Fox News Escalates Pro-Gun Campaign With Help From Ted Nugent

True to form, Fox News is rolling out a massive PR blitz in favor of the NRA’s “Guns Everywhere” agenda. It’s a free advertising bonanza for gun nuts and rightist politicians who exploit the controversy as a wedge issue. This morning there were fourteen separate stories on Fox Nation in addition to those airing on multiple programs on the Fox News Channel. And in every case the tone mirrored gun worshipers who are willing to tolerate mass murder every so often in order to hang on to their assault weapons.

Ted Nugent

Much of what is giving them their latest case of the willies is an off-hand remark by Vice-President Joe Biden. Speaking about bipartisan meetings with people and groups concerned about the subject, he told reporters that “There are executive orders, executive action that can be taken.” That was all it took to heat up the right to boiling, even though the reality is that there are very few and limited measures that can be implemented in that manner. Biden was merely referencing the fact that his review would be comprehensive, as any responsible approach to such a serious subject should be.

The resulting outrage echoed across the mediasphere with lunatics like Alex Jones threatening an armed rebellion, and NRA board member Ted Nugent comparing gun nuts to Rosa Parks. An item on Drudge made comparisons to Stalin and Hitler. Of course the usual suspects in the pundit and political classes immediately began inciting fears of a tyrannical Obama confiscating all guns and abolishing the Constitution. Among those were Fox’s Charles Krauthammer, who declared any regulation of guns was unconstitutional and would lead to an insurrection, and newly minted Tea Party senator Ted Cruz, who concurred.

It really is impossible to have a rational, productive discussion with hair-trigger crackpots like these inflaming their followers and distorting the facts. They disregard the actual legal precedents with regard to regulation, as well as their own saner associates (i.e. Gen. Stanley McChrystal), and even recent polls that show that majorities of NRA members favor stricter controls on certain types of guns. In this environment it will require lawmakers to focus on the facts and the people’s will, rather than the lobbyists and political opportunists, if we hope to make our country safer.


25 thoughts on “Fox News Escalates Pro-Gun Campaign With Help From Ted Nugent

  1. Someone please remind these silly ranter’s on fox that is was Bush with an Executive Order to ban all assault rifles unless they were “for sport”. So why are they going on about someone going to use the same thing to close that “for sport” part.

    Oh wait, fact’s, truth and him being one of “them”… nvm. Guess that Bush forgot to define “for sport” as for human sport… sheesh.

  2. I don’t know why, but appropriating the magnificent Rosa Parks by the rightwing crazies to further their cause offends me even more than when they try to claim Martin Luther King as one of their own.

  3. “And in every case the tone mirrored gun worshipers who are willing to tolerate mass murder every so often in order to hang on to their assault weapons.” And for a moment I thought I had gone to far stating you – Mark Howard – believe in the Absolute supremacy of the state in a previous post that pissed you off so much – I guess it never takes too long to prove me right in my assessment, you just can’t help it – you are who you are. Who would you nominate as dictator if you could get all guns out of our hands?

    • You interpret things in a hyperbolic way and you do that shit on purpose. It’s getting old. I don’t exactly agree with mark on this issue, but I know damn well what he’s saying and it isn’t what you go out of your way to distort in your hyperbolic reactions. it’s no wonder mark always knocks your reading comprehension, but like I said, you do that shit on purpose. You have your moments, rarely. But then you go and take five steps back with this kind of bullshit Steve. I don’t know if you realize, but trolling is immature as hell. IT UNDERMINES everything you say.

      • The way I see it is as follows: There is a problem to be solved – right? – in this case, random acts of violence that result in the loss of innocent life. Same thing as when 9/11 happened and there was a republican president. The state solution to a problem is invaribly to take away rights or reduce freedom. I say “state solution” because” it’s not only progressives, but whatever the republican party is (and it’s not conservative) that does this. Mark is one voice in the progressive chorus and he isn’t much different than others. The approach is the same – solve the problem by taking away freedom of others. yes, I know it’s stated to be done for the benefit of all, but it’s wrong. You can make the same argument for abortion, can’t you? You libs fight like crazy if anyone suggests curbs on it – it’s no different. You can say I take an extreme view of these “solutions”, but I don’t think I’m at all wrong in this case as it’s done the same way by those who believe what you do too.

        • Oh believe me buddy, I get that. But nothing in what you just said has anything to do with what I said. In that you know full well mark isn’t a ‘state supremacist’, and what he said in this article doesn’t even come close to that. I get the whole ‘the boldest measures are always the safest’ fear, especially in an emotional response to a tragedy. We want to think we can do something to stop evil, and some think that extreme measures in gun control will do that. I don’t, but that isn’t what anybody is talking about. They’re talking about limiting magazine capacity, and banning future sales of assault rifles. I know this won’t do dick to stop evil, and those that do want to do it because they’re pissed and afraid. What part of that is ‘giving the state supreme power’?

          I mean, Steve…I’m on your side of this issue. How about that, huh? A liberal progressive ‘statist’ that is against gun control? But you have to realize, your hyperbole undermines any logical argument you could make here. You gotta cool it with that shit. I mean, Mark is for gun control so he’s a ‘state supremacist’? Really?? And dude, forcing hospitals and other medical care facilities that are run by the church to comply with modern medicine instead of picking and choosing what they see as medicine and what is against their religious values is not infringing on their first amendment rights. If you run hospitals that treat everybody, regardless of religion, then you need to practice proper modern medicine. If your gonna run a hospital, great, but it needs to be in compliance with proper modern medical science. If they forced them to USE birth control, that would be different. You see that difference, right?

        • I forgot to put in there that I also know that a weapon is only as deadly as the person wielding it.

  4. These gun nuts crack me up. Their delusion that their guns make them free is laughable. How is their gun going to preserve their freedom against a tyrannical government? When will Ted Nugent decide it is time to rise up and go after Uncle Sam? What a bunch of morons. There are ways to protect gun rights and people from lunatics who use them to kill people. Ted Nugent owns a bunch of guns and he is insane and hasn’t hurt anyone with a gun; even though he threatened the President and our Secretary of State Hillary Clinton with gun violence. You see if push came to shove a blowhard like Ted Nugent would never pick up a gun and fight for his or anyone else’s ‘freedom’. He is way too chicken shit for that and he proved as much when he dodged the Vietnam era draft to avoid fighting with a gun against people who never did anything to him. Why does Ted want to take up arms now?, against people who have never done anything to him. I think he makes money by promoting himself to the gun loving segment of our society. I like to remember the old saying ‘the pen is mightier than the sword’.

    • And there is the proof of what I wrote above – a progressive (statist) solution to a problem is always the same, take away the rights of the law abiding citizen – even when those rights are specifically protected in the Bill of Rights. Would you be as open to reducing rights if it were something like abortion? I sure not. Don’t act like your so enlightened when your solution is to infringe on others freedom. If this amendment should be ignored, shall the 1st be next? I forgot, it was already ignored by this president, so i guess we’ll go in numerical order.

      • Steve, in your next post could you try to be even more ignorant of the Constitution? I think that would be an interesting challenge for you.

        There is nothing unconstitutional about regulating guns. It was specifically found to be constitutional by the Supreme Court. As is regulation of free speech (i.e. yelling fire in a theater). Constitutional rights are not absolute. They are interpreted and weighed against competing rights. And your intransigent, extreme, and tunnel-blind view is inconsistent with legal precedent and reality.

        What’s more, your analogy to abortion is just plain boneheaded. Society has a rational interest in preserving “domestic tranquility” and the “general welfare” in their objective with regard to gun safety legislation. And there is no one proposing that all guns be banned and confiscated, despite the panicky delusions of rightist extremists like you.

        Abortion is a medical procedure that affects no legal person other than the pregnant woman. People who advocate to ban abortion are violating that woman’s rights to her own body. But people advocating reasonable gun control (not bans) are seeking to protect themselves and all other citizens from the carnage created by weapons that were never imagined by the drafters of the Bill of Rights.

        • You have got to be the most disingenuous hypocrite around – you would give a politician a run for their money. As usual, you ignore all the left wing rhetoric with respect to this issue. Examples – Diane Feinstien (sp??) you fabulous senator, stated clearly if she could have gotten enough votes in 1994 when the asault weapons ban was legislated, she would have had all guns turned in. Another, on MSNBC – Lawrence O’Donnell is radical in his opposition to guns and has no problem stating it. But of course you, as the hypocrite you are, ignore those voices because you agree with them, so don’t get all high and mighty with me or anyone else as to your intentions. For once, be honest. At least Randy up the list here is honest about what he believes – he deserves way more respect than you do.
          And with respect to the Bill of Rights – they couldn’t have forseen many things in the future, like the internet, but you don’t hear me supporting restrictions on it with respect to any questionable behavior that may be outside what the first amendment intended in the late 18th century – you hypocrite.

          • Provide a link to a reputable source showing that either Feinstein or O’Donnell ever said they would ban all guns or STFU.

            In fact, just STFU anyway. You are such a dense blowhard that this site (and the Internet) would be better off without your weaselly sputterings. You have the audacity to call me a hypocrite (without foundation) and question my honesty, but you have never in all the time you’ve wasted here been able to document an example of anything I’ve ever written that was untrue.

            And with the horrible opinion you have of me, it is curious that you spend so much time commenting here. Your life must be pretty empty. I would never waste that much time and effort on a site where I didn’t respect the publisher. The only reason I let you continue to post here is because your comments are so stupid they make conservatives in general look bad. Thanks for that.

            • I never argued that what you say is untrue – just that you are a hypocrite – you only need to read your articles for a short time before your hypocrisy comes out – I’ll be sure to point it out specifically next time being that you are clearly to blind or stupid to actually see it yourself – sorry if I gave you too much credit. You do know what a hypocrite is – right?
              Here is your proof on Diane Feinstein – in her own words dumbass. it’s not hard to find, maybe you should try a little harder, or maybe it just that you don’t want others to see it.


              I’ll find Lawrence O’Donnell next – he has a lot from which to choose so I’ll get the best.

              You’re a fraud and your the classic lib activist – only those who agree with you need bother, we’re all too dumb to know anything – especially if it’s opposite you. You don’t like people holding up a mirror to you – if you don’t like what you see, do something about it.

            • Good God you’re lame.

              First of all, you start off saying that you “never argued that what [I] say is untrue,” but in your previous comment you say “For once, be honest.” That isn’t some example dredged up from a month ago. It is the comment you posted just before this one, you moron.

              Then you post your alleged evidence that Feinstein said she wants to ban all guns and it turns out to be a dishonestly edited clip from the far-right Media Research Center. She was not talking about all guns in that 60 Minutes interview. She was talking only about assault weapons when she said “every one of them,” you moron.

              Here is the full 60 Minutes segment where it is plain that she was advocating against possession of assault weapons, rather than just manufacture and import. But I’m not surprised that you would rely on a disreputable web site’s deceitfully manipulated clip.

            • “Mr. and Mrs. America, turn them all in” – yes, I agree that she meant all “assault weapons” and not all guns, but what the hell is wrong with you, supporting the governments in trying to take ANY lawfully purchased product away from a law abiding person. What’s next on your list of items to take away from everyone, candy bars, big gulps, salt, axes, anything – shall we ask for permission to buy whatever we want if you and your progressive horde don’t like it? You are all about state control of our lives as you always were, even if you won’t admit it, just like every good progressive.
              The entire interview was enjoyable in the sense that the industry could get around that no good leftists legislation – that makes my day, but I knew that even after it passed.
              I know I hit close to the mark (no pun intended) when you engage in this type of argument, so you can get insulting all you want – it makes no difference to me. I usually need to fight off multiple posters – I’m conditioned to you lot.

            • You proved me right, Steve. You really fell apart here. You go out of your way to misunderstand things. You get it handed to you here all the time, and you always end up changing the subject or putting out a straw man. I don’t know if you see this as a vent for you, but going by the nature of the conversations we have it must not work very well. You really aren’t here for anything other than trolling, and after this comment, I will no longer pay any attention to yours. I don’t know why it took me so long to see it, but your every post might as well be ‘BEWBS’ or ‘FIRST!!!!’. Have a good one, man.

            • I’m done on this one too, it’s gone beyond just guns and freedom – you did well for some time not responding to me, continue on your way. In the end, we’ll never see things the same because we have such different views of the government – I am 100% distrustful of the government and you are 100% trusting and believe in government to rule you – that’s fine. I think you’re as nuts, as well as Mark and others, as you think I am, so we’re even. We’re just too far apart to ever bridge the gulf.

        • To respond to one thing you stated specifically , which I did not do, is that YES, you are correct that regulation of guns is doable – but per my note above, that isn’t what many on the left side of this issue want as stated in the specific examples I provided.

          • If the left don’t want regulations than what do they want? A Ban?

            If that’s the case you haven’t provided any examples of that.

  5. I do not know if the senator said she wanted to ban all guns or not. But the key part of her statement is that there are not enough votes! We are a republic that works. I am a liberal and a gun owner.

    • Where did Nugent get the balls from these days. He pooped his pants when the country he loves offered to give him a gun and all the ammo he coiuld carry and real moving targets to test your skills and marksmanship. I think the targets shooting back is what caused the poopie episode.

  6. That speech by Biden didn’t just set off the fuse on the gun huggers, by doing that it shows just how deranged some of them can be.

    I had someone accuse Biden of “stoking fear” and causing the reaction that was incurred by these “guns above all crowd”. Right What did Biden do exactly to set them off? He said that there are “executive orders that can be put into place, and that Obama can indeed put them into place and is considering doing so. That’s ALL he said, he never said what those executive orders would be, never went into the details at all, possibly because the whole thing was still in consideration, they were yet to decide what action to take.

    But what was the reaction? “They are coming for our guns!!!1111 Oh no!!! The world is ending!!!111 Save our guns from RACIAL DISCRIMINATION!!!!!

    Seriously….they are getting worked up because the administration is considering executive orders on guns in the aftermath of such a tragedy as the Sandy Hook shooting, something which is par for the course (this sort of thing always happens as far as laws are concerned, they are put into place to address perceived wrongs in the system that have been revealed through actions such as these). And yet, despite not knowing a THING about the action government is going to take, they act as if it’s a foregone conclusion that their guns would be confiscated (never mind that the possibility of this actually happening is nigh well 0).

    This reaction shows just what is seriously wrong with America in terms of guns, it’s not just the power of the gun lobby, nor it’s influence over media, nor even the fact that violent shootings occur, but rather the mindset of a group of people in America that their guns are foremost over all things, come what may.

  7. very simple explanation to it all. the nra and their member are bunch of scaredy cats. real men don’t need a gun to feel safe.

Comments are closed.