school shooting in Nashville at the Covenant School

[TGO David]

42 minutes ago, gregintenn said:

Are you willing to run for office? Me neither. That’s how we get what we got. The world is ran by those who show up.

Shirking from public duty has become the sport of the educated and affluent.  The same can be said for juries.  When you consider how many smart, productive people find ways to get out of jury duty, you are generally left with people other than the best and brightest that our society has to offer.

As we have been prone to say on TGO, we get the government that we deserve.

 

[Chucktshoes]

17 minutes ago, TGO David said:

Shirking from public duty has become the sport of the educated and affluent.  The same can be said for juries.  When you consider how many smart, productive people find ways to get out of jury duty, you are generally left with people other than the best and brightest that our society has to offer.

As we have been prone to say on TGO, we get the government that we deserve.

 

And hard. 

[MacGyver]

15 minutes ago, TGO David said:

Shirking from public duty has become the sport of the educated and affluent.  The same can be said for juries.  When you consider how many smart, productive people find ways to get out of jury duty, you are generally left with people other than the best and brightest that our society has to offer.

As we have been prone to say on TGO, we get the government that we deserve.

 

For the affluent in America, it’s all about return on investment.

No need to be one when you can easily buy them - and then get some more when the first ones are used up.

Truthfully, that’s the reason some see “zealots” like Jones who actually believe in something as such a threat.  He’s not bought and paid for. He’s not afraid to shine a light on some things that a lot of people would like to keep in the dark. 

[TGO David]

1 hour ago, MacGyver said:

Truthfully, that’s the reason some see “zealots” like Jones who actually believe in something as such a threat.  He’s not bought and paid for. He’s not afraid to shine a light on some things that a lot of people would like to keep in the dark. 

Sure, but just because someone is a true believer in something, it doesn't mean that the thing(s) that they believe in are valid, let alone right.  What kinds of things do you see Jones shining the light onto?  Anything truly good for the public?

 

[bersaguy]

Well this is about politics which I know little about but I did learn one thing about this. I was talking to a friend and he told me that his son and a bunch of his buddies joined the march on the capitol the last couple days. They didn't do it in support of Jones or any other Democrat because they are all Republicans. They just did it to be part of something. My friend told them that just by marching it gave support to Jones by enlarging the march. He told them it was a stupid move.

[MacGyver]

1 hour ago, TGO David said:

Sure, but just because someone is a true believer in something, it doesn't mean that the thing(s) that they believe in are valid, let alone right.  What kinds of things do you see Jones shining the light onto?  Anything truly good for the public?

 

All very true.

Here’s my working theory on supermajorities regardless of political party - but on full display right now in Tennessee.

They don’t serve anyone well - even if you tend to agree with them - because they just don’t have to work that hard.

As a result, the finished product usually is less than ideal because laziness or corruption or both affected the outcome. We’re seeing this in all kinds of ways in that so many of the bills they pass end up costing us a lot of money as they’re litigated into the next decade - and then don’t actually become law because they’re found to be unconstitutional.

The majority party doesn’t care because they got their talking point and stuck it to their opponents.

I *want* the other side to have competent, effective representation - because it’s better for all of us when that’s the case - even when I don’t agree with them.

Jones or Pearson being back in the legislature won’t make a bit of difference at the ground level - because the current supermajority has already effectively silenced them on a daily basis. The incident two weeks ago could have been avoided at large had they just had the courtesy to let the minority members recognize the people in the gallery.  But they’ve so effectively silenced them that they literally have no voice.  That’s not going to change.

But as they saying goes, “Democracy dies in darkness.”

I’m supportive of both visibility and debate - even when I might disagree with it - because if the opposition doesn’t have a seat at the table I’m going to eventually give in to being lazy or corrupt or both.  

[AuEagle]

Imagine this scenario. The "protestors" are Pro 2nd & Pro life Repub's. The Dem.s take the same course of action against them. The MSM would be praising the dem's for their courage. This scenario would fit the msm's narrative/agenda. Of course the msm is going to hammer the Repub's actions. JMHO

FWIW  Everyone I've talked to in different states applaud the action taken.

They also support the laws protecting children, unborn babies & the 2nd Amendment.

[gregintenn]

You simply must have some semblance of decorum, civility, and rules, or else the Capitol would be reduced to a zoo exhibit.

The movie “Idiocracy” rings truer each day.

Edited April 11, 2023 by gregintenn

[Chucktshoes]

13 minutes ago, MacGyver said:

All very true.

Here’s my working theory on supermajorities regardless of political party - but on full display right now in Tennessee.

They don’t serve anyone well - even if you tend to agree with them - because they just don’t have to work that hard.

As a result, the finished product usually is less than ideal because laziness or corruption or both affected the outcome. We’re seeing this in all kinds of ways in that so many of the bills they pass end up costing us a lot of money as they’re litigated into the next decade - and then don’t actually become law because they’re found to be unconstitutional.

The majority party doesn’t care because they got their talking point and stuck it to their opponents.

I *want* the other side to have competent, effective representation - because it’s better for all of us when that’s the case - even when I don’t agree with them.

Jones or Pearson being back in the legislature won’t make a bit of difference at the ground level - because the current supermajority has already effectively silenced them on a daily basis. The incident two weeks ago could have been avoided at large had they just had the courtesy to let the minority members recognize the people in the gallery.  But they’ve so effectively silenced them that they literally have no voice.  That’s not going to change.

But as they saying goes, “Democracy dies in darkness.”

I’m supportive of both visibility and debate - even when I might disagree with it - because if the opposition doesn’t have a seat at the table I’m going to eventually give in to being lazy or corrupt or both.  

I believe that “iron sharpens iron” seems applicable here. 

[MacGyver]

Of course here’s the other thing that happens when you shine a light into a corrupt darkness:

https://www.tennessean.com/story/news/politics/2023/04/11/tennessee-gov-bill-lee-calls-for-order-of-protection-law-on-guns/70102868007/

They’ll do damn near anything to get that light off of them. 

[peejman]

31 minutes ago, MacGyver said:

want* the other side to have competent, effective representation - because it’s better for all of us when that’s the case - even when I don’t agree with them.

 

32 minutes ago, MacGyver said:

I’m supportive of both visibility and debate - even when I might disagree with it - because if the opposition doesn’t have a seat at the table I’m going to eventually give in to being lazy or corrupt or both.  

Yes.  We must have effective debate on differing ideas.  The end goals are likely very similar, it the path to get there that's different. No one has an air tight position, there are flaws or pitfalls in any path.  

 Debating with a mirror, preaching to the choir, etc. does not build consensus. If one group thinks the others are incompetent, there will be no resolution. 

[Defender]

5 hours ago, MacGyver said:

For the affluent in America, it’s all about return on investment.

No need to be one when you can easily buy them - and then get some more when the first ones are used up.

Truthfully, that’s the reason some see “zealots” like Jones who actually believe in something as such a threat.  He’s not bought and paid for. He’s not afraid to shine a light on some things that a lot of people would like to keep in the dark. 

I, for one, simply do not believe that the three legislators were standing up for something they believe in.  I believe that their whole performance, and performance is exactly what it was, was solely motivated by an attempt to make themselves  look good to their party.  Sadly, it worked.  If they had been truly interested in making children safe, and also believed that more useless gun laws helped do that, then why didn't they introduce any bills towards that end.  indeed, I've read that all 3 recently voted against bills that may have helped keep kids safer. No, these type of rabble rousers are all about their own notoriety.  Gloria Johnson apologized and asked not to be expelled.  When she was narrowly granted her wish, she was one of the first to cry racism.  Racism?  Come on, man.

[Erik88]

2 hours ago, gregintenn said:

You simply must have some semblance of decorum, civility, and rules, or else the Capitol would be reduced to a zoo exhibit.

From what Mac is saying, it sounds like they would not even allow the minority party to call on people to speak. I'm not condoning screaming into a bullhorn but it doesn't seem like discussion was allowed. If they can't debate on the floor, what are they even there for? 

[bersaguy]

Ok, I have a question that is related about the shooter and not politics. How many folks here think that the parents of the shooter know a lot more than they are letting on to what they really knew. They knew she was emotionally disturbed and admitted to that  and they said he did own a gun but said she sold it. How could they not know about all the other ones she had while living in the same house with them? Also if she had the one she sold how did she purchase it in the first place with her mental issues?

[Snaveba]

Well, as to buying guns and them not knowing, I will bet there are a good number of wives of members of this forum that are unaware of the true number of guns in the house. 

[bersaguy]

That may be true but how many folks here that own guns are under a doctors care for emotional mental issues and her parents knew she had one which should have been 1 to many with them knowing she had a problem. They also said they thought she sold it but did not say she did sell it.

[Snaveba]

Without some type of red flag law, there was nothing to prevent her, an adult of legal age, from buying a firearm (or seven). 

I know we don’t want the ATF to start acting upon multiple gun purchases as a flag in and unto itself. If they did, many of us would be flagged.  
 

 

[bersaguy]

2 minutes ago, Snaveba said:

Without some type of red flag law, there was nothing to prevent her, an adult of legal age, from buying a firearm (or seven). 

I know we don’t want the ATF to start acting upon multiple gun purchases as a flag in and unto itself. If they did, many of us would be flagged.  
 

 

I agree but maybe if her parents would have been concerned enough with her having the one they knew about and reported it the police might have found more and been able to prevent her from buying more.  Maybe, just maybe the school shooting could have been prevented.

[bersaguy]

4 minutes ago, bersaguy said:

I agree but maybe if her parents would have been concerned enough with her having the one they knew about and reported it the police might have found more and been able to prevent her from buying more.  Maybe, just maybe the school shooting could have been prevented. She also had to be lying on her applications because she had to be saying no to at least one of the questions that would have got her denied.

 

[Snaveba]

I don’t think just telling the police will prevent her from legally buying a firearm with out a red flag law.
 

I do think that if it was my house, and I had any concerns, I would be looking around her room, even if she is an28yo adult. My house, my rules 

[Alleycat72]

3 minutes ago, Snaveba said:

I don’t think just telling the police will prevent her from legally buying a firearm with out a red flag law.
 

I do think that if it was my house, and I had any concerns, I would be looking around her room, even if she is an28yo adult. My house, my rules 

If a red flag law is put into place, I will red flag the people that helped put it there. I will keep doing it until due process is put into place, red flag laws are removed, or I am removed. 

[Snaveba]

Well, I would hope that sensible red flag laws would be implemented, if they were. Any Tom Dick of Harry shouldn’t be able to flag someone. (I’m not hopeful they this is what will happen). 

[Omega]

27 minutes ago, Snaveba said:

Without some type of red flag law, there was nothing to prevent her, an adult of legal age, from buying a firearm (or seven). 

I know we don’t want the ATF to start acting upon multiple gun purchases as a flag in and unto itself. If they did, many of us would be flagged.  
 

 

The ATF is already being told about multiple weapons purchases:

Reporting Multiple Firearms Sales | Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (atf.gov)

Quote

Reporting Multiple Firearms Sales

 

The Gun Control Act (GCA) of 1968 requires federal firearms licensees (FFLs) to send a report to ATF when there is a sale of multiple firearms to the same purchaser within a certain time period.

ATF uses the information gathered from multiple sales transactions to investigate possible firearms trafficking cases. If one or more firearms recovered from a crime are part of a multiple purchase, this could be an indicator of potential firearms trafficking. Crime guns recovered shortly after a multiple sale is known as a short time-to-crime ratio.

There are so many gun laws already out there that there is no need for new ones.  If they wanted to stop some of this, they just need to enforce the laws already in place.  I don't like those either, but they are there and available for law enforcement to act upon.

[bersaguy]

10 minutes ago, Snaveba said:

I don’t think just telling the police will prevent her from legally buying a firearm with out a red flag law.
 

I do think that if it was my house, and I had any concerns, I would be looking around her room, even if she is an28yo adult. My house, my rules 

I agree, they should have been more vigilant about why she had a gun in the first place knowing she had mental issues and took more interest in what she was doing.

[bersaguy]

5 minutes ago, Omega said:

The ATF is already being told about multiple weapons purchases:

Reporting Multiple Firearms Sales | Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (atf.gov)

There are so many gun laws already out there that there is no need for new ones.  If they wanted to stop some of this, they just need to enforce the laws already in place.  I don't like those either, but they are there and available for law enforcement to act upon.

Great point Omega and I know there are tons of laws out there that they could be using and we don't need any new ones. I think it was mentioned that she purchased her guns from 4 or 5 different gun stores so she would not be drawing any attention to herself. I would imagine that is in her ramblings she wrote that has not been released to the public.