Piers Morgan vs. Ted Nugent at Texas gun shop
I didn’t get to see the entirety of Piers Morgan in Gun Country on CNN last night, but caught snippets as I was trying to get the kids to bed.
Tactical Firearms in Katy, Texas, hosted Morgan. The men at the shop were quite polite and not at all condescending. They allowed him to shoot several different firearms at their range. And they gave him a chair so he could interview Texas attorney general Greg Abbott and the Motor City Madman, Ted Nugent.
Actually, the exchange with Nugent wasn’t really an interview.
Now, some might take issue with the gun shop for even letting Morgan — who is one of the most vocal anti-gun media members out there — into their shop. You all know how I feel. I think it’s great. I call this Taking the High Road.
You know that there is less than a ZERO percent chance of Morgan going in there, firing off a few rounds and saying, “Hey, this is kind of fun. Now I get it.”
Oh, well. He shot the guns. He (hopefully) learned a few things. It might have planted that “OK, I can see how people enjoy this” seed. Or maybe not.
But it can’t hurt. Again, the more people on all sides of an issue interact, the more those people should learn about each other.
As for Nugent, he’s about the 180 degree polar opposite of Morgan. He’s out there. So you knew it was going to be interesting. ( If you missed it, check out parts of the clip here.) But unlike some gun people I’ve seen on national TV during this whole thing, the Nuge is darn smart. He made good points without coming off as a nut job. (I’m guessing some may disagree with me on that one!)
From what I’ve been reading today it seems many gun rights folks are thinking Nugent more than held his own. But I bet gun control people probably feel the same about their man.
Watch the clip and let us know what you think.
February 5, 2013 - 3:11 PM
Sorry Mark, I will acknowledge that I positioned Ted in that subset of the Venn diagram labeled ‘Nut Job’ long ago, well before this gun shop meeting. He uses the term “backstrap” way too much for my liking.
Stephen, Your mentioning of the term Venn diagram just caused me to have a horrifying flashback to my days studying for the GRE. I don’t think Nugent would be offended by being called a Nut Job.
Nugent can often be far too zealous to be accepted by the general public. In this case, he was solid as a rock. It makes me wish I had seen the full interview last night. Morgan is well intentioned, but he just doesn’t ‘get it’, as Ted alludes. It would be nice if Morgan’s times at the range opened his eyes. There are certainly regulations that could be applied without really impinging on gun owners. It can’t be a zero subtraction answer. Given that, it also shouldn’t be an over reaction on guns while ignoring the other equally contributing factors – mental health & societal control.
Morgan is a fruitcake from waaay over there. Ted Nugent met him with an equal but opposite reaction. Morgan needs to go back where he came from. Wait, there is a petition in the UK to keep him away from the UK! There must be some place for a nutjob like Piers Morgan, but where?
I saw the entire show and for once, Ted (usually a solid wacko) held his own and made some very good points, including that if his home was ever invaded by thugs, no one has the right to tell him how many rounds his gun should hold, in order for him to defend his family. It was not an interview, Ted made his statement and as usual morgan made his, and the two are at the opposite extremes. The Texas AG was not nearly as well spoken as Ted, which really surprised me. Mark you are right, even though I cannot stand Morgan, you have to give him some credit for going into the gun shop and trying out some of the weapons.
Jesse Ventura shut Piers down in Right to own Guns interview. Jesse handed Piers his bacon. Ted lost me with a lot of his anti-Obama rants of suck his barrel this. Personally I’ve never heard so much take action against a President in My life since Obama took office.
Why?
As immoderate as I am inclined to be about defending the rights enumerated in the bill of rights, particularly the first and second, I still am of the opinion that it was not a “savy” idea to have Piers Morgan sit down behind Ma Deuce and unleash the gods of thunder. The average uniformed american will not grasp the point that ownership, care and feeding of an M-2 is a very rare thing indeed and conflate that with the “assault wepaon” debate to deleterious affect.
I did not see much of the interview though, as I was out on patrol for the new modern day equivalent of following a hatchery truck,namely following a WalMart or any delivery truck truck with orange DOT “ammunition” safety placard on the back :-O
At #6, maybe you have been hiding under a rock. Every President has had people from all walks of life condemn his position and there has been, and always will be, a call to action against every president, past, present, and future. Bush was called a war criminal, Clinton had his presidency “Blown” apart, and those before him each had “issues”. I would also like to interject that while Ted Nugent does not get taken very seriously because 1. he was a rocker, and 2. he is “overzealous”, I am extremely thankful there are guys like him and others that ARE “overzealous and vocal” because I fear that the majority of “gun toting hunters/shooters” are just too busy with their comfortable lives to get involved and will sit by idly and watch time erode our rights and abilities. It will happen, just sit there quietly and watch it happen.
“because I fear that the majority of “gun toting hunters/shooters” are just too busy with their comfortable lives to get involved and will sit by idly and watch time erode our rights and abilities.”
David, I would prefer to believe that the “majority” you mention are actually relatively lucid and simply do not have that fear. I am getting some age and for the life of me, I can’t recall one right that has been swept from me. I hope you are correct that there is indeed that “majority” out there.
Interesting that you are “extremely thankful there are guys like him and others that ARE “overzealous and vocal” Stephen, because IMO, the guys like Ted Nugent, Jesse Ventura, and James Yeager add to the problem. If people are scared of guns and vigilantes, how do those folks help the situation?
The vast majority of “gun toting hunters/shooters” are not even in the NRA for the same reason they are not rabid and in the face of everyone who sees merit in gun control and even banning some guns. Because there is a level where it makes some sense when you consider how often we keep seeing these lunatics with guns “do something”. Nugent’s particular hyperbole and antics make him seem unstable and that is the last spokesperson you need when the unarmed folks get to vote.
Supporting the Bill of Rights is the duty of every American. Supporting a system that keeps seeing lunatics get and use guns to settle their scores is not.
Nugent promised us that if Obama were reeelected, he’d be dead or in jail. I guess he was just teasing us.
“Supporting the Bill of Rights is the duty of every American. Supporting a system that keeps seeing lunatics get and use guns to settle their scores is not.”
This is it. The end all, beat all. Exactly what this debate is about. The question I would like to pose is this:
Would you agree that those who are against ANY gun control legislation are the only ones trying to cover both parameters posed in Sandi’s statement? If not, why not?
Quoted by Sandi “The vast majority of “gun toting hunters/shooters” are not even in the NRA for the same reason they are not rabid and in the face of everyone who sees merit in gun control and even banning some guns.”
Please provide facts/links for your statement.
Go, Ted. I’ve never been a fan, but you got it right this time. For Sandi and Stephen, our reps from the lunatic fringe, you might want to consider moving to Maryland, where the governor is trying to pass everything you want, like making sure the poor will not be able to defend themselves, since they will not be able to pay the fees he wants for gun licenses. I saw in the paper yesterday that some teenager beat his father to death with a baseball bat; is that the bat’s fault, do we need to get behind national registration of bats, and disallow the private sale of bats without going through Sports Authority? Ridiculous.
On some things, there is no debate, only fact. Our right to gun ownership is a guarantee of our Constitution, no less than free speech, right to assembly or religious choice. The focus should be on violent and criminal behavior, not inanimate objects.
One over riding theme that I have observed from quite a few of these “debates” on gun control or lack there of. Is that one side particullarly seems to get “very passionate” shall we say during these debates. More often than not it is those who oppose having their 2′nd amendment rights questioned and or changed or possibly even revoked. The truth of the matter is that both sides have their own “passionate” believers. I call them believers more than supports because that is what they are. They BELIEVE in what they are speaking about no matter how right, wrong or indifferent their views may be. The problem with these “believers” thought is this. The ones who want to ban all guns think that one thing will solve all the issues. They simply will not look at the statistics. The statistics show that where folks are free to carry guns to protect themselves and family members, crime goes down. The criminals simply look elsewhere for easier targets. There is no doubt that there will always be criminals and they will not care what punishments they face should they be aprehended by law enforcement. The underlying point to the whole situation here is this. Should law abiding citizens be hindered by laws aimed to make things “safer” when in fact those same laws will infringe upon those law abiding citizens ability to protect themselves and their own families? It is their own duty and responsibility to protect themselves and their own families. The supreme court of the United States even verifies this fact in ruling that local, state, and federal law enforcement has “No duty to protect the public. The duty of law enforcement is to enforce the laws of wich jurisdiction it resides”. One last point is this. Look at the places that have the most strict gun regulations. California / New York / Chicago . All thos areas are riddled with huge amounts of crime. As a direct or maybe an indirect result of this these areas are all bleeding citizens like crazy. Those that can leave are “running for the hills”. There is a mass exidus of citizens who are leaving these areas and moving. they are moving for more reasons than just high crime but you have to believe that has some bearing on them making such a major decision as to uproot themselves and in many cases their whole families and move to “safer places”.
“43-55 million” people have guns
http://wiki.answers.com/Q/How_many_gun_owners_are_there_in_the_United_States_of_America
NRA “4.25 million members” that “always fluctuating” number is dwarfed by the number of gun owners NOT in the NRA.
http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2013/01/15/nra-membership-has-grown-by-250000-in-one-month
No, I do not “agree that those who are against ANY gun control legislation are the only ones trying to cover both parameters”. Not by a mile.
Gun control, like alcohol control, like school control, like charity control, like animal control, like car control, like food control, like pollution control, like cell phone control, like any other effort at control, plays a role in a civilized society. That does not mean it disrespects any natural or constitutional right. Only that it recognizes that the bad guys get their guns the same way the good guys do and waiting for the crime to happen is not working well for us as a society.
Yes walt, the right to bear arms is a guarantee of our Constitution, but there is no guarantee or right to any arms you want. Nor should there be IMO. Some folks would have guns mounted on their vehicles and ammo vests would replace camo for some. We have every right to draw lines and maybe it would work better for you all if you worked with us instead of pretending we have no point. Too many lunatics have the same guns you do.
“For Sandi and Stephen, our reps from the lunatic fringe, you might want to consider moving to Maryland,…..”
Walt, I ain’t from the lunatic fringe! You can ask Mark. Can’t speak for Sandi, but I doubt she fits the bill either. Move? Why in the name of St. Peter would I move? I am a proud Virginian, born and raised in the mountains of this great state, hunting since I was big enough to walk. I just do not feel threatened when it comes to my firearms rights. I own around 20 weapons, and as I have said before on one of these blogs, they are all suited for hunting game. The big bad government, I doubt is interested in any of them.
Quoted by Sandi “The vast majority of “gun toting hunters/shooters” are not even in the NRA for the same reason they are not rabid and in the face of everyone who sees merit in gun control and even banning some guns.”
Please provide facts/links for your statement.
===================
Sandi, you failed to fully respond my question. Where did you get this information from? I’m hope you didn’t make it up. It’s the latter part of your post that I’m interested in.
Anyone notice the way morgan holds the gun? I’ve got a 12 ga with 3″ magnum I want him to shoot.
“Nuge is darn smart. He made good points without coming off as a nut job.”
Mark Taylor
Mark, someone else once said “There is a fine line between genius and insanity.”