Tim McGraw Stirs Gun Debate Over Sandy Hook Charity Appearance
This story has been updated. Tim McGraw has released a statement (see below).
**UPDATE 4/16 10:15 CDT: Billy Currington has pulled out of the concert.
On Monday (4-15), it was announced that country star Tim McGraw, along with scheduled openers Billy Currington and Chase Bryant would play a concert at the Infinity Theater in Hartford, Connecticut on July 17th, with 100% of the proceeds going to a charity organization called Sandy Hook Promise. Sandy Hook Promise was set up in the aftermath of the school shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary on December 14th, 2012 where 20 children and six adults were shot and killed by 20-year-old Adam Lanza.
Tim McGraw has some personal ties to the Sandy Hook story. Tim’s touring fiddle player Dean Brown is a long-time friend of Mark Barden, whose child was killed in the mass shooting, and who is also one of the founders of Sandy Hook Promise.
“Out of this tragedy a group was formed that made a promise to honor the lives lost and turn it into a moment of transformation,” McGraw said in a formal statement as part of the concert announcement. “Sandy Hook Promise teaches that we can do something to protect our children from gun violence. I want to be a part of that promise as a father and as a friend.”
The announcement of the Tim McGraw benefit concert blended in with all the regular country music news on Monday—a day usually reserved for the distribution of such press releases, until the conservative news outlet Brietbart picked up the story with the headline, Country Stars Tim McGraw, Billy Currington Headlining Gun Control Fundraiser. The story portrayed Sandy Hook Promise as a gun control group, and attributed a quote to Sandy Hook Promise’s Mark Barden saying that he joined the group “pledging to ‘dedicate the rest of his life’ to pursuing gun control.”
The posting of the Brietbart story was like a call to action to many gun control opponents who began attacking McGraw, Billy Currington, and Chase Bryant via social network, including country artist Travis Tritt.
Subsequently a barrage of angry tweets have been sent to both Tim McGraw and Billy Currington, including people accusing the two country artists of hating America and freedom, of being traitors and socialists, and multiple commenters calling for a boycott, including one with the hashtag “#newdixiechicks.”
Billy Currington, who was booked as the opener for Tim McGraw on the tour but apparently had no prior knowledge of the charity concert, fired back at one commenter with:
The tweet was later deleted.
– – – – – – –
Beyond the question of whether Tim McGraw, or even Billy Currington are alienating their fan bases by playing a charity concert for Sandy Hook Promise, there seems to be lots of questions about the nature of the advocacy Sandy Hook Promise is engaged in. Though Brietbart characterizes them as a “gun control organization,” the mission statement and other information from Sandy Hook Promise appears to be focused more on dealing with the mental health issues surrounding the gun violence phenomenon—an issues that is seen as common ground between groups like Sandy Hook Promise, and gun rights organizations like the NRA.
Sandy Hook Promise is also focused on gun safety—making sure guns are secure so children and individuals with mental health issues do not have access to them. This is where some may characterize the organization as advocating for gun control, but the stance of the organization appears to be more broad based than attempting to pass gun control laws.
The terms “gun safety” and “gun control” could be considered different shades of nomenclature for the same thing in what has become one of the most contentious and divisive issues in the United States. However Brietbart’s characterization of Sandy Hook Promise solely as a gun control organization smacks of polarization and click baiting. The quote attributed to Sandy Hook Promise’s Mark Barden saying that he joined the group “pledging to ‘dedicate the rest of his life’ to pursuing gun control” is a chopped-together and presumptive quote that blurs the actual sentiments of Mr. Barden and Sandy Hook Promise.
The actual quote from MSNBC from Mr. Barden reads,
Mark Barden, whose son Daniel died in the shooting, last year said he had the option to do nothing, or to do something. At the recent event at Helen Mills Theater in Manhattan, he said his family remains “shattered,” but that he will dedicate the rest of his life to reducing gun violence.
“If we can do anything to prevent other families from going through this, and we know we can, we need to get the message out there,” Barden said. “I know that we are on the right track.”
The “dedicate the rest of his life” quote did not come from Mr. Barden, but from MSNBC. Furthermore, the terms “pledging” and “gun control” were never used, but glued together by Brietbart to fan the flames of the divisive gun issue.
Brietbart asserts:
Gun control renders law-abiding citizens defenseless, but it does nothing to stop criminals from carrying out their treachery. Because of this, 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-defense.
However the Mission Statement and other information about the work of Sandy Hook Promise appears to be much more broadly based.
Sandy Hook Promise states:
Our sole purpose is to protect children from gun violence by providing and empowering parents and communities with mental wellness and gun safety programs that help identify, intervene and stop at-risk individuals from hurting themselves or others so no other parent experiences the senseless, horrific loss of their child.
Furthermore, in the MSNBC article that Biretbart cites, it clearly states that Sandy Hook Promise is a,
Gun-safety advocacy group that focuses on parents’ love for their kids rather than on politics; that each gun death whether a homicide, suicide, or mass shooting is preventable.
It appears that Sandy Hook Promise is doing what it can to break through the contentiousness of the gun safety issue to find common ground where gun violence, especially perpetrated by people suffering from mental health issues, can be prevented, and not doing so through the passing of laws, but through community organization and awareness.
Saving Country Music reached out to Sandy Hook Promise to clarify if they considered themselves a gun control organization, and were provided this statement:
Sandy Hook Promise supports the 2nd Amendment and is not anti-gun. We recognize an individual’s right to bear arms and support millions of law-abiding citizens in the United States who own firearms.
Our primary focus is preventing children from being harmed by gun violence. Our programs encompass things like community-based prevention, supporting social and emotional learning in schools, teaching Mental Health First Aid, teaching kids how to be inclusive at school, and helping people to know the signs of someone who may be in a mental crisis.
We also believe in gun safety, which you can see in our program “Keep It Safe and Secure”: http://www.sandyhookpromise.org/keep_it_safe_and_secure.
We support policy that helps identify, intervene and stop at-risk individuals from hurting themselves or others. And, we support laws that will help to keep firearms out of the hands of dangerously ill people and criminals, as well as out of the reach of children to prevent unintentional shooting deaths and injuries that have become much too frequent.
– – – – – – – – – – – – –
Regardless if you want to characterize the work of Sandy Hook Promise as gun control, or you happen to be an advocate for gun control yourself, the thought of repeating the same pattern of behavior that saw The Dixie Chicks black balled from the country music community is something that country music should not wish to repeat, especially in this particular instance where so much grey area exists. Brietbart exploited the contentiousness of the guns rights issue and interjected politics into the country music realm where it’s at the least questionable if it belonged, if not outright inappropriate, especially when the matter is so personal to the people involved.
Americans have the right to bear arms under the 2nd Amendment, but they also have a right to support whatever organizations they so choose under the 1st Amendment. That doesn’t insulate individuals like Tim McGraw or the Dixie Chicks from public outcry if they choose to support an organization or issue that is unpopular amongst a certain demographic of people. But in this particular situation, to characterize Sandy Hook Promise as a “gun control organization,” and Tim McGraw and Billy Currington as gun control advocates just for playing a charity concert, regardless of how you feel about their music, seems like and effort to incite as opposed to inform.
– – – – – – – – – – – – – –
UPDATE 4-16-15 4:15 PM CDT:
Tim McGraw released a statement through The Washington Post due to the ongoing controversy.
Let me be clear regarding the concert for Sandy Hook given much of the erroneous reporting thus far. As a gun owner, I support gun ownership. I also believe that with gun ownership comes the responsibility of education and safety most certainly when it relates to what we value most, our children. I can’t imagine anyone who disagrees with that.
Through a personal connection, I saw first-hand how the Sandy Hook tragedy affected families and I felt their pain. The concert is meant to do something good for a community that is recovering.
The Washington Post also reports that the NRA briefly tweeted about the issue with a link to the Brietbart story, but deleted it shortly after.
Travis Tritt also later tweeted out a link to The Washington Post story with the caption, “Decide for yourselves.”
April 16, 2015 @ 11:00 am
WARNING: Comments will be heavily moderated due to the political nature of this story. Please keep comments on point and respectful to all readers, or the evil hand of censorship will be wielded. America is a free country, but the region of Saving Country Music is a benevolent dictatorship. Discussion and dissent is encouraged, but where it becomes disrespectful or off topic, it goes against the spirit of this post and is subject to being deleted or edited.
April 16, 2015 @ 11:11 am
Just curious, does anybody know if George Strait received any resistance for releasing “I Believe.” The song was dedicated to the victims of the shooting. I know it didn’t go very far on radio. I feel like it would be strange to call King George “anti-American” since he’s basically an American Icon.
I’m always shocked at how fast lifelong fans will turn on an artist if they find out the artist has different politics than them.
Don’t these people realize McGraw recorded a song about abortion (Red Ragtop) and made it a Top 5 hit less than 15 years ago? Why didn’t they boycott him then?
April 16, 2015 @ 11:21 am
People just need to set aside personal opinions/politics/views and judge artists by their music. I pretty much disagree with David Allan Coe on about every social and political view he spews, but when “The Ride” comes on I still turn up the radio and love it. The same goes for Hank Jr. who has said some inflammatory statements in recent years that I disagree with, but I still love “Family Tradition”.
I can understand being upset if you found out your favorite artist was secretly a member of the KKK or Al Qaeda, but I really could care less if Tim McGraw or Ronnie Dunn or Hank Jr. have different politics or social views than I do. I really do not understand why some fans cannot separate an artist’s work and their political or social views. As long as they aren’t forcing you to agree with them, who cares what they think.
April 16, 2015 @ 12:02 pm
I think we can’t lose sight of the most important issue raised by your comment… what radio station are you listening to that plays David Allan Coe? I didn’t think those existed anymore!
April 16, 2015 @ 2:24 pm
The country station where I live, will play a few older songs in a row and call it the “Geezer Pleaser.”
April 22, 2015 @ 1:12 pm
spoken like a true Lib…….i bet you have a co-exist bumber sticker
April 16, 2015 @ 11:14 am
This is one of the most important blog posts I’ve ever seen on SCM. The comparison to the Dixie Chicks’ railroading is dead on.
April 22, 2015 @ 1:10 pm
McGraw deserves to be “Dixie Chicked”…..i know he want miss my money but i for one am through with him……..rest assured though, one day he will say the wrong thing and the “wacko” Libs will turn on him like a rabid dog…..
April 16, 2015 @ 11:15 am
A lot of the reaction to this story has been very depressing. Want to know why so much of our Government is screwed up, well a large part of it is because the American people, myself included, have allowed it to be screwed up by trusting bias news sources and by seemingly having zero respect that an artists opinion may be different than our own.
I’m not a Democrat, nor am I a Republican. Really though, why do we give a shit that Tim McGraw wants to play this concert or that his opinion may or may not be different than our own? Are we really that insecure with our own views that we want to burn the records of artists who may or may not have different political views than our own?
You want to burn Billy Currington or Tim McGraw records? Do it because they decided to record “Truck Yeah” or a Sam Hunt written song. Why do it because their opinion may be different your own or my own?
I’m sorry, but maybe our attention as a nation should be less about being outraged one or two Country singers decided to play a concert by a group that’s opinion is different than our own. Rather maybe we should just be depressed/outraged we even need to have a Sandy Hook concert? The reality is that as a nation we have allowed the Sandy Hook events to be politicized, something that both sides are incredibly guilty of. That politicization of those tragic events is what pisses me off WAY more than Tim McGraw deciding to prance around on stage singing “Truck Yeah”.
April 16, 2015 @ 11:20 am
Have to add in no way is Tim McGraw anti-gun. Just in the same day a press release was sent out for the date of his tug McGraw celebrity sporting clays shoot. It’s been in existence for a few years. I know Craig Campbell is shooting in it on June 8th.
April 16, 2015 @ 11:30 am
There is a lot of ground between “anti-gun” and “pro-gun.” The debate can be more nuanced than either one of those categories… Also, I think that the proper term should be “arms.”
April 16, 2015 @ 11:25 am
The detail that most furrowed my brow was that since-deleted comment Billy Currington made on his Twitter page:
*
“I don’t sign up for shit. just hearing about it like u are. so fuck u too.”
*
What exactly does he mean by “just hearing about it”? Did his publicist just say a great gig had been booked for him, and perhaps as he is ramping up the release of his forthcoming studio album flat-out nodded his head affirmatively to give the green light…………….without knowing the specifics in the first place…………and is now attempting to backpedal somewhat after learning of the cause?
At the very least, it just looked rather unprofessional for Currington. At most, it just reminds me of Kip Moore’s instance this past week all over again; where Currington agrees to a gig/arrangement and then seems to want to renege on it.
April 16, 2015 @ 11:37 am
Not trying to defend Currington in any way, but my guess is the arrangement came down that he would open for Tim McGraw on his tour, and that was locked and sealed before any information was available about the Sandy Hook charity concert. The date may have been on the calendar, or maybe it wasn’t, or maybe it was just considered a regular concert originally, but like many country artists do these days, they decided to make it into a charity event. It’s pretty common these days for one stop on a tour to be 100% for charity, but what date may not be decided at the beginning of the tour.
April 16, 2015 @ 11:27 am
I heard about this this morning and thought the response they’re getting is ridiculous. I probably don’t share Tim Mcgraw’s political views, but his playing this event doesn’t bother me at all. Are people upset because they have this idea that all country musicians should be staunch conservatives? To me, that’s analogous to a bro country fan thinking country songs have to expressly mention “country” things in order to be country. Not a fan of mcgraw’s music, but I do hope he keeps releasing singles like the last two (Meanwhile Back at Mamas and Shotgun Rider), which are just decent tracks really but very refreshing to hear on the radio.
Also, is it just me or does Billy Currington always come off as a complete tool?
April 16, 2015 @ 11:41 am
He did threaten to kill a 70-year-old tour boat captain that one time and plead “No Contest” to the charges.
April 16, 2015 @ 12:26 pm
I agree that Billy can be hot headed and definitely needs to think before he tweets but, that elderly boat captain was selling tickets to take people on a “tour” that included sitting in the water in front of Billy’s house on Tybee Island so “fans” could see him and take pictures. Evidently Billy had asked him to stop on several occasions and he wouldn’t. The final straw was the guy getting caught doing it, speeding off and swamping Billy’s dock and knocking down an elderly gentleman that was standing on the dock, causing him to fall in the water. Billy and his brother then chased the guy in their own boat and, yes, threatened to kill him. So I kind of think that the old turd got what he deserved.
Billy tweeted most of this one day in a big rant, while his home was being searched by police looking for security videos (??? I don’t know what of, the dock I would guess). Anyway, the tweets were up for about 15 minutes then he deleted every tweet on his Twitter account. I used to have the whole mess of screenshots (there were about 20 tweets) but eventually deleted them.
April 17, 2015 @ 12:42 pm
Nothing that man did was illegal. If Currington is going to be okay with being in the limelight he needs to learn how to respectfully deal with these things.
April 16, 2015 @ 3:09 pm
Currington comes across as super unintelligent to me.
April 16, 2015 @ 11:27 am
I’m what the liberal folk tend to call a “gun nut”, being as I’m a libertarian who supports very few of the gun control laws that are proposed. But I don’t really get why people are getting so spun up over this. Again, maybe it’s because I’m a libertarian and there are very few artists whose politics align very well with mine; many (including those I know personally) are either fiercely progressive or fiercely conservative. They both despise libertarians! They’re still good folk, I still love their music, and I don’t see how political differences has anything to do with either.
I do understand the suspicion that gun rights advocates have over the term “gun safety”. Gun control advocates have increasingly used that term to describe gun control legislation, obviously because the word “safety” polls better than the word “control”. Also, as a certified firearms safety instructor myself, to a gun owner the term “gun safety” has a pretty specific meaning that has nothing to do with legislation or bureaucratic regulation.
April 16, 2015 @ 11:31 am
The biggest problem I have with the reaction to thus is that people seemed shocked that Tim McGraw, a lifelong and fairly public Democrat, is not a conservative Republican nor willing to play one on TV. There is a sense that country music is the music of “every day people” and that is somehow shorthand for Tea Party. Like country fans don’t have a wide swath of political convictions and reasons for having them and country music doesn’t reflect that. If someone is truly offended that Mc Graw supports what is perceived as an anti-gun cause, I truly hope they never learn of Emmylou Harris’ existence. And that they tell their favored presidential candidate to replace Ted Nugent with Charlie Robison.
April 16, 2015 @ 1:08 pm
This is similar to when Willie Nelson came out in support for Wendy Davis for Texas Governor and everybody flipped out like they just figured out he was not conservative.
April 16, 2015 @ 1:56 pm
Then, a few days after that, Dolly came out in support of LGBT rights and they had the same standard, government issue shit fit over that too.
They should go listen to rap. THERE’s a genre that won’t threaten the rights they support, while fully supporting the crushing of the rights they don’t support.
April 16, 2015 @ 4:29 pm
I think they do know, but they use things like this to rile the base for their cause. Foot stomping makes them feel good.
April 16, 2015 @ 11:57 am
As long as I can identify with the emotions in the song, I could not care any less what the singer’s political beliefs are.
April 16, 2015 @ 12:03 pm
This whole situation has jumped the shark. My guess is Billy didn’t even know it was a benefit. Also Travis Tritt needs to issue some sort of statement ASAP calling off his 30 million Twitter followers. I hate when celebs spread misinformation as fact, especially when it calls out two of his peers, then don’t issue a retraction. He has been backpedaling to some to individuals on Twitter, but radio silence add far as a general tweet.
April 16, 2015 @ 1:01 pm
As a Tritt fan I don’t understand why he did it. If hank Jr or Justin more did it bit would make sense but what does Travis have to gain here.
April 16, 2015 @ 7:34 pm
Travis just posted this after repeatedly saying he did nothing political, just retweeted the Breitbart article – “@Seattle_Cowboy I don’t see how gun and mental health education would have prevented the Sandy Hook tragedy. I suspect a hidden agenda here.”
What a jerk.
April 16, 2015 @ 7:54 pm
Even conservatives agree that mental health education would have helped that situation and that it is needed.
Nothing political but re tweets the Breitbart fear mongering article.
April 16, 2015 @ 12:08 pm
Listen I live in Connecticut. Mark Barden is a hard core anti gun, anti 2nd rabid fanatic activist. They try to confuse the public and dilute the pubic perception by saying “its for the children”. They are lying and purposely misdirecting their true intentions which is aggressive national gun control. Barden and others realize that by shamelessly exploiting the children and jumping on their graves their real mission will be muddied .
April 16, 2015 @ 12:22 pm
His intentions may be misleading, but I understand them. If my 6 year old had been murdered at school, I would become the most anti gun person you would ever meet, and I own 4 of them myself.
April 16, 2015 @ 9:53 pm
Incredible. An inanimate object still has yet to kill anyone. Because someone uses an inanimate object to kill someone doesn’t mean I lose my right to own said inanimate object too.
April 17, 2015 @ 12:50 pm
i would be the opposite. I would want my sons faculty armed and able to prevent something like this.
April 16, 2015 @ 1:57 pm
Tom,
Tim McGraw is not throwing a benefit concert for Mark Barden, he’s throwing a benefit for Sandy Hook Promise. I understand Mr. Barden is part of Sandy Hook Promise, but so are 10 other staff members of the organization. Mr. Barden is not the executive director of Sandy Hook Promise, Timothy Makris is. They have a stated mission with clear articulated guidelines and objectives and are on record saying they support the 2nd Amendment and are not a political organization, but a non-profit. Can all of that be changed at a moment’s notice? Sure, but then they would have to answer for why they misled people, and all their previous statements and principles will be able to be used against them.
Again, I don’t quibble with some of the activities of Sandy Hook Promise being labeled as “gun control.” That is in the eye of the beholder. But if their clear objective is to eradicate the 2nd Amendment, they’re doing a pretty terrible job of it.
April 16, 2015 @ 3:49 pm
Purely anti-gun groups have a long history of claiming to “support the 2nd amendment” in their attempts to fly under the radar. Over the years countless groups have popped up, commonly under unassuming names implying interest in hunting or gun safety, and raised funds for anti-gun causes for a few years until they are outed. Pro-gun people have become keenly aware of this, and have found the assumption that any new group with a similar name is also anti-gun to be a safe one. The quicker they react, the less likely the new group will have any success.
It is also very common for celebrities to own guns, quite often very expensive collections, yet support laws banning or restricting guns. Although there is frequently also a political correlation, this tends to be more of a issue where those with fame or power do not seem to think the same restrictions that apply to common people should apply to them. I’m surprised that this situation has surprised anyone.
April 16, 2015 @ 4:36 pm
Also keep in mind, the celebrities you speak of may support a stricter background check to get a gun. That doesn’t mean they are anti-gun. They might very well pass that strict background check and are thus qualified to own guns.
There is a big difference between a gun collector who has an interest in WWII era guns from Europe and has made a hobby out of finding and refurbishing specific models and somebody who wants a gun but may have a history of violence and anger issues. So the gun collector celebrity may be very qualified to own a firearm.
April 16, 2015 @ 7:52 pm
Here in Cal we’ve had alot of laws passed claiming to be “pro-gun” or “pro-wildlife” and all they actually have done is restrict and limit 2nd amendment rights. Tbh, I’m quite tired of the act, if the government has to label something a certain way to spin voting results in a way favorable to their ends, to me that means that if the issue was labelled truthfully it probably wouldn’t have passed, and that reflects the real nature of what the public wants. Healthcare, gun control, taxes, spending, none of it ever gets labelled correctly for what it is and how it’ll effect the people of our fine nation. People have the right to support whatever they believe in, but issues like this article could be solved by transparency.
April 16, 2015 @ 7:02 pm
Mark Barden is the parent of a Sandy Hook victim, a massacre in which 10+ rounds were pumped into each victim.
These were children. And I don’t mean 16-18 year old older children. Elementary school children.
Have some goddamn empathy.
April 16, 2015 @ 10:20 pm
I have all the empathy in the world for him and the other families members. But as a commenter on another site mentioned: Sandy Hook was a gun free zone and there are laws against stealing guns, yet the dreadful event occurred. One can have empathy for the victims and still defend their God-given rights from knee-jerk reactions. Have we learned nothing from the Patriot Act?
April 17, 2015 @ 6:52 am
The main reason that massacre occurred is because some nutjob mother had basically no security in place to prevent her mentally unstable child from having full access to her arsenal. While I fully support Second Amendment rights, there is absolutely no reason any individual should have their stockpiled firearms readily available to their children. None, whatsoever, and especially if there’s a child (even a grown child, in his case). If she wouldn’t have been killed, too, Sandy Hook would have been her responsibility. If bartenders can be blamed for drunks hurting other people, nutjob parents who aren’t careful with their weapons ought to be, too.
As for defending your rights in the wake of a massacre, empathy for the victims should always, ALWAYS be your first thought, and the first thought you express in any kind of online post. If it isn’t, you are a problem.
April 17, 2015 @ 10:38 am
The sad truth is that even if the mother had her arsenal locked up, he still would have gotten those guns. He was mentally unwell and desperate to kill. A couple of locks weren’t going to stop him.
I agree with the empathy first, rights second approach after tragedies like these.
April 17, 2015 @ 10:48 am
This whole idea that these sporadic killings would still happen at the rate that they do is incredibly flawed. Many, many spurt of the moment gun crimes happen mostly because of easy access. A few simple security measures could have prevented Sandy Hook. Aside from that, the mind doesn’t work like you’re implying. He wasn’t some movie-scene horror killer with insatiable thirst for blood. He was an incredibly unstable individual whose mood swings could have been affected by the hassle of a few locks that he couldn’t open. They could haved destroyed his momentary desire fairly easily.
April 16, 2015 @ 12:23 pm
What happened to freedom of speech? Or is it only the 2nd amendment that bother people?
April 16, 2015 @ 12:37 pm
This is freedom of speech. He can support the causes he likes and we can voice our disdain for those causes. 1st ammendment protects us from the government not public ridicule.
April 16, 2015 @ 12:28 pm
What’s the saying… no good deed goes unpunished
I hope Trixie Knox, DanE, Wendy Renee, and KimPatriot aren’t licensed to carry. Rash, ignorant people should not be packing heat.
April 16, 2015 @ 12:33 pm
I’m pro guns but the NRA lunatics make me sick. I swear they’re more concerned with their guns than they are the children who died that day. Those tweets were basically made by neanderthals who had no clue what they were talking about.
April 16, 2015 @ 12:53 pm
You are 100% correct. I developed a bad taste for the NRA after they held a rally in Colorado shortly after Columbine and verbally attacked the parents of the children that had been killed for asking them to move or reschedule it. They have also been allowed to have entirely too much control over politics and governmental decisions. After my husband and I took our concealed carry class, they called our house daily to get us to join, even after being told we weren’t interested. I finally blocked their number.
April 16, 2015 @ 12:34 pm
I think the concern of keeping guns out of the hands of kids and the mentally ill are great/typical liberal talking points that everyone could get behind if it were that simple – kinda like “Hope and Change”… Problem is most gun owners don’t trust this rhetoric. If people want to bag on McGraw and turn away from his music for political reasons so be it, cause there’ll be plenty of hippies to take their place anyways. Tim McGraw knew this going in. No chance that he didn’t. I feel like I should go search Amazon for some Travis Tritt tunes…
April 16, 2015 @ 12:57 pm
Its kind of when Willie Nelson campaigned for The democratic Texas governor canidate everyone flipped out like they were just finding out he was a liberal.
As a progressive you are not what I would consider a gunnut, the people on social media are here. The gun nuts are the ones that see this and react to the extreme.
April 16, 2015 @ 1:13 pm
Yeah, as a guy who doesn’t own a gun I would make a piss poor gun nut… Fortunately I live where nearly everyone does have a gun so this keeps the crime down and affords me to not have one.
April 16, 2015 @ 1:25 pm
I just find it amazing that people are outraged over this. I don’t think that McGraw expected this kind of reaction. It is pretty out there that he is a Democrat by now. Britbart, okay stuff like this is their click bait but I don’t think he expected Travis Tritt to go after him with his fans (as a Tritt fan i find that interesting as to why).
If Toby Keith did this what would be the reaction then?
April 16, 2015 @ 2:01 pm
Can’t say. I don’t listen to either but I have heard some Tritt that I like. I don’t find it surprising that this issue is so polarizing simply because 99.99% of gun owners don’t break the law with their weapons. I personally worry about the republican push of tracking down any and all lunatics to keep these shootings from happening. I think that could definitely be a disaster for personal freedom…
April 16, 2015 @ 1:59 pm
The hippies I know want no business with Tim McGraw’s music.
April 16, 2015 @ 2:05 pm
Yeah he isn’t folky enough for them but they did latch onto the Dixie Chicks for a spell
April 16, 2015 @ 2:09 pm
Dixie Chicks were folksy to an extent.
April 16, 2015 @ 12:35 pm
Just seems to me that the issues at hand today are the hot button issues we’ve tried to ignore and they are staring at us in the face. With these issues, it is either yes or no, there is no center for these problems. People are high strung today on them. How can you still be independent on immigration, on gun control (1000s of laws already), late term abortion, terrorism. Boy we got a mess on our hands.
April 16, 2015 @ 11:58 pm
Totally agree, this country is in a horrible mess. People are on edge. I find it truly sad what’s happened to this country. We are no longer admired. I’ve known about Tim McGraw’s politics for years. And I don’t care. I’m wondering since IMO he’s not the huge headliner he once was, if he’s thinking of getting into politics. And I thought that before even reading about this charity appearance. Personally I prefer to not talk about politics or religion with people I don’t know. Several months ago I went to a new hairstylist. I hadn’t been there 10 minutes till she asked me “Are you a Christian?”. I am, but I was beyond pissed. I didn’t answer her. But I never went back. I don’t discuss my beliefs with total strangers. But if others want to, have at it. Just leave me out of it.
April 16, 2015 @ 12:50 pm
Once the crazy “I’m gonna boycott you for not agreeing with me” bunch realizes there’s no one left that agrees with them – then what?
April 16, 2015 @ 12:50 pm
The interesting thing to me more so is the Travis Tritt comments. As a Travis Tritt fan I know he is a republican but.
1. He was good friends with Waylon Jennings who was more liberal In ideology.
2. Tim McGraw is a well established star you would think that Travis Tritt would try not to start a war with him, unlike Billy Ray Cyrus and some others.
3. What exacly was his to gain here?
This is more something I would expect out of Hank Jr or Juntin Moore more so than Travis Tritt. Also his choice of article was interesting.
As a progressive this reaction is why we call them Gun nuts.
April 16, 2015 @ 2:45 pm
Travis is a stuck up, arrogant asshole. That’s why. I learned that over the years. He always sucked anyway, some celebs that most people forgot about years ago will say or do anything to get media attention….look at Amanda Bynes…perfect example..
April 16, 2015 @ 5:53 pm
His Twitter responses to those calling him out for tweeting this supports your opinion 100%
April 16, 2015 @ 12:53 pm
Unfortunately, the 2nd Amendment is one political issue that it’s basically impossible to have a reasoned discussion about. Even completely reasonable suggestions are decried by NRA-types that immediately start screaming about people trying to take their rights away even though there’s seldom much actual truth to that. But because the NRA is the single biggest lobbying group in the country they’re able to continue stirring up fear about the issue without ever offering up any ideas beyond unrestricted access.
April 16, 2015 @ 1:02 pm
You are dead on. I like guns and guess what no one, not even our Democrat president, are trying to take them away. Yes, America we need some controls. You can buy an assault riffle online and put it together if you have a credit card. That is stupid! The NRA is full of shit.
April 16, 2015 @ 1:24 pm
Barack Obama voted for an Illinois State Senate bill to ban and confiscate “assault weapons,” but the bill was so poorly crafted, it would have also banned most semi-auto and single and double barrel shotguns commonly used by sportsmen.http://www.ontheissues.org/Domestic/Barack_Obama_Gun_Control.htm
April 16, 2015 @ 2:47 pm
You’re way off.
http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2013/11/robert-farago/begins-new-york-sending-gun-confiscation-notices/
April 16, 2015 @ 12:59 pm
I am a Republican. Also, I will vote for the best candidate regardless of party.
I have no problem with Tim supporting any cause that he wants. That is his right. I fully support him. BTW, the organization in not anti-guns. yes, they support some controls. 20 little kids died. So yeah, Tim playing a concert to raise money to support controls that is not a problem. I cannot stand for someone to boycott a good person (yes Tim is a good person) strictly on the grounds of party affiliation. That is what is wrong with us. I don’t care what party you like. It is your right.
April 16, 2015 @ 1:06 pm
I’d be the first one to be cheering if Tim McGraw and Billy Currington were banned from radio, but the reaction over this is just sad. These people responding in such a way make me sick. I fear for the fiture of this country. It’s getting divided more and more by loud mouthed idiots with agendas.
April 16, 2015 @ 1:25 pm
The majority of these groups resort to underhanded tactics and/or outright lies to further their agenda. Anyone supporting them is complicit in such.
I’ve never liked Tim McGraw to begin with, and will discontinue purchasing music from either of these two artists as a result of their actions.
April 16, 2015 @ 1:26 pm
NRA and the right uses lies as well.
April 16, 2015 @ 3:13 pm
No doubt; all sides do. The gun-control lobby just has a hankering for ‘interpreting’ statistics until they achieve the opposite conclusion that the statistics suggested before being ‘interpreted’. This is one thing with fuzzier issues where constitutional rights are not at stake, but when my rights and ability to defend myself and others are being threatened, I tend not to take things very lightly.
April 16, 2015 @ 5:09 pm
A lot of it is fear mongering on both sides. Obama is not coming for your guns as the NRA claims and Guns are not the main issue as liberals claim.
April 16, 2015 @ 1:37 pm
I’m going to disagree with the comparison.
Gun control is a domestic item and this is taking place on American soil. The Dixie Chicks mocked the President and his decision while standing on foreign soil (and while troops in harms way).
The entire backlash against the Dixie Chick revolved around doing it on foreign soil while troops were in harms way. Country artists have been active and vocal Democrats and Liberals for years without much notice before or since that happened. What’s going on with Tim McGraw isn’t even close.
April 16, 2015 @ 2:04 pm
Hey Phil,
I agree the two issues are very different, and I hope it didn’t come across that I was comparing the two directly. The Dixie Chicks and the boycott were brought up by the individuals criticizing Tim McGraw and Billy Currington, and so in that context I addressed that mindset.
April 16, 2015 @ 10:55 pm
The Dixie Chicks should have had the guts to say it on American soil instead of pandering to a foreign crowd.
April 16, 2015 @ 1:40 pm
What gun control measure would have prevented the sandy-hook massacre? Those guns were purchased legally by the crazy kids mom. The mom was incredibly naive to allow a kid on anti-psychotic meds easy access to guns but any gun controls measures implemented from said tragedy only hinder us law abiding citizens freedom to own firearms. I personally will not support Billy Currington or Tim McGraw. Didn’t like their music before this concert but it shows where their allegiance lies and it is not in tune with us Americans that believe in true freedom from an oppressive Government. You have the right to agree with Tim or disagree and spend your money accordingly. No need to get your panties in a wad because someone now dislikes Tim and Billy because of this issue…Welcome to how America and the media react to every story in this day and age.
April 16, 2015 @ 2:13 pm
The issue here is the over reaction to a small thing here. People know McGraw is a Democrat. Also this not supporting the pro-gun message is somehow anti-american in the Country format.
Also if you think this government is oppressive I have some land in Saudi Arabia I would like to sell you.
April 16, 2015 @ 2:14 pm
Nobody is advocating for gun control measures here, not Sandy Hook Promise, and certainly not Tim McGraw or Billy Currington.
“Those guns were purchased legally by the crazy kids mom. The mom was incredibly naive to allow a kid on anti-psychotic meds easy access to guns”
Exactly, and from what I understand, Sandy Hook Promise is working towards trying to reduce the chances of this occurring by “empowering parents and communities with mental wellness and gun safety programs that help identify, intervene and stop at-risk individuals from hurting themselves or others.”
I’m not saying that some of what Sandy Hook Promise does couldn’t be labeled as gun control under a certain mindset, but it appears they’re focused more on the mental health aspect of this issue, and making changes in communities not through laws, but through private sector awareness and support campaigns.
Brietbart and many others are taking it as a given that Sandy Hook Promise is a gun control organization. At the least that is open for interpretation, and it certainly has not been established by either the organization’s mission statement or actions, only by the polarized opinions of others.
If Tim McGraw plays this concert and the Sandy Hook Promise comes out openly advocating for the abolishment of the 2nd Amendment or some seriously heavy-handed gun laws, then make him answer for it then. Right now this is a gun-owning country music artists that throws skeet-shooting competitions wanting to play a show to help out the friend of his fiddle player.
April 16, 2015 @ 2:35 pm
Actually “the media” only reacted after a truther blog patchworked together a few sentences to make a totally different quote fit their propaganda, then a celebrity shared it as fact and people lost their minds.
Look, I totally agree with you that no measure of gun control would have prevented Sandy Hook. That kid was obviously very ill and, for whatever reason, his mother decided that guns were a good family hobby, but if this group can educate just one family who has a son like Adam into keeping their guns locked up and it prevents even one more school shooting, then I am all for it. No one wants to take your guns if you are a responsible, mentally healthy gun owner, however, someone that has a history of severe mental illness has no business owning one.That is what so many of the haters refuse to acknowledge. All they hear is “someone wants to take my guns, they must be stopped immediately because I’m an American”. Well, guess what, so am I, and while it is absolutely your right to have a gun, it is my right not to have to worry that someone is going to come into my son’s school and murder him because someone with a criminal past or mental illness was allowed to purchase a gun because people are terrified that any gun reform= confiscation .
April 16, 2015 @ 2:17 pm
All of the hullabaloo over gun control results from a basic, and now nearly universal, misunderstanding of the Constitution. The right and NRA types would have you believe that state and local gun laws are or should be unconstitutional, while the left would have you believe that federal gun laws are or should be constitutional. Both of them are wrong.
April 17, 2015 @ 8:29 am
Not so fast, RD. This is probably the first time I’ve ever disagreed with one of your politics related comments, but I believe your wrong here.
The 2nd amendment was written to prevent government, at any level, from infringing on arms rights. The 10th amendment makes it clear, that whatever the Constitution doesn’t cover, is left up to state and/or local governments. Since the Constitution covers arms rights, state and local governments are prohibited from infringing on those rights in any way.
I should have the right to go anywhere I want in this country, with a machine gun over my shoulder.
April 17, 2015 @ 9:36 am
The Bill of Rights is a recitation of what the federal government can’t do to the sovereign states, not a list of positive rights guaranteed to each citizen. The federal government can’t pass laws limiting free speech, establishing a national religion, or banning guns. The states can do all of these things. States rights is a double-edged sword, if you believe in the Constitution of The Founding.
April 17, 2015 @ 12:09 pm
I admit that my views on the arms/gun issue are deeply conflicted, but my view on the applicability of the Bill of Rights to the states is not. The question of whether states have the right to run their own tyrannies was resolved by the 14th Amendment and reinforced by Gitlow v. New York in 1925.
According to the 14th Amendment, states cannot deprive any person of liberty without the due process of law. This restriction on state power is meaningless unless “liberty” is clearly defined, and original intent makes it easy to deduce that the items mentioned in the Bill of Rights form a core of human liberty in America.
Another important facet of that amendment is the Privileges and Immunities Clause. According to its author, the clause is meant specifically to enforce the Bill of Rights on the states.
Now that McDonald v. Chicago has incorporated the 2nd Amendment into the Gitlow umbrella, the debate on that is over as well. Basically, the extent of power that the states have to regulate arms is the same as that of the federal government (although an interesting argument can be made about how federal authority is limited by Article 1, Section 8…).
April 17, 2015 @ 12:47 pm
As I mentioned in my initial comment, I’m speaking about the Constitution of The Founding, and how it is properly understood, not the hatchet-job that has been done to it in the 150 years since the 2nd American Revolution. Twenty years ago, when I was studying political science, I could cite chapter and verse, all the myriad court cases that have led us to our present situation. They are all irrelevant. The “Constitution,” a dead letter since before my grandfather was born, simply means whatever the president, nine unelected judges, and the bagmen that own them, think it means on any given day. The idea that the federal government is the final arbiter on the extent of its own power is absurd. Jefferson wrote a lot about this.
Patrick Henry and the other anti-federalists were correct. Ratification of the Constitution would lead to consolidation and empire.
April 17, 2015 @ 1:45 pm
This is a particularly poor example to use if you want to advance the argument that the Constitution has been destroyed. First off, the Bill of Rights was imposed on the states by a proper constitutional amendment, not through a simple broad reading of the first 10 amendments by the Supreme Court. Secondly, do you really believe that states have the right to run tyrannical governments with no free speech, freedom of religion, etc.?
April 17, 2015 @ 6:42 pm
A double-edged sword indeed, RD. And of course I believe in the Constitution of the founding. I guess we have two different opinions about what it means.
Not that I think you don’t already know it, but here’s the 10th amendment:
‘The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.’
In simpler terms, whatever specific powers the Constitution doesn’t give The Fed, or take away from the states, are left for the states or the people to decide. Since the Constitution specifically gives ‘the people’ the right to bear arms, the states have no authority to infringe on that. I don’t see how you can read that any other way.
April 18, 2015 @ 6:44 pm
Clint,
I appreciate your response. I think that many conservatives, traditionalists, reactionaries, etc. have been misled by the post-War Between the States, post “civil rights” movement reinvention of the Constitution as a document that grants positive rights to each citizen, instead of a document that empowers the sovereign states and limits the powers of the federal government to a very narrow group of things, most importantly the Bill of Rights, which explicitly spells out what the federal government cannot do to the states and the people.
If we are to take the view that the Bill of Rights grants individual, positive rights to each citizen, then your understanding is correct: the federal government, state governments, and local governments cannot in any way limit the right of the people to keep and bear arms. However, I think that this is not consistent with the view of the Founders.
For instance, the 1st Amendment states that: “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.” This is clearly a limit on the power of the FEDERAL congress, because many of the states, at the time, had state establishments of religion and state funding for their respective churches. Most of the colonies had an established religion. This is an impenetrable stumbling block to the, atheists, progressives, Marxists, etc. in their asinine quest for “separation of church and state,” because it is an incontrovertible fact that numerous states had established, and state-funded religions. The 1st Amendment pertains only to federal government establishments of religion. Further, the term “separation of church and state” has no basis in law, or any of the founding documents; it is a line from a personal letter of Jefferson.
The 2nd Amendment states: “A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.” It is explicit in the wording that the states are free and that for the states to remain free that the federal government cannot “infringe” on the rights of the people to keep and bear arms. It does not say that the states can”™t decide to impose limits on keeping and bearing arms. The problem that the Left, progressives, etc. now have with the reinvention of the Bill of Rights as a grant of positive rights to citizens, is the inconvenient inclusion of gun rights along with religion, freedom of speech, etc. The Left, progressives, etc. would prefer to keep the old meaning of the 2nd Amendment, but the reinvention of all the other language”¦
In terms of your mentioning of the 10th Amendment, I agree completely. This was intended as the ultimate Amendment on the power of the states and was included as reassurance to many of the anti-federalists, or skeptics of the Constitution, that the federal government would never become a tyranny and would never usurp the power and sovereignty of the states. The wiser patriots, like Patrick Henry, knew that mere would never suffice, and that devious, unscrupulous men would ultimately hijack the document and use it to centralize and consolidate power. By the way, if you”™re ever in a discussion about the War Between the State and the right of the Southern states to secede, the 10th Amendment is all of the ammunition that you need. Many state constitutions reserved the right of secession, but these are simply restatements of rights they already had. The 10th Amendment states that “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.” The Constitution does not mention secession. The right of the states to secede is clearly “NOT DELEGATED TO THE UNITED STATES.” Therefore, it is up to the states to decide whether or not they secede. End of story. No other argument can be given to the contrary.
April 16, 2015 @ 2:32 pm
As a conservative, I’m just annoyed over these conservative clickbait blogs like Breitbart and Dailly Caller with those annoying ads. Second, I wouldn’t mind if Tim McGraw got Dixie Chicked at all.
April 16, 2015 @ 5:06 pm
You mean you don’t need rations for the shelter. I swear all conservative websites have ads like that on them.
April 16, 2015 @ 10:50 pm
Right, I always laugh when I listen to Sean Hannity and he does his pitch for “food insurance” and advocates purchasing gold in the event of the apocalypse.
April 16, 2015 @ 2:33 pm
If 20 children can be murdered by an unstable person, then something needs to be addressed. For sure Sandy Hook was an example of mistakes and tragedies and in hind site seems like it could have been avoided. People should be able to own guns for sport and personal protection but someone wiser then me needs to figure out a way to keep weapons out of the hands of murderers.
April 16, 2015 @ 2:41 pm
When I first saw this last night being shared all over facebook, i sat down with a snack when I saw the comments. I laughed my ass off at all the dumbass morons raging about this charity event. I will never understand why anyone is so defensive about gun rights. This world is full of crazies. Trash talking and threatening Billy Currington and Tim McGraw over something so F’ing stupid. People are so stupid that they will believe anything they see on the news or internet. Billy and Tim have my full support….was always a huge fan of both of them to begin with.
April 16, 2015 @ 2:57 pm
Can we finally put Travis Tritt out of his misery? Dating back to Billy Ray Cyrus, this inbreed has been stirring the pot begging for attention for twenty plus years. He likens himself an Outlaw like Waylon, but he’s not even close. Enough already. His tweet was irresponsible and dangerous.
April 16, 2015 @ 3:18 pm
Maybe I know, but just don’t remember- what was the deal with Tritt and Billy Ray Cyrus?
April 16, 2015 @ 3:33 pm
At the height of Achy Breaky Heart mania, Tritt called out the song calling it “frivolous” and saying something about the video being an ass-shaking contest (said the singer of a future song called “girls gone wild”.)
Billy had a great come back at the AMAs later that year when excepting an award he said something to the effect of “for those who don’t like the song, here’s a quarter call someone who cares.”
At the time, I was on Tritt’s side of the feud, but he’s worn me out over the years.
April 16, 2015 @ 4:13 pm
Thanks. Didn’t know that. I know he has a lot of forgettable stuff, but I still listen to “Lord Have Mercy on the Working Man” at least once a week .
April 16, 2015 @ 3:08 pm
Referring to a murderer’s use of a firearm as “gun violence” is like referring to a drunk driver’s use of an automobile as “car violence”. Even MADD doesn’t do that.
Or referring to war-time kills in action as “gun violence”.
The term “gun violence” is the stated reasoning for “common sense” gun laws, which is code for gun control.
“Gun violence” is a political meme – not a societal problem.
The issue is crime and criminals.
If these 2 artists wish to perform at this show, more power to them.
Opposition to, or support for, their doing so is an expression of free speech – not an affront to free speech.
And boycotting artists one dislikes or disagrees with is an exercise of economic freedom, which is an arcane notion at this stage in history, but still a freedom that we can exercise.
Personally, I have 3,000 – 4,000 CDs and not 1 Tim McGraw CD and not one Bucky Currington CD.
April 16, 2015 @ 3:28 pm
It’s bad enough some people are so ignorant they can not respect that somebody may have a different opinion then them (and in my opinion, to call someone anti-american because they disagree with you is down right disgusting.) But now there are sites not only playing off these people’s ignorance, but inciting it simply to generate traffic flow. It’s really quite disturbing.
April 16, 2015 @ 4:43 pm
It’s always about money.
April 16, 2015 @ 3:37 pm
Country music fans are the Fox News type laughing stock of the business these days,that’s for sure. That whole Dixie Chicks ban started the decline of the genre
April 16, 2015 @ 4:25 pm
Yeah if the Chicks hadn’t been banned Taylor Swift wouldn’t be where she is now. The macho backlash to Swift in the form of bro-country wouldn’t have happened either. Which, in turn, created metro-politan disco country. Had the incident not happened, Sam Hunt would either be a Swedish EDM dh or a Waffle House cook in Georgia. I can’t decide which.
April 16, 2015 @ 4:30 pm
There are already enough gun laws – but this is a country music appreciation site so I won’t get into it.
On the country music side – Tim’s heart is in the right place, and I get it (even though I would respectfully disagree) but how stupid is he to put his name behind anything remotely in the vain of gun control? Its his own fault for the backlash. Country boys love their guns, don’t even fake like you want gun control in this genre, sheesh!
April 16, 2015 @ 4:39 pm
I think the real controversy in all this is the fact that they call Billy Currington and Chase Bryant country singers in the article.
April 16, 2015 @ 4:43 pm
Tritt just RT’d the Washington Post story with the addition of “Decide for yourself”.
April 16, 2015 @ 5:02 pm
Must have seen that briebart isn’t exactly non partisan and posting it doesn’t make him look good.
April 16, 2015 @ 4:48 pm
I love how Chase Bryant didn’t get any backlash for this. People just care about Tim and Billy because they’re the biggest names and will make the headline more tantalizing. Chase’s career could literally be over after this except people don’t recognize his name. Nobody’s saying “I’ll never buy any a Chase Bryant CD” but they are swearing off Tim CDs.
By the way, I don’t support boycotting artists with different political opinions. I just think if you’re gonna do that, at least do it fairly to all three involved. Why let Bryant off the hook? One less bro to worry about.
April 16, 2015 @ 5:57 pm
I honestly have no idea who he is and I thought I pretty much knew, at least by name, most country singers. He just doesn’t ring a bell for me at all.
April 16, 2015 @ 5:52 pm
It’s always a shame to see artists be used as what Lenin would have called “useful idiots” for a feel-good cause that is merely a Trojan Horse for an anti-freedom agenda of civilian disarmament. Bloomberg will be pleased.
April 16, 2015 @ 6:06 pm
Not all country music fans are right wing ,can’t think for themselves , propaganda believing , conspiracy believing morons. Some of us actually laugh at sites like Breitbart and see them for what they are. Heaven forbid someone would want to help out a community that has gone through so much . Some of the people tweeting ugly things are probably the same people who were believing Sandy Hook was a false flag to begin with. I’m sure the large majority of Mcgraws fans will stick by him and even like him more for helping out a friend.
I’m still waiting for Obama to send the military door to door to collect guns as was predicted by so many sites similar to Breitbart .
Trigger I applaud your efforts here to try and educate and hopefully a few were able to comprehend and maybe see it’s much ado about nothing.
April 16, 2015 @ 6:29 pm
Those that worship at the altar of Alex Jones are a scary crew for sure.
April 16, 2015 @ 6:28 pm
From their website:
Sandy Hook Promise a political organization?
No. SHP is a non-partisan grassroots group with supporters from across the political spectrum. We are united by a commitment to help our community and nation by saving more lives and are determined not to be divided by politics.
SHP is comprised of two nonprofit corporations ”“ SHP Foundation and SHP Action Fund. Two organizations allow us to fulfill our overall mission of:
Helping our community through this horrific tragedy
Researching and implementing common sense solutions to eliminate the causes of gun violence
Promoting and mobilizing change within our communities and across our nation
Influencing legislators and engaging constituents in the legislative process.
so do we know that the money is not going to their Action fund which is for political influence? I am all for training but to say the organization has no gun control component is not true.
April 16, 2015 @ 9:01 pm
“but to say the organization has no gun control component is not true. “
I have personally gone out of my way to say that I think there are some elements of the Sandy Hook Promise agenda that could be considered gun control. However no issue is black and white. Is Sandy Hook Promise advocating for the abolition of private gun ownership? Are they looking to outlaw handguns, or restrict gun ownership to one long rifle designated for hunting? Or are they focused on trying to craft pragmatic ways to make sure people with mental health issues don’t end up acquiring guns, not by legislation, but by community outreach and education?
How much of the Sandy Hook Promise agenda could be considered gun control. 20%? So does that make them a gun control organization? I think that’s a good question. But I think when you talk about the organization you have to present them with the totality of their efforts, not just an extreme as Brietbart did, and incited this maelstrom.
April 16, 2015 @ 9:12 pm
It doesn’t matter to an NRA-type. To them it’s a slippery slope, so it’s all or nothing.
April 16, 2015 @ 10:05 pm
Trigger,
My issue is in the press releases they keep releasing regarding this event they never seem to mention they do have a side dedicated to political pressure. They try to make it sound as if they are only about education. so I do agree you need to talk about the totality of their efforts. Now if the procedes are only going to education and training that is awesome and i could get behind that. They are not mentioning the Action Fund side in the press releases for a reason. Yes, I do see you have mentioned some part could be considered gun control and I thank you for saying so. Are trying to craft pragmatic ways to deal with this without legislation? Maybe but they are also trying to use legislation as well. And you are right Breitbart won’t always give you the full story.
April 16, 2015 @ 10:13 pm
I find myself middle of the road here, education good, banning some things I don’t agree with. I own one revolver, I have no need for an AR and no wish to buy one but I appreciate that I could If I chose to.
April 16, 2015 @ 6:58 pm
I just lost a ton of respect for Travis Tritt. Not because he’s a Second Amendment supporter, but because he helped escalate a situation that needn’t have been. He also showcased paranoia to the extreme.
I’m sorry, but if parents like Mark Barden, who’ve had to endure the kind of heartbreak most of us can’t even fathom, want to take part in a group that wants to help prevent future gun violence, then each and every one of us should be supporting them 100%. This isn’t about gun control–it’s about safety and education in regard to guns.
Need I remind you of some of the facts from this case. 10+ rounds per victim ON AVERAGE. The shooter had everything he could have possibly needed ready and at his disposal due to a lack of supervision and necessary precautions in regard to the weapons that were available in his own home.
If those facts don’t make you at least somewhat interested in higher levels of firearm education, you’re overall lack of empathy is bordering on Dexter Morgan-esque levels.
And if Tim McGraw and other artists want to contribute to this cause, you should be celebrating their altruism and display of basic human decency that is far too rare in a world where most of mainstream country displays constant misogyny.
This isn’t about higher levels of gun control, or the supposed “registry” that everybody fears. It’s about safety, education, and giving tribute to the victims of an entirely preventable massacre.
Their lost lives are unequivocally more important than your unwarranted fears about threatened Second Amendment rights.
April 17, 2015 @ 7:57 am
I just lost a ton of respect for Travis Tritt. Not because he”™s a Second Amendment supporter, but because he helped escalate a situation that needn”™t have been. He also showcased paranoia to the extreme.
Well said.
April 16, 2015 @ 7:34 pm
The problem is gun control advocates have been playing the deception game way to long and gun owners are on to them. If a group says its just about “gun safety” not gun control, we know what that means. There have been countless groups before them saying the same thing and yet there they are advocation for some anti-gun legislation. The truth is most of us, id venture never heard of Sandy Hook Promise. But we have heard “gun safety” before. The truth is, its never, ever, ever just about gun safety. Period. And honestly until that group can prove its sincerity I won’t believe it either. Now as for Tim and Billy, I think their music is shit anyways so they didn’t lose me as a customer but they have a right just as anyone to associate with people and the causes they wish. And maybe its a misunderstanding but if Tim misjudged his fans and they retaliate, well thats their right as well isn’t it. Its not fair to call his fans “thugs” or “redneck idiots” don’t they have a right to an opinion? Don’t they control where their own money is spent? Don’t we all spend our money according to what we think is good for us? I don’t think that what happened to the Dixie Chicks was unfair. I mean it seems that these artists sometimes think that the rules of cause and effect shouldn’t apply to them just because of who they are. If i was giving advice, if anyone cared, id say stay away from advocacy of any kind publicly. Its bad for business. You risk alienating half your customers no matter what side you take.
April 16, 2015 @ 8:53 pm
I don’t think it’s fair to blame Sandy Hook Promise for the actions of others. You can’t assume that they’re lying just because you believe others have. What if they’re truly trying to craft universal, concensus-building plans to reduce gun violence through non-governmental programs that educate communities about the dangers of putting guns within access of people suffering from mental illness?
If Sandy Hook Promise is simply a cover for aggressive gun control, then they’ll have to answer for that once they’re exposed. And so will Tim McGraw. But to assume this I think is unfair.
April 16, 2015 @ 9:41 pm
Just go through their Twitter feed, they don’t seem to hate any gun control laws at all. In fact they don’t seem at all critical about any of them. Geez it’s like they’re not really just a community organization because they’re tweeting about legislative “fixes” in other states. So yeah they are an anti gun organization no matter how much people like you make excuses for them. They’re clearly trying to look like they’re above it all but they’re the same thing gun owners see all the time. Just another group using tragedy to further erode people’s rights.
April 16, 2015 @ 9:04 pm
Well, the NRA controls gullible people with fear tactics and the way they’ve been perpetuating paranoia. For some reason, that sounds much worse.
April 16, 2015 @ 9:46 pm
The NRA is the oldest civil rights organization in the world. You like civil rights yes? You think we should violate someone’s civil rights because of the criminal misuse of it by others? Oh and the NRA does not “control gullible people, they’ve been right a lot. And if it wasn’t for them this civil right would have been gone a long time ago. But I’m sure lots of people like you wouldn’t have minded that much.
April 16, 2015 @ 9:49 pm
Right lol. Nobody is trying to take your guns, and nobody has been trying to take your guns. Without the NRA, people wouldn’t have been worrying about things that aren’t happening, and there would be a hell of a lot less misinformed and paranoid voters.
April 16, 2015 @ 9:55 pm
Lol this just shows how misinformed you are. Ever hear of the assault weapons ban? Ok how about magazine bans? Ok how about one gun a month laws? No? How about no fly lists? How about functional bans? Would you believe a politician if they told you if they could have gotten away with banning your firearms that they’d do it in a heart beat? Well one said that. The truth is, if you don’t think all these things are happening it’s because you are either ignorant of what’s been going on or you agree with it but don’t want to admit it.
April 16, 2015 @ 10:01 pm
These were attempts at implementing needed limitations that would absolutely save lives. In no way were these attempts to “take your guns away.”
Take your paranoid ass somewhere else.
April 16, 2015 @ 10:01 pm
Just stockpile what you need and let the rest of us be. Tim’s concert isn’t going to put you over the edge.
April 16, 2015 @ 7:34 pm
Currington is out. He just posted on FB that he doesn’t get involved in controversial issues, will be making a donation “to a local organization” but won’t be playing the show.
April 16, 2015 @ 8:20 pm
–
April 16, 2015 @ 9:34 pm
Actually, after going through sandy hook promises Twitter feed, it doesn’t look at all like there’s a gun control measure they don’t support. So yeah nice try but so far sandy hook promise looks like just another run of the mill attempts to fool people into believing that if we pass one more law then it will be all better. Never mind that sandy hook was a gun free zone to begin with but those laws didn’t stop anything from happening. Sorry but Tim and Billy screwed the pooch on this one.
April 16, 2015 @ 9:56 pm
It’s posts like this that happen directly after massacres (I’m not accusing you of making said posts, but realize that many, many people do), and that’s why there’s such a divide in this country over this issue. People come out right away and express more concern for their gun rights than they do for the victims and their families. That’s wrong, and I hope it’s a trend that changes over time.
At some point, people need to matter more than a lethal instrument.
April 16, 2015 @ 10:15 pm
You cannot possibly say that without acknowledging that anti gunners use every shooting that happens to advocate for more gun control. I mean I’d be glad to not defend myself if I wasn’t forced to. By the way, sandy hook was a gun free zone. How did that law that established schools as gun free zones help? He stole the guns from his parents, after he murdered his mother. I’m sorry dude but no amount of gun laws will stop that kind of crazy. And advocating laws that infringe on others civil rights because of the evil that exists is an affront to common sense. Sorry but your argument doesn’t really hold water.
April 16, 2015 @ 10:35 pm
That’s the problem, Sandy Hook is a bit unique in circumstances compared to say, a Columbine.
April 16, 2015 @ 10:43 pm
There’s nothing unique at all about sandy hook except for maybe that school shootings are rare. They are all gun free zones though. If gun free zone laws worked why do we keep having school shootings? Anti gun laws don’t work. period. And sandy hook promise is clearly an anti gun organization.
April 16, 2015 @ 11:15 pm
The gun free zone around Sandy Hook didn’t work. Who is saying otherwise? Is Sandy Hook Promise advocating for more gun free zones around schools? Is Tim McGraw advocating for more gun free zones around schools? Are the proceeds for this concert going to go to advocating for more gun free zones around schools? Or are you bringing up a failed law that has nothing to do with the matter at hand, which is Sandy Hook Promise trying to raise funds to take community-based approaches to expanding education about why we should keep guns out of the reach of individuals with mental illness so hopefully more laws are not necessary?
April 16, 2015 @ 10:49 pm
Yeah, and let’s get rid of those pesky laws about texting and driving. They don’t work either.
April 16, 2015 @ 10:46 pm
Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.
-Ben Franklin
April 16, 2015 @ 10:52 pm
“He stole the guns from his parents, after he murdered his mother. I”™m sorry dude but no amount of gun laws will stop that kind of crazy.”
Exactly, and that’s why Sandy Hook Promise is advocating for, and I quote, “…preventing children from being harmed by gun violence. Our programs encompass things like community-based prevention, supporting social and emotional learning in schools, teaching Mental Health First Aid, teaching kids how to be inclusive at school, and helping people to know the signs of someone who may be in a mental crisis.”
This is the exact type of non-governmental community-based advocacy that organizations like the NRA are in agreement with as an alternative to gun laws.
The problem is folks are bringing their pre-programmed arguments to a situation instead of taking a unique perspective to the issue based on the specific parties involved. This makes for very weak and lazy arguments.
“Sorry but Tim and Billy screwed the pooch on this one.”
And once again you prove that you have not read and understood the facts of the situation. Billy Currington did not sign up for the concert, he used profanity when articulating he had nothing to do with it, and has since pulled out of it. These facts were well-established in the article, and glossed over in a rush to judgement.
April 16, 2015 @ 9:57 pm
Tim hs a right to his opinion but please dont sugarcoat the issue like so many here that claim to be pro gun and pro hunting and only want, quote unuote sensible gun laws. Pkease dont insult our intelligence, its a gun control concert. Now, do live with the consequences.
April 16, 2015 @ 10:44 pm
Exactly Ralph. This guy gets it.
April 16, 2015 @ 11:07 pm
Bringing pre-programmed arguments to a discussion and painting all organizations that are characterized as “gun control organizations” as exactly the same is lazy. If you want to talk specifics about what makes Sandy Hook Promise disagreeable to you as a gun owner, then it’s worth listening to, because as I have stressed, there are some efforts underway that could be considered by some as gun control. But by continuing to assert every organization is a wolf in sheep’s clothing and they’re all the same, you’re simply showing your hand that you have a closed-minded perspective on the issue.
How much of a percentage of the proceeds of the concert have to go to advocating for new gun laws for it to be considered a “gun control concert”? And what if a majority of the funds go to campaigns that are very similar to the ones the NRA is advocating for that work to make sure people with mental health issues don’t get their hands on guns, and doing so by community outreach, not government action?
I get it, you don’t want one red penny going to advocating for gun control. But this issue, like so many, is simply not black and white. Especially with Sandy Hook Promise, there’s a tremendous amount of grey, and painting them along with all other gun control organizations, or painting all gun control organizations together illustrates a reactionary approach to the issue instead of an informed one.
April 16, 2015 @ 11:30 pm
Excellent article, Trig. As a foreigner who lives in a country with very strict gun control laws, I know better than to muddle into this! So I’ll leave it be. Thoroughly enjoyed the article though.
April 17, 2015 @ 6:39 am
Tim McGraw is performing at a benefit concert. He is not recording anti-gun PSAs or taking time during his concerts to espouse anti-gun opinions. That is quite different from the actions of Natalie Maines which led to the Dixie Chicks being abandoned by their fans who didn’t agree with her opinion.
Performers have the right to voice their opinions just like anyone else. But consumers have the right to voice THEIR opinions as well – and do so by choosing not to support performers who’s views they disagree with. Actions have consequences.
I do believe that Sandy Hook Promise is an anti-gun organization so I wouldn’t purchase tickets to the concert or any CDs that contribute proceeds to the organization. But if I were a Tim McGraw fan (I’m not), I wouldn’t stop buying his CDs because of his involvement with this benefit.
April 17, 2015 @ 6:39 am
Great journalism as always, my friend.
This country has become more divisive than during the Civil War.
Calling an individuals patriotism, love for their country and community into question over an action they feel is right is not “American”. It’s the very ideology that is destroying us all.
Even with Billy Currington’s, “so fuck u too” comment. Divisive.
Heartbreaking.
April 17, 2015 @ 6:52 am
I look at SCM everyday looking for new music that resonates with me, and to enjoy like minded music fans that kick a little mud on acts that are destroying our beloved country music. This is the first time I have been compelled to add a comment. As a hunter and someone who enjoys hunting, shooting, and the outdoors, I am beyond sick and tired of people who throw the term “gun nut” or “uneducated red neck” etc. around to us on the right of the issues. These are just hurtful stereo types. There are extremist’s on both sides that no amount of common sense will sway their beliefs. Any ethical hunter/ gun owner practices and teaches safe gun handling skills. We also strongly support our 2nd amendment rights. The saying “when guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns” is true. A criminal doesn’t care about laws and will still commit the same crimes. Suppose all guns were taken away. 100% out of the hands of every citizen in the country. What’s next? Knives, baseball bats, maybe hammers. As repeated many times it’s the person and not the weapon (gun or otherwise) committing the crime. To Trigger and everyone saying that SHP is a gun safety group only and we need to give them the benefit of doubt until they prove otherwise; this is my opinion and nothing more, I feel SHP is a disguise for gun control lobbying group. Yes their mission statement states otherwise. I guess it’s just a gut feeling and I could be wrong. I am keeping an open mind to them, and will be following along. Honest discussions about true gun safety and who is responsible enough to own guns are what is needed, but gun control group using a ruse as gun safety complicates the issue. If this concert was done in the memory of those who lost their life, I can’t imagine nothing but an outpouring of support. Again, I could be wrong, but this just gives me a vibe of something with a hidden agenda.
As far as the musical acts performing at this show it doesn’t matter I don’t listen to their music. If it were acts I listen to, I don’t know how I would respond honestly. With that said, artists in general should recognize if they are going to play at a political charged venue or make politically charged statements it will have a polarizing effect with their fans. Either strongly for or against, and we have the right to speak out if we agree or disagree.
April 17, 2015 @ 10:26 am
Hey Racer53,
First off, thanks for being a loyal reader. I understand this is an issue that is contentious, and some may not want to see it coming from a site like Saving Country Music. However I do think it is fundamental to the cause of Saving Country Music because if country makes a pattern of black balling and boycotting artists for their political beliefs, in my opinion, we all lose. That doesn’t mean that just because you’re suspicious of Sandy Hook Promise that you hope Tim McGraw gets black balled, and really my posts were in answer to the extreme viewpoint that had been taken against McGraw and Currington, not against regular gun rights advocates that may be suspicious of Sandy Hook Promise, or disappointed in McGraw, but really not concerned about the issue beyond that.
Just to clarify, I really haven’t seen any sentiments here specifically about people being considered “gun nuts” or “uneducated red necks.” It totally understand those sentiments are out there in the greater population, but I certainly didn’t articulate those sentiments, nor do I see them being articulated here in any significant number, if at all. I knew this would be a contentious issue, and I have chosen my words very carefully, both in comments and in the articles themselves, and policed other commenters to make sure they are being respectful.
Yes, outlawing guns is a slippery slope, and this goes without saying. And I understand why some would be suspicious of Sandy Hook Promise, and McGraw’s appearance. But does that mean we should attempt to destroy his credibility? Should he be labeled as a socialist and anti-American? That’s my only point. A little bit of perspective was needed on this issue, and that’s what I attempted to do with my posts on this matter.
April 17, 2015 @ 8:11 pm
Trigger,
I re-read the article and all comments. You are right, no one was called gun nut here. Name calling was absent for the most part. I guess I have heard it so many times I just got too defensive too quick. Just to clarify, I wasn’t suggesting your article was implying that. I watch very little news and this is one of the only sites I trust when an issue like this arises. I wish there were more news outlets that just delivered the news and didn’t try to spin it for their agenda. Obviously I’m right leaning on most issues, but Fox News is is just too far one direction and MSNBC, CNN, etc. are way too far the other way. It’s dissapointing the level of narrow minded commentary on such channels.
April 17, 2015 @ 10:45 pm
“MSNBC, CNN, etc. are way too far the other way”
I understand MSNBC being the political opposite of Fox, but CNN? CNN goes out of its way to avoid taking sides and showing both sides of every argument, even in cases where one side has much more public support or factual validity than the other.
April 17, 2015 @ 9:30 am
I like Billy Currington’s music but he has always rubbed me the wrong way personally. It is such a cowardly move for him to pull out of this show for the man he called “his idol” recently. And then to top it off, he pulls the ultimate people-pleasing move and says he’s not gonna perform but he is gonna donate. At least be man enough to take a stance on the issue.
April 17, 2015 @ 10:00 am
I have held multiple Federal Firearms Licenses (FFL) and Special Occupation Taxpayer (SOT) licenses. I have dealt in firearms for many years, including silencers and machineguns. I am a libertarian.
1. I don’t care for Tim McGraw or Currington. I DO NOT think they are trying to benefit the anti-gun lobby with this benefit concert. It seems as though McGraw is trying to do something good from the bottom of his heart. His gesture seems apolitical.
2. I have lobbied on Capitol Hill and in many state houses for gun rights. In the northeast, there were a lot of knee-jerk laws put in place post Sandy Hook that do nothing to stop the type of tragedy that happened at Sandy Hook; rather, they keep good law-abiding citizens from exercising their rights and protecting themselves. I understand how people feel attacked by groups who say they are pro-2A and want “reasonable” approaches to gun control. The left want our guns. There are no two ways about it.
3. This story isn’t about gun control. It is about famous people acting like assholes (Tritt and Currington), and internet tough guys talking trash via twitter and wherever else they can hide behind an electronic device and act tough.
4. Generally, I would pop some pop-corn and watch the show. This is the 50th act of a terrible play that I was drug to with an ugly blind date. Will this ever end?
5. And lastly, if you are a proud gun owner, don’t be an asshole. Don’t carry your AR-15 to Starbucks to prove a point. That’s an asshole move. People like me that have done more for gun rights than any of you “in your face” jerks will ever do…we hate you and how you are destroying what we have worked so hard to keep. You are giving people who are on the fence about gun ownership and the 2A a reason to hate all of us.
April 17, 2015 @ 9:16 pm
Kudos to you for taking action for what you believe with a constructive and meaningful approach.
April 17, 2015 @ 10:43 am
Trig, you got fooled on this one.
Correspondence of Sandy Hook Promise to Connecticut Attorney General:
http://www.ct.gov/ag/lib/ag/charities/sandyhook/sandyhookpromiseactionfundorginial72313.pdf
Trig, you need to read more about an organization than its website.
This is a gun control organization which wishes to influence legislators to pass gun control measures.
I can’t copy and paste from this letter, and I am too busy with my daytime job to transcribe the salient portions of it.
You got had on this one.
When you hear terms like “gun violence” and “common sense solutions”, they inexorably lead to the promotion of gun control legislation.
This organization’s website is disingenuous and inconsistent with its organization purposes that it represented to the Connecticut Attorney General.
The problem with gun control organizations is that they masquerade as something other than what they are.
So “Handgun Control, Inc.” became the Brady Campaign to End Gun Violence. It’s first name was more honest. When you hear terms like “gun violence” and “common sense solutions”, they inexorably lead to the promotion of gun control legislation.
This organization’s website is disingenuous and inconsistent with the organizational purposes that it represented to the Connecticut Attorney General.
The problem with gun control organizations is that they masquerade as something other than what they are (e.g. the American Hunters and Shooters Association (RIP), which was a Trojan Horse organization created by gun control proponents and which died after a few unsuccessful years of existence: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Hunters_and_Shooters_Association ) .
So “Handgun Control, Inc.” became the Brady Campaign to End Gun Violence. It’s first name was more honest.
Tim McGraw can perform for whomever he wishes, but let’s be clear about the organization he has chosen.
I suspect that he didn’t know the nature of this organization, at least what it has represented itself to be to the Connecticut Attorney General.
April 17, 2015 @ 11:19 am
CAH,
First off, as I said in this article above, and I have iterated, re-iterated, re-iterated some more, and then re-iterated again and again in subsequent comments as my stance has been mischaracterized by people unwilling to read the article, I do think that some of the activities of Sandy Hook Promise could be considered as gun control by a certain mindset. Let me re-iterate again. I DO THINK THAT SOME OF THE ACTIVITIES OF SANDY HOOK PROMISE COULD BE CONSIDERED AS GUN CONTROL BY A CERTAIN MINDSET. QUOTE UNQUOTE EXCLAMATION POINT, EXCLAMATION POINT.
It would be impossible for me to re-iterate this point any more exhaustively, and the only people being mislead at this point are the people who continue to choose to not read my words, but make assumptions based off of their pre-formulated opinions on the gun rights issue.
The issue here is not if Sandy Hook Promise is engaged in things that could be considered gun control. The question is if the level of “gun control” the organization is engaged in is enough to label Tim McGraw and Billy Currington (who didn’t even know about the concert) “traitors” “anti-American” “anti-freedom” “socialists” and “liars” simply because they want to play a concert. An open boycott has been called against them, and has also been exhaustively explained here, Sandy Hook Promise’s primary focus is on community awareness in the private sector that hopes to avoid passing new laws.
Also, the PDF you linked to is completely and totally irrelevant to the issue, and the information found in it can be found on Sandy Hook Promise’s website. Since Sandy Hook Promise is a non-profit, they must correspond with the state about the nature of their activities to continue their non-profit status to prove they don’t have to pay taxes. To offer this PDF up as evidence of lobbying for gun control is misleading, if not outright lying.
Do you think Tim McGraw should be smeared as an anti-gun advocate for his involvement in this concert? That is what the question is. Everything else is superfluous politicization.
April 17, 2015 @ 9:37 pm
This small charity in VT isn’t a serious threat. All the bravado on social media about SHP and taking down a country singer is meaningless. The politicians (like Gov Malloy in CT who signed the tougher laws after the shooting) and the people with the very big bucks (NRA, Bloomberg) are the ones that threaten or help your ideals.
Tim McGraw's Sandy Hook Benefit Concert Stirs Major Debate, Billy Currington Backs Out Gig
April 17, 2015 @ 1:04 pm
[…] SavingCountryMusic.com reached out to Sandy Hook Promise and was provided with the following statement: […]
April 17, 2015 @ 2:24 pm
I lost a ton of respect for Travis Tritt. I don’t care about whether he supports the 2nd amendment or not. He escalated this situation and went to the extreme. He made an issue where there was none.
As to all the fans who are boycotting McGraw and Currington, grow up. If you cared enough to look into it, you’d know they didn’t say anything about gun control. Maybe instead of losing your s**t, you could look into this beyond reading one tweet.
April 17, 2015 @ 4:36 pm
That’s good. Family members who lost their loved ones on that tragic day need a little uplifting. Tim McGraw is doing a good thing and good tribute also.
April 17, 2015 @ 6:35 pm
People wasting time to attack celebrities on Twitter over a (perceived) political difference is one of those little things that makes you lose faith in modern society. Not to mention the blatant twisting of facts in the news.
McGraw responded with class. Cheers to him.
April 20, 2015 @ 12:28 pm
No one is coming to take your guns away. Get over yourselves. At this point in time, after 7 years of Obama rule you are allowed to carry your guns in more places than at any point in the history of the USA. So cut it out already. “If Obama’s elected he’ll take our guns”. “If Obama is re-elected he’ll take our guns” “Obama will take our guns before he leaves office”. Give it a rest already. Or, keep yelling about guns, the War On Christians Gay Rights and Abortion, it’s keeping you busy while the 5000 families that control most of the wealth in this country continue to rob you blind.
July 19, 2015 @ 6:27 pm
Now that Tim McGraw’s promised benefit is all said and done, I have to say how remarkable it is what can change in the course of three months. 😉
Almost exactly three months ago, as we can sense here, McGraw’s commercial stature was at least in question in light of the backlash he received. But in the week leading up to the Sandy Hook Benefit, as well as now in its afterglow…………………….I’ve heard virtually NOTHING about it.
It’s about as anti-climatic as one might have expected. There’s not even a mention of the benefit on McGraw’s Facebook page and while, on the surface, it would suggest damage control…………….I also haven’t heard anything of note from Breitbart or the lobbies that were most vociferously opposed to the benefit.