Another Reason Why Ted Nugent is Psychotic

Posted on December 10, 2012 at 7:26 am by Bob Cesca

My Monday column…

I really do try to avoid writing about the far-right wing of the far-right wing of the Republican Party. First, there are simply too many names and too many ignorant maniacs saying way too many ignorantly maniacal things that it’s nearly impossible to keep up. And many of them are just careerist trolls and former morning zoo deejays, jacking up their ratings/sales figures by popping off with anything and everything that will successfully keep their names in the news. Ann Coulter, Mike Savage, Glenn Beck, Laura Ingraham, Dennis Miller and rest of the usual suspects. These are the sorts of people who don’t deserve our attention because they’re not serious players.

That said, it’s not a bad idea to occasionally gut check them anyway, just to let them know that they can’t always get away with their poisonous disinformation and agitprop gibberish.

Ted Nugent is one of the far-right dingdongs who I occasionally revisit for this purpose. Not only is he an extremist conservative thug, but he’s also one of those guys. We’ve all bumped into them in our day-to-day lives. He’s of a familiar male personality type who fancies himself the ultimate badass — a legend in his own mind, a narcissistic stuffed-shirt, a contrarian dickbag. They believe they’re the only guys who have it all figured out. They have an acronym, zinger or a maxim for everything. They always know the best way to do everything, and they’re not ashamed to condescend to anyone within earshot, especially when their company is actually more savvy and accomplished than they are. Yeah, I don’t mind saying I viscerally hate these guys.

Plus, of course, Nugent is a gun fetishist. [continue reading]

Print Friendly
This entry was posted in The Daily Banter and tagged , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.
  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1814838585 Christine Olson

    ~ another brilliant commentary, mr. cesca. thank you for it.

    may i point out that in the column, you wrote the following:
    “…Jovan Belcher murdered his pregnant girlfriend…”

    i believe that this is not true, that kassandra perkins was not pregnant, but had given birth to a daughter three months prior to her murder.

  • zirgar

    I bet the only way he can achieve orgasm is if he has the barrel of a gun rammed up his pooper while he’s copulating. Pieces of shit like Ted Nugent are a dime a dozen; overcompensating for a lack of reason and substance with bluster and bullshit. Say, that sure sounds an awful lot like Rush Limbaugh, or everyone over at Fox News, or any of the other million and half right wingers given their own forum…

    • D_C_Wilson

      I disagree. The barrel of a gun is the only thing that’s stiff to see the inside of his pants in decades.

  • zirgar

    Ted is a very repugnugent individual.

  • muselet

    Add to your list of “ignorant maniacs saying way too many ignorantly maniacal things” a majority of the Supreme Court.

    It was either in District of Columbia v. Heller or McDonald v. City of Chicago that the Supremes declared that “a well-regulated militia” was a meaningless expression added to the Second Amendment purely for prosodic reasons. Regardless, those two decisions created a new, individual right to bear arms unconnected to membership in a militia.

    And speaking of “careerist trolls” and “far-right dingdongs,” Mr. Justice Scalia has publicly stated that only weapons that can be hand-carried are covered by the Second Amendment, but that all depends on holding yet another séance with The Founding Fathers:

    Scalia pointed out [on Fox News Sunday, July 29, 2012] that that the Second Amendment “obviously” doesn’t apply to weapons that can’t be hand-carried, and modern-day weapons like “hand-held rocket launchers that can bring down airplanes” weren’t factored in at the time of the writing of the Constitution.

    “My starting point and probably my ending point will be what limitations are within the understood limitations that the society had at the time,” he said. “They had some limitations on the nature of arms that could be borne. So we’ll see what those limitations are as applied to modern weapons.”

    Uh-huh. Right. Original intent, my foot.

    –alopecia

    • incredulous72

      “Scalia pointed out [on Fox News Sunday, July 29, 2012] that that the Second Amendment “obviously” doesn’t apply to weapons that can’t be hand-carried, and modern-day weapons like “hand-held rocket launchers that can bring down airplanes” weren’t factored in at the time of the writing of the Constitution.
      “My starting point and probably my ending point will be what limitations are within the understood limitations that the society had at the time,” he said. “They had some limitations on the nature of arms that could be borne. So we’ll see what those limitations are as applied to modern weapons.””

      HOW THE F$(K DOES HE KNOW?!! WAS HE THERE?!!!

      Scalia is a tool.

  • bphoon

    I’m gonna go out on a limb here and state that I’m pro-gun. Always have been, always will be. That doesn’t mean, however, I’m pro-all-guns-all-the-time or believe firearms should be totally unregulated. I don’t belong to the NRA because, while I respect the work they do in the area of gun and hunting safety instruction, I can’t stomach their political rhetoric.

    I believe the right to keep and bear arms resides in the individual since, after all, that’s where militias of the time came from: Individuals responding to the call to arms in order to help defend their country. I also believe this carries a heavy responsibility and should be “well regulated”. I believe we all have a fundamental right to defend ourselves. While I think that turning the other cheek is generally a good thing to do, I don’t believe anyone should have a legal obligation to retreat in the face of all aggression; some (I say again, some) situations do demand standing one’s ground.

    I agree that firearms are designed to cause harm to whatever is targeted. However, that’s not the only use to which they can be put. They can be used, for example, to punch holes in a target in a competitive environment; I know people who use firearms exclusively for such purposes. I agree that, improperly used, firearms can easily cause needless death and destruction and make committing many crimes much easier and more efficient. I agree that the simple presence of a firearm in a given situation increases the probability of a tragic accident occurring. Firearms, therefore, should only be in the hands of responsible, law-abiding people and professionals whose vocation requires their use.

    That’s the hard part: in a society that doesn’t practice preemptive judgement (ie, we don’t punish anyone or restrict their rights for what they might do) how do we manage to insure that firearms don’t end up in the wrong hands? 100% compliance with such a goal is probably impossible, so how do we more effectively mitigate the risk? Closing the gun show loophole would be a start but, as we’ve seen, wouldn’t have saved anyone in the Aurora shootings. However, how about requirements for training, registration, licensing and insurance? Might such a regime, similar to what we require people to undergo in order to lawfully own and operate an automobile, help reduce the carnage?

    While automobiles, for example, aren’t specifically designed to cause harm to others, they can certainly be used to great effect for that purpose. Just as, in some people’s estimation, the right to keep and bear arms helps safeguard our freedom, so does freedom of movement. However, we are required to be trained in the use of motor vehicles, we have to demonstrate proficiency in such skills, we have to procure a state-issued license authorizing us to use a motor vehicle, we have to register our vehicles with the government and we have to maintain minimum insurance within the law. I haven’t heard anyone complain lately that the government is planning on taking our cars away from us.

    If law abiding citizens are strong enough in their desire to keep and bear arms, I’d think most would willingly submit to such a regime in the interest of improving public safety. I know I would. I also suspect that, with increased training requirements, the rate of firearms accidents might fall somewhat. I certainly don’t think it would be an abridgment of anyone’s rights. And, while it wouldn’t be the be-all-and-end-all, it would stand a pretty good chance of mitigating, in some measure, the risk we are currently exposed to.

    And, oh yeah…Ted Nugent’s a fucking lunatic.

  • Victor_the_Crab

    What Ted Nugent’s tweets show us is how the mind of a complete moron with bad grammar operates.