NRA, faithful stewardship

[Garufa]

37 minutes ago, BCR#1 said:

Care to tell us which one of the 20 something baboons on the other side of the aisle you plan to vote for next year big boy?

Bill

No need to get (too) snarky.  E is only pointing out some of the rampant hypocrisy among those who vote along party lines in the guise of single issue concerns, then can’t handle the fact that, or make excuses for, their candidate’s not doing everything the way they expected.

Edited August 9, 2019 by Garufa

[mikegideon]

7 hours ago, Erik88 said:

Trump could do an executive order outlawing private sales and it seems you'd still defend him. I've never seen such unwavering support for a politician. 

He always has a choice. You really think his base wants universal background checks? Not a chance. The Democratic voters of America might want it but they will never vote for him. He gains absolutely nothing by coming out in support of this. I'm not sure why you continue to cover for him.

If Trump caves on background checks, he is on my #### list. I will then admit that I was wrong about him all along.

[mikegideon]

4 hours ago, Garufa said:

No need to get (too) snarky.  E is only pointing out some of the rampant hypocrisy among those who vote along party lines in the guise of single issue concerns, then can’t handle the fact that, or make excuses for, their candidate’s not doing everything the way they expected.

Hypocrite? White supremacists, racist, misogynist, homophobe, but not a hypocrite. If Trump betrays me (hasn't yet), he's dead to me.

[Wingshooter]

I’m hoping Trump is just placating the dems but has no real intentions of a universal background check. I haven’t kept up 100% lately... is he talking universal checks now or still just the red flag law? 

He can talk it up all day long until it blows over and never actually do it. That’s what I think. I am a strong Trump supporter UNLESS he pulls something like universal checks. If he does that, then I believe he’s a one-termer. 

[GlockSpock]

14 hours ago, Erik88 said:

That's fine. That doesn't mean he is right all the time. If you like his policies or think he's doing a great job that doesn't mean you have to agree with him even when he's quite clearly wrong.  How does Trump benefit by coming out in support of additional background checks? I guess the only thing I can think of is that even if he gives us universal background checks then we know most gun owners are still going to vote for him. Most of you would rather cut off your johnson than vote for a Democrat.  

 

Ok. That last part isn't true. If a Democrat runs with an (R) next to their name, then it's fair game.

[GlockSpock]

Ok everyone, I think you probably know who you are and I think you might benefit from a simple warning, but let's keep it civil here.

[Erik88]

8 hours ago, mikegideon said:

If Trump caves on background checks, he is on my #### list. I will then admit that I was wrong about him all along.

That's fair. I hope he does not. There is no need to cave on this as I can't find any evidence the GOP is pressuring him to do this. This is a self inflicted wound on his part. I'm hoping he's just blowing smoke up our asses.

Here are his latest words.

 

[mikegideon]

1 hour ago, Erik88 said:

That's fair. I hope he does not. There is no need to cave on this as I can't find any evidence the GOP is pressuring him to do this. This is a self inflicted wound on his part. I'm hoping he's just blowing smoke up our asses.

Here are his latest words.

 

I have seen all the video. I'm hoping somebody talks some sense into him.

[mikegideon]

2 hours ago, GlockSpock said:

Ok. That last part isn't true. If a Democrat runs with an (R) next to their name, then it's fair game.

We have lots of them, especially in TN.

[Wingshooter]

But what does that really mean “meaningful background checks” ?

I have yet to hear him say he would push for background checks for private sales. I could be wrong, but it sounds like it’s going nowhere to me.

 

or maybe I’m just wishful thinking.....

Edited August 10, 2019 by Wingshooter

[DaveTN]

54 minutes ago, Wingshooter said:

But what does that really mean “meaningful background checks” ?

I have yet to hear him say he would push for background checks for private sales. I could be wrong, but it sounds like it’s going nowhere to me.

or maybe I’m just wishful thinking.....

I think it's going to happen. I don’t get the idea that he wants anymore in depth checks (I’m not sure how that could happen that anyone would accept); I think he either wants to pay states to require background checks on private sales, or supports a Federal background check requirement on all guns sales in any state. I don’t think the Federal background check will pass SCOTUS muster. (But I could be wrong).

I think the overwhelming majority of Americans expect their state to require background checks on all sales, and most uninformed people have thought that has always been the case. But I could be wrong on that also.

I hate the fact that requiring them on private sales would have zero impact on murders or mass shootings, but I bet we have to pay whatever the LGS wants to charge. (I think the fee will be a SCOTUS issue also)

[btq96r]

49 minutes ago, DaveTN said:

...most uninformed people have thought that has always been the case.

The things that fall under what I quoted are what have the best chance of passing.  My ex-gf who has no issues with guns was quite surprised when I told her the only one I owned that could count as "registered" was the SBR.  She just assumed it was required at purchase for all guns, and she's lived in Tennessee all her life.

[DaveTN]

20 minutes ago, btq96r said:

The things that fall under what I quoted are what have the best chance of passing.  My ex-gf who has no issues with guns was quite surprised when I told her the only one I owned that could count as "registered" was the SBR.  She just assumed it was required at purchase for all guns, and she's lived in Tennessee all her life.

It’s the same with most of the folks I worked with, and most were gun owners. But most bought their guns though a gun store, did a background check, and assumed that was done on all gun sales. I even had a couple of them come back later and tell me that they checked and found what I told them about a convicted felon being able to simply get on the internet and buy whatever they want was correct.

They found it so hard to believe they had to go check. I’ve never had anyone other than on a gun forum tell me that they think keeping convicted felons or the mentally ill from buying guns is wrong. Most think it’s a common sense thing to do and didn’t know it was such an easy thing to get around.

Most citizens don’t really care about arguing whether it has any impact or not. That why I think it will pass or have the required support. Do I support it? No; it will have zero impact.

[DaveTN]

From the Iowa State Fair….

I just heard on the news that Harris will enact gun control by EO within the first 100 days if Congress fails to act. She says they have researched it and are not concerned with legal challenges. Ha Ha, of course she isn’t concerned with legal challenges, all she is concerned with is making outlandish statements to try to get votes.

Also they reported that Warren is rolling out a gun control plan that will result in an 80% reduction in deaths from firearms. 80%..that’s amazing; can’t wait to see that.

But mostly they were just hatin’ on Trump. What a bunch of losers. 

 

[bersaguy]

So ok! from what I have gathered from reading posts here they believe that Universal Background Checks are primarily designed to close the loop hole in the sales of guns from one person to another and not purchased at a licensed Gun store where back ground checks are done?  Is that correct?

I also did some research and found that 82% of all guns used in mass shootings where purchased legally from licensed gun dealers and back ground checks were run on the person prior to them getting the guns. So that means that Universal Background Checks are going after the other 18% of buyers that buy a gun from an individual without a back ground check. Is that correct or am I missing something? 

[DaveTN]

16 minutes ago, bersaguy said:

So ok! from what I have gathered from reading posts here they believe that Universal Background Checks are primarily designed to close the loop hole in the sales of guns from one person to another and not purchased at a licensed Gun store where back ground checks are done?  Is that correct?

I also did some research and found that 82% of all guns used in mass shootings where purchased legally from licensed gun dealers and back ground checks were run on the person prior to them getting the guns. So that means that Universal Background Checks are going after the other 18% of buyers that buy a gun from an individual without a back ground check. Is that correct or am I missing something? 

No you aren't missing anything; that's correct.

Except of course that there is no “loophole”. States control the private sale of firearms within the state and those sales are not covered by Federal law. For the Feds to try to force that at a Federal level would probably result in the SCOTUS overturning the whole thing as a violation of States Rights. So it appears the idea is to try to get states to pass that legislation themselves.

[bersaguy]

20 hours ago, DaveTN said:

No you aren't missing anything; that's correct.

Except of course that there is no “loophole”. States control the private sale of firearms within the state and those sales are not covered by Federal law. For the Feds to try to force that at a Federal level would probably result in the SCOTUS overturning the whole thing as a violation of States Rights. So it appears the idea is to try to get states to pass that legislation themselves.

Ok, thanks for explaining it to me. I have always been wondering exactly what the anti-gun people were talkinng about when they wanted Universal Back ground checks when I knew I had a back ground check done on me with every purchase I made at a licensed gun store. I don't think a lot of states are going to want to pick up that program but I could be wrong. Probably the ones with more Democrats with Governors in them might.........JMHO

[DaveTN]

45 minutes ago, bersaguy said:

I don't think a lot of states are going to want to pick up that program but I could be wrong. Probably the ones with more Democrats with Governors in them might.........JMHO

I don’t share your sentiments that Republicans aren’t on-board with Background checks. Hope you are right.

I don’t agree with them because it won’t accomplish anything, but I believe most politicians are afraid to denounce it. You can take a look and the dancing of some of our politicians below…including our Republican Governor.

However, they talk about legislation introduced by Steve Dickerson for a Red Flag law; I can’t find that proposed legislation anywhere?? Was there a proposal or is this just more fake news?

Quote

 

https://www.tennessean.com/story/news/politics/2019/08/06/tennessee-red-flag-law-gov-bill-lee-mass-shootings-gun-reform/1927662001/

Gun control: Tennessee Gov. Bill Lee says it's too 'early' to commit to enacting red flag gun law

Hours after President Donald Trump on Monday called for red flag laws to be enacted around the country in an effort to prevent potential mass shootings, Gov. Bill Lee said he still is not convinced of the correct path forward.

Speaking to reporters on Monday at the National Conference of State Legislatures, Lee would not commit to supporting such a law in Tennessee, where the Republican-controlled legislature this session declined to take up the measure.

"I haven't analyzed that option yet," he said. "It's early for us to talk about which direction we want to go."

Sen. Steve Dickerson, R-Nashville, introduced the legislation, (??) which was not popular among his fellow Republicans.

Lee also avoided sharing his opinion on whether he could support other types of gun-control legislation, such as enacting a waiting a period before a firearm purchase or implementing universal background checks.

He pointed to a bill this session that increases funding for school safety across the state, including ensuring that a resource officer is placed in each school.

"There is a very robust conversation nationally about where to go with this," Lee said. "There are are a lot of options. I will say I am a person who looks at options and considers the landscape that we're living in and what it is that I believe will be the most effective way to protect citizens' rights and protect our citizens at the same time."

Separately, the leaders of Tennessee's House and Senate also fell short of backing the president's call for a red flag law. 

Lt. Gov. Randy McNally, R-Oak Ridge, said in a statement that he was “open to having discussions” with Lee and Rep. Cameron Sexton, R-Crossville, who is expected to formally take over as House speaker later this month, about additional legislation.

“However, we have to recognize this is primarily a cultural and mental health issue,” McNally said. “Impeding the Second Amendment rights of law-abiding Tennesseans will not stop one shooting or save one life.” 

McNally also praised the legislature for its efforts to keep guns out of the hands of mentally ill people.  

In a joint statement with House Majority Leader William Lamberth and House Judiciary Committee chairman Michael Curcio, Sexton said senseless tragedies across the country indicate there’s a need to identify warning signs of dangerous individuals.

The trio of House members talked about the need to better address mental health issues and adverse childhood experiences while touting the passage of a bill earlier this year that allowed courts to stop those who are voluntarily admitted to a mental health treatment facility from possessing a firearm.

“We will continue to focus on improving safety while still preserving our Second Amendment rights enshrined within out Constitution," their statement said. 

Nashville Mayor David Briley called on Lee and Tennessee Republicans do pass a red flag law. 

Mayor David Briley
@MayorBriley
 In the wake of mass shootings like Dayton and El Paso, we need more than just thoughts and prayers to move forward. I'm calling on @TNHouseGOP, @TNSenateGOP and @GovBillLee to pass a Red Flag Law to keep guns out of the hands of dangerous individuals. https://www.tennessean.com/story/opinion/2019/08/05/mass-shootings-tennessee-lawmakers-should-pass-red-flag-law-editorial-david-plazas/1924195001/ …

Lee did say that his office had started talking Monday morning about strategies for identifying possible extremists online to "get them before they get others."

In a Saturday mass shooting in El Paso, Texas, that killed 22 and injured more than two dozen people in a Walmart, the suspected shooter had shared an anti-immigrant manifesto and other white nationalist sentiments online just before the crime was carried out.

The recent shooting has generated renewed discussion about the role of the internet in radicalizing young men to carry out violent crimes in the name of white supremacy.

While Trump on Monday called for cultural changes in the country to celebrate the "inherent worth and dignity of every human life," much of his rhetoric has been inconsistent with that message.

The president has referred to Mexicans and immigrants from Central American countries as criminals and rapists, said after a killing of a protester at a neo-Nazi event in Charlottesville that "very fine people" had taken part in the rally, and recently called for four congresswomen to "go back" to their home countries.

When asked on Monday whether he believed Trump had a responsibility in the nation changing its rhetoric on those topics, Lee said, "I think for me, in the aftermath of tragedy, trying to place blame is not where I'm going to go."

He again pointed to the nation's "real challenge" and need to address "online hatred and ideology that moves toward violence."

Sexton and McNally similarly declined to answer questions on Trump's responsibility. 

Congressional delegation weighs in
While state leaders consider how to act in the aftermath of the latest mass shootings, Tennessee's congressional delegation — as is often the case — has a marked split along party lines. 

The Republicans in Tennessee’s congressional delegation declined to answer specific questions about the president’s comments and whether Trump bore any responsibility with his inflammatory rhetoric while calling for changing the nation’s culture.

Instead, the GOP lawmakers sent statements summarizing their thoughts and calling the shootings tragedies.

Sen. Marsha Blackburn condemned “all forms of hate and hateful acts” and vowed to work with Trump to continue addressing “this issue in a comprehensive manner by giving law enforcement the tools they need to reduce gun violence, while also respecting the constitutional rights of law abiding citizens.”

Sen. Lamar Alexander said he was "ready to do more" regarding background checks to identify people who shouldn't have guns. 

Alexander said Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Kentucky, asked him on Monday to immediately look for bipartisan solutions to fund states' efforts to increase school safety and help those with serious mental health issues. 

"But, especially in a nation with a constitutional right to bear arms, new laws from Washington, D.C., alone won’t stop this violence – it will take a change in behavior," Alexander said.  

Other Republicans in the congressional delegation:

Rep. David Kustoff praised the president and Congress for passing the Fix NICS measure but said more needed to be done to address the root causes of mass violence.

Rep. Chuck Fleischmann said if the nation's political parties go to their respective ideological corners, they will fail to mend divisions and prevent future tragedies. "I am ready and willing to have productive conversations regarding mental illness disorders and overcome these challenges as a nation,” he said. 

Rep. Phil Roe said the nation needs to address the "glorification of violence" and extreme isolation and make advancements in mental health challenges facing communities. Roe also touted the fact that he co-sponsored a bill aimed at creating a "fusion center" between local, state and federal law enforcement officials to identify potential threats for mass violence.  "I believe that with the right to keep and bear arms comes a responsibility to keep guns out of the hands of terrorists, criminals, children and the mentally ill, which is why the current system of background checks makes sense," he said. 

Rep. Scott DesJarlais said the legal system must do a better job of identifying warning signs of mental illness and those inclined towards violence.

Rep. John Rose said he is praying for the country to return to one that honors one another and treats others with respect. “I look forward to discussing President Trump’s vision and coming proposals with my House colleagues in the months ahead,” he said.

Rep. Tim Burchett condemned white supremacy while noting that the “issue of mass violence” needs to be addressed. “We must also be unwavering in defense of our Constitutional rights, as fear has usurped more freedom than any tyrant ever has,” he said.

A spokesperson for Rep. Mark Green did not immediately respond to a request for comment. 

Unlike their GOP counterparts, the congressional delegation's two Democrats, Reps. Steve Cohen of Memphis and Jim Cooper of Nashville, criticized the Senate's failure to take action on a bill approved in the House that would bolster background checks for gun purchases. 

Cooper, who said red flag laws would prevent criminal, domestic abusers and the mentally ill from legally obtaining guns, noted that Trump rolled back protections implemented during President Barack Obama's time in office that made it more difficult for people with with mental disabilities to get weapons. 

When asked if Trump bears any responsibility for changing the nation's culture, Cooper said, "The president’s rhetoric is often dangerous and emboldens violent extremists."

 

 

Edited August 11, 2019 by DaveTN

[Guest BCR#1]

Except for rhino dickerson, state republican leaders are taking a wait and see attitude on any new laws affecting the private sale of firearms. I just hope they're not talking out of both sides of their mouths.

Bill

[Chucktshoes]

This is very disconcerting. 

 

https://www.politico.com/story/2019/08/16/nra-gun-control-1464581

The National Rifle Association’s internal turmoil is preventing the once-mighty organization from crafting a plan to blunt the latest gun control push, highlighting the group’s weakness at a crucial political moment.

The disarray at the NRA is alarming allies who say President Donald Trump and Congress appear to have a brief opening to pass legislation while the group is so politically feeble it isn’t able to aggressively lobby lawmakers against proposals or hold them accountable for their votes, according to a half-dozen Republicans familiar with the situation.

....

Multiple Republican Senate offices said they haven’t heard from the NRA, which touts 5 million members. The NRA has been slow to respond to the litany of scandals. And Trump has told aides the NRA is vulnerable and on the verge of being “bankrupt,” according to a Republican close to the White House.

[Garufa]

31 minutes ago, Chucktshoes said:

This is very disconcerting. 

 

https://www.politico.com/story/2019/08/16/nra-gun-control-1464581

 

 

It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to see that coming.

[Chucktshoes]

6 minutes ago, Garufa said:

It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to see that coming.

Nope. It doesn’t, but to see it in print...yikes.

It just goes to show that what these folks are trying to accomplish is necessary. 

http://www.savethe2a.org/

[Erik88]

For them to be broke it's hard to imagine how poorly managed the NRA must be, when you consider how much money they have raised over the past decade. I can't even really feel any sympathy.

Oddly, I did get a fundraising call from them this week for the first time in months. Hung up on the guy like usual after he rattled off something about Nancy Pelosi. I guesd their usual scare tactics still resonate with someone. 

[No_0ne]

23 minutes ago, Erik88 said:

For them to be broke it's hard to imagine how poorly managed the NRA must be, when you consider how much money they have raised over the past decade. I can't even really feel any sympathy.

Oddly, I did get a fundraising call from them this week for the first time in months. Hung up on the guy like usual after he rattled off something about Nancy Pelosi. I guesd their usual scare tactics still resonate with someone. 

I'm only a casual observer at best regarding the NRA, but even I could read enough between the lines of the current scandals to know that the whole organization has been hemorrhaging funds in the various kickbacks, payoffs, insider scams, and other billing and compensation schemes ...

[xtriggerman]

On ‎8‎/‎9‎/‎2019 at 5:50 PM, BCR#1 said:

Care to tell us which one of the 20 something baboons on the other side of the aisle you plan to vote for next year big boy?

Bill

Lets not demoralize monkeys. I have gone to some trouble to try and effect a safer life style for all monkeys in the name of Science. If you see one of these on a stop sign, I was there promoting these poor underestimated critters.....