I will admit to liking one or two Ted Nugent songs, but on the whole I am not a fan. My musical tastes tend toward Americana, singer/songwriter, jazz and classical music. However, Ted Nugent as a political activist I categorically do not like. It is an actually aversion. I am a big supporter of free speech, but part of me cannot help but thinking in a sane society this individual would be receiving heavy psychiatric counseling.
My aversion to Mr. Nugent stems from his attitude towards guns and his support of seeming absolutely no gun control.
To state the obvious, guns are designed to kill, period. They have no other function. They are meant to either kill humans or animals. Of course, there are effects that stem from this function.
They have been and are used for agents of gathering meat. This use has limited functionality now, as most folks who hunt for food in the United States will readily tell you that it is not cost efficient. While I personally do not hunt, I can understand the desire. It is not something I would wish to take away from people.
There is the perceived effect of protection if you carry a gun. Having never owned a gun, just being around guns makes me nervous, but I can appreciate the perception. I have known more than a few folks that have carried firearms either on their person or in their vehicles for this purpose. I am reminded of an anecdote from an old gambler I once knew. He went many places in his gaming wanderings that I would have considered dangerous. I asked him one time if he carried a gun. His response was, “If he carried a gun, and was in a situation that provoked him to pull it out, if he used the gun he was in trouble, if he did not use the gun, he was in a different sort of trouble. So why carry a gun.” I thought there was a lot of wisdom in that attitude.
Even more folks keep guns in their homes for protection. Quoting from an article in the American Journal of Epidemiology:
“Results show that regardless of storage practice, type of gun, or number of firearms in the home, having a gun in the home was associated with an increased risk of firearm homicide and firearm suicide in the home.” 1
Firearms providing safety in the home is a false perception.
There is the use of firearms in national security. I will argue that this is a regulated use of firearms that is necessary in a defensive posture. All too often these weapons and armies are used as tools of aggression, power and control which bring me full circle back to the first sentence of this paragraph. And on and on we go down through history much to the detriment of the common man who generally just wants to live his life out in peace. This is an age old problem seemingly without answer.
There is the use of firearms for law enforcement. There are certainly examples of law enforcement without weapons, but giving the amount of weapons floating around in this country I would not want to be a law enforcement official without a gun.
There is the sport of target shooting. I have done a little of this and I understand the enjoyment therein.
If Mr. Nugent has ever thought about the above he has certainly come to different conclusions. From videos I have seen and from what I have heard he views guns a toys. Just to reinforce my point do a web search on ‘Ted Nugent gun fun’. I am sure he will talk about protection, hunting and sport, but his actions with guns are those of a child obsessing with a favorite toy. Any legitimate use of a firearm has the firearm being used as a tool. A tool with the power to kill should be treated with great respect. I cannot imagine what my father would have done to me if I had taken a chain saw and starting using it to randomly cut and deface objects. My derriere is sore just from the thought.
I am going to chalk Ted Nugent up as an out of control child with a gun fetish who unfortunately has a platform from his music career.
It is the NRA which I really do not understand. From the little I know of their history they started out as a sane organization. From a Washington Post article:
“The Old Guard was caught by surprise. The NRA officers sat up front, on a dais, observing their demise. The organization, about a century old already, was thoroughly mainstream and bipartisan, focusing on hunting, conservation and marksmanship. It taught Boy Scouts how to shoot safely. But the world had changed, and everything was more political now. The rebels saw the NRA leaders as elites who lacked the heart and conviction to fight against gun-control legislation.“ 2
An organization promoting hunting, conservation and marksmanship I might not join, but I certainly would not object to. The current NRA is in the business of preventing any control as they apparently feel it is a slippery slope to no guns. The current NRA sounds a belligerent, paranoid horn that fuels the worst fears of folks. Instead of any responsible control of guns they would have us keep escalating the level of guns in our society, arming teachers, random citizens and God knows who else.
A sane organization would be promoting sane gun laws. 62 percent of Americans want gun control. 3 90 percent want background checks before gun purchases. 4
It is time our politicians stopped taking NRA money and listening to the nut cases that run the organization. It is time that everyone stopped listening to the out of control child that is Ted Nugent.
Footnotes:
- Guns in the Home and Risk of a Violent Death in the Home: Findings from a National Study
- How NRA’s true believers converted a marksmanship group into a mighty gun lobby
- Gun Control Poll: 62 Percent Want Senate to ‘Move On’
- The Power of 10 Percent
Bonus links: