. I love those Gibson Byrdlands of his though.
 
2013-01-23 02:13:21 PM  

chuggernaught: 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.


So you are advocating that the only arms civilians may possess are black powder, muzzle loaded, flint lock muskets. If we are only using 18th century usage of phrases we cannot consider arms to include any modern weapon.

\Bonus: wheel locks could be in there too.
\\could make a case for Napoleonic cannons as well.


It applies to arms in current use. That includes the evil black ones. And no, nuclear weapons are not "arms" by definition.
 
2013-01-23 02:14:36 PM  

rufus-t-firefly: Subby forgot "how to avoid the draft."

[i48.photobucket.com image 248x496]


I see he hasn't changed much since...
 
2013-01-23 02:16:03 PM  

demaL-demaL-yeH: Farkage: The militia was, and is, the body of the people. It has been clearly stated back then as well as recently. Feel free to look that up yourself.

I guess we'll have to rewrite the Militia Acts of 1792 and the Regulations for the Order and Discipline of the Troops of the United States.

/Those Founders were such modern revisionist history trolls.
//Read them so you understand "well disciplined" and "Militia".
///Take your time. We'll wait.


The militia act was written after the bill of rights, wasn't it. You should take Calendar Reading 101 at your local community college.
 
2013-01-23 02:21:11 PM  

catchow: catchow: Farkage:
Yes, I'm sure that after committing treason, starting a revolution, and risking their lives for the sake of creating this country that the Founding Fathers fully intended their work to be undone by simply redefining a word or two. Because that just makes sense.

You're trying to have both arguments at once. EITHER the Founding FathersTM fully intended that the document be static and open only to literal interpretation based on the language, standards and mores of the time (in which case, using your printing press example, anyone who has ever used an electrical or electronic printing device has gone beyond the protections for a free press provided under the Constitution); OR the document was fully intended to (with)stand the tests of time beyond the Revolutionary War. Which is it?

To clarify... if you are indeed arguing FOR Constitutional literalism as your post suggests, ergo you are arguing for your own preferred brand of re-interpretation...that the 2nd Amendment really meant (& means) that ANY American can have access to ANY gun (including anything that has ever been invented since 1776) ANYWHERE at ANY time without regulation or constraint. Which is patent nonsense.


I honestly have no idea what you're trying to say. The 2nd is clear it refers to the right of "The People" to bear arms and saying that "well regulated" means anything close to what people think it does now is crap. If people say it should mean strictly controlled because that is the "new" definition, they are idiots. The printing press analogy is for the morons that say the 2nd amendment only protects the right to have a musket. Is that is your argument, write a letter to the newspaper with your quill pen and have them publisi it with their manually set printing press.
 
2013-01-23 02:23:21 PM  

Farkage: And no, nuclear weapons are not "arms" by definition.


If handguns and rifles are "small arms", what are "large arms"?
 
2013-01-23 02:24:28 PM  

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. at the time the constitution was written it meant "equipped" -that the arms of a standing army were considered "regular" and the footmen "regulars" and the uniforms and boots etc were "regulation". Thus a well regulated militia meant having the same items as any standing army foot soldier would be expected to have. "remember we are discussing arms not armaments like cannon and warship.
You modem kids might need to think in order of sports. Like a regulation basket ball and shoes etc to be a well regulated or equipped team.
for you wanna be historians read the following ,especially New Hampsires wording:

From the Madison Resolution, June 8, 1789.

Resolved, that the following amendments ought to be proposed by Congress to the legislatures of the states, to become, if ratified by three fourths thereof, part of the constitution of the United States... The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; a well armed, and well regulated militia being the best security of a free country; but no person religiously scrupulous of bearing arms, shall be compelled to render military service in person...

AMENDMENTS PROPOSED BY STATES

Massachusetts Convention - Did not propose a keeping and bearing amendment, nor a militia nor a standing army amendment.

South Carolina - Proposed no keeping and bearing, or militia or standing army amendment.

New Hampshire - TENTH, That no standing Army shall be Kept up in time of Peace unless with the consent of three fourths of the Members of each branch of Congress, nor shall Soldiers in Time of Peace be Quartered upon private Houses without the consent of the Owners... TWELFTH Congress shall never disarm any Citizen unless such as are or have been in Actual Rebellion.
 
2013-01-23 02:27:00 PM  

Farkage: demaL-demaL-yeH: Farkage: The militia was, and is, the body of the people. It has been clearly stated back then as well as recently. Feel free to look that up yourself.

I guess we'll have to rewrite the Militia Acts of 1792 and the Regulations for the Order and Discipline of the Troops of the United States.

/Those Founders were such modern revisionist history trolls.
//Read them so you understand "well disciplined" and "Militia".
///Take your time. We'll wait.

The militia act was written after the bill of rights, wasn't it. You should take Calendar Reading 101 at your local community college.


The simple fact that the Militia Acts were written and passed by the Founders in 1792 standardized the Regulations that were passed in 1779 should show you exactly why your specious "definitions" of Militia and well regulated are pants-on-fire-on-head potato.
 
2013-01-23 02:28:11 PM  
It would be hilarious if the government actually did move to take away Ted's guns. -- Not everyone's guns, just Ted's.

Well. he certainly sounds like he's mentally ill. THe NRA says mentally ill people shouldn't have guns, so this sounds like an area where Obama and the NRA can agree on something and take away Teddy Boy's guns
 
2013-01-23 02:30:54 PM  
Dear Ted, Please please please please take up arms against the government. OMG please!

Also, drop the axe. You suck.
 
2013-01-23 02:31:01 PM  

KingKauff: olddeegee: Headline is wrong. He could never play guitar. He can be flashy, but any kid in a Guitar Center for the first time can out play this ass.

He's a better guitar player than "hunter". I've only been hunting for a few years and I bet I know more than he does and am a shiatton better than him. I actually hunt animals in the wild.

/ok, I sit in a stand and read/doze off/text friends, but still, I'm better than him


I've never hunted a day in my life and I'm still better than him.
 
2013-01-23 02:31:17 PM  

catchow: Constitutional literalism makes no more sense than biblical literalism.


So, when the first amendment says "Congress shall make no law..." it doesn't *really* mean "no" law?

If laws are not meant to be taken as written, how the hell do you know what they actually mean?
 
2013-01-23 02:33:53 PM  

HAMMERTOE: Farkage: And no, nuclear weapons are not "arms" by definition.

If handguns and rifles are "small arms", what are "large arms"?


www.t-nation.com
 
2013-01-23 02:36:27 PM  

Corvus: Your not patriots your farking traitors who just because things don't go your way in a democracy you think you should force you beliefs on others through force.


Just exactly WHO is trying to change things because "things aren't going their way" in this democracy? Through "force" (the power of government)?

And your choice of picture is hilariously ironic. You might as well just have typed "PICTUREOFCIVILIANWHOPROVEDTHATGUNSAREN'TEVENNECESSARYTOKILLTHOUSANDS. jpg" on your post.
 
2013-01-23 02:40:42 PM  
LoveAllServeAll

Dear Ted, Please please please please take up arms against the government. OMG please!

Also, drop the axe. You suck.



Well done....spoken like a true know-it-all.
 
2013-01-23 02:43:48 PM  
Non-American here. I only know him from watching that episode of Aqua Teen.

Yeah, he seems pretty much the same as his animated persona.
 
2013-01-23 02:45:47 PM  

karnal: Jake Havechek

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?


The Dixie Chicks alienated most of their 'conservative' base when they started their Bush Hate speech...I don't recall anyone coming out and saying "oh yeah....and they can't sing either."



What they did was "hate speech"? Are you farked up in the head?
 
2013-01-23 02:51:18 PM  

texref: catchow: Constitutional literalism makes no more sense than biblical literalism.

So, when the first amendment says "Congress shall make no law..." it doesn't *really* mean "no" law?

If laws are not meant to be taken as written, how the hell do you know what they actually mean?


Simple. They mean what catchow has decided they mean depending on the topic as well as his personal feelings on the issue.
 
2013-01-23 02:55:44 PM  

karnal: LoveAllServeAll

Dear Ted, Please please please please take up arms against the government. OMG please!

Also, drop the axe. You suck.


Well done....spoken like a true know-it-all.


So having an opinion makes me a know it all? Um...sensitive much?
 
2013-01-23 03:02:06 PM  

Jake Havechek: What they did was "hate speech"? Are you farked up in the head?


Although it was Natalie who spoke up, they all stood up for her. How many people do you have to express hatred for before it becomes "hate-speech"? One single gay man? A group of black people? A gossip of women? Suppose she had said, " and we're ashamed that Conner Barwin is from Texas!" (He's an NFL player who is outspoken in favor of gays, because his brother is gay.)
 
2013-01-23 03:02:12 PM  
Jake Havechek

karnal: Jake Havechek

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?


The Dixie Chicks alienated most of their 'conservative' base when they started their Bush Hate speech...I don't recall anyone coming out and saying "oh yeah....and they can't sing either."


What they did was "hate speech"? Are you farked up in the head?



Ok....maybe it wasn't exactly hate speech...but they said some anti-Bush rhetoric that a large group of the fan base did not like. But that is not the point I am trying to make here. My point is that since Ted came out with his nutty conservative crap all the libs come out and say how his guitar playing sucks...which, in truth, it doesn't. They just want to tear him down as much as they can. When the conservatives started in on the Dixie Chicks nothing was said about their music sucking....because it doesn't. Different tactics. Yes....Ted is a nut....No, his guitar playing does not suck.
 
2013-01-23 03:02:37 PM  

SpectroBoy: 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.


Agreed. He's more of an entertainer than a good guitarist.
Really.
 
2013-01-23 03:20:54 PM  

HAMMERTOE: Farkage: And no, nuclear weapons are not "arms" by definition.

If handguns and rifles are "small arms", what are "large arms"?


Mortars, artillery, and the guns mounted on aircraft. IMO.
 
2013-01-23 03:26:53 PM  

Reverend Monkeypants: Agreed. He's more of an entertainer than a good guitarist.
Really.


I wouldn't go quite that far. While he's most definitely an egotist, age is probably catching up with him by now. Back when I saw him multiple times in the 1970's he was really damn good. Part of his show included being drug off the stage by two burly guys in white coats, all the while soloing on the guitar. The song Need You Bad from the album "Weekend Warriors" has some definite good chops to it.
 
2013-01-23 03:27:41 PM  

HAMMERTOE: Corvus: Your not patriots your farking traitors who just because things don't go your way in a democracy you think you should force you beliefs on others through force.

Just exactly WHO is trying to change things because "things aren't going their way" in this democracy? Through "force" (the power of government)?


I think HAMMERTOE was using 'force' as in "arming oneself with a bunch of weapons and trying to overthrow a democratically elected government in order to get what one wants".  How you could equate this to "a lawfully elected government passing some law" is beyond me.

We elect our leaders.  That doesn't mean you are always going to get your way.  You CANT...there are hundreds of millions of people in the U.S.A...none of us can get our way all of the time.  Just because you don't like what the government is doing doesn't mean it makes sense to overthrow it.  If you don't like the way things are going, get involved (politically) and try to convince others of what you think is right.  In the end though...be prepared to accept majority rule.

We already have a farking representative government.  If things were really so bad...we the people have the power to completely turn over 2 branches of government in 6 years NO GUNS REQUIRED.  It is amazing how much power the people of the United States have at the ballot box.
 
2013-01-23 03:29:23 PM  
fark it...That should have read "...I think Corvus was using 'force' as in ...."
 
2013-01-23 03:32:03 PM  

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

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

And this is where the ignorance is because you just demonstrated that YOU don't know what "Well-Regulated" means.

Back when the Constitution was written the phrase "well-regulated" meant "in good order" or "well running".

They use to refer to clocks as "Well-regulated".

They didn't mean there were laws written by the federal government about how a clock should run.

The phrase "well-regulated" in the Constitution had NOTHING to do with written regulations by the federal or state government, as the person of today would take that phrase to mean.

And you walked into the trap.

So, if according to you, we can't use "well-regulated" because it's outdated compared to the common venacular of today, then you can't mean "militia" to mean whatever you think it means today because back then it meant something else.

Double-edged swords - how do they work?


I can see him scratching his head: "What just happened here?"
 
2013-01-23 03:34:02 PM  
He wins if Obama reacts.
 
2013-01-23 03:35:45 PM  

Sleeping Monkey: He promised to be dead or in jail by April if Obama won. Hopefully he's a kook of his word.


He has an out, then. All he has to say on April 1, 2013, is "April Fool!"

/Sort of like when Oral Roberts said way back when that a 40′-tall Jesus told him in a dream that He'd take Roberts home to Heaven if Roberts didn't raise $1 million by March 31 of that year. Many people sent checks written in the amount of "Zero Dollars and zero cents" to the "L.O.R.D. Foundation" (Let Oral Roberts Die).
 
2013-01-23 03:38:22 PM  

Farkbert: It is amazing how much power the people of the United States have at the ballot box.


Pleaze! Like George Carlin said, "If voting could really change anything, it would have been outlawed years ago. Your government is bought and paid for by the cigar-sucking pricks who make back-room deals on the golf course!"

And he was right. If we had any REAL power, Congresspeople would have term limits, our personal information wouldn't be a commodity, there would be no "Patriot Act", the TSA would be a bad memory by now, and the WBC would have been incarcerated for attempting to incite a riot. There's probably much more, but you get my drift.
 
2013-01-23 03:39:02 PM  

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?


I always did want my own thermonuclear w3eapon system.
 
2013-01-23 03:42:44 PM  
And don't think that I'm arguing the point of conservatives, necessarily. I think that Romney was honestly a "plant". There's no way they could have expected to win, having the unmitigated audacity to run a veritable poster-child for corporate greed for president. So, the question is: what did the Democrats promise the Republicans as a Mulligan?
 
2013-01-23 03:46:06 PM  

keylock71: The man is a coward, a hypocrite, and just an all-around douche bag.

I have no interest in anything he has to say about anything... His music sucks ass, as well.


images.wikia.com
 
2013-01-23 03:47:57 PM  

HAMMERTOE: Farkbert: It is amazing how much power the people of the United States have at the ballot box.

Pleaze! Like George Carlin said, "If voting could really change anything, it would have been outlawed years ago. Your government is bought and paid for by the cigar-sucking pricks who make back-room deals on the golf course!"


Fact:  The people of the USA could vote in a completely new house of representatives, senate, and president within 6 years.  Completely new people un-associated with today's 'government' or any 'cigar-sucking pricks'.  We *do* have that power.
 
2013-01-23 03:50:35 PM  

Marcus Aurelius: 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


Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't this passage specifically state that the first step in oppression being disarmament? Forms of the word "oppress" appear in the passage no less than twice, in reference to the passage of laws and acts of government. It also specifically states that an armed populace is what forces the government to abide by the rule of law. No small distinction, that.
 
2013-01-23 03:54:17 PM  

Farkbert: Fact: The people of the USA could vote in a completely new house of representatives, senate, and president within 6 years. Completely new people un-associated with today's 'government' or any 'cigar-sucking pricks'. We *do* have that power.


While we have a two-party system, and any third party get immediately poo-pooed by both sides as "throwing your vote away"? Sure, we *do* have that power, but understand: the overwhelming majority of the candidates we are allowed to elect are paid for by somebody, whether it be corporations, unions, or special-interest groups. The very financial nature of politics assures this and leaves us at the mercy of the "cigar-chewing pricks" I earlier referenced.
 
2013-01-23 03:58:19 PM  
And, I'd love to see an election where the candidates aren't vetted by either of the two National Caucuses.

Never going to happen. Therefore, we will *never* have "new people un-associated with today's "government".
 
BHK
2013-01-23 04:09:57 PM  
Treason is committing blasphemy by questioning the legitimacy of the state which progressives so exalt.
 
2013-01-23 04:24:48 PM  

HAMMERTOE: Farkbert: Fact: The people of the USA could vote in a completely new house of representatives, senate, and president within 6 years. Completely new people un-associated with today's 'government' or any 'cigar-sucking pricks'. We *do* have that power.

While we have a two-party system, and any third party get immediately poo-pooed by both sides as "throwing your vote away"? Sure, we *do* have that power, but understand: the overwhelming majority of the candidates we are allowed to elect are paid for by somebody, whether it be corporations, unions, or special-interest groups. The very financial nature of politics assures this and leaves us at the mercy of the "cigar-chewing pricks" I earlier referenced.


Oh I get it...I never said it was easy.  But we do have this power.  I would strongly suggest that anyone who is so unhappy with our government that they are considering armed insurrection against it..might perhaps consider using some of the enormous power they already have instead....you know...without killing anyone....

Your defeatist attitude about what is and isn't possible is funny to me.  I wonder how many people think it would be impossible to elect new leaders, but somehow think it more likely that they could successfully execute an armed overthrow of the government.
 
2013-01-23 04:34:15 PM  
Puh-leaze.

The rich people have no problem "exalting" the State when it sends the poor people by the thousands to die in order to protect the rich peoples' investments and cash-flow.
 
2013-01-23 04:36:08 PM  

BronyMedic: Maybe he's just working his way up to his eventual suicide because Obama won.

[img1-cdn.newser.com image 240x160]

Time to nut up or shut up, Teddy Boy. Can't shiat your pants on this one.


If he keeps this up, it will be "suicide by cop."
 
2013-01-23 04:37:56 PM  

doczoidberg: Jebus Christmas. He's gone completely unhinged.

It would be hilarious if the government actually did move to take away Ted's guns. -- Not everyone's guns, just Ted's.


I think it's a given that if mental health checks become mandatory, Ted couldn't possibly pass.
 
2013-01-23 04:38:42 PM  
Question: Supposing the current proposed laws are passed as proposed. Under the current popular interpretation of the Second Amendment, suppose I am disqualified from owning a gun. Doesn't this make me immune from the draft, as I am also ineligible from participating in the "well-regulated militia"?

Maybe not a bad prospect after all.
 
2013-01-23 04:39:49 PM  

HAMMERTOE: Reverend Monkeypants: Agreed. He's more of an entertainer than a good guitarist.
Really.

I wouldn't go quite that far. While he's most definitely an egotist, age is probably catching up with him by now. Back when I saw him multiple times in the 1970's he was really damn good. Part of his show included being drug off the stage by two burly guys in white coats, all the while soloing on the guitar. The song Need You Bad from the album "Weekend Warriors" has some definite good chops to it.


Allllright I'll give you he's "good" but the kids in the local college bands kick his ass all the way.
 
2013-01-23 04:43:30 PM  
You must have some hella college bands where you're at. :)
 
2013-01-23 04:47:47 PM  

Nonrepeating Rotating Binary: Big mouth coward with a gun.


nobulljive.files.wordpress.com

You know what I really hate? What I really hate, is a pussy with a gun in his hand.
 
2013-01-23 05:11:50 PM  
Shut up, you pants-shiatting, draft-dodging, underage-girl-farking, lawbreaking, hypocritical Nutty Raving Asshole.
 
2013-01-23 05:27:46 PM  

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 ...


I actually had a guy I know comparing the Stamp Act of 1765 to businesseses having to pay a fine for not providing health insurance due to the Affordable Care Act. While your list is good and facts are wonderful, most of these people calling for revolution aren't living in the real world.
 
2013-01-23 05:49:14 PM  

david_gaithersburg: thurstonxhowell: 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]

Most people are aware of that. Here's the thing though: If they lost the war, they'd have been put to death.

Those who did not support their war likely would have supported that result. If Ted Nugent and his buddies take up arms against the US, that's what will happen to them and many in this thread would support it.

Thinking the American Revolution was necessary and proper in no way obligates me to believe that Ted Nugent's revolution is necessary and proper. Why you think it does is a mystery to me.

.
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.


Ah, so you're a conspiracy theorist who thinks Obama's only goal is to install a tyranny, enslave you and all your friends, and turn America into the New World Order. Remember to keep that tinfoil on 24/7, those transmission towers don't need to rest.
 
2013-01-23 05:57:10 PM  

hdhale: BronyMedic: Maybe he's just working his way up to his eventual suicide because Obama won.

[img1-cdn.newser.com image 240x160]

Time to nut up or shut up, Teddy Boy. Can't shiat your pants on this one.

If every Liberal Democrat who proclaimed in 2000 and again in 2004 that they were leaving the US if George W. Bush were elected had actually done so, there would have been no Barrack Obama presidency. If everyone on the Left who said/did something that could be considered disloyal to the US where executed, then we would have had to suffer Jane Fonda workout tapes.

Insurrections are done in support of a nation as well as in opposition to it. They start with people like Uncle Theodore here and the movement grows over time...or not.

I do not support insurrection at this point, I do however very much understand why people would feel that way.


Yeah, I always feel like declaring bloody revolution against leaders who help small businesses and the middle-class and poor, allow women to have control of their bodies, allow gays to be equal American citizens, try to get our troops out of pointless wars, actually take down our enemies, and strengthen our foreign ties.
 
2013-01-23 06:00:30 PM  

HAMMERTOE: oldfarthenry: Methinks this Wacko will be Janet Reno-ed soonishly.

This comment speaks volumes.

You see, it's not so much that the libs are "anti-gun"; it's that they are "anti-independence". They are all for guns, as long as those guns are handled by the government-approved, jack-booted "wacko" thugs they have deluded their selves that they have some marginal amount of control over, despite any and all history lessons to the contrary. '
"We live in a democracy!" is their universal cry, ignoring the fact that the Native Americans who were all but exterminated for their claim to a Democracy, lived in a "democracy" too. And ignoring that their "Democratic" government hides more from them than it reveals these days. How can you even remotely rationalize that you live in a "democracy" when you aren't even half-aware of the conditions of your existence? You are less than pawns in a game played by the rich and influential. Bodies to be thrown at their enemies in wars to protect their cash-flow and their monopoly on control. Just like the Judiciary frowns upon the subject of Jury Nullification because it lessens their absolute rule over the court, those who seek totalitarian rule by the other branches of government have got to lessen the influence of the average citizen through the ability to project force, because that's the role of government, when you distill it down to its bare essence. They always seek to ridicule, "We're not trying to totally disarm the 'gun nuts'!", implying that you've got to be crazy for suspecting that their final goal is totalitarian control. They're not stupid. And they know you're not stupid. So, their only possible resort is to question your sanity and hurl insults. They've got to get you angry so they can paint you as "out of control" and rationalize to their selves and anybody who will listen that you're better off being defenseless and at the mercy of the power-hungry. They ignore the tens of millions of responsible gun owners and focus ...


And now we have someone who thinks liberals were the only ones who genocided Native Americans. This thread is a smorgasbord of silly.
 
2013-01-23 06:08:03 PM  
What? No dumbass tag?
 
2013-01-23 06:27:28 PM  

Farkage: chuggernaught: 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.


So you are advocating that the only arms civilians may possess are black powder, muzzle loaded, flint lock muskets. If we are only using 18th century usage of phrases we cannot consider arms to include any modern weapon.

\Bonus: wheel locks could be in there too.
\\could make a case for Napoleonic cannons as well.

It applies to arms in current use. That includes the evil black ones. And no, nuclear weapons are not "arms" by definition.


Looking at my copy of the Constitution now. Sorry, I don't see "current use" in the amendment. Could be you're making it up. I am willing to review any citation you may have on the matter.

/also willing to review any thing you have saying I can't have a mobile tactical nuclear weapon based on your view of the 2nd amendment.
//atm it's like you're just making it up as you go
 
2013-01-23 06:30:30 PM  

Jake Havechek: karnal: Jake Havechek

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?


The Dixie Chicks alienated most of their 'conservative' base when they started their Bush Hate speech...I don't recall anyone coming out and saying "oh yeah....and they can't sing either."


What they did was "hate speech"? Are you farked up in the head?



It's only hate speech when a liberal doesn't like the policy. Otherwise, its the highest form of patriotism.
 
2013-01-23 06:35:05 PM  
Of course he has 'buddies' - he's a goddamned draft-dodging instigating coward. He's the little biatch in the middle of the crowd, screaming at his 'buddies' not to take that shiat from those assholes, and to go over there and beat the hell out of whoever the little biatch is afraid. He's the classic rabble-rouser, the asshole that encourages the fight, and takes off & laughs up his sleeve while everyone else gets down to it.

Screw him.
 
2013-01-23 06:41:26 PM  

900RR: Hey submitard,

I'm glad you are an expert on Treason. Where were you when this biatch was engaging in it?

[i47.tinypic.com image 460x307]

Oh, when she did it, it was "free speech", right?


She never committed treason.

And no matter how many times you repeat the lie, it will never become true.
 
2013-01-23 06:41:30 PM  

rufus-t-firefly: Subby forgot "how to avoid the draft."


This is perhaps the one thing Ted has said/done that actually gets me angry... Look, I think Vietnam was a mistake, I think the draft was horrible, but I know people who served honorably when called to do so and were permanently disabled for their effort. So, fark you Ted Nugent, you pants-shiatting, anti-American coward POS.
 
2013-01-23 06:42:35 PM  

karnal: Craptastic

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

I love it when retards try to tell me what's going on in my own mind so that they can "argue" against it.

Not even sure who you are....so not only have I not told you what is going on in your little pea-brain of a mind, I don't even care.


Hmmm, seems you DID tell him what goes on in his mind so you could argue against it instead of him.
 
2013-01-23 06:58:53 PM  

Alfonso the Great: That guy is the worst thing to ever come out of Michigan.


Kid Rock, Jennifer Granholm, and the UAW.
 
2013-01-23 07:13:09 PM  

Keizer_Ghidorah: karnal: Craptastic

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

I love it when retards try to tell me what's going on in my own mind so that they can "argue" against it.

Not even sure who you are....so not only have I not told you what is going on in your little pea-brain of a mind, I don't even care.

Hmmm, seems you DID tell him what goes on in his mind so you could argue against it instead of him.


Also, he doesn't know who I am because I don't spend all day on Fark trying to get attention in some sad attempt to make up for daddy wishing that he'd wore a condom.
 
2013-01-23 07:44:40 PM  

chuggernaught: Farkage: chuggernaught: 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.


So you are advocating that the only arms civilians may possess are black powder, muzzle loaded, flint lock muskets. If we are only using 18th century usage of phrases we cannot consider arms to include any modern weapon.

\Bonus: wheel locks could be in there too.
\\could make a case for Napoleonic cannons as well.

It applies to arms in current use. That includes the evil black ones. And no, nuclear weapons are not "arms" by definition.

Looking at my copy of the Constitution now. Sorry, I don't see "current use" in the amendment. Could be you're making it up. I am willing to review any citation you may have on the matter.

/also willing to review any thing you have saying I can't have a mobile tactical nuclear weapon based on your view of the 2nd amendment.
//atm it's like you're just making it up as you go


Seriously, this isn't that hard... (The following are from Cornell's Law Website)

Timothy Cunningham's important 1771 legal dictionary defined "arms" as "any thing that a man wears for his defence, or takes into his hands, or useth in wrath to cast at or strike another." 1 A New and Complete Law Dictionary (1771); see also N. Webster, American Dictionary of the English Language (1828) (reprinted 1989) (hereinafter Webster) (similar)

To Bear Arms:
At the time of the founding, as now, to "bear" meant to "carry." See Johnson 161; Webster; T. Sheridan, A Complete Dictionary of the English Language (1796); 2 Oxford English Dictionary 20 (2d ed. 1989) (hereinafter Oxford). When used with "arms," however, the term has a meaning that refers to carrying for a particular purpose-confrontation. In Muscarello v. United States, 524 U. S. 125 (1998) , in the course of analyzing the meaning of "carries a firearm" in a federal criminal statute, Justice Ginsburg wrote that "[s]urely a most familiar meaning is, as the Constitution's Second Amendment ... indicate[s]: 'wear, bear, or carry ... upon the person or in the clothing or in a pocket, for the purpose ... of being armed and ready for offensive or defensive action in a case of conflict with another person.' " Id., at 143 (dissenting opinion) (quoting Black's Law Dictionary 214 (6th ed. 1998)). We think that Justice Ginsburg accurately captured the natural meaning of "bear arms." Although the phrase implies that the carrying of the weapon is for the purpose of "offensive or defensive action," it in no way connotes participation in a structured military organization.

And that takes the nuke out of the conversation.

Common use:
Miller said, as we have explained, that the sorts of weapons protected were those "in common use at the time." 307 U. S., at 179.

Keep being a tool if you like, but I'm going to make dinner now.
 
2013-01-23 07:51:29 PM  
The irony of Ted is that "Hippies" that thought he was a good musician and made him famous, for a time, and rich forever are the people he hates the most. The people that provided him that money and the platform to complain are the ones he hates..... Way to go Ted. You are smarterer than the potato!
 
2013-01-23 07:54:39 PM  

vudukungfu: I'm going to guess he doesn't get a lot of Negros at his concerts.



I'm going to guess he doesn't get a lot of people younger than 50 at his concerts.
 
2013-01-23 08:21:25 PM  

Keizer_Ghidorah: And now we have someone who thinks liberals were the only ones who genocided Native Americans. This thread is a smorgasbord of silly.


Of course not. But their "hero and protector", (the government,) was directly responsible, both through action and policy
 
2013-01-23 08:24:53 PM  

Farkage: chuggernaught: Farkage: chuggernaught: 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.


So you are advocating that the only arms civilians may possess are black powder, muzzle loaded, flint lock muskets. If we are only using 18th century usage of phrases we cannot consider arms to include any modern weapon.

\Bonus: wheel locks could be in there too.
\\could make a case for Napoleonic cannons as well.

It applies to arms in current use. That includes the evil black ones. And no, nuclear weapons are not "arms" by definition.

Looking at my copy of the Constitution now. Sorry, I don't see "current use" in the amendment. Could be you're making it up. I am willing to review any citation you may have on the matter.

/also willing to review any thing you have saying I can't have a mobile tactical nuclear weapon based on your view of the 2nd amendment.
//atm it's like you're just making it up as you go

Seriously, this isn't that hard... (The following are from Cornell's Law Website)

Timothy Cunningham's important 1771 legal dictionary defined "arms" as "any thing that a man wears for his defence, or takes into his hands, or useth in wrath to cast at or strike another." 1 A New and Complete Law Dictionary (1771); see also N. Webster, American Dictionary of the English Language (1828) (reprinted 1989) (hereinafter Webster) (similar)

To Bear Arms:
At the time of the founding, as now, to "bear" meant to "carry." See Johnson 161; Webster; T. Sheridan, A Complete Dictionary of the English Language (1796); 2 Oxford English Dictionary 20 (2d ed. 1989) (hereinafter Oxford). When used with "arms," however, the term has a meaning that refers to carrying for a particular purpose-confrontation ...



So "bear" and "arms" can be updated to fit fit modern usage, but regulated has to stay in the archaic form to fit your narrative. Got it.
 
2013-01-23 08:39:52 PM  

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

image.shutterstock.com
 
2013-01-23 08:41:25 PM  

chuggernaught: Farkage: chuggernaught: Farkage: chuggernaught: 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.


So you are advocating that the only arms civilians may possess are black powder, muzzle loaded, flint lock muskets. If we are only using 18th century usage of phrases we cannot consider arms to include any modern weapon.

\Bonus: wheel locks could be in there too.
\\could make a case for Napoleonic cannons as well.

It applies to arms in current use. That includes the evil black ones. And no, nuclear weapons are not "arms" by definition.

Looking at my copy of the Constitution now. Sorry, I don't see "current use" in the amendment. Could be you're making it up. I am willing to review any citation you may have on the matter.

/also willing to review any thing you have saying I can't have a mobile tactical nuclear weapon based on your view of the 2nd amendment.
//atm it's like you're just making it up as you go

Seriously, this isn't that hard... (The following are from Cornell's Law Website)

Timothy Cunningham's important 1771 legal dictionary defined "arms" as "any thing that a man wears for his defence, or takes into his hands, or useth in wrath to cast at or strike another." 1 A New and Complete Law Dictionary (1771); see also N. Webster, American Dictionary of the English Language (1828) (reprinted 1989) (hereinafter Webster) (similar)

To Bear Arms:
At the time of the founding, as now, to "bear" meant to "carry." See Johnson 161; Webster; T. Sheridan, A Complete Dictionary of the English Language (1796); 2 Oxford English Dictionary 20 (2d ed. 1989) (hereinafter Oxford). When used with "arms," however, the term has a meaning that refers to carrying for a particular purpose-confrontation ...


So "bear" and "arms" can be updated to fit fit modern usage, but regulated has to stay in the archaic form to fit your narrative. Got it.


Where are you getting that bear and arms were updated? Those are the traditional definitions.
 
2013-01-23 08:49:47 PM  

HAMMERTOE: Corvus: Your not patriots your farking traitors who just because things don't go your way in a democracy you think you should force you beliefs on others through force.

Just exactly WHO is trying to change things because "things aren't going their way" in this democracy? Through "force" (the power of government)?

And your choice of picture is hilariously ironic. You might as well just have typed "PICTUREOFCIVILIANWHOPROVEDTHATGUNSAREN'TEVENNECESSARYTOKILLTHOUSANDS. jpg" on your post.


No force is people using guns because they are against the will of the people and their representatives. That would be the right wingers who are talking about using guns because they lost the elections.

No one said guns are the only thing that kill people.
 
2013-01-23 08:52:18 PM  

HAMMERTOE: While we have a two-party system, and any third party get immediately poo-pooed by both sides as "throwing your vote away"? Sure, we *do* have that power, but understand: the overwhelming majority of the candidates we are allowed to elect are paid for by somebody, whether it be corporations, unions, or special-interest groups. The very financial nature of politics assures this and leaves us at the mercy of the "cigar-chewing pricks" I earlier referenced.


Oh really? Name me a person who would make a great third party candidate (could get about 50% of the vote) but could not win running in the GOP or Democrat party.

Name me that person.
 
2013-01-23 08:54:48 PM  

HAMMERTOE: And don't think that I'm arguing the point of conservatives, necessarily. I think that Romney was honestly a "plant". There's no way they could have expected to win, having the unmitigated audacity to run a veritable poster-child for corporate greed for president. So, the question is: what did the Democrats promise the Republicans as a Mulligan?


i.imgur.com
 
2013-01-23 09:01:51 PM  
Don't talk about it Ted, be about it, Or shut the fark up. We're tired of you talking about yourself like someone should give a shiat that a pants shiatting coward redneck is flapping his carck holster.
 
2013-01-23 09:31:28 PM  
So we'll buy him a dictionary. He's still a better American than ObaMao is.
 
2013-01-23 09:50:12 PM  

HAMMERTOE: Keizer_Ghidorah: And now we have someone who thinks liberals were the only ones who genocided Native Americans. This thread is a smorgasbord of silly.

Of course not. But their "hero and protector", (the government,) was directly responsible, both through action and policy


So liberals see the government as "hero and protector", while conservatives see government as "villain and destroyer". Except when it comes to women's rights and gay rights, then conservatives want government everywhere, especially inside uteruses and bedrooms.
 
2013-01-23 09:52:48 PM  

armoredbulldozer: So we'll buy him a dictionary. He's still a better American than ObaMao is.


You still have all your rights and he hasn't done anything to take them away. Are you from Bizarro World, where treating gays as equal Americans, making life easier for small businesses, health care for everyone, women have control of their bodies, and church and state remain separate is considered socia-commun-tyranny?
 
2013-01-23 10:39:04 PM  
He understands it more than President Obama.
 
2013-01-23 10:45:37 PM  

dc0012c: Farkage: I'm about as pro second amendment as you can get, but why does anyone listen to this a-hole?

/Mostly Democrat too. That seems to confuse people.

You want confusion? Wear one of these to the range next time:


On my Facebook profile, I have my political views listed as "gun toting hippie". I want to work up a design and get it printed on a shirt, specifically to wear to the range and gun shows. Because, even as a gun owner, a lot of those people creep me the fark out so I might as well have fun with them.
 
2013-01-23 11:02:25 PM  

BronyMedic: Maybe he's just working his way up to his eventual suicide because Obama won.

[img1-cdn.newser.com image 240x160]

Time to nut up or shut up, Teddy Boy. Can't shiat your pants on this one.


And we're done. in. 1.
 
2013-01-23 11:21:46 PM  

The Beatings Will Continue Until Morale Improves: Apparently it's not treason if the President is black.


Of course. A black president of the United States? Now that's the REAL treason!
 
2013-01-23 11:25:43 PM  

I should be in the kitchen: I want to work up a design and get it printed on a shirt, specifically to wear to the range and gun shows. Because, even as a gun owner, a lot of those people creep me the fark out so I might as well have fun with them.


I hear you. My local range has all kinds of social events scheduled throughout the year. I get a calendar when I pay my annual dues. Potlucks and what-have-you - sometimes on major holidays, no less! No thanks. I don't want to sit around herpaderping second amendment with you ignoramii all day - I just want to practice with my rifle and pistol and head home.
 
2013-01-23 11:30:01 PM  

armoredbulldozer: ObaMao


HA HA HA HA

ObaMao

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

It's funny because you're implying he's a communist!!11!

Oh wow, you know what I just thought of? You could replace the "O" in his name with a zero, and make it EVEN FUNNIER!

0baMao!

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
 
2013-01-23 11:30:52 PM  
He's a mediocre guitarist, but a top notch idiot. He is full of miguided hate towards a man he knows nothing about, spewing accusations using words he doesn't understand. Obama is not even remotely communist. What part of giving big business a shiatload of money and a free pass for obvious corruption is part of the Communist Manifesto?
 
2013-01-23 11:32:17 PM  

7FARK7: He understands it more than President Obama.


Obama never said he's going to take your guns and hasn't made a move to, either. Seems like you and Ted both need to quell your conspiracy theory idiocy.
 
2013-01-23 11:33:55 PM  

900RR: Hey submitard,

I'm glad you are an expert on Treason. Where were you when this biatch was engaging in it?

[i47.tinypic.com image 460x307]

Oh, when she did it, it was "free speech", right?


24.media.tumblr.com
 
2013-01-23 11:46:57 PM  

7FARK7: He understands it more than President Obama.


Cute name, bad troll.
 
2013-01-24 06:02:40 AM  
Ah, another responsible gun owner exercising his rights.
 
2013-01-24 09:56:11 AM  

keylock71: cubic_spleen: keylock71: The man is a coward, a hypocrite, and just an all-around douche bag.

I have no interest in anything he has to say about anything... His music sucks ass, as well.

Well, to be fair, is is a mainstream Republican.

Seems like his brand of crazy has become "mainstream" in the GOP these days...No doubt.

It is curious that Patriotic Ted decided not to serve his country when called as a younger man... Like a lot of GOP politicians and pundits who like to wrap themselves in the flag these days.


Republicans are chickenhawks in every sense of the word.
 
2013-01-24 10:21:14 AM  
cubic_spleen

keylock71: cubic_spleen: keylock71: The man is a coward, a hypocrite, and just an all-around douche bag.

I have no interest in anything he has to say about anything... His music sucks ass, as well.

Well, to be fair, is is a mainstream Republican.

Seems like his brand of crazy has become "mainstream" in the GOP these days...No doubt.

It is curious that Patriotic Ted decided not to serve his country when called as a younger man... Like a lot of GOP politicians and pundits who like to wrap themselves in the flag these days.

Republicans are chickenhawks in every sense of the word.



And what is wrong with preying on chickens?
 
2013-01-24 10:57:59 AM  

cubic_spleen: Republicans are chickenhawks in every sense of the word.


Not all of them. John McCain did his duty.

/and I'm a flaming libtard
 
2013-01-24 01:19:30 PM  

devilEther: strangeguitar: He's really not that great a guitar player.

stranglehold is the jam. it might be easy to play, but can you play it?


Um...yes.

Even if you had one day of lessons you could probably pull off the horrible wanking solo that goes on far too long.
 
2013-01-24 01:49:57 PM  

strangeguitar: devilEther: strangeguitar: He's really not that great a guitar player.

stranglehold is the jam. it might be easy to play, but can you play it?

Um...yes.

Even if you had one day of lessons you could probably pull off the horrible wanking solo that goes on far too long.


I think it's sexy and no number of lessons can teach you to play sexy.
 
2013-01-24 02:51:05 PM  

calm like a bomb: cubic_spleen: Republicans are chickenhawks in every sense of the word.

Not all of them. John McCain did his duty.

/and I'm a flaming libtard


And then the rest of his party threw him under the bus.
 
2013-01-25 01:35:31 AM  
I will attempt to get the last comment in this thread by saying Nugent used to be one of my heroes, when I was 10 years old. Now he is an irrelevant asshole who by all indications should face treason charges for his recent statements. fark him and all his gun crazy (buddies) as he calls them. Fade away, Ted. You are old and irrelevant. Noone thinks you are anything but a fool.
 
Displayed 471 of 471 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
Advertisement
On Twitter






In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report