Ted Nugent Just Shared Photo Of ‘Punks’ Who ‘Hate Freedom,’ 1 Thing About It Has People Wanting It Removed

Rocker Ted Nugent has doubled down on a Facebook rant against gun control in the wake of criticism from Jewish leaders and being called a “wacko” by the New York Daily News, which accused him of being anti-Semitic.

The firestorm began early Monday when Nugent posted a graphic to his Facebook page that included images of 12 Jewish leaders, all labeled with Israeli flags, beneath a headline that read “So who is really behind gun control?”

Those pictured included New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg, Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel and Democratic New York Sen. Chuck Schumer, all labeled in a derogatory manner, such as “Jew York City Mayor Mikey Bloomberg” and “Sen. Chucky boy Schumer.” Emanuel’s text reads: “Served in Israel’s army during Gulf war.” Harvard Law professor Alan Dershowitz and Democratic California Sens. Barbara Boxer and Dianne Feinstein are also depicted.

Along with the graphic, which Jewish groups said had been used in the past by anti-Jewish groups, Nugent added his own message.

“Know these punks. They hate freedom, they hate good over evil, they would deny us the basic human right to self defense & to KEEP & BEAR ARMS while many of them have tax paid hired ARMED security! Know them well. Tell every1 you know how evil they are. Let us raise maximum hell to shut them down!” he wrote.

Know these punks. They hate freedom, they hate good over evil, they would deny us the basic human right to self defense …

Posted by Ted Nugent on Monday, February 8, 2016

Jewish groups responded to Nugent’s attack, calling for the post to come down.

“Ted Nugent has a long history of being an equal opportunity offender. But his latest share on Facebook, making the outrageous suggestion that Jews are behind gun control, is nothing short of conspiratorial anti-Semitism,” said Anti-Defamation League CEO Jonathan A. Greenblatt, who urged Nugent to take the down the post.

“Ted Nugent has every right to advocate against gun control laws. However he won’t be getting a free pass for his anti-Semitic bigotry,” said Rabbi Abraham Cooper, associate dean of the Wiesenthal Center. “There are Jews on both sides of the gun control controversy and Nugent knows it. He owes our community an apology. He can start by removing the offensive graphic and if he won’t we urge Facebook to do it for him.”

Nugent was not retreating.

“Just when you hope that mankind couldnt possibly get any dumber or more dishonest, superFreaks rise to the occasion,” he posted late Monday night. “What sort of racist prejudiced POS could possibly not know that Jews for guncontrol are nazis in disguise? “NEVER AGAIN!” Anyone? Anyone??”

Just when you hope that mankind couldnt possibly get any dumber or more dishonest, superFreaks rise to the occasion….

Posted by Ted Nugent on Monday, February 8, 2016

“The founder of Jews For the Preservation of Firearms Ownership called me his 2nd Amendment/Freedom hero. The NEVER AGAIN battlecry was universally embraced by all good people who will make sure another Holocaust never happens again. Freaks have plummeted to whole new low. Plummet on punks. Plummet on. Meanwhile I adjust my yamika at my barmitzva playing my kosher guitar. My dad killed nazis & saved Jews in WWII. Eat me,” Nugent wrote.

h/t: Facebook

Exposed: School Massacre Would’ve Been WORSE If Not For What These Staff Members Did- Libs Want It Quiet…

Killers who invaded a school in Pakistan sparked a debate over whether teachers should be armed; but if what happened during this would-be massacre is any indication, the argument has been settled.

The incident occurred at the Bacha Khan University in Charsadda, Pakistan, on January 20. The university was attacked by a handful of machine gun-wielding Muslim extremists who apparently felt the university wasn’t sufficiently Muslim enough

Even as the gunmen were fighting Pakistani police and sill trying to kill teachers and students, university director Mohammad Shakil was able to have the police throw him a gun so that he could protect the 15 students hiding with him in a room of the building.

Shakil exchanged shots with the terrorists, and his ability to fight back likely kept the gunmen from getting any closer to where he and the students were holed up.

“We were hiding … but were unarmed,” Shakil told Reuters. “I was worried about the students, and then one of the militants came after us. After repeated requests, the police threw me a pistol and I fired some shots at the terrorists.”

Shakil wasn’t the only university employee who fired back. Reuters also reported that another armed teacher fired back at the militants. Chemistry professor Hamid Hussain had a pistol with him in his classroom; and when the militants got near the room, he returned fire, forcing the terrorists to turn elsewhere for easier targets.

Professor Hussain and some students hid in a washroom and got ready for death, but it was not to happen, fortunately. “They carried on heavy shooting,” Hussain said, “and I was preparing myself for death, but then they did not enter the washroom and left.”

Eventually, the school’s private security, local police, and army soldiers all worked together to kill all four militants. But the two teachers also helped keep the students in their charge safe.

Of course, the debate has erupted in Pakistan over whether it is proper for a teacher to walk around with a gun in the classroom; but the fact that the students in the care of Professor Hussain and the university president are still alive seems to attest to the efficacy of arming teachers.

Pakistan isn’t the only place where the topic of arming teachers is a hot discussion. Here in America, the question has fostered constant debate, especially after the 2012 attack at the Sandy Hook elementary school in Newtown, Connecticut.

Not long ago, for instance, NBC News reported that more American teachers every year are applying for concealed carry licenses–and schools are allowing them to carry in school.

One of the states to allow concealed carry in schools more recently is South Dakota. The Mount Rushmore State passed a law allowing teachers to carry guns on the job in March of 2013.

Several more states are trying to pass similar laws, including North Dakota, Colorado, and Wyoming.

Obama May Have Gone Too Far: He Just Got Blasted With A Major Lawsuit That Could Hurt…

The first lawsuit has been filed challenging the constitutionality of President Barack Obama’s executive actions concerning gun control, which he announced earlier this month.

Conservative attorney Larry Klayman filed a suit in federal district court in Florida which accuses the president of seeking to circumvent the legislative process and invent new gun laws in violation of the Constitution’s separation of powers.

“The president states that he is doing so purely because he does not like the legislative decisions of the Congress,” argues Klayman, the founder of Freedom Watch. 

“These actions are unconstitutional abuses of the president’s and executive branch’s role in our nation’s constitutional architecture and exceed the powers of the president as set forth in the U.S. Constitution,” he continues.

Klayman further contends that the president’s actions unlawfully infringe on Americans’ Second Amendment rights. “The Defendants’ rewriting of laws burdening and abridging the fundamental rights of the Plaintiff and other U.S. citizens under the Second Amendment by the President and his executive branch is unconstitutional…”

One of the new gun control measures announced by the president two weeks ago redefines what it means to be in the business of selling guns to include non-gun dealers.

Federally licensed gun dealers are required to perform background checks on those seeking to purchase firearms, while private individuals selling them to each other have not been required to do so. The majority of guns are sold through licensed dealers.

Fox News judicial analyst Judge Andrew Napolitano believes that this move is an unconstitutional power grab by Obama and will be struck down by the courts:

Congress has expressly removed occasional sales (sales not made by full-time dealers) from the obligation of obtaining federal licenses and from conducting background checks.

The president is without authority to negate the congressional will on this, and any attempt to do so will be invalidated by the courts. Mr. Obama will now require that anyone who sells a gun, that is even an “occasional” seller will be required to perform a background check. By defining what an “occasional seller” is, the president is essentially interpreting the law, a job reserved for the courts.

The courts will ignore his interpretation, and impose their own.

Napolitano pointed out that Congress on three occasions has chosen not to change the law in the way Obama stated his administration will now interpret it.

Klayman’s suit “is believed to be the first in what is expected to become a series of legal challenges over Obama’s gun orders,” The Hill reports.

“I want my constitutional rights respected and look to the courts to do the right thing,” Klayman wrote for WorldNetDaily. “Obama, as was true with his illegal immigration executive orders, cannot be allowed to act like a king.”

h/t: The Hill 

Dems Just Launched A Massive Attack On Gun Manufacturers That Would Destroy The Industry

Congressional Democrats are seeking to make gun manufacturers liable for damages when someone misuses a firearm and attacks people.

“Congress passed a unique form of immunity for only one industry — and that is the gun industry,” said Rep. Adam Schiff, D-Calif., a supporter of the Equal Access to Justice for Victims of Gun Violence Act. “If you’re a carmaker and your airbags kill someone, you’re potentially liable. If you’re a pharmaceutical company and sell faulty drugs, you can be held liable. If you’re a liquor store and sell alcohol to minors, you can be held liable.

“Why should it be any different for gun manufacturers?”

Schiff was critical of a 2005 law that protects gun manufacturers against lawsuits when firearms they make are used in commission of a crime. Writing on Bearing Arms, Jim Vespa clarified the misunderstanding under which he believes Schiff is laboring.

“The 2005 law protects the gun manufacturing industry from ridiculous lawsuits,” Vespa wrote. “In short, you cannot sue a manufacturer if their firearms are unknowingly used in criminal actions. Now, why is it different for gun manufacturers you may ask, Congressman Schiff? It’s because Remington Arms doesn’t make firearms for criminals, as with any other gun manufacturer, nor do dealers willingly sell to criminals. Those who do are breaking the law.

“If their products are unknowingly or unwillingly used in criminal actions, they’re not at fault – and should continue to be shielded from lawsuits stating otherwise.”

Schiff’s comments echo those of Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton, who said, “So far as I know, the gun industry and gun sellers are the only business in America that is totally free of liability for their behavior.”

Not really.

“The 2005 law does not prevent gun makers from being held liable for defects in their design,” said Adam Winkler, professor of law at UCLA and author of Gunfight: The Battle Over the Right to Bear Arms in America. “Like car makers, gun makers can be sued for selling a defective product. The problem is that gun violence victims often want to hold gun makers liable for the criminal misuse of a properly functioning product.”

h/t: Bearing Arms

Revealed: What MLK Jr. Really Thought About Gun Control Is Jaw Dropping

The American synonymous with non-violence in the battle for societal change understood there was a difference between peaceful protest and being defenseless.

“… the right to defend one’s home and one’s person when attacked has been guaranteed through the ages by common law,” the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. once said.

In November 1963, in the wake of the assassination of President Kennedy, King noted that it was the context of the times, and not the weapons, that were at fault for violence.

“By allowing our movie and television screens to teach our children that the hero is one who masters the art of shooting and the technique of killing, by allowing all these developments, we have created an atmosphere in which violence and hatred have become popular pastimes,” King said, according to research from Stanford University historian Clayborne Carson.

King knew that violent times required protection.

“There is nothing in the history that suggests that Martin Luther King felt that guns weren’t useful for self-defense,” said Adam Winkler, UCLA law professor and author of the book Gunfight: The Battle Over the Right to Bear Arms in America.

“If you went to King’s house in 1955 or 1956, there were guns,” said Charles E. Cobb, Jr., author of This Nonviolent Stuff’ll Get You Killed: How Guns Made the Civil Rights Movement Possible. “When they bombed his house in 1956, his first instinct was to apply for a gun permit.”

Cobb said many of King’s followers “felt their duty was to protect the movement, grab a rifle” and drive away threats.

“They didn’t see any contradiction between saying they were part of the non-violent movement and keeping their weapons clean and ready,” Cobb said.

King’s application for a gun permit was denied. There is a lesson in that for modern America, wrote Tony Oliva on Bullets First. 

“If a man like Dr. King wasn’t ‘worthy’ to be given a concealed weapons permit then I submit that as proof that any notion of needing to ask the government for permission before exercising a right is flawed,” oliva wrote. “If a civil rights leader who promotes non-violence and is a national figure who gets death threats constantly and has attempts made on his life does not meet the measure of gaining a (permit) in a state that can arbitrarily deny him his right to keep and bear arms, then the states themselves should have no say in it.

“This is what oppression looks like. This is tyranny. This is also a successful application of gun control. Let gun control activists crow about how the world is safer because Dr. King was disarmed. That’s all gun control can do…disarm the law abiding; the criminals just don’t care because they’re criminals and will carry anyways.”

h/t: Huffington Post