Ted Nugent Goes Off on Piers Morgan

[Lonestar_logic]

What were the medical reasons? And provide a link.

I would have no way of knowing that. And I already provided a link to the actual document that states he was given a medical deferment.

The only thing I have to go on is "The Nuge's" own testimony, where he stated, plainly, that he intentionally took drugs and then intentionally defecated on the floor during his physical.

So, who am I to believe? "The Nuge" of 1977, or the Nuge of later years?

Either way, the Nuge is a liar.

And, since the fact that he got a medical deferment seems to support the early Nuge, rather than the later Nuge, I'm going to say that early Nuge's account is more credible than the later Nuge's.

And throughout all of these Nuge's, there was one constant theme:

The Nuge admitted to the fact, multiple times, that he ducked out of serving in Vietnam, not because of some philosophical differences with the war, but because he was scared.

And all of that makes the Nuge a pussy.

Testimony that was admittingly a made up story.

Face it, your only speculating. You have no proof of anything you say only circumstantial BS. And no he made that statement in ONE interview, not multiple times.

If it makes you feel like a tough guy calling Ted a pussy then go right ahead, but I doubt you'd have the balls to say that to his face. But go ahead and say you would.

 

[Jarlaxle]

How do you explain that the country with the highest percentage of gun ownership (Norway) has the lowest murder rate in Europe while the country with the lowest percentage of gun ownership (Holland) has one of the highest murder rates in Europe.

Was that "common sense" enough for you?

I thought the highest percentage of gun ownership in Europe was Switzerland, not Norway?

 

[Jarlaxle]

Link to the High Times.

No way on this planet did Ted ever do drugs.

And anyone who says so is a mother trucking liar.

The Nuge has always been anti drug and anti booze.

You people are liars.

I recall he was a drinker for a while (though not lately)...and I KNOW he smoked. Nothing harder than that, though.

 

[Jarlaxle]

Hey stupid, that interview was a joke and everyone but you liberals know it. He also said he fucked a goat. But I imagine you believe that too.

I challenge you to back up that accusation and all it takes is a FOIA request.

I did back up that accusation, jackass.

Look at the damn link. he received 2 physical disability deferments.

Tell me, what did he receive them for? Was he missing a hand that he suddenly grew back afterwards?

If there were a draft, I would get a deferment (actually, I'd probably be classed 4F) because of a physical disability. It's not obvious, but I have two bad knees. My friend would also be 4F...he looks perfectly fine & is in good shape...but he is diabetic. His father WAS 4F (tried to enlist in the Marines) because he is deaf in one ear. Many physical problems disqualify someone from serving but are not serious impairments to a normal life!

 

[Oldstyle]

How do you explain that the country with the highest percentage of gun ownership (Norway) has the lowest murder rate in Europe while the country with the lowest percentage of gun ownership (Holland) has one of the highest murder rates in Europe.

Was that "common sense" enough for you?

I thought the highest percentage of gun ownership in Europe was Switzerland, not Norway?

According to the Harvard study...Norway has the highest per capita gun ownership in Europe but according to another more recent source Switzerland is highest. The numbers are so close though, Jarlaxle (45.7 guns per hundred people to 45.3 guns per hundred) that it's basically a dead heat.

My basic point remains the same however...there does not seem to be an increase in violent crime in countries that have high gun ownership but rather the opposite. The more guns private individuals possess the less violent crime takes place. The flip side of that is Holland which has far fewer guns (3.9 guns per hundred) has a much higher incidence of violent crime.

If the rationale for passing stricter gun control laws is to "make us safer"...then the reality of the situation is that doesn't seem to work. Stricter gun laws would seem to make you more likely to be the victim of a violent crime. I know that some people here don't want to hear that...because it messes up their main argument as to why we should gut second amendment rights but it's hard to look at studies like the ones that Harvard did and not wonder why we would want to go that way.

 

[AmericanFirst]

Like the socialist piece of shit clinton dodged the draft and that idiot was vored into office by you idiots.

 

[Jarlaxle]

How do you explain that the country with the highest percentage of gun ownership (Norway) has the lowest murder rate in Europe while the country with the lowest percentage of gun ownership (Holland) has one of the highest murder rates in Europe.

Was that "common sense" enough for you?

I thought the highest percentage of gun ownership in Europe was Switzerland, not Norway?

According to the Harvard study...Norway has the highest per capita gun ownership in Europe but according to another more recent source Switzerland is highest. The numbers are so close though, Jarlaxle (45.7 guns per hundred people to 45.3 guns per hundred) that it's basically a dead heat.

My basic point remains the same however...there does not seem to be an increase in violent crime in countries that have high gun ownership but rather the opposite. The more guns private individuals possess the less violent crime takes place. The flip side of that is Holland which has far fewer guns (3.9 guns per hundred) has a much higher incidence of violent crime.

If the rationale for passing stricter gun control laws is to "make us safer"...then the reality of the situation is that doesn't seem to work. Stricter gun laws would seem to make you more likely to be the victim of a violent crime. I know that some people here don't want to hear that...because it messes up their main argument as to why we should gut second amendment rights but it's hard to look at studies like the ones that Harvard did and not wonder why we would want to go that way.

I'm not doubting you, I was just very surprised.

 

[Oldstyle]

I thought the highest percentage of gun ownership in Europe was Switzerland, not Norway?

According to the Harvard study...Norway has the highest per capita gun ownership in Europe but according to another more recent source Switzerland is highest. The numbers are so close though, Jarlaxle (45.7 guns per hundred people to 45.3 guns per hundred) that it's basically a dead heat.

My basic point remains the same however...there does not seem to be an increase in violent crime in countries that have high gun ownership but rather the opposite. The more guns private individuals possess the less violent crime takes place. The flip side of that is Holland which has far fewer guns (3.9 guns per hundred) has a much higher incidence of violent crime.

If the rationale for passing stricter gun control laws is to "make us safer"...then the reality of the situation is that doesn't seem to work. Stricter gun laws would seem to make you more likely to be the victim of a violent crime. I know that some people here don't want to hear that...because it messes up their main argument as to why we should gut second amendment rights but it's hard to look at studies like the ones that Harvard did and not wonder why we would want to go that way.

I'm not doubting you, I was just very surprised.

As I believe were most of the progressive on this board, Jarlaxle! They want you to believe that passing stricter gun control laws like much of Europe will make us all safer yet the statistics don't bear that out.

Unfortunately taking away your right to bear arms doesn't mean that criminals and crazies aren't still going to try and harm you...it just means you've lost a great deal of your ability to defend yourself against them.

I carry a concealed weapon not because I want to shoot someone...I carry because I don't want to be a victim or have a loved one become a victim. You on the other hand may choose to leave such matters to fate...and I wish you the best of luck with that. From personal experience I've learned that the Police very seldom stop crime before it happens. They may arrest and convict the person that has harmed you or your loved ones at a later date but that's a rather small comfort. I prefer to be a bit more pro-active.

 

[sfcalifornia]

How do you explain that the country with the highest percentage of gun ownership (Norway) has the lowest murder rate in Europe while the country with the lowest percentage of gun ownership (Holland) has one of the highest murder rates in Europe.

Was that "common sense" enough for you?

I thought the highest percentage of gun ownership in Europe was Switzerland, not Norway?

According to the Harvard study...Norway has the highest per capita gun ownership in Europe but according to another more recent source Switzerland is highest. The numbers are so close though, Jarlaxle (45.7 guns per hundred people to 45.3 guns per hundred) that it's basically a dead heat.

My basic point remains the same however...there does not seem to be an increase in violent crime in countries that have high gun ownership but rather the opposite. The more guns private individuals possess the less violent crime takes place. The flip side of that is Holland which has far fewer guns (3.9 guns per hundred) has a much higher incidence of violent crime.

If the rationale for passing stricter gun control laws is to "make us safer"...then the reality of the situation is that doesn't seem to work. Stricter gun laws would seem to make you more likely to be the victim of a violent crime. I know that some people here don't want to hear that...because it messes up their main argument as to why we should gut second amendment rights but it's hard to look at studies like the ones that Harvard did and not wonder why we would want to go that way.

And yet Japan, a country in which guns pretty much don't exist, has one of the lowest crime rates in the world.

 

[kidrocks]

According to the Harvard study...Norway has the highest per capita gun ownership in Europe but according to another more recent source Switzerland is highest. The numbers are so close though, Jarlaxle (45.7 guns per hundred people to 45.3 guns per hundred) that it's basically a dead heat.

My basic point remains the same however...there does not seem to be an increase in violent crime in countries that have high gun ownership but rather the opposite. The more guns private individuals possess the less violent crime takes place. The flip side of that is Holland which has far fewer guns (3.9 guns per hundred) has a much higher incidence of violent crime.

If the rationale for passing stricter gun control laws is to "make us safer"...then the reality of the situation is that doesn't seem to work. Stricter gun laws would seem to make you more likely to be the victim of a violent crime. I know that some people here don't want to hear that...because it messes up their main argument as to why we should gut second amendment rights but it's hard to look at studies like the ones that Harvard did and not wonder why we would want to go that way.

I'm not doubting you, I was just very surprised.

As I believe were most of the progressive on this board, Jarlaxle! They want you to believe that passing stricter gun control laws like much of Europe will make us all safer yet the statistics don't bear that out.

Unfortunately taking away your right to bear arms doesn't mean that criminals and crazies aren't still going to try and harm you...it just means you've lost a great deal of your ability to defend yourself against them.

I carry a concealed weapon not because I want to shoot someone...I carry because I don't want to be a victim or have a loved one become a victim. You on the other hand may choose to leave such matters to fate...and I wish you the best of luck with that. From personal experience I've learned that the Police very seldom stop crime before it happens. They may arrest and convict the person that has harmed you or your loved ones at a later date but that's a rather small comfort. I prefer to be a bit more pro-active.

Concealed guns do nothing to stop violent crimes here in America, criminals do not stop to analyze as to who may or may not be armed. The most violent country in the world is America and your guns (3 to 4 hundred million) do nothing to stop the crime-wave. I think there are 10,000 gun related deaths every year here to make things worse.

You are pro-active and that means you are taking a risk in that you are putting yourself, your loved ones or even your friends in harms way via accidental shooting or your guns falling into the wrong hands (children). Arguments and or the 'heat of passion' do not mix well with guns either. This is a risk I would never, ever take with my family!!!

No guns in my family!

 

[kidrocks]

I thought the highest percentage of gun ownership in Europe was Switzerland, not Norway?

According to the Harvard study...Norway has the highest per capita gun ownership in Europe but according to another more recent source Switzerland is highest. The numbers are so close though, Jarlaxle (45.7 guns per hundred people to 45.3 guns per hundred) that it's basically a dead heat.

My basic point remains the same however...there does not seem to be an increase in violent crime in countries that have high gun ownership but rather the opposite. The more guns private individuals possess the less violent crime takes place. The flip side of that is Holland which has far fewer guns (3.9 guns per hundred) has a much higher incidence of violent crime.

If the rationale for passing stricter gun control laws is to "make us safer"...then the reality of the situation is that doesn't seem to work. Stricter gun laws would seem to make you more likely to be the victim of a violent crime. I know that some people here don't want to hear that...because it messes up their main argument as to why we should gut second amendment rights but it's hard to look at studies like the ones that Harvard did and not wonder why we would want to go that way.

And yet Japan, a country in which guns pretty much don't exist, has one of the lowest crime rates in the world.

England too.

 

[kidrocks]

Like the socialist piece of shit clinton dodged the draft and that idiot was vored into office by you idiots.

TWICE!

 

[Dubya]

According to the Harvard study...Norway has the highest per capita gun ownership in Europe but according to another more recent source Switzerland is highest. The numbers are so close though, Jarlaxle (45.7 guns per hundred people to 45.3 guns per hundred) that it's basically a dead heat.

My basic point remains the same however...there does not seem to be an increase in violent crime in countries that have high gun ownership but rather the opposite. The more guns private individuals possess the less violent crime takes place. The flip side of that is Holland which has far fewer guns (3.9 guns per hundred) has a much higher incidence of violent crime.

If the rationale for passing stricter gun control laws is to "make us safer"...then the reality of the situation is that doesn't seem to work. Stricter gun laws would seem to make you more likely to be the victim of a violent crime. I know that some people here don't want to hear that...because it messes up their main argument as to why we should gut second amendment rights but it's hard to look at studies like the ones that Harvard did and not wonder why we would want to go that way.

I'm not doubting you, I was just very surprised.

As I believe were most of the progressive on this board, Jarlaxle! They want you to believe that passing stricter gun control laws like much of Europe will make us all safer yet the statistics don't bear that out.

Unfortunately taking away your right to bear arms doesn't mean that criminals and crazies aren't still going to try and harm you...it just means you've lost a great deal of your ability to defend yourself against them.

I carry a concealed weapon not because I want to shoot someone...I carry because I don't want to be a victim or have a loved one become a victim. You on the other hand may choose to leave such matters to fate...and I wish you the best of luck with that. From personal experience I've learned that the Police very seldom stop crime before it happens. They may arrest and convict the person that has harmed you or your loved ones at a later date but that's a rather small comfort. I prefer to be a bit more pro-active.

People who carry a concealed weapon are also capable of committing a crime with it.

The fact is, if we had laws requiring background checks and renewable registration with ballistics testing we all would a lot safer, because only criminals would find it harder to get a gun. If laws were added to give harsh penalites for possessing an unregistered weapon, people wouldn't be playing Dodge City on our streets.

 

[ABikerSailor]

Quick question..............................

When was the last time that someone with a concealed carry liscence stopped a crime involving guns?

The shooting of Kathy Giffords had someone with a CCL, yet they didn't stop the carnage.

Wanna explain why they didn't? According to LaPierre, the only defense against a bad man with a gun is a good man with a gun.

Why was it then when he had to reload that he was brought down by ordinary people? One man in the crowd had a CCL, yet didn't stop the bad man?

 

[American_Jihad]

12/19/2012
Concealed carry people stopping crime: Some more cases that I had previous missed from the last four months

-- SURVEILLANCE VID SHOWS 71-YEAR-OLD CONCEALED CARRY HOLDER OPENING FIRE ON WOULD-BE ROBBERS

-- Something from the recent Portland Mall Shooting (from Investors Business Daily):

Before the tragedy in Connecticut, a shooter at an Oregon shopping mall was stopped by an armed citizen with a concealed carry permit who refused to be a victim, preventing another mass tragedy.
In the target-rich environment of the Clackamas Town Center two weeks before Christmas, the shooter managed to kill only two people before killing himself. A far worse tragedy was prevented when he was confronted by a hero named Nick Meli.
As the shooter was having difficulty with his weapon, Meli pulled his and took aim, reluctant to fire lest an innocent bystander be hit. But he didn't have to pull the trigger: The shooter fled when confronted, ending his own life before it could be done for him.
We will never know how many lives were saved by an armed citizen that day. . . .




John Lott's Website: Concealed carry people stopping crime: Some more cases that I had previous missed from the last four months


...

 

[Jarlaxle]

According to the Harvard study...Norway has the highest per capita gun ownership in Europe but according to another more recent source Switzerland is highest. The numbers are so close though, Jarlaxle (45.7 guns per hundred people to 45.3 guns per hundred) that it's basically a dead heat.

My basic point remains the same however...there does not seem to be an increase in violent crime in countries that have high gun ownership but rather the opposite. The more guns private individuals possess the less violent crime takes place. The flip side of that is Holland which has far fewer guns (3.9 guns per hundred) has a much higher incidence of violent crime.

If the rationale for passing stricter gun control laws is to "make us safer"...then the reality of the situation is that doesn't seem to work. Stricter gun laws would seem to make you more likely to be the victim of a violent crime. I know that some people here don't want to hear that...because it messes up their main argument as to why we should gut second amendment rights but it's hard to look at studies like the ones that Harvard did and not wonder why we would want to go that way.

I'm not doubting you, I was just very surprised.

As I believe were most of the progressive on this board, Jarlaxle! They want you to believe that passing stricter gun control laws like much of Europe will make us all safer yet the statistics don't bear that out.

Unfortunately taking away your right to bear arms doesn't mean that criminals and crazies aren't still going to try and harm you...it just means you've lost a great deal of your ability to defend yourself against them.

I carry a concealed weapon not because I want to shoot someone...I carry because I don't want to be a victim or have a loved one become a victim. You on the other hand may choose to leave such matters to fate...and I wish you the best of luck with that. From personal experience I've learned that the Police very seldom stop crime before it happens. They may arrest and convict the person that has harmed you or your loved ones at a later date but that's a rather small comfort. I prefer to be a bit more pro-active.

The only reason I don't carry is because it is not practical at work. My wife DOES carry.

 

[Jarlaxle]

I'm not doubting you, I was just very surprised.

As I believe were most of the progressive on this board, Jarlaxle! They want you to believe that passing stricter gun control laws like much of Europe will make us all safer yet the statistics don't bear that out.

Unfortunately taking away your right to bear arms doesn't mean that criminals and crazies aren't still going to try and harm you...it just means you've lost a great deal of your ability to defend yourself against them.

I carry a concealed weapon not because I want to shoot someone...I carry because I don't want to be a victim or have a loved one become a victim. You on the other hand may choose to leave such matters to fate...and I wish you the best of luck with that. From personal experience I've learned that the Police very seldom stop crime before it happens. They may arrest and convict the person that has harmed you or your loved ones at a later date but that's a rather small comfort. I prefer to be a bit more pro-active.

Concealed guns do nothing to stop violent crimes here in America, criminals do not stop to analyze as to who may or may not be armed. The most violent country in the world is America and your guns (3 to 4 hundred million) do nothing to stop the crime-wave. I think there are 10,000 gun related deaths every year here to make things worse.

No, that's wrong! States that passed shall-issue CCW laws had crime rates go DOWN. If you think criminals don't take notice when those laws are passed, you're delusional.

You are pro-active and that means you are taking a risk in that you are putting yourself, your loved ones or even your friends in harms way via accidental shooting or your guns falling into the wrong hands (children). Arguments and or the 'heat of passion' do not mix well with guns either. This is a risk I would never, ever take with my family!!!

No guns in my family!

Your stark terror of inanimate objects is noted.

 

[Oldstyle]

I'm not doubting you, I was just very surprised.

As I believe were most of the progressive on this board, Jarlaxle! They want you to believe that passing stricter gun control laws like much of Europe will make us all safer yet the statistics don't bear that out.

Unfortunately taking away your right to bear arms doesn't mean that criminals and crazies aren't still going to try and harm you...it just means you've lost a great deal of your ability to defend yourself against them.

I carry a concealed weapon not because I want to shoot someone...I carry because I don't want to be a victim or have a loved one become a victim. You on the other hand may choose to leave such matters to fate...and I wish you the best of luck with that. From personal experience I've learned that the Police very seldom stop crime before it happens. They may arrest and convict the person that has harmed you or your loved ones at a later date but that's a rather small comfort. I prefer to be a bit more pro-active.

Concealed guns do nothing to stop violent crimes here in America, criminals do not stop to analyze as to who may or may not be armed. The most violent country in the world is America and your guns (3 to 4 hundred million) do nothing to stop the crime-wave. I think there are 10,000 gun related deaths every year here to make things worse.

You are pro-active and that means you are taking a risk in that you are putting yourself, your loved ones or even your friends in harms way via accidental shooting or your guns falling into the wrong hands (children). Arguments and or the 'heat of passion' do not mix well with guns either. This is a risk I would never, ever take with my family!!!

No guns in my family!

Criminals make judgement calls every day on which person would make a good victim. They rob one person and not another because they sense opportunity and weakness. If you take away the threat of concealed carries you remove one more variable from that judgement being made by the criminals. If you think that makes you safer then I think you're deluding yourself.

Criminals rob 7/11's instead of casinos not because there is more money at the local 7/11 but because there aren't lots of people carrying guns there. If you passed a law tomorrow that no security in a casino was allowed to carry a gun but that every clerk in a 7/11 HAD to carry a gun, then that would change. Why? Because criminals are opportunistic. So when the pschopathic thug decides that you or your family look like a ripe target? Good luck trying to defend them with "good intentions".

And if you're truely worried about a "heat of passion" killing then I guess you should remove all knives from your house and any objects that could be used to bludgeon someone to death? Or does your family only get violent if a firearm is present?

 

[Oldstyle]

According to the Harvard study...Norway has the highest per capita gun ownership in Europe but according to another more recent source Switzerland is highest. The numbers are so close though, Jarlaxle (45.7 guns per hundred people to 45.3 guns per hundred) that it's basically a dead heat.

My basic point remains the same however...there does not seem to be an increase in violent crime in countries that have high gun ownership but rather the opposite. The more guns private individuals possess the less violent crime takes place. The flip side of that is Holland which has far fewer guns (3.9 guns per hundred) has a much higher incidence of violent crime.

If the rationale for passing stricter gun control laws is to "make us safer"...then the reality of the situation is that doesn't seem to work. Stricter gun laws would seem to make you more likely to be the victim of a violent crime. I know that some people here don't want to hear that...because it messes up their main argument as to why we should gut second amendment rights but it's hard to look at studies like the ones that Harvard did and not wonder why we would want to go that way.

And yet Japan, a country in which guns pretty much don't exist, has one of the lowest crime rates in the world.

England too.

You obviously didn't read the Harvard study! Violent crime rates in England have been increasing at a rapid rate since they banned private gun ownership. I'm sorry but what's happening in England runs counter to your argument.

 

[Oldstyle]

I'm not doubting you, I was just very surprised.

As I believe were most of the progressive on this board, Jarlaxle! They want you to believe that passing stricter gun control laws like much of Europe will make us all safer yet the statistics don't bear that out.

Unfortunately taking away your right to bear arms doesn't mean that criminals and crazies aren't still going to try and harm you...it just means you've lost a great deal of your ability to defend yourself against them.

I carry a concealed weapon not because I want to shoot someone...I carry because I don't want to be a victim or have a loved one become a victim. You on the other hand may choose to leave such matters to fate...and I wish you the best of luck with that. From personal experience I've learned that the Police very seldom stop crime before it happens. They may arrest and convict the person that has harmed you or your loved ones at a later date but that's a rather small comfort. I prefer to be a bit more pro-active.

People who carry a concealed weapon are also capable of committing a crime with it.

The fact is, if we had laws requiring background checks and renewable registration with ballistics testing we all would a lot safer, because only criminals would find it harder to get a gun. If laws were added to give harsh penalites for possessing an unregistered weapon, people wouldn't be playing Dodge City on our streets.

Your logic on this is so flawed it's laughable. We have stricter gun laws in Chicago and yet more people are dying from guns there than anywhere else in the country! Why? BECAUSE CRIMINALS DON'T OBEY THE LAW!!! THAT'S WHY THEY ARE CRIMINALS IN THE FIRST PLACE!!!

You aren't going to make it harder for criminals to commit a crime with a weapon...you're going to make it easier. Why? Because if you make it impossible for law abiding citizens to own and carry guns then the criminals don't have to concern themselves with having their victims defend themselves.