Bob Costas gun commentary makes crazy Ted Nugent angry

Wednesday, 05 December 2012 09:05
hayneMichael080311_optBY MICHAEL HAYNE

It's almost become obligatory now for deranged and demented washed-up rocker, Ted Nugent, to exploit a major gun tragedy. Apparently still not dead or in prison (see Nugent's pre-election comments) in O'Bummer's America, the poet behind "Wang Bang Pootie Tang" once again completely missed the point about the increasing need for very basic gun regulations.

Ulti-Emmy Award winning Sports Journalist (in the time it took me to write that introduction he just won another Emmy) Bob Costas used part of his Sunday Night Football platform to call for better scrutiny for obtaining guns following the apparent murder-suicide involving Kansas City Chiefs linebacker Jovan Belcher. Naturally, all the hawk rednecks on the right, who believe that the Bill Of Rights is the second amendment and nine suggestions and who choose to play kindergartener Halloween dress-up and shoot Disney movie fauna instead of actually shooting America's enemies in combat , were foaming at the mouth more than usual. And when it comes to seething mouth foam, Ted Nugent produces more than alka-seltzer and Pop Rocks.

"We thought Bob Costas was smarter than that. Only fools blame tools instead of human failings. Shame Bob. Blaming guns for crime is like blaming helmuts for headbutts. WTF Costas! Uve lost it," Nugent wrote in a series of tweets, adding:

"Hey Bob Costas we all know that obesity is a direct result of the proliferation of spoons & forks Get a clue." (Huffington Post)

Yes, because blaming helmets (wtf is a helmut?!) for headbutts is totally on the same playing field as a mentally unstable individual having criminally easy access to something that can do more than give someone a concussion. Yeah, he's not exactly George Orwell with that analogy. And before you go whipping out the classic right-wing fallacy of "why should we have strict gun laws since criminals aren't known for abiding by laws," let me just preemptively shut that myopic argument down by saying that's akin to shopkeepers just leaving their million dollar merchandise unprotected with surveillance since criminals just steal anyway.

What terminally paranoid wannabe rednecks like Ted Nugent and his tin-foil cap followers never seem to understand is that Costas is not about enforcing Barbra Streisand and Rosie O'Donnell to go house to house to confiscate your AK-47's or stocking stuffer Derringers; he's merely pointing out that having such basic laws as background checks enforced could prevent unnecessary gun tragedies from occurring as frequently. But how can we expect a man-child like Nugent, who always seems to look and act like Gary Busey meets John Rambo, to understand sensible gun control policy. It's almost like the querulous, prickish Robespierres in Congress and on Wall Street (same thing, different mailing address) who think of President Obama as the second coming of Trotsky for suggesting that wealthiest to pay Clinton-era (not Eisenhower-era) tax rates.

One can only hope that Nugent will finally go back to doing what he does best: making crappy music.

Michael Hayne is a comedian/VO artist/Columnist extraordinaire, Follow him on Twitter and Facebook.


Wisniewski: Christie could fall like George H.W. Bush in reelection bid

Christie's fleece is untouchable: Cory Booker faces uphill battle if he runs

Obama victory spurs more gun sales and paranoia

LGBT for Cory Booker 2013 despite the Christie, Springsteen civil union

Comments (11)
11 Monday, 17 December 2012 16:57
Just common sense
I just love how everyone takes the 2nd amendment out of context..
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free state...." Now.. why even have that.. ?
Why not just say "The people have the right to bear arms..." Why ??
Because the whole militia thing comes from England, where it was cheaper to have peasants protect the land and to be called up than having to spend money on a standing army. This was the same deal with this new country. Now that we have a standing army, there's no reason for militias. If there are no reason for militias, then the "right to bear arms" goes along for the ride.
Now, if you believe we should have militias, the governors of the states have the right to call you up and serve your country..
10 Saturday, 15 December 2012 14:06
Military Servicemember
So apparently having an Emmy or two makes you fully qualified to propose changes to the U.S. Constitution? Your article just brought a lot of laughter to my watch tonight (over here defending the nation you clearly want to ruin).
9 Sunday, 09 December 2012 14:49
Now, for the facts... since Jan 1, 2012
from The World Wide Web Gun Defense Clock...

Accidental Gun Deaths 594
Gun Homicides 11,839
Gun Suicides 15,623
Poison Deaths 34,497
Traffic Deaths 42,113
Suffocation Deaths 13,181
Falling deaths 19,276
Guns used in self-defense 2,244,994

And here's more data...
According to the National Self Defense Survey conducted by Florida State University criminologists in 1994, the rate of Defensive Gun Uses can be projected nationwide to approximately 2.5 million per year -- one Defensive Gun Use every 13 seconds.
Among 15.7% of gun defenders interviewed nationwide during The National Self Defense Survey, the defender believed that someone "almost certainly" would have died had the gun not been used for protection -- a life saved by a privately held gun about once every 1.3 minutes. (In another 14.2% cases, the defender believed someone "probably" would have died if the gun hadn't been used in defense.)
In 83.5% of these successful gun defenses, the attacker either threatened or used force first -- disproving the myth that having a gun available for defense wouldn't make any difference.
In 91.7% of these incidents the defensive use of a gun did not wound or kill the criminal attacker (and the gun defense wouldn't be called "newsworthy" by newspaper or TV news editors). In 64.2% of these gun-defense cases, the police learned of the defense, which means that the media could also find out and report on them if they chose to.
In 73.4% of these gun-defense incidents, the attacker was a stranger to the intended victim. (Defenses against a family member or intimate were rare -- well under 10%.) This disproves the myth that a gun kept for defense will most likely be used against a family member or someone you love.
In over half of these gun defense incidents, the defender was facing two or more attackers -- and three or more attackers in over a quarter of these cases. (No means of defense other than a firearm -- martial arts, pepper spray, or stun guns -- gives a potential victim a decent chance of getting away uninjured when facing multiple attackers.)
In 79.7% of these gun defenses, the defender used a concealable handgun. A quarter of the gun defenses occured in places away from the defender's home.
Source: "Armed Resistance to Crime: The Prevalence and Nature of Self-Defense with a Gun," by Gary Kleck and Marc Gertz, in The Journal of Criminal Law & Criminology, Northwestern University School of Law, Volume 86, Number 1, Fall, 1995
8 Thursday, 06 December 2012 04:40
The fact of the matter is more guns would have helped the situation as any intelligent person knows. Grandma should have been packing heat and killing her son to stop this foolishness.
7 Wednesday, 05 December 2012 16:14
JL Austin
Prior to the Civil War, virtually all “gun control” laws were enacted in the slave states principally due to the fear of firearms in the hands of free blacks and slaves who might rebel against their masters. After the Civil War ended in 1865, “gun control” expanded as a result of the enactment of the so-called “Black Codes” or “Jim Crow” laws intended to continue to oppress the newly-freed slaves.
6 Wednesday, 05 December 2012 14:44
JR Dallas
I don’t understand why it’s easier to shoot black teens in Florida then it is to say ‘Fuck’ on TV.
5 Wednesday, 05 December 2012 14:20
Jerry Reid age 45 and life NRA !!!!!!! member
ILL KEEP MY GOD , MY GUNS , MY LOVEDONES SAFE , YOU KEEP THE CHANGE!!!!!!! I worked for everything my wife and i have, as she has also ,and raised five kids to be good hard working americans and put her self threw collage with two degrees at the same time . and others should do the same ,not get free money from working folks that would like a chance to help others not me forced to !!! our goverment should get smaller and not spend more than it has ! GOD BLESS US HARD WORKING STIFFS , AND THE NEEDY/LAZY/ NEED BLESS GOD FOR WHAT THEY HAVE , AND DONT DONT EXPECT EVERYTHING TO BE GIVEN AS I DO ... thanks !!!!
4 Wednesday, 05 December 2012 12:53
Tupac Shakur
I'm a proud gun owner. I'm not proud that i own a gun, but that I still have the ability to observe and practice the inalienable rights that our forefathers built into our constitution.
You should be happy that you have the ability to exercise your First Amendment rights which were established and have remained intact because scary men carry-out unspeakable deeds with guns while we sleep soundly in our beds.
You may not agree with what Ted Nugent has to say or the way he says it. . .the bottom line is that he speaks a certain level of truth that on some levels is unpalatable to us soft 'Meerikans.
3 Wednesday, 05 December 2012 12:05
Ted still has time to get dead or incarcerated! check out!
2 Wednesday, 05 December 2012 10:33
Deride rednecks all you want Michael if it makes you feel good, but what is your point? You write: "[Costas] is merely pointing out that having such basic laws as background checks enforced could prevent unnecessary gun tragedies from occurring as frequently." Come again? Basic background checks are federal law and are routinely enforced (feel free to go out and try to buy a gun without a bacgkround check in NJ, where you will need to undergo three separate bacgkround checks and a wait of anyehere from 2 months to a year before you can buy a handgun). In any event, Belcher presumably could have and did pass a background check so that issue is irrelevant to this particular tragedy. If you are referring to background checks for private sales, yes I (and many other gun owners) agree that these would be a good idea, but a very, very small percentage of crime guns are actually purchased in private sales where no background check was performed.

The problem is that "gun control" advocates like Costas -- and you apparently -- either haven't really thought things through or are speaking out of both sides of their mouths. Costas now claims not to oppose the Second Amendment, yet he wants to make guns "less available". Exactly how can those two positions be reconciled? The Second Amendment ain't about hunting or sports shooting. The essence of the Second Amendment -- as articulated by the Supreme Court -- is the ability and right of law abiding citizens to purchase and possess firearms, including handguns, primarily for the purpose of self-defense. Limiting that right for law abiding citizens (ie those with clean criminal and mental health records) -- either directly or indirectly through the types of red tape and arbitary delays common in the gun permit process in NJ -- is simply not consistent with the Second Amendment.

Background checks are fine, but if you are talking about backdoor methods that will make it prohibitively expensive or complicated for people to legally buy firearms, you are essentially seeking to deny people their Second Amendment rights. It really is that simple.
1 Wednesday, 05 December 2012 10:31
Big Bird
While I agree that "Uncle Ted" has lost it, he is correct in that increasing gun laws and background checks will not stop gun violence. Virginia has had record gun sales the last three years and gun related violence has actually decreased. In the case of the football incident, he would have passed a background check and the tragedy would have probably happened anyway. Not all gun owners are as you so wrongly portray.
yvComment v.1.20.0