It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Tim McGraw's Sandy Hook Show Sparks Controversy

page: 1
9
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 25 2015 @ 05:41 PM
link   
Tim McGraw's Sandy Hook Show Sparks Controversy



Earlier this week, Tim McGraw announced plans to swing his summertime tour through Hartford, Connecticut, and play a benefit show for Sandy Hook Promise, a non-profit organization that formed in the wake of the 2012 Sandy Hook Elementary School shootings.





The trouble started on Tuesday, with a 255-word article published by Breitbart.com. A conservative website whose recent headlines include "Zoinks!: Clinton Parks 'Scooby' Van in Handicap Space — Just Behind Vacant Spot!" and "Bruce Willis and Demi Moore Daughter: Nipples Represent Equality," Breitbart examined the Sandy Hook benefit from a decidedly right-wing perspective, branding it a "gun control fundraiser" and promising that "the money McGraw and Currington raise will ultimately succeed in making it harder for law-abiding citizens to acquire and carry the guns they need for self-defens


Now answer me this...WTH is wrong with some people. Why attack a benefit to help the sandy hook survivors? Are most gun owners and the NRA really this petty and paranoid?



+12 more 
posted on Apr, 25 2015 @ 05:50 PM
link   
a reply to: Onslaught2996

Easy, the "charity" is not for the "families" it is for a gun control group.

NBC reported that the group of families issued the statement “to clarify the issue for donors who might believe they are directly supporting the victims’ families.” (This does not)

The families are rightfully concerned that the anti-gun group “is at times wrongly assumed to speak for all 26 victims’ families.”

But with the recent statement from half of the victim’s families, that doesn’t seem to be the case. It appears to be more of a fundraising event for a gun-control group with one member, Mark Barden, reportedly dedicating “the rest of his life” to fighting for gun control measures.
edit on 25-4-2015 by infolurker because: (no reason given)

edit on 25-4-2015 by infolurker because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 25 2015 @ 06:02 PM
link   
So it is essentially a political stunt disguised as a charity benefit, that right there is truly more disgusting than pointing it out. Mind you, many people do not believe the entire story of Sandy Hook, and there are many gaps and strange details to support the accusation that the general public has not been told the entire story either, kind of like 9/11 .


+3 more 
posted on Apr, 25 2015 @ 06:06 PM
link   
a reply to: Onslaught2996

Nice spin.

But the fact is the event is not a benefit for the families.

It is a cleverly concealed lie to enrich ONE MAN, who runs a "gun control group"...With only him as a member.

This is some seriously suspect behavior and it is insulting to bathe in the blood of those murdered.
edit on pSat, 25 Apr 2015 18:07:18 -0500201525America/Chicago2015-04-25T18:07:18-05:0030vx4 by projectvxn because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 25 2015 @ 06:10 PM
link   
a reply to: Onslaught2996
The money raised for the "victims" so far is over a million each. Will another million help, I don't think so, but they do.



posted on Apr, 25 2015 @ 06:12 PM
link   
The group has 2 people that lost a child that day.

Nicole Hockley – Communications Director; Her son Dylan was killed on 12.14
Mark Barden – Advocacy Director; His son, Daniel was killed on 12.14

www.sandyhookpromise.org...


If he wants to do this what is the big deal?
Seems he is very good friends with Mark Barden who is part of the organization.



posted on Apr, 25 2015 @ 06:14 PM
link   
I ask this..why are some gun owners against free speech?

You love to bring up the constitution..but only when it is for you.

This person may be asking for limits to gun rights..but it is allowed under the first amendment. This does not mean it is law.

You gun owners only like free speech when a person advocates more guns but want to fight it when it against less guns..idiots.


edit on 25-4-2015 by Onslaught2996 because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 25 2015 @ 06:19 PM
link   
a reply to: Onslaught2996

The funny thing is in your OP you were playing it from the "feel sorry for the victims" angle, and now it's about free speech? Which is it? You have egg on your face due to your blind hate for the right and your lack of research before posting.


originally posted by: Onslaught2996

Now answer me this...WTH is wrong with some people. Why attack a benefit to help the sandy hook survivors? Are most gun owners and the NRA really this petty and paranoid?


edit on 4/25/2015 by SpaDe_ because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 25 2015 @ 06:31 PM
link   

originally posted by: Onslaught2996
I ask this..why are some gun owners against free speech?

You love to bring up the constitution..but only when it is for you.

This person may be asking for limits to gun rights..but it is allowed under the first amendment. This does not mean it is law.

You gun owners only like free speech when a person advocates more guns but want to fight it when it against less guns..idiots.




What are you talking about? He can say what he wants and perform as many gun control or other fundraisers that he wants. He just pissed off his fan base is all.

A good lesson, don't piss off the people that buy your crap and attend your concerts.

Again, he can do as he wishes, likewise, people don't have to buy his music or attend his concerts.

And, guess what, they can also SAY that they don't like it.

edit on 25-4-2015 by infolurker because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 25 2015 @ 06:34 PM
link   

originally posted by: SpaDe_


The funny thing is in your OP you were playing it from the "feel sorry for the victims" angle, and now it's about free speech? Which is it? You have egg on your face due to your blind hate for the right and your lack of research before posting.



It is for both actually. A benefit for the victims is attacked because gun owners are petty and paranoid. Even if the benefit runner is for less guns and speaks about it. Why attack..is his speech not covered under the first amendment, you know, part of the document you love so much.



posted on Apr, 25 2015 @ 06:36 PM
link   
a reply to: infolurker

Of course they can.



posted on Apr, 25 2015 @ 06:50 PM
link   

originally posted by: Onslaught2996

originally posted by: SpaDe_


The funny thing is in your OP you were playing it from the "feel sorry for the victims" angle, and now it's about free speech? Which is it? You have egg on your face due to your blind hate for the right and your lack of research before posting.



It is for both actually. A benefit for the victims is attacked because gun owners are petty and paranoid. Even if the benefit runner is for less guns and speaks about it. Why attack..is his speech not covered under the first amendment, you know, part of the document you love so much.


It isn't the gun owners who are petty and paranoid. In fact the state officials are so paranoid and delusional they thought kids would be safe in an area cordoned off as a "gun free zone" This is like an ostrich's defensive strategy. Anything that scoffs at a state sponsored false flag is a good thing.

Dis-Connecticut is a state where the officials are the idiots, not gun owners. A case with absolutely no physical evidence presented to show any crimes even took place there, and a shooter who's body was dead 24 hours before the shootings took place. Maybe they should have a fundraiser and call it "Money for nothing and our idiots for free"
edit on 25-4-2015 by NoCorruptionAllowed because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 25 2015 @ 06:59 PM
link   
...Is Tim McGraw's heartland popularity strong than the Dixie Chicks popularity was? We might be about to find out... assuming enough irked rednecks call their local country radio station to let their opinions be known.



posted on Apr, 25 2015 @ 07:00 PM
link   

originally posted by: Onslaught2996
I ask this..why are some gun owners against free speech?

You love to bring up the constitution..but only when it is for you.

This person may be asking for limits to gun rights..but it is allowed under the first amendment. This does not mean it is law.

You gun owners only like free speech when a person advocates more guns but want to fight it when it against less guns..idiots.



So when someone holds an event to raise money for their anti-gun group under the guise of charity for Sandy Hook, that's free speech but when gun owners speak out against that event and decide to boycott anyone playing at that event, it's somehow... not free speech?

"Free speech" isn't just "people saying what I want to hear." You're free to say what you want and I'm free to respond as I see fit. That's how freedom works.

Nowhere in the First Amendment does it say "anyone is free to say whatever they want without repercussion from everyone, ever." Too many people throw out the First Amendment any time people get upset at something they say. That's not how it works.
edit on 4/25/2015 by Answer because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 25 2015 @ 07:01 PM
link   

originally posted by: Onslaught2996

originally posted by: SpaDe_


The funny thing is in your OP you were playing it from the "feel sorry for the victims" angle, and now it's about free speech? Which is it? You have egg on your face due to your blind hate for the right and your lack of research before posting.



It is for both actually. A benefit for the victims is attacked because gun owners are petty and paranoid. Even if the benefit runner is for less guns and speaks about it. Why attack..is his speech not covered under the first amendment, you know, part of the document you love so much.


Forgive me, but does freedom of speech not apply to both sides here? Why I do believe it does! Let me know when someone's freedoms are actually infringed upon, until then this is still nothing more than a failed partisan hate thread.



posted on Apr, 25 2015 @ 07:06 PM
link   

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances


Hm... yeah, just as I thought. Nothing in there about "freedom from being argued with by the opposing side."

I love when people scream "Durr First Amendment!" whenever someone disagrees with them.



posted on Apr, 25 2015 @ 07:51 PM
link   
a reply to: Onslaught2996

Here is my two cents.

I am opposed to both sides of the argument. Why, you ask?

Gun control advocates are not thinking about the problem that some people are just nuts and will get guns however they want.

Gun rights advocates are not doing enough to keep the guns out of the hands of nutters.

I believe we have the right to keep and bear arms, but I also believe it should be done with responsibility, which seems to be lacking today.

OK, here's the deal gun control advocates...make people responsible for their lack of accountability, look at the human being with the gun, they will shoot if they want to. Taking guns away from them will never solve the problem because they will find a way to kill you.

OK, here's the deal gun rights advocates, this society is really filled with a lot of angry people who find guns to kill with. Teach them about respect for human life.

OK, here's another problem, our culture is desensitized to violence. You might as well blame the car for running over people, even though there was a human being driver. You might as well blame the bottle of whiskey when it was a human being drinking it.

Stop blaming the guns and start blaming the human beings.



posted on Apr, 25 2015 @ 08:09 PM
link   

originally posted by: WarminIndy


Gun rights advocates are not doing enough to keep the guns out of the hands of nutters.


How's that?

There are laws against a mentally defective person buying or owning guns.

If there are "nutters" ignoring the existing laws, how will more laws help?

Who decides which of the "nutters" presents a threat grave enough to warrant stripping away their rights?

What's the litmus test to determine "this depressed guy will probably kill some people but that depressed guy is going to be ok"??

You're getting into the realm of pre-crime which is a very slippery slope.

While I agree 100% that we have a mental health issue that needs to be addressed, passing gun laws will not do anything to help the situation.



posted on Apr, 25 2015 @ 08:41 PM
link   

originally posted by: burdman30ott6
...Is Tim McGraw's heartland popularity strong than the Dixie Chicks popularity was? We might be about to find out... assuming enough irked rednecks call their local country radio station to let their opinions be known.


Sadly, few remember why the Dixie Chicks were bashed so hard in the first place -
For being against the invasion of Iraq and the whole global war on terror business (and big business it is!).
That worked out well too, didn't it?
For the MIC and investors I suppose it did.
Too bad there's so many dead and maimed vets with not much else to show for it but their scars.



posted on Apr, 25 2015 @ 08:42 PM
link   

originally posted by: Answer

originally posted by: WarminIndy


Gun rights advocates are not doing enough to keep the guns out of the hands of nutters.


How's that?

There are laws against a mentally defective person buying or owning guns.

If there are "nutters" ignoring the existing laws, how will more laws help?

Who decides which of the "nutters" presents a threat grave enough to warrant stripping away their rights?

What's the litmus test to determine "this depressed guy will probably kill some people but that depressed guy is going to be ok"??

You're getting into the realm of pre-crime which is a very slippery slope.

While I agree 100% that we have a mental health issue that needs to be addressed, passing gun laws will not do anything to help the situation.


I took the middle of the road approach.

What is being done in this society about the idea of violence? It is embraced everywhere.

Yes, people are going to get guns, they will find a way.

Maybe both sides could sit down and discuss what can be done, without infringing upon rights? And the litmus test for nutters, how about gun control advocates go to downtown Chicago tonight?

The problem isn't just the nutters, but gangs who get guns. Don't these kids have parents?

It isn't the lack of knowledge of guns for some people, it's knowing full well what to do with guns.

I don't have a gun but will never say it is not right for people to have one, as long as they understand and value human life. Unfortunately the Bloods and Crips don't think like the rest of the country.

Who killed Tupac, wasn't it with a gun?

There is no easy solution, but what if start addressing the problem with gratuitous violence in our entertainment? Taking guns away from law abiding citizens will never stop the problem, but children are more affected by culture these days.

And any good parent knows if their child has a mental illness. Any good spouse also knows. Any good friend knows. It's the parents, the intimate loved ones and the friends who should be helping them find some help for their problems.

And it is the good neighbors who should be stopping violence in their neighborhoods.

I am not on either side. You have your gun, but don't sell your gun to pawn shops, because those can be stolen. Don't sell your guns at gun swaps, you don't really know who is buying them. Don't sell your guns from your trunk, anyone can get them. If you have a gun, don't sell it. If you don't need it, take it to the police to destroy it.

The problem is that gun owners are losing their guns somehow. Be responsible with your guns. And for goodness sake, don't sell it on craigslist.

That is what I think. Don't sell it on Ebay. Don't sell it on Amazon. You just do not know if someone has stolen identity.




top topics



 
9
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join