Ted Nugent’s brother has called out the rocker and the National Rifle Association on background checks in an op-ed for the Washington Post.
According to the op-ed, Jeffrey Nugent, Ted’s older brother, said he agreed with Ted Nugent “that our constitutional right to bear arms should not be undermined” but noted that not everyone is qualified to own a gun, “so expanded background checks should be a legislative priority.”
Jeffrey continued: “The NRA has it wrong: Irresponsible gun owners are bad for everyone. If you shouldn’t have access to a gun, then there should be no way for you to access a gun! Can anyone argue with that?”
Why, yes, Ted Nugent’s brother. Yes, they can.
Take the man himself, who in a rebuttal on the Newsmax website had this to say: “In this day and age of terminal apathy and soulless discontent, I adore anyone who is an activist and stands up for what he or she believes … My loving brother Jeffery is becoming one of those activists, and I salute the great man. His recent opinion on his support for expanded background checks for firearms purchasers is dead wrong, however.”
Ted continued: “Passing expanded background checks would do nothing to curtail or suppress thugs or psychos from accessing weapons and committing mass murder, carjacking, the nightly shootouts in Chicago or a gangsta shooting at the Mother’s Day parade in New Orleans.”
Nugent may have a point here. With updates in 3D printer technology and the first successful firing of a 3D printed gun earlier this month, gun control enthusiasts’ work just got a lot tougher, and expanded background checks would do little to stop a 3D printed gun from being produced, especially as the technology develops.
In January, The Inquisitr reported that 150,000 gun patterns for 3D printer technology had been downloaded immediately following a pro-gun control speech from President Obama. In other words, the genie’s about as far out of the bottle as it can get.
Do you agree with Ted Nugent’s brother, or are you more apt to think expanded background checks would do little good in prevention?