Can't believe the GOP... they don't know where to draw the line. Having Nugent at the State of the Union and the "interviews" he's going to give to the press afterwards guarenties to be bad publicity for the 'publicans. With Sandy Hook still fresh on peoples minds, the GOP invites someone that is over the top in flaunting his guns. Oh yeah, then there's the not-to-subtle threat he made against the President; "If Barack Obama becomes the president in November, again, I will either be dead or in jail by this time next year"

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/wp/2013/02/11/the-problem-runs-a-lot-deeper-than-ted-nugent/?hpid=z6

What...??? Celebrities have done wonders for the GOP in the past... oh wait...
Attachments:

To the contrary this is good publicity. I'm hoping
he will say a few words about the bogus polls going
around that say 74% of NRA members support a ban on
semi-automatic firearms and universal background
checks. I can't believe the Dems would actually believe
anything that ridiculous.

Looks like that number came from Johns Hopkins, a reputable university. Whats your source to contradict this? Your gut? Fox news? The NRA?

Yes, all polls have varying reliability. But to simply dismiss the polls with numbers you don't like as "bogus" is hackish.

Also, may be good publicity for Ted, but no-one else. He represents a fringe element of the party, which is what the GOP is trying to get away from.

Wonder if we'll see any outbursts from him?

FanOfTed Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> To the contrary this is good publicity. I'm
> hoping
> he will say a few words about the bogus polls
> going
> around that say 74% of NRA members support a ban
> on
> semi-automatic firearms and universal background
> checks. I can't believe the Dems would actually
> believe
> anything that ridiculous.

The NRA is crock of shit to start with, join the GOA like a real man. Not sure about the semi-automatic ban but I do know the majority of NRA members support background checks.

I hear for the next event the GOP is inviting Gary Busey to say a few words.

Nothing like having a self admitted draft dodger to push your cause.
Attachments:

"But you did dodge the draft?"

"I had a 1Y [student deferment]. I enrolled at Oakland Community College."

"You said then that you wanted 'to teach the stupid bastards in the military a lesson'. I'd have thought you'd have loved the army. Guns. Travel. Danger."

"Back then, I didn't even understand what World War II was."

"So basically," - I admit that I have, unaccountably, started to speak Nugent - "you didn't want to get your Michigan ass blown off in Vietnam?"

"Correct. I did not want to get my ass blown off in Vietnam."

Stones-
Interviewer: How did you get out of the draft?



Ted Nugent: Ted was a young boy, appearing to be a hippie but quite opposite in fact, working hard and playing hard, playing rock and roll like a deviant. People would question my sanity, I played so much. So I got my notice to be in the draft. Do you think I was gonna lay down my guitar and go play army? Give me a break! I was busy doin' it to it. I had a career Jack. If I was walkin' around, hippying down, getting' loaded and pickin' my ass like your common curs, I'd say "Hey yeah, go in the army. Beats the poop out of scuffin' around in the gutters." But I wasn't a gutter dog. I was a hard workin', mother****in' rock and roll musician.



I got my physical notice 30 days prior to. Well, on that day I ceased cleansing my body. No more brushing my teeth, no more washing my hair, no baths, no soap, no water. Thirty days of debris build. I stopped shavin' and I was 18, had a little scraggly beard, really looked like a hippie. I had long hair, and it started gettin' kinky, matted up. Then two weeks before, I stopped eating any food with nutritional value. I just had chips, Pepsi, beer-stuff I never touched-buttered poop, little jars of Polish sausages, and I'd drink the syrup, I was this side of death, Then a week before, I stopped going to the bathroom. I did it in my pants. poop, piss the whole shot. My pants got crusted up.



See, I approached the whole thing like, Ted Nugent, cool hard-workin' dude, is gonna wreak havoc on these imbeciles in the armed forces. I'm gonna play their own game, and I'm gonna destroy 'em. Now my whole body is crusted in poop and piss. I was ill. And three or four days before, I started stayin' awake. I was close to death, but I was in control. I was extremely antidrug as I've always been, but I snorted some crystal methedrine. Talk about one wounded motherf*cker. A guy put up four lines, and it was for all four of us, but I didn't know and I'm vacuuming that poop right up. I was a walking, talking hunk of human

I'm confused, are liberals for or against war?
Do they agree with the draft or not?
Do they want people to bow their head and blindly follow the government?
What do libs really want?
Seems like this guy did nothing more than the Occupy Wall St Movement did.
Why is he bad?
Is it because he believes in personal freedoms that they don't?

I don't understand liberals.

WOW, what a winner. And people follow this guy. Again, can't believe the GOP would even want to be in the same room as him. Sounds like he loves his country and loves his freedom, until it comes to defending it.

Draft Dodger! Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
So I got my notice to be in the draft. Do
> you think I was gonna lay down my guitar and go
> play army? Give me a break! I was busy doin' it to
> it. I had a career Jack. If I was walkin' around,
> hippying down, getting' loaded and pickin' my ass
> like your common curs, I'd say "Hey yeah, go in
> the army. Beats the poop out of scuffin' around in
> the gutters." But I wasn't a gutter dog. I was a
> hard workin', mother****in' rock and roll
> musician.

"I had a career" Really? Like doing drugs and playing guitar is a career? LMOA!

Nugent is actually the perfect role model for the modern day conservative. An obnoxious, confrontational hick.

Draft Dodger! Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> "Back then, I didn't even understand what World
> War II was."
>
> "So basically," - I admit that I have,
> unaccountably, started to speak Nugent - "you
> didn't want to get your Michigan ass blown off in
> Vietnam?"
>
> "Correct. I did not want to get my ass blown off
> in Vietnam."

Who the hell has trouble understanding WW II at age 18?

There was a guy named Hitler who was trying to take over the world. Pretty simple stuff.

Someone needs to punch Nugent in his face.

FanOfTed Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> To the contrary this is good publicity. I'm
> hoping
> he will say a few words about the bogus polls
> going
> around that say 74% of NRA members support a ban
> on
> semi-automatic firearms and universal background
> checks. I can't believe the Dems would actually
> believe
> anything that ridiculous.

The GOP_tard Worldview: Polls that contradict our beliefs/opinions must be wrong/flawed.
Attachments:

TheMeeper Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Nugent is actually the perfect role model for the
> modern day conservative. An obnoxious,
> confrontational hick.

You forgot hypocritical.

BEH Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> TheMeeper Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Nugent is actually the perfect role model for
> the
> > modern day conservative. An obnoxious,
> > confrontational hick.
>
> You forgot hypocritical.


+1

I prefer my hypocrites to be limosuine liberals!

kevster Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> WOW, what a winner. And people follow this guy.
> Again, can't believe the GOP would even want to be
> in the same room as him. Sounds like he loves his
> country and loves his freedom, until it comes to
> defending it.


No, people don't "follow' him. lol

"Following" personalities tends to be more of a lib attribute.

Hammy Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> BEH Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > TheMeeper Wrote:
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> > -----
> > > Nugent is actually the perfect role model for
> > the
> > > modern day conservative. An obnoxious,
> > > confrontational hick.
> >
> > You forgot hypocritical.
>
>
> +1
>
> I prefer my hypocrites to be limosuine liberals!

This is America. You get to choose!

Good ole Ted Nugent-

"I was close to death, but I was in control. I was extremely antidrug as I've always been, but I snorted some crystal methedrine. Talk about one wounded motherf*cker. A guy put up four lines, and it was for all four of us, but I didn't know and I'm vacuuming that poop right up. I was a walking, talking hunk of human."

Its been my observation in life, that when someone starts by saying "I am against drugs and (don't take them)..." there's always a BUT. The BUT is some form of justification that what their doing is somehow better, in a moral sense.

This false-argument is very versatile that can be used in a number of ways. For example, "I am against robbing banks, but I saw this nice new iPad and stole it."

I hope he does something tonight to make an ass out of himself. Of course, he's in a lose-lose. If he's quiet and respectfull his fans will say he's a pacifist sell out. If he does something obnoxious then the other 99.9999% of the population will see him as the a-hole he is.

What type of person says... Humm.. "Sure I'll snort some meth."

The new spokesperson for the GOP. No, seriously the GOP is hopeful he will connect with the average American. LMAO!
Attachments:

Teddy Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The new spokesperson for the GOP. No, seriously
> the GOP is hopeful he will connect with the
> average American. LMAO!


I thought scream dream was the name of Howard Dean's Iowa speech! LOL.

Who needs to listen to obama speak anyway. He will promise more free stuff to the welfare bunch, higher taxes, more government and a stiff finger wag at North Korea.

If I didn't know better I would say the GOP is trying to sabotage itself.

But it appears republicans want to find the craziest representatives they can.

kevster Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Its been my observation in life, that when someone
> starts by saying "I am against drugs and (don't
> take them)..." there's always a BUT. The BUT is
> some form of justification that what their doing
> is somehow better, in a moral sense.


I hear ya....what kind of moron would think the public would believe an idiotic line like that or........."but I didn't inhale"?

So who is the democrat that invited an illegal to the kings speech tonight?

Reality Check 4 U Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Nothing like having a self admitted draft dodger
> to push your cause.

+100

Wow coward Nuget is really on a roll! Sad pos draft doger is the perfect spokesman for the proxy heros of the NRA.

international enquirer Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> So who is the democrat that invited an illegal to
> the kings speech tonight?


On Fox News earlier they said that Christopher Dorner isn't really inside that cabin, and he'll actually be invited up to the podium by President Obama tonite during the State of the Union.

On MSNBC earlier they said that Christopher Dorner is a hero for killing cops and his position on gun control, and he'll actually be invited up to the podium by President Obama tonite during the State of the Union.

TheBeeper Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> On MSNBC earlier they said that Christopher Dorner
> is a hero for killing cops and his position on gun
> control, and he'll actually be invited up to the
> podium by President Obama tonite during the State
> of the Union.

Go crawl back under your rock.

Say what you will about Nugent, but he had a great quote I heard the other day......"America doesnt have a gun problem. America has a criminal problem, and they use various instruments to commit their crimes".

I still dont understand how stricter background checks will keep a gang banging thug on the streets of DC or Chicago or any other urban slum from getting a gun and using it. Criminals do not care about rules, regulations, checks, what have you. And you can ban all the assault weapons and high capacity magazines you want, that still wont keep some street trash from shooting someone with a revolver....will it?

the problem america has is all the stupid democrats thinking guns are the problem, and that buck ofama is the man to fix this country. fuck you stupid dems

Blowtorch Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Say what you will about Nugent, but he had a great
> quote I heard the other day......"America doesnt
> have a gun problem. America has a criminal
> problem, and they use various instruments to
> commit their crimes".
>
> I still dont understand how stricter background
> checks will keep a gang banging thug on the
> streets of DC or Chicago or any other urban slum
> from getting a gun and using it. Criminals do not
> care about rules, regulations, checks, what have
> you. And you can ban all the assault weapons and
> high capacity magazines you want, that still wont
> keep some street trash from shooting someone with
> a revolver....will it?

I've heard that argument before and its highly flawed. As a society, we don't refrain from passing laws because we think the bad guys will ignore them. Of course people still murder and rob banks. But no-one says that there shouldn't be anti-murder laws because the crazies will kill anyways.

Whatever laws are passed aren't perfect and won't solve the problem. But steps need to be taken, albeit baby ones.

who cares Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> the problem america has is all the stupid
> democrats thinking guns are the problem, and that
> buck ofama is the man to fix this country. fuck
> you stupid dems

Well stated, an inteligent well thought out argument from a "stupid republican". Way to represent your party!

kevster Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> who cares Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > the problem america has is all the stupid
> > democrats thinking guns are the problem, and
> that
> > buck ofama is the man to fix this country. fuck
> > you stupid dems
>
> Well stated, an inteligent well thought out
> argument from a "stupid republican". Way to
> represent your party!


You mispelled "intelligent".

sorry

I think it's great that the right wants Ted Nugent to speak for them. More Ted Nugent, more often. He has a lot of appeal to normal, middle-class, Americans. He doesn't look or sound the least bit insane. He hasn't said literally THOUSANDS of loony things.

DwokkaDwokka Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I think it's great that the right wants Ted Nugent
> to speak for them. More Ted Nugent, more often.
> He has a lot of appeal to normal, middle-class,
> Americans. He doesn't look or sound the least bit
> insane. He hasn't said literally THOUSANDS of
> loony things.

Once the electorate realizes that the political musing of Ted Nugent represent the mainstream of conservative thought...

Eastwood's conversation with a chair at the 2012 RNC will seem a high water mark.

kevster Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Looks like that number came from Johns Hopkins, a
> reputable university. Whats your source to
> contradict this? Your gut? Fox news? The NRA?
>
> Yes, all polls have varying reliability. But to
> simply dismiss the polls with numbers you don't
> like as "bogus" is hackish.
>
> Also, may be good publicity for Ted, but no-one
> else. He represents a fringe element of the party,
> which is what the GOP is trying to get away from.
>
> Wonder if we'll see any outbursts from him?

Yes, the NRA conducted a poll of it's members. The NRA
knows who the members are. Johns Hopkins doesn't have
access to the membership list and neither does anyone
else. Read and weep.


http://www.nraila.org/news-issues/articles/2013/1/survey-finds-nra-members-united.aspx

Here's the whole article just in case you're too lazy to click
the link.

Survey Finds NRA Members United

Posted on January 25, 2013

90% or More Support NRA Positions

To rebut bogus surveys by pollsters on the payroll of antigun groups, NRA-ILA conducted a national scientific poll of NRA members and found near unanimity among NRA members on a wide range of issues involving mental health reform and firearm rights.

Gun control advocates including New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg, as well as various media outlets, have released data claiming to represent the views of NRA members, despite the fact that none of those surveys had access to the NRA's membership list. The NRA survey of 1,000 randomly-selected NRA members across the country is the only legitimate survey of NRA members on these issues.

The data from this survey indicates that NRA members are united in their desire for Washington to focus on keeping firearms from the mentally ill and to reject unconstitutional gun control measures that infringe on Second Amendment rights.

"Mayor Bloomberg's claims that gun owners are divided are totally false. It is nothing more than an attempt by anti-gun activists to further their long-standing political agenda," said NRA-ILA Executive Director Chris Cox. "American gun owners and Second Amendment supporters are ready for Washington to put politics aside and come together to fix our broken mental health system."

Key Findings:

91% of NRA members support laws keeping firearms away from the mentally ill.

92% of NRA members oppose gun confiscation via mandatory buy-back laws.

89% oppose banning semi-automatic firearms, often mistakenly called "assault rifles."

93% oppose a law requiring gun owners to register with the federal government.

92% oppose a federal law banning the sale of firearms between private citizens.

Methodology--The national survey was conducted by OnMessage Inc. Telephone interviews were conducted January 13-14, 2013. This survey consists of 1,000 NRA members and was stratified by state to reflect voter distribution in the 2012 presidential election. The margin of error for this survey is +/- 3.09%.

Full results available here.

FanOfTed Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> http://www.nraila.org/news-issues/articles/2013/1/
> survey-finds-nra-members-united.aspx

The National Rifle Association Institute for Legislative Action, bastion of objective gun surveys.

Oddly, the NRA-ILA asked NRA members about issues not being discussed in the gun debate, like gun confiscation via mandatory buy-back laws, a federal law banning the sale of firearms between private citizens, banning ALL semi-automatic firearms, etc.

So, the NRA-ILA asks outlandish questions about banning and confiscation that get the gunnuts all riled-up and gets the survey results it wants.

Straight out of the Alinsky playbook. You must be so proud.

Imperator Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> FanOfTed Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> >
> http://www.nraila.org/news-issues/articles/2013/1/
>
> > survey-finds-nra-members-united.aspx
>
> The National Rifle Association Institute for
> Legislative Action, bastion of objective gun
> surveys.
>
> Oddly, the NRA-ILA asked NRA members about issues
> not being discussed in the gun debate, like gun
> confiscation via mandatory buy-back laws, a
> federal law banning the sale of firearms between
> private citizens, banning ALL semi-automatic
> firearms, etc.
>
> So, the NRA-ILA asks outlandish questions about
> banning and confiscation that get the gunnuts all
> riled-up and gets the survey results it wants.
>
> Straight out of the Alinsky playbook. You must be
> so proud.

Those questions are not outlandish at all. Look what's going on
in NY and California at the State level. Obama et al is rubber
stamping the agenda of the Violence Policy Center and their
ultimate goal is to eliminate firearms and destroy the 2nd
Amendment incrementally. $oro$ footing the bill of course) You
might try reading Feinsteins bill.

FanOfTed Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Those questions are not outlandish at all. Look
> what's going on
> in NY and California at the State level.

Not even in NY & CA, is anyone talking about gun confiscation, banning the sale of firearms between private citizens, or banning ALL semi-automatic firearms.

> Obama et al is rubber stamping the agenda
> of the Violence Policy Center and their
> ultimate goal is to eliminate firearms and destroy
> destroy the 2nd Amendment incrementally.
> $oro$ footing the bill of course) You
> might try reading Feinsteins bill.

Thanks for regurgitating these NRA / right-wing nutjob talking points.

A few more details:

First on CNN: NRA charges Obama’s efforts will lead to gun confiscation
Posted by
CNN Political Director Mark Preston

Washington (CNN) – The National Rifle Association will assert that President Barack Obama’s attempt to enact new gun control laws will result in the “confiscation” of people’s firearms in a new web video scheduled to run in five states and the District of Columbia.

The video will go online around the time Obama begins delivering his State of the Union address, in which he is expected to mention his effort to reduce gun violence through legislative means.



NRA spokesman Andrew Arulanandam told CNN that the organization based its warning on what he said is a Justice Department document, “Summary of Select Firearm Violence Prevention Strategies,” that was written in January and given to the NRA.

A Justice Department spokeswoman told CNN that she couldn’t immediately authenticate the document, but did confirm that Greg Ridgeway, whose name appears on it, is currently deputy director of the National Institute of Justice, which is the DOJ’s research arm.

“This internal Justice Department memo says ‘an assault weapons ban is unlikely to have an impact on gun violence,’ ” NRA’s chief lobbyist Chris Cox says in the video that was provided to CNN before it aired online. “Unlikely, that is, unless it comes with something else. Obama’s experts say that a gun ban, like the one being debated right now in Congress, will not work without mandatory ‘gun buybacks and not exemptions.’ ”

Cox continued, “Mandatory gun buybacks. That’s government confiscation of legal firearms owned by honest citizens.”

Cox also said the report noted that gun registration would need to be part of the equation for universal background checks to be effective.

“Requiring gun registration with the federal government, that’s an illegal abuse of privacy and freedom unprecedented in our history,” said Cox, who then urged people to call Congress and express opposition to new gun regulations.

One of the NRA’s main talking points for opposing new gun regulations is that the federal government is attempting to take away citizens’ Second Amendment rights to own firearms.

The NRA will spend about $100,000 in the next 24 hours to run the 1 minute and 40 second video on various news web sites in Alaska, Arkansas, Louisiana, Colorado, South Dakota, and D.C., Arulanandam said. Each of the five states has a Democratic senator seeking re-election in 2014.

The emotional debate over enacting new gun regulations will hang heavy over the House chamber as gun rights advocates and victims of gun violence attend Obama’s address to the joint session of Congress.

CNN's Terry Frieden and Todd Sperry contributed to this report



http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2013/02/12/first-on-cnn-nra-charges-obamas-efforts-will-lead-to-gun-confiscation/

FanOfTed Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> A few more details:
>
> First on CNN: NRA charges Obama’s efforts will
> lead to gun confiscation

You're kidding! Gee, that is SO out-of-left-field! Color me surprised.

kevster Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
>
>
> I've heard that argument before and its highly
> flawed. As a society, we don't refrain from
> passing laws because we think the bad guys will
> ignore them. Of course people still murder and rob
> banks. But no-one says that there shouldn't be
> anti-murder laws because the crazies will kill
> anyways.
>
> Whatever laws are passed aren't perfect and won't
> solve the problem. But steps need to be taken,
> albeit baby ones.

That's all well and good but dont trample my rights to own a gun just to please the liberals. My God, most of the people killing each other are Obama voters anyway!

Blowtorch Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> That's all well and good but dont trample my
> rights to own a gun just to please the liberals.
> My God, most of the people killing each other are
> Obama voters anyway!


Go crawl back under your rock.

Imperator Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> FanOfTed Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > A few more details:
> >
> > First on CNN: NRA charges Obama’s efforts
> will
> > lead to gun confiscation
>
> You're kidding! Gee, that is SO
> out-of-left-field! Color me surprised.


Except that the administration's own memos confirm it. But you wouldn't know anything about that.

It seems Teds books are flying off the shelves lately.
Glad I already have a copy of "Kill It and Grill It"


With this book, you’ll learn everything you need to know about getting your dinner-on-the-hoof and savoring the world’s greatest “pissed-off protein.” There’s nothing better than that.
“How better to give honor to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness than party hardy with delicious meat, lovingly carved from the skeletons of protein-rich animals in their ultimate afterlife habitat of steel and charcoal?” – Ted Nugent

Over 50 recipes are provided including Biltong Jerky, Venison Honey Roast, Bar-B-Que Black Bear, Sweet ‘n’ Sour Antelope, Fresh Roasted Wood Duck, Wild Turkey Lettuce Wraps, Bubble Bean Piranha á la Colorado Moose, Squirrel Casserole, Pheasant Chow Mein and much, much more, including desserts!

CONTENTS
Introduction: Celebrate the Flesh
I Kill It, I Grill It
Celebrating Thriving Wildlife
Pure Sustenance – Butcher Your Own
Backstrap Fever
Sacred Venison
Dinner on the Hoof
Rock ‘n’ Roll Hogmando
Texas Wild Boar BBQ
Snowhogs
I Like My Pork Pissed Off
The Big Kahuna
Killin’ and Grillin’ Large Game in America
I Like Mine Rare, But Not That Rare
On the Sweeter Side…
Hasenpfeffer by Glock
Limbrat Étouffée
Bushytail Bushwhackin’
Duck, Duck, Goose
More Delicious Birding
Sexfried Fishslab
The Soul Sandwich
Hearty Hunting Soulfood
Appendix: Hunting and Conservation Groups
Recipe Index

http://www.tednugent.com/Store/Product.aspx?id=SB000007

look around Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Except that the administration's own memos confirm
> it. But you wouldn't know anything about that.

Hmmm...yes, 'the administration's own memos'. Where can one find these 'memos'?

Feinstein said on CBS-TV's 60 Minutes, February 5, 1995,

"If I could have gotten 51 votes in the Senate of the United States for an outright ban, picking up every one of them . . . Mr. and Mrs. America, turn 'em all in, I would have done it. I could not do that. The votes weren't here."[

FanOfTed Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Feinstein said on CBS-TV's 60 Minutes, February 5,
> 1995,
>
> "If I could have gotten 51 votes in the Senate of
> the United States for an outright ban, picking up
> every one of them . . . Mr. and Mrs. America, turn
> 'em all in, I would have done it. I could not do
> that. The votes weren't here."[

Eighteen years ago?

Today, in 2013, not even in NY & CA is anyone talking about gun confiscation, banning the sale of firearms between private citizens, or banning ALL semi-automatic firearms.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/13/2013 01:20PM by Imperator.

Imperator Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Blowtorch Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > That's all well and good but dont trample my
> > rights to own a gun just to please the
> liberals.
> > My God, most of the people killing each other
> are
> > Obama voters anyway!
>
>
> Go crawl back under your rock.

You're dumb as fuck. If you watched the SOTU, you would see all the lies he spewed and how ignorant congressional dems are. Future of the country is scary with how stupid and brainwashed people have become to accept this behavior.

Imperator Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> look around Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Except that the administration's own memos
> confirm
> > it. But you wouldn't know anything about that.
>
> Hmmm...yes, 'the administration's own memos'.
> Where can one find these 'memos'?

The National Institute of Justice created the memo on January 4, 2013. As it wasn't spoon fed to you, I am not surprised you haven't heard about it.

look around Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The National Institute of Justice created the memo
> on January 4, 2013.

'The' memo? Previously it was 'memos", now it's just one. Okay. What was the title of this January 4, 2013 memo?

Imperator Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> FanOfTed Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Feinstein said on CBS-TV's 60 Minutes, February
> 5,
> > 1995,
> >
> > "If I could have gotten 51 votes in the Senate
> of
> > the United States for an outright ban, picking
> up
> > every one of them . . . Mr. and Mrs. America,
> turn
> > 'em all in, I would have done it. I could not
> do
> > that. The votes weren't here."[
>
> Eighteen years ago?
>
> Today, in 2013, not even in NY & CA is anyone
> talking about gun confiscation, banning the sale
> of firearms between private citizens, or banning
> ALL semi-automatic firearms.

As I said before, it's an incremental plan to eliminate firearms and
the 2nd Amendment. Their next target would be "repeating" firearms such
as pumps, levers, and bolt actions. Then single shots, muzzle loaders, and
eventually bows and crossbows.

Remember when the Brady Bill passed? They brought out Brady 2 before the
ink was dry on Brady 1. The only thing that stopped it was when Newt
engineered a Republican takeover of the House of Represemtatives. We've
been down this road before.

Imperator Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> look around Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > The National Institute of Justice created the
> memo
> > on January 4, 2013.
>
> 'The' memo? Previously it was 'memos", now it's
> just one. Okay. What was the title of this
> January 4, 2013 memo?

Summary of Select Firearm Violence Prevention Strategies

Greg Ridgeway, Ph.D.
Deputy Director
National Institute of Justice

January 4, 2013

Which says:

"Since assault weapons are not a major contributor to US gun homicide and the existing stock of guns is large, an assault weapon ban is unlikely to have an impact on gun violence. If coupled with a gun buyback and no exemptions then it could be effective. The 1997 Australian gun buyback was massive in scale and, while it appears to have had no effect on gun homicide, Australia has had no mass shootings since the ban was put in place."

FanOfTed Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> As I said before, it's an incremental plan to
> eliminate firearms and
> the 2nd Amendment. Their next target would be
> "repeating" firearms such
> as pumps, levers, and bolt actions. Then single
> shots, muzzle loaders, and
> eventually bows and crossbows.

And as I said before, that's nothing more than NRA paranoia.

> Remember when the Brady Bill passed? They brought
> out Brady 2 before the
> ink was dry on Brady 1. The only thing that
> stopped it was when Newt
> engineered a Republican takeover of the House of
> Represemtatives. We've
> been down this road before.

Again, you're referring to events nearly twenty years ago. What's draconian gun control measures have been enacted in the interim? An assault weapons ban came and went and...that's about it.

So what?

Imperator Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> look around Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > The National Institute of Justice created the
> memo
> > on January 4, 2013.
>
> 'The' memo? Previously it was 'memos", now it's
> just one. Okay. What was the title of this
> January 4, 2013 memo?

See. This is the information that is readily available, yet for some reason you can't find it. Again, more proof that you are a regurgitator of OFA talking points. Think for yourself!

Spoonfed Yumm Yumm Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Summary of Select Firearm Violence Prevention
> Strategies
>
> Greg Ridgeway, Ph.D.
> Deputy Director
> National Institute of Justice
>
> January 4, 2013
>
> Which says:
>
> "Since assault weapons are not a major contributor
> to US gun homicide and the existing stock of guns
> is large, an assault weapon ban is unlikely to
> have an impact on gun violence. If coupled with a
> gun buyback and no exemptions then it could
> be effective. The 1997 Australian gun buyback was
> massive in scale and, while it appears to have had
> no effect on gun homicide, Australia has had no
> mass shootings since the ban was put in place."

What's wrong with gun buy-backs? Police departments regularly hold gun buy-backs and I've never heard the NRA complain about them. The memo says nothing about "mandatory buy-backs", so what's your point?

Imperator Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> FanOfTed Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > As I said before, it's an incremental plan to
> > eliminate firearms and
> > the 2nd Amendment. Their next target would be
> > "repeating" firearms such
> > as pumps, levers, and bolt actions. Then single
> > shots, muzzle loaders, and
> > eventually bows and crossbows.
>
> And as I said before, that's nothing more than NRA
> paranoia.
>
> > Remember when the Brady Bill passed? They
> brought
> > out Brady 2 before the
> > ink was dry on Brady 1. The only thing that
> > stopped it was when Newt
> > engineered a Republican takeover of the House
> of
> > Represemtatives. We've
> > been down this road before.
>
> Again, you're referring to events nearly twenty
> years ago. What's draconian gun control measures
> have been enacted in the interim? An assault
> weapons ban came and went and...that's about it.
>
> So what?

It's the same old Feinstein. She's just been waiting for the right
opportunity. Do you think all this just started over Sandy Hook?
The Violence Policy Center has been there all along, spewing their
venom, just waiting for their chance to ban everything. Take a look
at their website.

Imperator Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Spoonfed Yumm Yumm Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Summary of Select Firearm Violence Prevention
> > Strategies
> >
> > Greg Ridgeway, Ph.D.
> > Deputy Director
> > National Institute of Justice
> >
> > January 4, 2013
> >
> > Which says:
> >
> > "Since assault weapons are not a major
> contributor
> > to US gun homicide and the existing stock of
> guns
> > is large, an assault weapon ban is unlikely to
> > have an impact on gun violence. If coupled with
> a
> > gun buyback and no exemptions then it
> could
> > be effective. The 1997 Australian gun buyback
> was
> > massive in scale and, while it appears to have
> had
> > no effect on gun homicide, Australia has had no
> > mass shootings since the ban was put in place."
>
> What's wrong with gun buy-backs? Police
> departments regularly hold gun buy-backs and I've
> never heard the NRA complain about them. The memo
> says nothing about "mandatory buy-backs", so
> what's your point?


The focus of the memo is around the ineffectiveness of bans with exclusions. The discussion is presented in the context of the Australian model which was mandatory. That's the whole point of referencing it versus other buyback programs.

There's also been at least one bill proposed outlining a tax credit mechanism for such buybacks.

The kinds of "buy backs" that police have been conducting are a joke.
Nothing but junk gets turned in but they give the cops/politicians,
and the non-shooting public the warm and fuzzies.

FanOfTed Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> It's the same old Feinstein. She's just been
> waiting for the right
> opportunity. Do you think all this just started
> over Sandy Hook?

Are you really that afraid of one toothless old woman?

> The Violence Policy Center has been there all
> along, spewing their
> venom, just waiting for their chance to ban
> everything. Take a look
> at their website.

I did look @ the Violence Policy Center website. It seem like common sense to me. Where's the 'venom'?

Spoonfed Yumm Yumm Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The focus of the memo is around the
> ineffectiveness of bans with exclusions. The
> discussion is presented in the context of the
> Australian model which was mandatory. That's the
> whole point of referencing it versus other buyback
> programs.

'Exemptions', not exclusions; meaning a buy-back of all types of guns, exempting none. Also, the Australian reference was about the buy-back "[having] had no effect on gun homicide" but, "[Australia] has had no mass shootings since the ban was put in place." Your interpretation is completely wrong.

> There's also been at least one bill proposed
> outlining a tax credit mechanism for such
> buybacks.

Tax credits are incentives, analogous to the Cash-For-Clunkers, not a 'confiscation’.

Seriously, you are paranoid.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/13/2013 03:33PM by Imperator.

Imperator Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
>
> 'Exemptions', not exclusions; meaning a buy-back
> of all types of guns, exempting none. Also, the
> Australian reference was about the buy-back
> "[having] had no effect on gun homicide" but, "has
> had no mass shootings since the ban was put in
> place." Your interpretation is completely wrong.
>

No, exclusions was my wording but they can be used interchangeably in this context. But sticking, with the exact wording doesn't change the focus of the analysis. That being, assault weapons bans which do not reduce existing guns are ineffective. The reference to exemptions is not in the context of all guns; rather, specific to assault weapons, exemptions being grandfathering and other such exemptions from a ban:

Assault weapon ban

Twitter summary: Assault weapons are not a major contributor to gun crime. The existing stock of assault weapons is large, undercutting the effectiveness of bans with exemptions

Goal: Limit access to assault weapons.

Program: Ban the manufacture, sale, transfer, or possession of assault weapons.

Evidence: Guns are durable goods. The 1994 law exempted weapons manufactured before 1994. The exemption of pre-1994 models ensures that a large stock, estimated at 1.5 million, of existing weapons would persist. Prior to the 1994 ban, assault weapons were used in 2-8% of crimes. Therefore a complete elimination of assault weapons would not have a large impact on gun homicides.

A National Academy study of firearms and violence concluded that the weaknesses of the ban and the scientific literature suggest that the assault weapon ban did not have an effect on firearm homicides.

There is some evidence that the assault weapons bans can affect the availability of assault weapons. A 2004 study found that “Following implementation of the ban, the share of gun crimes involving [assault weapons] declined by 17% to 72% across the localities examined for this study (Baltimore, Miami, Milwaukee, Boston, St. Louis, and Anchorage)… This is consistent with patterns found in national data
on guns recovered by police and reported to ATF.” Weil and Knox (1997) found a sharp reduction in the number of assault weapons recovered by Baltimore police in the six months following Maryland’s ban on assault weapons. The federal ban came into effect a few months after Maryland’s ban, but Maryland’s ban had no provision grandfathering in already owned assault weapons.

Since assault weapons are not a major contributor to US gun homicide and the existing stock of guns is large, an assault weapon ban is unlikely to have an impact on gun violence. If coupled with a gun buyback and no exemptions then it could be effective. The 1997 Australian gun buyback was massive in scale and, while it appears to have had no effect on gun homicide, Australia has had no mass shootings since the ban was put in place."


> > There's also been at least one bill proposed
> > outlining a tax credit mechanism for such
> > buybacks.
>
> Tax credits are incentives, analogous to the
> Cash-For-Clunkers, not a 'confiscation’.
>
> Seriously, you are paranoid.


No, I'm not paranoid, I'm just realistic about the objectives of many on that side with respect to civilian ownership of "assault weapons." If you're claiming that there is not a significant number within the anti-gun movement who propose completely outlawing civilian ownership of "assault weapons," then you're either just not being realistic or disingenuous.

More taxes, more government, more spending, more hate the rich. Glad to see Obama is not subject to change

yo yo barry ma Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> More taxes, more government, more spending, more
> hate the rich. Glad to see Obama is not subject to
> change

Go crawl back under your rock.

Imperator Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> FanOfTed Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > It's the same old Feinstein. She's just been
> > waiting for the right
> > opportunity. Do you think all this just started
> > over Sandy Hook?
>
> Are you really that afraid of one toothless old
> woman?
>
> > The Violence Policy Center has been there all
> > along, spewing their
> > venom, just waiting for their chance to ban
> > everything. Take a look
> > at their website.
>
> I did look @ the Violence Policy Center website.
> It seem like common sense to me. Where's the
> 'venom'?

"Common sense public safety measures" is a common phrase found on
VPC website. The phrase miraculously makes it's way into liberal
rags like the Washington Post. It means take what they can get for
now and try the rest later, one piece at a time. Been there, done
that. If you want to see their venom/hatred in action, take a look
at Facebook.

I thought Nugent last year told an NRA convention that he’d be “dead or in jail” if the president was re-elected.

I guess he was wrong. Crazy loon child molester.

Imperator Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> Today, in 2013, not even in NY & CA is anyone
> talking about gun confiscation, banning the sale
> of firearms between private citizens, or banning
> ALL semi-automatic firearms.


What's that you say?

http://www.house.mo.gov/billtracking/bills131/biltxt/intro/HB0545I.HTM

4. Any person who, prior to the effective date of this law, was legally in possession of an assault weapon or large capacity magazine shall have ninety days from such effective date to do any of the following without being subject to prosecution:

(1) Remove the assault weapon or large capacity magazine from the state of Missouri;

(2) Render the assault weapon permanently inoperable; or

(3) Surrender the assault weapon or large capacity magazine to the appropriate law enforcement agency for destruction, subject to specific agency regulations.

Nugent is an asshole.
Attachments:

Imperator Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> yo yo barry ma Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > More taxes, more government, more spending,
> more
> > hate the rich. Glad to see Obama is not subject
> to
> > change
>
> Go crawl back under your rock.


Aren't you a nasty fuck....... Actually, you sound like fairfaxdude. Remember that angry piece of shit?

MO Democrats Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> 4. Any person who, prior to the effective date of
> this law, was legally in possession of an assault
> weapon or large capacity magazine shall have
> ninety days from such effective date to do any of
> the following without being subject to
> prosecution:

As I said, today, in 2013, no one talking about banning ALL semi-automatic firearms.

I will only listen to TED is he speaks in SPANISH, the new language of the illegal loving GOP!

Ha - they are sucking latino dick at a incredible rate.

So, Ted and the illegals can all get togerther and put on a show.

how many people think the GOP is going to be dead and gone after 2016?

Imperator Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> MO Democrats Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > 4. Any person who, prior to the effective date
> of
> > this law, was legally in possession of an
> assault
> > weapon or large capacity magazine shall
> have
> > ninety days from such effective date to do any
> of
> > the following without being subject to
> > prosecution:
>
> As I said, today, in 2013, no one talking about
> banning ALL semi-automatic firearms.


As YOU said, "not even in NY & CA is anyone talking about gun confiscation."

What do you call the proposed MO law?

The only way the republicans can top Nugent is have Lady Gaga at the next State of the Union.

MO Democrats Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> As YOU said, "not even in NY & CA is anyone
> talking about gun confiscation."

The Missourian owning such a weapon or magazine has two options besides surrender of their weapon or magazine to the authorities:

(1) Remove the assault weapon or large capacity magazine from the state of Missouri; or

(2) Render the assault weapon permanently inoperable.

Imperator Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> MO Democrats Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > As YOU said, "not even in NY & CA is anyone
> > talking about gun confiscation."
>
> The Missourian owning such a weapon or magazine
> has two options besides surrender of their weapon
> or magazine to the authorities:
>
> (1) Remove the assault weapon or large capacity
> magazine from the state of Missouri; or
>
> (2) Render the assault weapon permanently
> inoperable.


Irrelevant. You idicated that "not even in NY & CA is anyone talking about gun confiscation." The statute clearly contemplates gun confiscation. The other two options are meaningless.

Teddy Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The new spokesperson for the GOP. No, seriously
> the GOP is hopeful he will connect with the
> average American. LMAO!


That is crazy isn't it. Choom Gang LMAO!

.
Attachments:

Imperator Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> DwokkaDwokka Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > I think it's great that the right wants Ted
> Nugent
> > to speak for them. More Ted Nugent, more often.
>
> > He has a lot of appeal to normal, middle-class,
> > Americans. He doesn't look or sound the least
> bit
> > insane. He hasn't said literally THOUSANDS of
> > loony things.
>
> Once the electorate realizes that the political
> musing of Ted Nugent represent the mainstream of
> conservative thought...
>
> Eastwood's conversation with a chair at the 2012
> RNC will seem a high water mark.

LMAO! Now that was funny!

Certainly funny that republicans want Ted Nugent as a representative.

Why stop with Nugent. I here Gary Busey will be available after his second round on the Apprentice.