Nashville Lemonade Stand AK

[mikegideon]

1 hour ago, Erik88 said:

I think you are correct that this is very popular, even among gun owners.

Would you agree that it's popularity would drop if people were educated on the topic? Most people don't really understand what the impact would be. If educated on the issue I suspect support would drop but still hover around 50%.. Of course I have no data to support this.

A bucket of unicorn turds can get 50% support these days, depending on what kinda spin is added to the information. Thank God for the TGO "echo chamber", and other places like it. 

[Worriedman]

1 hour ago, bud said:

From Wikipedia: 

Personal History

Before his election to the House, Stewart served in the Army, first in Korea, where he was awarded the Eighth Army Distinguished Leader Award, and later in Operation Desert Storm.^[1] Following Desert Storm, Stewart attended the University of Tennessee Law School, where he graduated cum laude in 1994. Stewart and his wife Ruth then moved to the East Nashville neighborhood of Lockeland Springs in order for Stewart to begin his legal career; Stewart was elected President of the Lockeland Springs Neighborhood Association in 1998.^{[2][self-published source]}

Let's not forget Benedict Arnold...he was all about the People and good governance as well.

Edited April 6, 2017 by Worriedman

[Erik88]

1 hour ago, mikegideon said:

A bucket of unicorn turds can get 50% support these days, depending on what kinda spin is added to the information. Thank God for the TGO "echo chamber", and other places like it. 

Hey I never said I supported it. I would bet that only 10% of gun owners are truly "gun people". Just look at all the idiots at indoor ranges for proof.

My guess is that a lot of folks with a 12ga under their bed have no problem with universal background checks...

[Worriedman]

34 minutes ago, Erik88 said:

Hey I never said I supported it. I would bet that only 10% of gun owners are truly "gun people". Just look at all the idiots at indoor ranges for proof.

My guess is that a lot of folks with a 12ga under their bed have no problem with universal background checks...

If they realized the intent was to insert the government into their ability to pass that shotgun on to a grand child sans Big Brother's nose being inserted they might.

 

I still say that we need to include cars, and why not houses into background checks territory?

Edited April 6, 2017 by Worriedman

[bud]

.

Edited May 30, 2017 by bud

[Worriedman]

15 minutes ago, bud said:

Please, do tell... just an interested party here. I would like to learn more about his record from a gun owner's and conservative's POV

Whose, Mike Stewart's or Benedict Arnold's?

To my knowledge there are no conservative Democrats left in the GA now that Eddie Bass, Ben West and Doug Jackson are gone, more is the pity...

Edited April 6, 2017 by Worriedman

[bud]

.

Edited May 30, 2017 by bud

[monkeylizard]

... nevermind . . .

Edited April 6, 2017 by monkeylizard

[mikegideon]

1 hour ago, Erik88 said:

Hey I never said I supported it. I would bet that only 10% of gun owners are truly "gun people". Just look at all the idiots at indoor ranges for proof.

My guess is that a lot of folks with a 12ga under their bed have no problem with universal background checks...

Just saying that anything can get 50% support in this world if Hillary can. Not accusing you of anything stupid  

[mikegideon]

38 minutes ago, bud said:

I was interested to hear how Mike Stewart had turned "Benedict Arnold" with regards to his stance on being "for the people and good governance" like you mentioned.

Specifically,  I was looking for what he flip-flopped on with regards to what he promised to do once elected and what he actually did.

I figured you could point to some specific event since you called him a traitor.

He called him a Democrat too. Badmouthed him all the way around. Of course, Worriedman can speak with lots of authority when it comes to the slimy ones on the Hill, since he has come face to face with most of them.

[bud]

.

Edited May 30, 2017 by bud

[Worriedman]

4 hours ago, bud said:

I was interested to hear how Mike Stewart had turned "Benedict Arnold" with regards to his stance on being "for the people and good governance" like you mentioned.

Specifically,  I was looking for what he flip-flopped on with regards to what he promised to do once elected and what he actually did.

I figured you could point to some specific event since you called him a traitor.

Did I say he had? You mentioned the fact that he was all that with regard to being in the military, I reflected that so was Benedict Arnold, or more precisely I said we should not forget that he was all that too.

My point was that one can be in the military (and be a lawyer to your point, like that is some grand achievement) and still not truly support the restoration of our Rights to Arms.

When I call someone something I do it with clarity, there are many instances here of me calling the Establishment Republicans feckless, lying worms, and I am not coy with my descriptions...

What has Stewart ever done to restore the original intent of the Tennessee Constitution with respect to our arms and our ability to keep bear and wear them, his stellar service record and having passed the bar notwithstanding?

Edited April 7, 2017 by Worriedman

[Worriedman]

3 hours ago, bud said:

I don't doubt that at all, and meant no offense to @Worriedman. I appreciate his posts about local politics, since I don't get a lot of that info otherwise.

I'm a gun loving, fiscal conservative who was just curious about what other stances Stewart has taken that run afoul of my beliefs or that I may find interesting.

They may be too great in number to list.

I could just google it I guess.

I suggest you spend some time at the legislature watching these miscreants wallow in the mire that is the General Assembly. 

As this is a gun forum, I tend to keep my thoughts regarding fiscal and other issues to myself, I do get involved, but I find other venues to engage those trials and opinions in.

[bud]

 

.

 

Edited May 30, 2017 by bud

[Worriedman]

19 minutes ago, bud said:

Perhaps I'll wait to ask/look for answers to any more questions I may have until I can retire and spend all day at the legislature.

 

I hit the bricks this morning at 4:00 headed to Mississippi and worked all day, and drove back to Jackson tonight to take care of my 90 year old Father"s meds, I just buried my Father-in-law last weekend, Navy man from WWII, and I expect my Father to join him in the next few weeks.  I am a 63 year Senior Project Manager with a very sick wife who uses up his vacation to advocate for firearms issues.  I do not get my gas paid for, nor any recompense for my efforts.  I deal with these folks denying the People their Rights for the three months they are on our dole stealing our money and drinking our tax payer funded liquor, kissing there rears and trying to get my grandchildren as well situated as I can.  Normally I am the only advocate for these issues in the house.

I am too tired to be insulted, and I rightly do not care what you throw at me because I do all I humanly can and that is a lot more than most.

[btq96r]

Too many replies to do the quote thing tonight as I miserate after dental work...

I think background checks need work.  They're not perfect, nowhere near, but I'd rather have them in place than not have them.  If there was a bill for universal background checks, I'd be neutral on it.  As mentioned, I'd support it if it came with trade-offs for items we'd like to see.  I think that once you pass a background check, there should be no limits on what you can carry, and where.  Proving myself as a law abiding citizen makes me a member of the "militia" as we have it today

But to deny that they've kept unqualified people from getting guns is disingenuous I think.  Something like 1.5 million background checks have denied a gun purchase since the Brady Bill came into effect, and even taking out the administrative errors, that's a lot of people that shouldn't have had a gun that didn't get one, not to mention the ones that it deterred from even trying.  I say keep it and improve it...but this is D vs. R, so it's just another item to fight over instead of using for good effect.

I get that's nowhere near where most of you think...but I'm pretty sure I'm much closer to the median of society on the issue.  The 10% of gun owners being "gun guys/gals" estimate @Erik88 made seems fair, so keep that in mind on issues like these that hit the general public for consumption.

[mikegideon]

6 minutes ago, btq96r said:

Too many replies to do the quote thing tonight as I miserate after dental work...

I think background checks need work.  They're not perfect, nowhere near, but I'd rather have them in place than not have them.  If there was a bill for universal background checks, I'd be neutral on it.  As mentioned, I'd support it if it came with trade-offs for items we'd like to see.  I think that once you pass a background check, there should be no limits on what you can carry, and where.  Proving myself as a law abiding citizen makes me a member of the "militia" as we have it today

But to deny that they've kept unqualified people from getting guns is disingenuous I think.  Something like 1.5 million background checks have denied a gun purchase since the Brady Bill came into effect, and even taking out the administrative errors, that's a lot of people that shouldn't have had a gun that didn't get one, not to mention the ones that it deterred from even trying.  I say keep it and improve it...but this is D vs. R, so it's just another item to fight over instead of using for good effect.

I get that's nowhere near where most of you think...but I'm pretty sure I'm much closer to the median of society on the issue.  The 10% of gun owners being "gun guys/gals" estimate @Erik88 made seems fair, so keep that in mind on issues like these that hit the general public for consumption.

I have no problem with effective background checks. I'm thinking I have been through 30 or so that weren't effective because they were redundant. So much of this crap is done against gun owners, not criminals. Class 3 weapons are handled the way Democrats would like to handle all weapons (broad brush, but close). I don't (refuse to) mess with class 3.

[btq96r]

8 minutes ago, mikegideon said:

I'm thinking I have been through 30 or so that weren't effective because they were redundant.

What makes them redundant in your cases?

[mikegideon]

40 minutes ago, btq96r said:

What makes them redundant in your cases?

For one thing, I had a permit in my pocket.

[btq96r]

2 minutes ago, mikegideon said:

For one thing, I had a permit in my pocket.

The counter argument (not from me mind you) would be that the background check is meant to determine legality at the moment of purchase.  I think the 4-5 yr system of permit renewal is good enough...but in a system where we regress to the mean "for the children" it's probably a different story.

Even an annual check would work if the system automated it and only sent it up the chain if a red flag popped up.  Watson or something else should be able to handle that if needs be.

 

[mikegideon]

Just now, btq96r said:

The counter argument (not from me mind you) would be that the background check is meant to determine legality at the moment of purchase.  I think the 4-5 yr system of permit renewal is good enough...but in a system where we regress to the mean "for the children" it's probably a different story.

Even an annual check would work if the system automated it and only sent it up the chain if a red flag popped up.  Watson or something else should be able to handle that if needs be.

 

OK... walking in the store, I already have 29 guns (actually more), and a license to carry them. What are you and your background check gonna stop?

[btq96r]

Just now, mikegideon said:

OK... walking in the store, I already have 29 guns (actually more), and a license to carry them. What are you and your background check gonna stop?

Not sure I understand the question.  Are you robbing the joint?

It's also worth noting that laws are equal parts mechanisms to deter crime and punish it after the occurrence.  No law will ensure 100% on either end, humanity has proven that as far back as history goes.

[mikegideon]

5 minutes ago, btq96r said:

Not sure I understand the question.  Are you robbing the joint?

It's also worth noting that laws are equal parts mechanisms to deter crime and punish it after the occurrence.  No law will ensure 100% on either end, humanity has proven that as far back as history goes.

Punishment is much more effective IMO. Why am I filling out another 4473? To keep me from getting "a gun"? Already have a bunch. 

Guess it doesn't pay to discuss it. I'll keep calling my legislators when this stupid #### comes up.

[DaveTN]

I don’t find it hard to believe that 83% of the people or even higher answered “Yes” when asked if a person should have to pass a background check to buy a gun.

The real crime in that story is that an AK knock off costs $700 or that anyone would pay that.

[Worriedman]

6 hours ago, btq96r said:

It's also worth noting that laws are equal parts mechanisms to deter crime and punish it after the occurrence.  No law will ensure 100% on either end, humanity has proven that as far back as history goes.

 

What law is enforced that keeps a criminal from illegally purchasing a gun, or stealing one and using it to commit a crime?

Stewart proves that straw purchases (his offer to sell the weapon shows his intent and he should be prosecuted for that action, political grandstanding notwithstanding) can and do subvert the "background check" system.

Who do we hold responsible when these laws fail to keep criminals from having and using guns, we pay an ungodly amount of our property to a government who advertises "To Protect and Serve" yet when some criminal who has been adjudicated dangerous and let out of incarceration to practice his skill set again injures the public, does the public have recourse?  The government has qualified immunity when they fail in the fiduciary responsibility to their employers.

Simple fix, allow anyone to access the TICS system, it is a phone call and driver's license number, give them a credit card number for the $10.00 problem solved. (We are paying the people who run it already, if the aim is to restrict the sale of firearms to criminals, I think this is a reasonable us of our employees)

If a legislator wants to reduce sales of firearms to criminals, pass legislation to give all the ability to check, then drop the hammer on anyone who sells to a criminal if they can prove it.
 

Edited April 7, 2017 by Worriedman