Deranged and sociopathic “one hit wonder” musician, Ted Nugent, who’s ironically more famous for his wingnut views than his actual music, brought his unmedicated ”don’t tread on me” right wing fantasies to his Twitter account. The brilliant writer of such elegiac and poetic songs as “Wang Dang Sweet Poontang” had these profound things to say regarding guns and the aftermath of the Aurora massacre.
”There were no assault weapons used in the Colorado shooting only universally proven sporting & self defense firearms," said Nugent, according to Media Matters.
How small is this man’s willy? Seriously, it must be roughly the same size of the right-wing nutjob’s Vietnam War record.
The armchair warrior went on to adulate the “brave warriors who saved lives” in his Twitter post, but then quickly returned to being a complete and utter a-hole.
First things first, Teddy. Having a room full of already scared and panicky citizens armed to the teeth with guns in a dark theater would result an even worse outcome, as anyone with a modicum of knowledge on sociology would tell you. Secondly, if the motor city madman were there, he would probably just piss and crap himself like he did to avoid actual fighting in Vietnam. There is a major difference between actually being an authentic warrior and doing photo shoots with an entire arsenal. Thirdly, the AR-15-style semi-automatic assault weapon that was used by James Holmes would have been illegal under the federal assault weapons ban, which sadly expired in 2004 since apparently walking around like you're about to invade Chechnya is way more important than people with all their body parts together.
It’s well-known that the National Shooting Sports Foundation is like the Frank Luntz of firearms and conveniently twists and squeezes the language to suit their agenda.
For example, the National Shooting Sports Foundation despises the terms ”assault weapon” and “assault rifle.” Instead, they prefer the term “modern sporting rifle,” which is tantamount to calling Methamphetamine ”Vitamin M”. It seems that even gun owners themselves find this cynical verbal gymnastics to be quite ineffective. And it seems that the AR-15 weapon that was used does fit the legal definition of “assault weapon.”
But all of this sophistry and semantic quibbling is utterly absurd since not labeling it an “assault weapon” implies that it is somehow less lethal. It would be like saying thatusing a screwdriver over a hammer to inflict harm isn’t that bad since a hammer is a heavier and harder object and could do more harm than the screwdriver. Obviously we shouldn’t start banning or regulating hammer and screwdriver purchases (sorry Bloomberg), but what we should be doing is taking a greater look at how we deal with legitimately deadly weapons of war (and that’s precisely what the AR-15 is intended to be used for, assuming you’re not hunting stray woolly mammoths). In the mean time, it’s probably best that we refrain from engaging in a Seinfeld-like exercise in quibbling on semantics following yet another heinous gun tragedy.