Ted Nugent on CNN tonight

[First-light]

He will be on Piers Morgan show at 9 pm. Not a big fan of him but it should be interesting!

http://www.cnn.com/2011/SHOWBIZ/05/17/piers.morgan.ted.nugent/index.html?hpt=C2

[steve863]

God help us yet again!  It's interesting to read some of the comments at the bottom of the link.  Even those who support gun rights think that he is a total nut case.  Never mind those who don't agree with him.  So exactly how is he helping us with such rants on mainstream TV??  One of the great mysteries of the world known only to those shooters and hunters out there who DO actually love him I guess.  To everyone else he is a complete loser.  LOL

[virgil]

Ted should let his guitar do his talking.  I'm curious to know how the gun-lobby group on this forum feels about him.  My impression is that he gets trotted out on these shows only because he's such a loose cannon and makes the gun crowd look like a bunch of yahoos.  it'll be interesting to see people's comments.

[WNYBuckHunter]

Ted did the NYC interview rounds the other day. He was on Stern, but I didnt get to hear much of the interview, just wasnt in the car at the right times. From what I did hear, he didnt talk much about guns, hunting or any of that. I did hear him say that most of his time is not spent with or promoting guns hunting or any of that stuff.

You have to take the Pierce Morgan show with a grain of salt, its all pre-recorded and he will make a 2 hour interview fit into 20 mins. When shows do that, lots of things are usually taken and used out of context.

[Fantail]

Pierce is also British and how unlike the Communist News Network to use someone like him who probably would pay to have our ammendments dismatled, to interview someone who's pro-gun.

But isn't it just like the anti-Ted crowd to use this opertunity to spew.

[nyantler]

God help us yet again!  It's interesting to read some of the comments at the bottom of the link.  Even those who support gun rights think that he is a total nut case.  Never mind those who don't agree with him.  So exactly how is he helping us with such rants on mainstream TV??  One of the great mysteries of the world known only to those shooters and hunters out there who DO actually love him I guess.  To everyone else he is a complete loser.  LOL

The people that comment on that website are primarily left wing nuts themselves.. and have the same stance on guns as Morgan... I didn't see anything in those clips that said total nut case at all... sometimes he can be a bit over the top but this time wasn't one of them.

[Mr VJP]

When the man starts debating gun control and hunting issues, he knows his facts, speaks very intelligently and never loses a debate.  He has his own radio programs, is an NRA board member, and highly respected among the military, law enforcement, hunting and firearm communities.  I would choose him to defend any hunting or gun related issue over most other hunting and gun writers in America today, who have a tendency to be apologetic to the anti's when there is absolutely noting for gun owners or hunters to apologize for.  Ted is adamantly of the same opinion and should be respected for it.

I love when hunters and gun owners criticize the man, but never cite examples of specific reasons why they think he is not helping us.  Sounds to me like slander from the left simply being regurgitated by the milquetoast among us who don't have the guts to be as assertive as Ted is.

[Doc]

If I indeed do have anything to say as to who I prefer to represent my stance as a gun owner and hunter, I think I would prefer someone who conducts themselves in a way that people want to be swayed by him. You can be the most knowledgeable person on 2nd amendment issues and the science of management by hunting, with good answers for every argument thrown at you, but if the answers are delivered in a disagreeable and insulting fashion, all that great knowledge goes right out the window without anyone even listening to it. In fact, that kind of loud-mouth offensive delivery generally has the tendency to score points for the opposing side. That is great when putting down anti-gunners and anti hunters. The fact is that with them there is no way of changing their minds anyway, so what the heck, you might as well insult them and be as crude and loud as you want while doing it.....lol. However, it is the non-hunters that need a reasonable approach, and who are swayed by measured, reasonable tones and a bit of a polished delivery. They are the ones who are in the majority and who may at some point actually have the deciding voice in issues of guns and hunting. Throw the in-your-face approach at them, and you have instantly created an anti. It's just human nature. Besides, I don't want someone representing me with a pink-faced, wild-eyed look of a maniac with the vein popping out of his forehead, and spit flying out of his mouth when he shouts his opinions like some rabid out-of-control crazy person. I really don't believe that reflects well on hunters, gun owners, and certainly is not a person that I would rely on to persuade anyone in any argument, particularly those on-the-fence non-hunters or those without any passion relative to gun ownership that actually make up the majority of voters.

So when it comes to whether I prefer this guy representing the shooting and hunting segment of the population, I say thanks, but no thanks. Tone it down a bit and maybe .... but don't link me and my activities with that kind of out-of-scale personality. We as hunters and gun owners really don't need that kind of image.

[Mr VJP]

Doc, unless you have a name to go along with the person you wish was speaking for us, I don't think such a person exists.

Sure there may be some out there who speak in round, pear shaped tones and can charm the average listener.  But someone who knows the 2nd Amendmend, gun laws and politics as well as Nugent?  I don't think you can give me a name.

[fasteddie]

I agree Doc . Nugent turns off folks that are border-line and some of them think all hunters / sportsmen are belligerent like him . He is knowledgable and has a lot of facts . If he could tone it down instead of his "in yer face" bit , he would be sooooooo much better !  http://www.downsouthhuntingforums.com/images/smiles/2cents.gif[/img]

[wztirem]

I agree Doc . Nugent turns off folks that are border-line and some of them think all hunters / sportsmen are belligerent like him . He is knowledgable and has a lot of facts . If he could tone it down instead of his "in yer face" bit , he would be sooooooo much better !  http://www.downsouthhuntingforums.com/images/smiles/2cents.gif[/img]

He is a lunatic. Staying current and controversial serves his purpose for personal gain>

[virgil]

Well said, Doc.

[Mr VJP]

Anybody want to suggest someone else to speak for hunters and gun owners?  Or are we saying we have noboby better, but we won't take Nugent either?  If so, we are accepting defeat, no?

[steve863]

The reason we don't have other celebrity spokespeople out there is because most don't want to be blacklisted by the generally liberal media and entertainment field.  Tom Selleck tried a few years back and then Rosie tried to humiliate him on her show.  He doesn't need that kind of crap and thus we really haven't heard much out of him since.  Also, I would bet that most celebrities who do support gun rights, aren't exactly fanatics like Nugent is.  They don't go around openly carrying AR-15's on stage like that lunatic Nugent has done.  They probably don't see problems with some sane gun laws and aren't going to be defending the 2nd amendment in the same context Nugent does.  I am sure many of you here wouldn't like to see spokesman like that anyway.  You rather see a lunatic like Nugent shooting off his mouth against ALL gun laws instead of someone with some common sense in his head.  You will settle for a third or fourth rate spokesman just because he is saying what you want to hear.  Many of us others won't stoop down to this level just because he is saying some things we agree with.  It's either someone with a level of dignity or no one at all.  We don't have to settle for fourth rate, just because no one else is stepping up. 

[virgil]

I don't think it needs to be a celebrity.  In general, i'm not a fan of the nra because i don't agree with their extreme opposition to any gun control measures.  but, i agree with doc- i think that a guy like ted nugent would never be able to sway people who are on the fence with these issues.  he comes off as a loose cannon and is more likely to turn the general public off to hunters.

[steve863]

I agree with that, too.  It's the people who are on the fence that we need to think about.  And NO way in h*e*l*l is Nugent swaying any of those people to the pro-hunting or pro-gun side. 

You are right, the spokesman don't exactly need to be a celebrity, but I don't know who else might have enough clout on a national stage?  Unless it's a person with some sort of name recognition, I doubt they would be given much attention by the media.  That's just the way we have let things get in this country, which is unfortunate.

[Mr VJP]

Charlton Heston was good.  They tried to make him out to be a nut too.  I give Nugent credit for putting himself out there and he can be as wild as he wants because he's got nothing to lose.

Anyone who takes the job is going to be attacked as lunatic anyway, and not just by the anti's, but by gun owners as well.  Maybe that's why without Nugent we currently have nothing.  And when he gets tired of the ingratitude of gun owners and hunters who take offense at his style, we will have nothing at all.

If you don't like Nugent and you don't like the NRA, who do you want to speak for us?  Sounds like some would prefer nobody at all instead.  If I'm wrong here, give me a name of someone you think is doing a good job of effectively speaking for us.

[steve863]

Maybe some should ponder on why associating oneself with the NRA almost guarantees someone the "lunatic" and "nutjob" label?  If that is the opinion of even a good many gun owners, than there just may be some truth to it.  As with any stereotype, there is usually a good deal of truth that surrounds it.

[Elmo]

If you don't like Nugent and you don't like the NRA, who do you want to speak for us?  Sounds like some would prefer nobody at all instead.  If I'm wrong here, give me a name of someone you think is doing a good job of effectively speaking for us.

Dick Cheney and Sarah Palin?  No...I'm just kidding.

[steve863]

If you don't like Nugent and you don't like the NRA, who do you want to speak for us?  Sounds like some would prefer nobody at all instead.  If I'm wrong here, give me a name of someone you think is doing a good job of effectively speaking for us.

Dick Cheney and Sarah Palin?  No...I'm just kidding.

Didn't you know that not many have a sense of humor around here?  You may be waterboarded by a few fellow members for making such a comment!  LOL

[fasteddie]

Tom Selleck would be an excellent spokesman for the NRA ..........

[virgil]

i think steve makes a good point.  it's not necessarily the messenger that's the problem- in this case, it's the message.  it's hard to deliver a foolish message without sounding crazy.

[First-light]

Even among the great hunting fraternity opinions differ.

http://razoreye.net/mirror/zumbo/zumbo_assault_rifles.html

[steve863]

Even among the great hunting fraternity opinions differ.

http://razoreye.net/mirror/zumbo/zumbo_assault_rifles.html

Burt, you do know that Zumbo was practically horsewhipped for expressing that opinion?  He was fired from Outdoor Life and Remington, and a slew of other companies and people didn't want anything to do with him.  Who then steps in, none other than Ted Nugent who took him to his ranch to shoot some of these AR-15 type rifles and to "educate" him on them.  I happen to agree with Zumbo and admired his guts to say what he felt.  The shooting world unfortunately is not kind to those who don't march lock step with them and some of their extremist views.  This forum is another example of this also, although not nearly as bad as many others which is a good thing.

[virgil]

maybe the point is that there are differences between the 'shooting world', the 'hunting fraternity', and the 2nd ammendment crowd.  the fact that i'm a hunter should not automatically obligate me to follow lockstep whatever the nra pushes.