McWherter's Ad Blatantly LIES!

[Guest Eliminator55]

I just saw a McWherter ad specifically regarding Haslam's positions on the 2nd amendment. The ad clearly lies and completely distorts what Haslam actually said while at the recent TFA meeting. The ad states that Haslam supports allowing convicted felons the right to carry weapons with "no questions asked." Anyone, with even the slightest knowledge of federal firearm laws would know that there is no way this could be true because federal law already prevents felons from even owning firearms. That's nearly common knowledge, even among those not really familiar with gun laws. Haslam was clearly stating that he would sign a bill allowing "legal" gun owners the right to carry weapons without the need to obtain a permit. It was obviously a presumption that any bill removing the need for a permit to carry firearms would only apply to legal gun owners. There is no way at all for the state to supersede federal law on this particular issue.

The McWherter ad is really sad. He must be extremely desperate. The ad is a clear assault on viewers' intelligence. I should have expected nothing less after McWherter's press release regarding Haslam's statement at the TFA meeting was just as full of lies.

What do you all think of the issue?

Edited November 1, 2010 by Eliminator55

[Guest bkelm18]

He's a politician. His mouth is open, therefor he is lying. I would agree with the desperation. It would take a serious fumble by Haslam for McW to win. Haslam has got the Governor's seat locked up.

[Oh Shoot]

...

What do you all think of the issue?

I guess it might create more furor if the election were even remotely close.

It is of course a pretty low and idiotic accusation, but I'd say everybody's pretty immune to the Nasty Attack Syndrome this late in the game.

- OS

[BigPoppa]

You're exactly right Eliminator.............the ad is completely misleading and disingenuous.

McWherter is trying to avoid a 70-30 landslide. I don't think he will do it.

[Guest Sgt. Joe]

You are correct eliminator, but you must remember this is "the season" I have yet to see an ad that was the truth and nothing but the truth from any of them.

Thankfully we only have a few more days left to listen to it.

I wish I had a nickle for every piece of political crap that has been in my mail box this summer. Better yet maybe just 5% of the money spend to send them to me so I can promptly throw them in the trash.

Heck I am sure the postage alone just for the crap sent to me would buy a box or two of good ammo.

I really think that a cap on election spending in this country would go a long way to eliminate most of the BS ads and make the candidates stick closer to the issues we care about. A cap on all elections at every level. So much for mailings, so much for TV, so much for radio ads and so on, no matter how much one collects or contributes to their own campaign.

IMO it would be one giant leap for all Americans, as it would go along way to not only eliminating the BS but it would prevent the rich from having the unfair advantage over the not so rich.

I wont be holding my breath but for now at least dreaming is still free and not taxed.

[1gewehr]

You know, I just LOVE the hypocrisy of the Democrats. They holler and scream about 'attack ads' and 'personal attacks', but all the attack ads and personal attacks I've seen have been from Democrats! Tactics of desperation, in my opinion.

[-boatman-]

Unless a person knew what was actually said in that TFA meeting and knew the law on felons and guns, might believe that. Every time I hear that commercial I wonder what I have heard on a issue that I may not know the real truth about. I have tols people what was actually said and the laws pertaining and they say. "Oh really?" THey don't have a clue. I just try to disregard all attack adds and do my own research. I think the majority of people in this country make their pick by what they see in the adds and on the news and this is sad.

[Worriedman]

Unless a person knew what was actually said in that TFA meeting and knew the law on felons and guns, might believe that. Every time I hear that commercial I wonder what I have heard on a issue that I may not know the real truth about. I have tols people what was actually said and the laws pertaining and they say. "Oh really?" THey don't have a clue. I just try to disregard all attack adds and do my own research. I think the majority of people in this country make their pick by what they see in the adds and on the news and this is sad.

[Guest TargetShooter84]

Gotta love politics

[Guest 6.8 AR]

You know, I just LOVE the hypocrisy of the Democrats. They holler and scream about 'attack ads' and 'personal attacks', but all the attack ads and personal attacks I've seen have been from Democrats! Tactics of desperation, in my opinion.

I think it was Monmouth College that did a study on

the ads for the last two months. Attack ads vs policy

ads and the Democrats were 2/1 or better on the

attacks. Makes sense, since their other ideas are

not any count.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Guest strelcevina]

Technically it is not a lie .

If he change a law to no permit required , how police will know who is and who's not a felon.

Now u can have a felon pretending to be good guy caring a loaded weapon and Nobady is allowed to ask for his criminal status .

That is why felon would be allowed to carry.

Edited to add.

Vermont ,Arizona and Alaska are already doing it .

So federal law can be superseded

Edited November 1, 2010 by strelcevina

[Garufa]

It is illegal for a convicted felon to be in possession of a firearm, therefore felons WOULD NOT be allowed to carry. Duh.

[BigPoppa]

Technically it is not a lie .

If he change a law to no permit required , how police will know who is and who's not a felon.

Now u can have a felon pretending to be good guy caring a loaded weapon and Nobady is allowed to ask for his criminal status .

That is why felon would be allowed to carry.

Edited to add.

Vermont ,Arizona and Alaska are already doing it .

So federal law can be superseded

You're wrong. McWherter's ad is wrong. Federal law prohibits convicted felons from being in possession of a firearm - GCA 1968 - regardless of the state of residence's permitting procedures (or lack of). The states you mention also forbid convicted felons from carrying guns.

There are already plenty of felons "pretending to be good guys" carrying guns. That was illegal 10 years ago, and 2 years ago, and today. You put up a straw man argument. A change in the HCP law won't affect the crooks, they have never bothered to follow the law.

How will the police know, you ask ? Good guys wear white cowboy hats and bad guys wear black ones.

[DaveTN]

If he change a law to no permit required , how police will know who is and who's not a felon.

The same way you find out if they are wanted…. You run a check. I could check to see if a person was a felon in the 80’s just by asking the dispatcher. I have to assume we have not taken a step backwards.

Nobady is allowed to ask for his criminal status .

Cops can run a criminal background on anyone they want. (Provided they can justify it to their superiors.)

I may be wrong, but I thought last year Tennessee passed legislation that made possession of a firearm by a felon mandatory prison time.

[Guest strelcevina]

The same way you find out if they are wanted…. You run a check. I could check to see if a person was a felon in the 80’s just by asking the dispatcher. I have to assume we have not taken a step backwards.

Cops can run a criminal background on anyone they want. (Provided they can justify it to their superiors.)

I may be wrong, but I thought last year Tennessee passed legislation that made possession of a firearm by a felon mandatory prison time.

You just stated that cops can run background check on anybody ,BUT. They must justify it to superiors .

It is funny,how u made that last part ,almost like drug company's do with medication , got to say side effects on the end when nobody is listening .

felons will use no permit needed for their advantage .

And guys like kwik can use that law to carry AK guns everywhere

And good cops will be doomed , after crime is committed Leo will be blamed for not checking

Or Leo will be blamed for checking a good guy.

Doomed if they do ,doomed if they don't

Edited November 2, 2010 by strelcevina

[DaveTN]

You just stated that cops can run background check on anybody ,BUT. They must justify it to superiors .

It is funny,how u made that last part ,almost like drug company's do with medication , got to say side effects on the end when nobody is listening .

They can check you if they like; there is no law against it. However… if you have a case like the THP trooper that was doing them for private reasons, they could have a problem.

felons will use no permit needed for their advantage .

And guys like kwik can use that law to carry AK guns everywhere

And good cops will be doomed , after crime is committed Leo will be blamed for not checking

Or Leo will be blamed for checking a good guy.

Doomed if they do ,doomed if they don't

Cops won’t be doomed; they will be okay.

[Rightwinger]

You just stated that cops can run background check on anybody ,BUT. They must justify it to superiors .

It is funny,how u made that last part ,almost like drug company's do with medication , got to say side effects on the end when nobody is listening .

felons will use no permit needed for their advantage .

And guys like kwik can use that law to carry AK guns everywhere

And good cops will be doomed , after crime is committed Leo will be blamed for not checking

Or Leo will be blamed for checking a good guy.

Doomed if they do ,doomed if they don't

You should head to England immediately Strel. No guns, closer to the homeland. Universal Healthcare, close to France for when you tick them off. Paradise for ya! I only want the best for you!

Airline tickets to England, Fly to England, Flights to England

[eapking]

Too funny 'winger.

The funny thing in McW's ad is that in one sentence he actually pretends to care about our gun rights. What a laugh.

Begrudgingly pulling the level for Haslam tomorrow.

[Guest 6.8 AR]

Don'tcha just love it!

[Guest strelcevina]

You should head to England immediately Strel. No guns, closer to the homeland. Universal Healthcare, close to France for when you tick them off. Paradise for ya! I only want the best for you!

Airline tickets to England, Fly to England, Flights to England

Very funny , today you get a reward for being funny

Go grab yourself another Diet Coke or something .

[Rightwinger]

Just want you happy and well served. You shouldn't have to carry the burden's you do by yourself Strel. Like minded people and services are just waiting! Of course I think you have to register fancy fireplaces in your back yard over there....could be an issue.

[Fallguy]

If a felon is in possession of a Handgun, he is violating the law regardless of if there are HCPs or not.

The times I've heard of a felon being charged with possession of a handgun...it has always been just that, Felon in Possession of a Handgun, 39-17-1307((1) or 39-17-1307©(1) not simple possession in 39-17-1307(a)(1) So the fact the felon didn't have a HCP didn't result in additional charges.

When a LEO sees someone in possession of a handgun, do having HCPs make it easier for them to detain the person and check things...perhaps. But how much freedom are you willing to give up for security? Personally...I think the scale has been tipped in the wrong direction for quite a while.......