Bachmann Refusing to Pay Campaign Staff »« Sinema Swears Oath on Constitution

No, You Aren’t the New Rosa Parks

I think we have a new meme being created on Planet Wingnuttia. On the very same day, both Ted Nugent and Bryan Fischer declared that they — gun owners and anti-gay bigots, respectively — were the new Rosa Parks, at the vanguard of a non-existent struggle for their own civil rights. First, Nugent:

Nugent continued: “You are talking to a guy who talks to more gun owners in more heated and concerned conversations than anyone who lives. These are top notch heroes of law enforcement and military who understand this experiment in self-government and we will not let [gun confiscation] happen; we will do it peaceful.

“But there will come a time when the gun owners of America, the law-abiding gun owners of America, will be the Rosa Parks and we will sit down on the front seat of the bus, case closed.”

And now Fischer:

No, you are not the new Rosa Parks. You’re the ones trying to do the oppressing, not the ones demanding an end to it.

Comments

  1. Moggie says

    Can someone remind me what gun Rosa Parks was packing when she committed her famous act of armed civil disobedience?

  2. says

    The real problems the bigots have: They don’t like being overtly shunned, shamed, and criticized by other citizens. They don’t like that other people are considered their equals under the rule of law. They don’t like that society has minimum expectations for fair behavior.

  3. anubisprime says

    @ OP

    “You are talking to a guy who talks to more gun owners in more heated and concerned conversations than anyone who lives

    Keep it up Ted…law of averages and surrounding pervading IQ in one of these ‘heated conversations’ with concerned gun owners might demonstrate a point….you might not enjoy it though!

  4. Michael Heath says

    Ted Nugent:

    blah, blah, blah, case closed.

    I always get a kick out of these sorts of arguments. Do people who use such finales, particularly, “. . . ’nuff said.”, conscious of the fact such closings signal their argument can’t bear any credible scrutiny? I occasionally see these these endings in newspaper Letters to the Editor, always by conservatives.

  5. says

    It think that it is more likely that someone like Ted Nugent would have shot Rosa Parks for being uppity.

    Someone please tell Bryan Fischer that the Jim Crow Laws were actual laws on the books of several states. There are no laws restricting a Christian loon’s rights and if anyone tried to pass such laws, the liberals would be on the forefront with the right to fight against those laws.

  6. says

    Is it wrong of me to hope that Mr. Nugent suffers an unfortunate hunting accident? This guy was already annoying, now he’s just… so clueless and full of shit that I’m wondering how the hell he managed to legally obtain his weapons when he is clearly off his rocker. And he scares me.

  7. wscott says

    You’re the ones trying to do the oppressing, not the ones demanding an end to it.

    Fisher & Nugent are both Grade AA morons and bigots, and to even compare themselves to Rosa Parks is absurd and insulting. But…I don’t see how suporting the rights of individual gun owners is “oppressing” anyone else? I mean, you can certainly disagree with them about the legality and/or wisdom of gun control, but there’s nothing in their position that restricts anyone else’s rights. (Unless you’re going to argue some “Right To Be Safe” which I think is a stretch.)

  8. says

    Nugent continued: “You are talking to a guy who talks to more gun owners in more heated and concerned conversations than anyone who lives.”

    “I AGREE WITH YOU!”
    “NO! I AGREE WITH YOU!”
    “NO! I AGREE WITH YOU!”

  9. lorn says

    Two references to Rosa Parks from the right. Might one assume that this is not coincidence?

    Perhaps Carl Rove, on vacation from appearances in the MSM because of his embarrassing failure on election night, but still very much a guiding light for the right, mentioned Rosa Parks as meme to use during one of his recent Wednesday planning meetings. Conservatives love their central planing, coordination and marching in lockstep even as they claim they are the hated methods of the left.

    Mote meet beam.

  10. Who Knows? says

    Nugent and Fischer could stand a lesson in who Rosa Parks was and why her case was selected. Hint, she wasn’t a draft dodging no talent ignoramus who shat himself or a professional whatever the fuck Fischer is.

  11. Edward Gemmer says

    This is like when every two bit hack who calls someone an asshole think they are the second coming of Malcolm X.

  12. otrame says

    Mr. Nugent strikes me as a man who really, really wants us to think he has a very long penis.

  13. otrame says

    I just looked and didn’t find it on Youtube, but it reminds me of something Isaac Jaffe says in an episode of Sports Night:

    “Danny, you know I love you, right? So I think you should know that no rich white boy comparing himself to Rosa Parks is going to get any where with me. Understand?”

  14. tbp1 says

    #15: I thought of the same thing. Can’t remember the exact quote either, but you’re pretty close. A great moment in a great show (and I speak as someone with essentially no interest at all in sports).

  15. Michael Heath says

    wscott writes:

    I don’t see how suporting the rights of individual gun owners is “oppressing” anyone else? I mean, you can certainly disagree with them about the legality and/or wisdom of gun control, but there’s nothing in their position that restricts anyone else’s rights. (Unless you’re going to argue some “Right To Be Safe” which I think is a stretch.)

    It’s not a stretch to conclude the right to be safe not only exists, but is frequently the right government protects at the expense of another’s right to bear arms, e.g., the prohibition against heavy weaponry in residences or places where non-automatic weapons are legal. Therefore there is absolutely oppression of rights from those who seek to extend their right to own and bear arms while there is absolutely oppression of rights from those who seek better protections regarding their right to be safe. Gun control laws have long been significantly impacted by the fact we have a competing rights conundrum, the most difficult type of rights issue to popularly solve.

    I happen to oppose nearly all people getting concealed carry permits. That’s because I think my right to determine the risk of a threat in venues where the public congregates is far superior to another person’s right to be present with a hidden gun. So I’m more liberal in support of open carry laws than I am with concealed carry laws. If I’m in a venue with open carrying going on, I have superior information to decide whether to stay or leave.

  16. pacal says

    wscott I think you miss the point (c. 8) when you claim that Nugent and Fischer supporting the right to bear arms was “oppressive of others was what Ed meant. I don’t think Ed was referring to that at all. What he meant was that both Nugent and Fischer have absolutely no problem with the oppression of certain groups being carried out. In both cases both Fischer and Nugent have no problems, for example, with anti-Gay laws. In fact Fischer is an out and out theocrat who believes in the rule of saints and has no respect for such things as freedom of religion. As for Nugent I have no doubt he would have no problem with oppression so long as it was of groups he didn’t like.

  17. Janine: Hallucinating Liar says

    Damn, Edward Gemmer! You are so funny!

    But I am try to figure this out,. Who are you calling a two bit hack?

  18. speed0spank says

    @18 I read it that way as well.

    I would agree with wmdkitty and other’s idea on it as well, though. If government isn’t looking out for my safety then what’s up with seatbelts and jay walking laws?

  19. grumpyoldfart says

    Fischer can expect to see a spike in the donations graph this week. Christians love it when they are depicted as martyrs. It’s a message they will pay to hear.

  20. jnorris says

    To both of you, on your best day, working as partners, Rosa Parks could take you both with one arm tied behind her back.
    I’m waiting for one of you to become the new Crispus Attucks.

  21. scienceavenger says

    The Sports Night quote is pretty much what you said: “No rich white guy ever got anywhere with me comparing himself to Rosa Parks”, “guy” might be “kid”, it’s been awhile. A great show that didn’t get watched enough.

    My favorite quote from Jaffe: “If you’re dumb, surround yourself with smart people, and if you’re smart, surround yourself with smart people that disagree with you”, something else people like Nugent would never do.

  22. says

    Nugent IS like Rosa Parks.

    He engaged in civil disobedience to avoid the draft. Not to protest it, just to avoid it – a more personal protest:

    “I got my physical notice 30 days prior to. Well, on that day I ceased cleansing my body. No more brushing my teeth, no more washing my hair, no baths, no soap, no water. Thirty days of debris build. I stopped shavin’ and I was 18, had a little scraggly beard, really looked like a hippie. I had long hair, and it started gettin’ kinky, matted up. Then two weeks before, I stopped eating any food with nutritional value. I just had chips, Pepsi, beer-stuff I never touched-buttered poop, little jars of Polish sausages, and I’d drink the syrup, I was this side of death, Then a week before, I stopped going to the bathroom. I did it in my pants. poop, piss the whole shot. My pants got crusted up.”

    Aren’t these the very same tactics Rosa Parks used when trying to avoid bus laws?

  23. StevoR, fallible human being says

    @ ^ Jafafa Hots : Er, nope.

    She was sitting down instead of Nugent who was shitting down. Easily mistake – its that tricky ‘h’ that makes all the difference!

  24. Michael Heath says

    scienceavenger quoting Jaffe:

    “If you’re dumb, surround yourself with smart people, and if you’re smart, surround yourself with smart people that disagree with you”, something else people like Nugent would never do.

    I think another possibility might be in play with Mr. Nugent where we assume he’s dumb. That would be that he does have smart people surrounding him; they simply realize the best way for Nugent to now get noticed and make a living is to allow his true nature to be on public display. It’s a win/win; Nugent optimizes his income while his handlers and the public get endless entertainment watching his antics.

    Given that Sarah Palin’s probably frettin’ at the decreasing amount of attention she’s getting, I’m waiting for the Palin-Nugent sex tape to get “leaked”.

  25. wscott says

    @ Michael Heath 17: Good point about competing rights, and obviously the state does have a valid interest in promoting safety. If we were talking explicitly about public carry laws, that would be one thing. But if we’re going to tell Nugent et. al. what property they can/can’t own in the privacy of their homes, that’s a much different argument. I’m not arguing against gun regulations, or against safety regulations in general; they are often necessary and justified. I just think it’s somewhat disingenuous to claim we’re the ones being oppressed.

    @ pacal 18: I agree completely about their record of oppression and general dickishness in other areas.

  26. woodsong says

    wscott:

    what property they can/can’t own in the privacy of their homes

    At least in the last century, there are quite a few things that the government says you can’t own in the privacy of your own home Two that come immediately to mind are drugs and high explosives, including fireworks in some states (like NY, although permits for professionals are available). There are plenty of other things that are legal to own, but not to use in public, including crossbows and switchblade knives.

    The laws may be inconsistent, but this argument really doesn’t persuade me. If I can’t legally own pot or bottle rockets, why the hell should these loons expect to own assault rifles???

  27. lancifer says

    Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.- Benjamin Franklin

  28. lancifer says

    Yeah, I’m sure that Ben’s ghosts is a wise cracking progressive.

    You may recall that he and a few of his buddies used the AR-15 of their day, the musket, to fight for their liberty from an over-reaching government.

    I doubt he’d be much of a gun control advocate.

  29. says

    The second amendment wasn’t put in the Bill of Rights to protect duck hunting.

    The reason the 2nd amendment was put in the constitution is given in the second amendment.
    You know, the part you NRA nuts always deliberately leave out. The FIRST part.

  30. says

    Jafafa Hots “The reason the 2nd amendment was put in the constitution is given in the second amendment. You know, the part you NRA nuts always deliberately leave out. The FIRST part.”

    Because a nominally liberal Democratic party president might try to enact Republican party ideas from twenty years earlier…”

  31. lancifer says

    Jafafa Hots,

    I am not an NRA member. In fact I have never owned a fire arm.

    But I do know what the framers mean by “a well regulated militia”. Perhaps you should do some reading before idiotically spouting off.

  32. Michael Heath says

    lancifer writes:

    But I do know what the framers mean by “a well regulated militia”.

    Nothing you’ve written on the subject in this venue demonstrates you’re literate on this topic in general, let alone on the historical underpinnings of the 2nd Amendment. You do have the shallowest set of talking points of one partisan side of this debate down pat.

  33. dingojack says

    Lance -The 2nd amendment is an example of the nominative absolute in English:.

    While a well-ordered militia* is needed to maintain public safety, the right to keep & bear arms shall not be infringed [but if a well-ordered militia is no longer needed...]

    It was intended as a ‘stop-gap’ measure. (that is the plain-reading, IMHO).

    Dingo
    ——–
    * Since you’re clearly such an expert, enlighten us as to the meaning of the term a well-ordered militia

  34. lancifer says

    First dingojack,

    The word “while” appears no where in the 2nd amendment.

    Also you should look up the words “subordinate clause”.

    Now for Heath,

    As usual you sling personal insults with no substance.

    Are you getting enough fiber in your diet? Because you are exhibiting the symptoms of constipation.

    You are irritable and full of shit.

  35. lancifer says

    Dingo,

    And since you asked for it,

    Here is the definition of militia form the US code:

    USC § 311 – Militia: composition and classes

    a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.
    (b) The classes of the militia are—
    (1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and
    (2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.

    As you can see it’s pretty much every able bodied citizen.

    Also “well regulated” just meant well equipped.

    And, as I pointed out to you in the previous post, it is really immaterial since the militia clause is a subordinate clause. The main clause is “the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed”.

    All of the rights protected by the Bill of Rights and listed as the rights of the “people”are “individual” rights.

    Perhaps you think that the framers needed to guarantee the right for army members to have weapons in the Bill of Rights. A patently absurd idea.

    Then again patently absurd is kind’a your forte.

  36. lancifer says

    WMDKitty (Always growing and learning)

    Thanks for reminding me why I installed the “killfile” script.

    By all means, use it. That way I won’t have to read another of your insipid remarks, at least in a reply to me.

  37. dingojack says

    Lance – the content of subordinate clauses are ‘irrelevant? Really? And you think I need to brush up on subordinate clauses. @@

    I would have thought you’d have had a grasp on the concept of paraphrasing for clarity, but I guess not.

    Let me try again:

    The 2nd amendment in an example of the Nominative Absolute construction in English (an analog of the Latin Ablative Absolute construction).
    This form of construction consists of two parts. The first part is a condition, state or function to be fulfilled or achieved; the second party describes the consequence of the first part being fulfilled or achieved

    In this case:
    Since a well-order militia* is needed for the security of the state (the condition), then the right to bear & keep arms shall not be infringed (the result of the condition).
    Clearly if the condition is not fulfilled then the result will not occur as it is unnecessary.

    Funny how language works, it even manages to convey actual meaning and stuff. @@

    Dingo
    ——–
    Thanks for the big hunk of regulations, but ‘a well ordered militia’ appears nowhere in the quote.

  38. lancifer says

    dingojack,

    As to the constitution and subordinate clauses. Excerpt follows.

    “He’s on the usage panel of the American Heritage Dictionary, and Merriam Webster’s Usage Dictionary frequently cites him as an expert. Copperud’s fifth book on usage, American Usage and Style: The Consensus, has been in continuous print from Van Nostrand Reinhold since 1981, and is the winner of the Association of American Publisher’s Humanities Award.

    That sounds like an expert to me.”

    Full text below,

    http://constitution.org/2ll/schol/2amd_grammar.htm

Leave a Reply