Is Eric Church Really “Anti-Gun”?
![](https://www.savingcountrymusic.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/02/eric-church.jpg)
From the very beginning, Saving Country Music has taken on the charge to not just report on country music, but to report on how the media is covering country music. The way artists, songs, albums, and the genre itself is characterized by the media very commonly feeds into public perception, making it an important beat to cover, even if it can make you vilified by your fellow media members as you point out nonfactual reporting or flimsy mischaracterizations.
There is no better example of just how damaging a mischaracterizing article can be to an artist than the Rolling Stone cover story that came out about Eric Church in the summer of 2018. And in this instance, it came in the form of a puff piece feature, not some attempted take down of Church based off of spurious or outright false information like we commonly see today.
You might think that after five years, bygones would be bygones, or maybe the truth about the matter would have ultimately trickled out and prevailed in popular culture. But no. In the last five years, trust in the media has sunk to an all-time low in the United States, and music media is no different. But this Eric Church report came out before distrust in the media reached its present-day level, and before Rolling Stone had completely beclowned itself under the new leadership of editor Noah Shachtman.
There are plenty of reasons that the general country music fan may not have favorable opinions about Eric Church, including the fact that his music has never really been that country. He’s more of a roots arena rocker residing in the country realm. He’s also had some moments in his career that have made him unfavorable to some, like his cancellation of a major concert in 2022 so he could attend a basketball game. Saving Country Music has posted ample criticism of Church over the years for sure, for the basketball offense and other issues.
But for Eric Church, there’s another more pointed accusation that comes up every single time his name is mentioned, and it has absolutely no basis in the truth. It’s the accusation that Eric Church is “anti-gun,” and it’s usually chased with the further accusation that he is a communist or leftist.
![](https://www.savingcountrymusic.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/01/eric-church-comment-1.jpg)
![](https://www.savingcountrymusic.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/01/eric-church-comment-2.jpg)
![](https://www.savingcountrymusic.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/01/eric-churc-comment-2.jpg)
These are just some of the comments that populated under a recent article about how Eric Church is taking independent country artists such as Cody Jinks, Whiskey Myers, Morgan Wade, The Red Clay Strays, and many more out on tour with him. They’re indicative of the comments that always appear whenever Eric Church’s name is uttered.
Of course, some of this can be boiled down to internet idiocy, like many online comments. But in the case of Eric Church, this is a pervasive sentiment, and it really helps illustrate how one instance of misinformation from the media can result in an undying and pervasive canard that can be difficult to impossible for people to let go of. They see someone’s name, and it’s immediately like a dog whistle.
Nothing Eric Church said to Rolling Stone in 2018 would ever deserve such characterizations. In the portion of the interview with Church where politics was broached, he left some extremely reasonable opinions that if anything, might be characterized as slightly right of center, including, if not especially, the ones about gun control.
On the 2nd Amendment, Eric Church said, “I’m a Second Amendment guy. That’s in the Constitution, it’s people’s right, and I don’t believe it’s negotiable. But nobody should have that many guns and that much ammunition and we don’t know about it. Nobody should have 21 AKs and 10,000 rounds of ammunition and we don’t know who they are. Something’s gotta be done so that a person can’t have an armory and pin down a Las Vegas SWAT team for six minutes. That’s fucked up.”
That sure doesn’t sound “anti-gun” to me. And let’s remember that Eric Church was one of the performers at the 2017 Route 91 Harvest Music Festival in Las Vegas that is currently the worst mass shooting in modern American history, with 60 people killed, 413 wounded, and over 1,000 bullets fired from one individual. Church was being a bit hyperbolic, but this is what he was referencing specifically in this instance. This was the question he was answering in the wake of the 2017 shooting in a 2018 interview.
Here were Eric Church’s other political takes:
On Hillary Clinton: “Hillary just bored me. I just didn’t see much.” (He said he didn’t vote at all, and his wife voted for Trump)
On Donald Trump: “I’m conflicted. I like that he’s thrown a monkey wrench into things. I think that chaos is good. I enjoyed the North Korea thing. Why haven’t we talked to that guy? Tariffs, I don’t know yet. I don’t want a trade war, but I’ll walk with him down that road a little farther. At the same time, I have a ton of problems with him. I don’t like the racial overtones. I hate the tweeting. It seems insecure, petty, not presidential.”
On Abortion: “I’m a pro-life guy at heart, but I don’t think we should change the law. Some things you shouldn’t govern.”
On the NFL Protests: “I was taught by my father to take my hat off [for the anthem], but if somebody wants to do something different, it’s not my place to tell them not to. That’s how the Constitution works.”
On Immigration: “I believe there’s a better way to handle it, but we’re a country of immigrants, and we always should be.”
On Politics In General: “I believe most of [my fans] feel the way I do – regardless of their voter registration. Some of this stuff you look at and go, ‘What the fuck? Why is this hard?’ Why can we not get infrastructure done? Why don’t we do more clean energy? Why are [prescription] drugs so expensive? Because it’s a lobbyist-based system. It’s a money-based system. Either way, we’re fucked.”
His Bernie Sanders Comments, In Context: “I love Bernie. Bernie had a great message. It’s funny: If it had been Bernie versus Trump, I don’t know what I would’ve done. I would’ve at least thought about it more than I did.” (meaning he liked both candidates)
– – – – – – – – – –
Most or all of Eric Church’s stances start with taking a fairly conservative viewpoint, and then qualify it with a caveat that would characterize him as a rationally-minded conservative moderate. So how is it that every time Eric Church’s name is uttered, the comments will always include how he is an anti-gun “leftist” or “commie”? It primarily has to do with the mischaracterization of the cover of the Rolling Stone story.
![](https://www.savingcountrymusic.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/eric-church-rolling-stone-cover-2018.jpg)
The blurb was written to shock and to be provocative, and was not rooted in the reality of what Eric Church said. Even Eric Church when he posted an image of the cover on his Instagram account said, “Read the full interview (don’t be misled by the headline).”
Eric Church did go on to say about the NRA in the context of the Route 91 Harvest Festival, “There are some things we can’t stop, like the disgruntled kid who takes his dad’s shotgun and walks into a high school. But we could have stopped the guy in Vegas. I blame the lobbyists. And the biggest in the gun world is the NRA. I’m a Second Amendment guy, but I feel like they’ve been a bit of a roadblock. I don’t care who you are – you shouldn’t have that kind of power over elected officials. To me it’s cut-and-dried: The gun-show [loophole] would not exist if it weren’t for the NRA, so at this point in time, if I was an NRA member, I would think I had more of a problem than the solution. I would question myself real hard about what I wanted to be in the next three, four, five years.”
Eric Church was certainly critical of the NRA in his statements. Since 2018, criticism of the NRA has only increased due to financial scandals and other issues with the organization. But that doesn’t make someone “anti-gun.” Rolling Stone was perpetrating a common practice that was occurring in 2018 during the Trump presidency, especially when it came to country artists: trying to bait them into uttering left-leaning political ideas under the false pretense that if they take such stances, it will bring country music’s more conservative fans around to left-leaning ideology.
But as this instance with Eric Church and others have proven time and time again, country fans will divest their fandom in an artist who they disagree with politically well before their assuaged to changed their political beliefs to align with said artist. Why Rolling Stone was even asking political questions of an entertainer and making the answers the focal point of a cover story is a fair question as well.
But it wasn’t just the Rolling Stone mischaracterizations that have led to this Eric Church “anti-gun” canard. After the cover story was posted on July 25th, 2018, conservative media outlets and personalities pounced, and often with similarly unfair and out-of-context coverage and misleading headlines about the issue, proving that the problem with the media and how it covers country music crosses the political divide. Some, if not most of the people who claim Eric Church is “anti-gun” never even saw the original Rolling Stone article. They saw a response to it in a conservative media outlet, or just the headlines of those stories, or a hot take of a pundit online.
“I’m a Second Amendment guy. That’s in the Constitution, it’s people’s right, and I don’t believe it’s negotiable” seems to very clearly state how Eric Church feels about gun ownership in the United States. He’s also clearly stated that he is a gun owner himself, owning about “half a dozen” firearms. By both sides gaming his comments to enrage the public and create click-bait, it not only bled the nuance out of the statements he made, it discourages the taking and sharing of nuanced and pragmatic views in total since it can leave you misunderstood, and in a political no man’s land. Anti-gun advocates certainly aren’t going to rise up and defend what Eric Church said. So this leaves him with few allies.
You may still disagree with Eric Church’s gun stances and his take on the NRA. Or, if you happen to be anti-gun, perhaps you’re disappointed that he doesn’t share your views. You may still think Eric Church is a slime ball for some other reason. But the idea that Eric Church is “anti-gun” is empirically false. And claiming that he is “anti-gun” is not only unfair to Eric Church, it’s the exact kind of mischaracterizations that have led to the polarizing political environment the United States currently suffers from where the truth is often sacrificed for the uninformed hot take.
January 17, 2023 @ 10:12 am
All I can say Trigger is good luck with this one. EC is a rational guy, as are you. We’ll see about the rest of the people in the comments…
January 17, 2023 @ 10:15 am
“Rational” has no breathing room the world of so many these days.
Nuance is dead.
January 17, 2023 @ 10:12 am
There are a lot of idiotic misinterpretations and misrepresentations out there.
Eric Church as “anti-gun” is among the very dumbest. I’ve always been baffled by it sticking and staying.
January 17, 2023 @ 10:20 am
I’ve had conversations with staunch 2A guys and they will call anyone “anti-gun” if they waver from being in complete support of every gun. And that people should be kicked from the discussion for not knowing the difference between a magazine and a clip.
I don’t believe that anyone’s opinion should be flat-out rejected if it’s made in good faith and it’s thought out.
January 18, 2023 @ 8:02 am
Some of these folks really are the “Assault Rifle Vending Machines!” guy that Buddy Garrity plays in Parks and Rec.
January 17, 2023 @ 10:12 am
Nothing Eric Church said is truly controversial or un-American. This is why the conversation around guns is difficult: Most people do not want someone with the capability to go on an unhinged rampage to have a Rambo-level arsenal to do so. It removes the “chance” for someone to live or survive a shooting because of the sheer number of lead being slinged. It’s the same moral reasoning as to why ‘smart guns’ have been universally rejected by gun manufactures – it’s immoral for a computer to guarantee a kill shot. This is my understanding of the heart of the issue.
On the flip side as to why 2nd amendment people are unwilling and unwavering in their refusal to give up any “gun freedoms” is because of the slippery slope argument. It’s not a logical fallacy because in Canada the conversation around gun control started off very much the same as it has here, but recently Trudeau banned the sale of handguns. Keeping in mind in bear country one of the most effective tools for defense from dangerous wildlife is a 10mm Glock. In the United States multiple Democrat politicians have let it slip that they want to ban semi-auto guns. This comprises the vast majority of firearms. So anyone who is more staunchly pro-gun is right to be skeptical of efforts to ban some guns.
It’s an entirely different conversation around the whole Stephen Paddock thing and the incongruities with that event. (Las Vegas Shooter) And how soon after his brother came to his defense that he was arrested and locked up for child p*** on his computer.
January 17, 2023 @ 12:56 pm
Remember, the gun lobby is there to support gun makers, not gun owners. Gun owners are just unknowingly hauling their water for them.
January 17, 2023 @ 7:02 pm
Gun makers aren’t any more evil than car manufactures. General Motors is not responsible for drunk driving deaths..
January 18, 2023 @ 8:04 am
When General Motors starts aggressively lobbying against laws requiring drivers to be licensed (including repeat drunk drivers being deemed ineligible to drive), we can equate the two.
January 18, 2023 @ 10:19 am
I think you are conflating the NRA with gun manufacturers.
January 18, 2023 @ 11:18 am
…
…
…
The lobbying arm of the NRA is wholly funded by gun manufacturers, haha.
The Venn diagram of “Legislative Gun Lobby Funding” and “Gun Manufacturers” is a circle.
January 18, 2023 @ 11:50 am
No one can purchase guns from a gun show or gun dealer without a background check. For most of the recent mass shootings the FBI was already following or even actively conversing with the mass shooters prior to the shootings. I don’t know what the NRA is lobbying for that would have prevented any of the mass shootings.
January 17, 2023 @ 10:15 am
yeah, but like, what if someone tries to take away my unlimited applebee’s apps and taps? did you ever think of that eric church you fuckin’ commie? /s
January 17, 2023 @ 10:17 am
if you’re not pro civilian nukes, you’re anti-2A. Pretty simple.
January 17, 2023 @ 10:26 am
I’m just amused that this article was a defense of church against the smear that he was anti gun rather than an attack on anti gun people trying to claim him. Seems fine enough I suppose. Church in his comments on politics seems to be aggressively working to not say anything of substance.
January 17, 2023 @ 11:24 am
This issue is 100% due to Rolling Stone’s gross mischaracterization of Eric Church’s comments because they knew it would be controversial to country music fans and create tons of attention for them, and because they falsely believed that their characterization would strike at the heart of conservative country fans and make them question their gun beliefs. Instead, it just made them question their support for Eric Church, who was sharing rational and cool-minded thoughts that perhaps some could have been assuaged by if they had actually read them.
As I said in the article, anti-gun folks would never claim Eric Church. He’s too pro-gun for that. Rolling Stone is the boogey man here. BUT, Rolling Stone never called Eric Church “anti-gun” specifically. This was folks on the right that saw a headline somewhere saying that he questioned the NRA, and had a knee-jerk reaction without finding the full comments and considering them rationally.
The reason I wrote this article is because not only is Eric Church being attacked over this issue, I have been attacked over this issue simply for talking about him … because he’s “anti-gun” and a “commie.” If for no other reason, I wanted to create a landing page, or a Google search parameter that could once and for all refute this misnomer.
January 17, 2023 @ 12:00 pm
If credibility was a puppy, Rolling Stone took it behind the barn and shot it directly in it’s little face. I stopped reading everything the magazine wrote 10 years ago when they put the Boston Bomber on the cover. Not trying to get needlessly political but something changed during the Obama admin that completely broke them. In hindsight much of the early 2000’s Matt Taibbi criticism of the Bush era was correct. After they got their infallible celebrity messiah President twice they gave up being introspective outsiders and became completely subservient to the establishment political powers that be.
January 17, 2023 @ 1:55 pm
Boston Bomber. What a mess of a trial. That may be going back to court again.
January 22, 2023 @ 7:46 am
He would’ve thought about voting for Bernie sanders the self claimed socialist and anti gun as you can get. Eric Church is without a doubt a liberal anti American puke
January 22, 2023 @ 8:33 am
Politics is a lot more circular than you give it credit for. Bernie Sanders had a lot in common with Donald Trump than either had with anyone else. They both were populists. They both were economic protectionists who basically had the same trade policy, and they both were anti-interventionist in foreign policy. Bernie Sanders was also attacked in the last two primary cycles by more mainstream Democrats for being too soft on gun control. He is definitely for gun control, but doesn’t take it to the most extreme measures.
January 22, 2023 @ 8:55 am
Bernie knows better than to be an extreme gun control advocate. There are plenty of hunters in Vermont, many of whom are otherwise politically liberal but draw a bold line in the sand on gun ownership and use. No one running for state or even municipal office in this state can win with a hard-left position on guns, and that definitely includes Democrats.
I always detected a not-so-well-hidden admiration of Sanders when Trump would talk about him on the campaign trail. Yes, he called him “crazy Bernie,” but you could tell that deep down, he was fine with the means but not the ends of the political and social changes Sanders championed.
January 17, 2023 @ 10:50 am
Eric Church has not gone around pushing his politics about guns. If professional trolls or snowflakes–in this case, on the right–want to harrangue him over his failure to hew to Charlie Daniels/Hank Jr./Aaron Lewis orthodoxy on this subject, he should just decline to engage them. He seems to have a fan base that’s fine with him, the way he is.
January 17, 2023 @ 12:04 pm
I agree with this except for the label of ‘snowflake’ being used for the Right. Conservatives aren’t the ones demanding safe spaces and the cancelling of others. The religious right hold on the Republican party lost it’s grip in the early 00’s. Right or wrong conservatives will argue with almost anyone. That’s not the same of the Left.
January 17, 2023 @ 1:47 pm
“Cancelling” (however you want to define it) is not unique to one side. Both sides do it. Even if different terminology is used. The quotes Trig included above are an example (“…Quit being sheep people and support those w the same views as country.”)
Regardless of side, it’s all annoying, and none of it is actually helpful to the public discourse or nuanced thinking. It just promotes tribalism.
January 17, 2023 @ 2:01 pm
lol what. the right is very much into cancelling. except it’s just about stupid shit. in this case the left banning certain types of guns has the end goal of less mass shootings. whereas a recent example for the right is cancelling m&ms has the end goal of anthropomorphic candies being sexier.
January 17, 2023 @ 4:50 pm
Come on now! Tucker wants that green M&M back in high heels and looking sexy! These are the important things in life…damn lib!
January 17, 2023 @ 7:04 pm
I mean I guess yeah the Republicans want to cancel shows where men in drag dance proactively in front of children under 10.
January 17, 2023 @ 8:06 pm
bless your hearts. lol.
January 17, 2023 @ 7:16 pm
😂
The left’s end goal isn’t fewer shootings, it is to have a disarmed society that can’t fight back against their tyranny.
The Second Amendment is a keystone of American freedom. To restrict it and destroy it is to spit on such freedom.
January 18, 2023 @ 9:41 am
you gotta loosen the tinfoil bub, it’s cutting off the blood flow.
January 17, 2023 @ 5:31 pm
Strait68,
You’re mostly correct, and it’s why the right is so feckless, and stays on defense all the time, with their, “I denounce this.” and “I condemn that.” nonsense. It’s pathetic and embarrassing. But hey, at least when they lose everything, they can look down at their tattered pocket Constitution, and take pride that they held onto their “principles”.
The religious right was correct about almost everything, and we’d have done well to listen to them.
January 17, 2023 @ 7:08 pm
No, the left’s end goal is to have a disarmed and oppressed citizenship.
January 17, 2023 @ 7:28 pm
CK,
Your reply to me starts with “No”, so I think you disagree with something I’ve said, but your assertion in regards to the left’s end goal is in line with reality….so I’m unsure of what you disagree with me about.
January 17, 2023 @ 8:31 pm
Honky,
My reply was meant for someone else. The reply button messed up because of the unwieldy thread.
January 17, 2023 @ 7:17 pm
Yes. The religious right got a raw deal from secular society.
Soulless people generally despise any idea of goodness. They need to push debauchery.
January 19, 2023 @ 11:39 am
lol. the old ‘atheists don’t believe in god therefore they do bad things’ argument. bruh.
if you need the threat of eternal damnation to do good, you ain’t good.
January 19, 2023 @ 5:48 pm
The biggest kill counts in human history have belonged to atheistic regimes.
Those are the facts.
January 17, 2023 @ 7:29 pm
The religious right had bad actors. Pat Robertson was simultaneously pushing his theories about the Book of Revelation in relation to how it affects Israel in the current day and how the US needs to defend it completely. All while he was mounting his own political aspirations. After the 90’s the evangelical wing of the party helped yank the wheel straight into jingoism and killin’ all the brown people to give them a new nation in Iraq in 2003
January 18, 2023 @ 11:22 am
And that’s not even mentioning all the fucking pedophiles.
Not talking “Pizzagate” conspiracy shit, either.
So, so many pedophiles who have been tried and convicted by a jury of their peers in a court of law.
January 18, 2023 @ 11:59 am
I love the Pizzagate deflection. It’s a very easy way to reject acknowledging all of the creepy code-like references in the leaked Podesta emails. “No really man it was literally and innocently about $60k for hot dogs and cheese pizza along with kids in hot tubs.”
Do you think Epstein’s flight logs are fake?
January 18, 2023 @ 12:16 pm
This issue is contentious enough. Let’s please not veer into other contentious issues.
January 18, 2023 @ 10:48 am
The religious right was correct about almost nothing.
January 19, 2023 @ 1:41 am
The king of know nothing about politics has opened his anus and has spoken, all hail King honkey Crack head, who thinks Normal thinking people are Communists. Listen to the people who really want to take away rights from minorities, LGBTQ+ People, homeless and disabled people, and yet his righr wing saviors don’t give a damn when kids get shot and killed in schools. Eric church can believe in what ever he wants, I still like his music, just do me a favor honkey, don’t let anyone put preparation H on you, you would vanish, and I and the rest of the normal world , couldn’t laugh at all the flatulence and crap that comes out of your mouth.
January 19, 2023 @ 1:42 am
I meant to say right wing.
January 17, 2023 @ 10:52 am
There are idealistic extremists on both sides. It’s their way or the highway. One can have an open mind while sticking to your values. It’s the best way to sort through the shades of grey on every subject. If I only listened to people who I agreed with 100%, I’d only be listening to myself.
January 17, 2023 @ 11:39 am
Leftist here, and proud of it. I’m glad you put this one up Trig – Rolling Stone does seem to have an open relationship with reason.
As for asking artists about politics? I mean from a vaguely leftist view country is a political art form, so it’s well and good but Church really isn’t a politically inclined songwriter – I think he got the questions he did because he was at Mile 0 Fest. If the singer’s songs are political I think interviewers should ask about their politics, Church has had plenty of questions about his thoughts on legal weed, for example.
But yeah, his answers aren’t lefty at all. They’re just middle of the road NC views. There’s no reason to champion or pile on the guy at all – not like he’s the guy writing or buying laws.
January 18, 2023 @ 8:08 am
Honestly…they’re pretty middle of the road views in Pennsylvania or New York, haha.
January 17, 2023 @ 11:43 am
Johnny Cash would have been cancelled by both the left AND the right, today.
He spoke up for prisoners and outcasts, refused to sing “Welfare Cadillac,” and wrote and sang “Don’t Take Your Guns to Town,” which at least suggests that carrying a gun everywhere for “self-protection” is not a wise idea.
On the other hand, he had an affinity for old Dixie, sang respectfully and reverently of Robert E. Lee, and embodied characters in several of his songs who committed horrible acts of violence against women. Heck, even his nice songs with June like “Jackson” and “If I Were a Carpenter,” would be deemed horribly sexist by today’s rules.
January 18, 2023 @ 8:20 am
Live Oak on Southeastern literally ends with the narrator murdering his wife, burying her, and then leaving town.
Somehow, no one on “the left” has tried to “Cancel” Isbell, haha.
Colter Wall does alright with the NPR crowd, despite Kate McCannon.
(That’s not even getting into some of the shit Steve Earle’s written)
It’s almost like…”Cancel Culture” is largely a bogeyman invented by right-wing commentators, terrified of the left appropriating their tactics?
January 18, 2023 @ 10:55 am
@CLS–During the height of the George Floyd/BLM craze, there were actual instances of people getting fired from major public or corporate institutions for havng publicly said “all lives matter.” (And not even necessarily as a rejoinder to “Black Lives Matter.” There was a liberal woman hospital administrator who said it absolutely “innocently.”) And god only knows what it takes for a peformer or public figure to get barred from speaking at college campuses–or interrupted and shouted down to the point that they cannot be heard.
January 18, 2023 @ 11:38 am
Oh no! College speakers are getting shouted at??? A hospital admin was told “The phrase ‘All Lives Matter’ is bad faith horseshit”??? Jordan Peterson gets made fun of online??? A white woman who got caught on video assaulting a black child faced legal and professional consequences?
That’s definitely the same as Yoel Roth having to go into hiding after being doxxed! And Salman Rushdie being stabbed! And 18+ nightclubs being shot up! And Solomon Peña organizing drive-bys at the houses of elected officials!
My heart bleeds for all of these precious, precious babies who got their fee-fees hurt by “The Libs.”
Who knew words could be violent.
January 18, 2023 @ 1:55 pm
@CLS–So you go from denying that the cancel culture is real to outright gloating about its existence (as long as people who think like you have the power to impose it).
BTW, Rushdie was stabbed and almost murdered by a Muslim fundamentalist. I’m not sure why you count that crime as points for your side in your war with the Cons.
January 19, 2023 @ 8:52 am
lolololol.
The “Left Wing” version of “Cancel Culture” is “You said or did [XYZ]. That doesn’t align with my beliefs, so now I think you’re a fucking asshole and I’m not going to support your work.”
The right wing version is “You said or did [XYZ]. That doesn’t align with my beliefs, so I’m going to murder you.”
(For the latter section, “existing” falls under XYZ)
So, y’now…maybe ask the Wizard for some backbone, snowflake?
January 18, 2023 @ 8:05 pm
One of the communist’s favorite tactics to use when you expose them, is to deny and accuse, simultaneously. It goes like this:
An observation is made that X is happening, and it’s bad.
Communist response: “If you believe X is happening, you’re a conspiracy theorist. Also, if you are upset that X is happening, you’re an ‘ist’ or a ‘phobe’.”
January 18, 2023 @ 5:11 pm
…..Live Oak on Southeastern literally ends with the narrator murdering his wife, burying her, and then leaving town.
Somehow, no one on “the left” has tried to “Cancel” Isbell, haha.
Colter Wall does alright with the NPR crowd, despite Kate McCannon.
(That’s not even getting into some of the shit Steve Earle’s written)
It’s almost like…”Cancel Culture” is largely a bogeyman invented by right-wing commentators, terrified of the left appropriating their tactics?”…..
People on here can say what they want about The Uncouth Jester, but he is one of the most gifted communist sophists I’ve ever encountered online.
He knows nobody has been canceled for singing about violence, but he pretends people believe they have, and lists off several performers of violent songs, as proof that something nobody believes is happening, isn’t happening. He’s also great at finding exceptions to what everyone knows is a rule, and then holding the exceptions up as examples of why the rule doesn’t exist.
Take this comment for example. The Jester knows that all the names he mentioned are on the inside, and are protected as a result of their vocal support of the communists goals, or simply ignored as a result of their neutrality. So, even if folks were being cancelled for singing about violence, which they aren’t, he knows the names he listed would be immune anyway.
The Jester, and all communists for that matter, also know that public cancelations are strategic, as opposed to random, and are almost always done for the purpose of causing significant damage to something, usually a cultural institution; and are typically done on the basis of a violation of one of their social equity guidelines.
When the communists initiate what appears to be a cancelation attempt on a public figure, it’s usually more about damaging the institution that figure is associated with, than the figure themself.
Then, predictably, conservatives step in, and instead of realizing that in order to win, they must fight by the communists rules, and embrace canceling, they come out with their noses in the air and go, “I publicly condemn and denounce all forms of cancel culture; America is a place where everyone should have a voice, and cancel culture is a violation of those “principles”.”
Then, the communists chuckle and go, “Let’s cancel those motherf*****s too!”
January 19, 2023 @ 8:53 am
I’ve never seen someone use so many words to say “I hate the world because my dick doesn’t work…and no one wants to touch it anyway.”
January 20, 2023 @ 12:51 pm
Look Jester, I appreciate you serving me up a mom joke on a silver platter, but I’ll let you keep it.
I complimented you; just say ‘thanks’, and move on.
January 20, 2023 @ 1:02 pm
Guessing that joke was:
“YOUR MOM says my dick doesn’t work, and wouldn’t touch it if it did!!!!!”
January 20, 2023 @ 1:56 pm
See what I mean, folks? Dude is money. He knew exactly what I meant, but spun it back against me on a dime.
January 20, 2023 @ 6:23 pm
Why do you address the comments section with “folks”? It seems as though you believe you have a following and/or that you can convert sane people to nutterism if you treat them kindly as you point out how they’re being scammed by the commies. Also, why don’t you use your name? You could be the next Tucker Carlson or Steve Bannon.
January 21, 2023 @ 2:08 pm
I see Lester is still ‘giving it the big one’, as the Brits say. I’m absolutely sure he is one of these men that identify as a woman to get into the female bathroom.
January 17, 2023 @ 12:19 pm
Well if there were stricter gun controls making it harder for people to get hold of a gun all the shootings in america would be a very rare event but all we ever see is a President who always apologises profusely every time a child gets shot dead at a school but never does anything to stop it because it would upset too many people .
January 17, 2023 @ 1:19 pm
One thing that went dramatically unreported because it didn’t fit into the media/political binary is that President Trump banned the sale of the bump stocks that the Las Vegas shooter used to kill so many people at the Route 91 Harvest Festival by turning his AR’s basically into machine guns. When he did this, it was the first meaningful gun regulation enacted in over a decade. Neither President W. Bush nor Obama did anything. And since President Trump did it under a consumer protection provision, he didn’t need approval from Congress, making it lobby proof, and harder to reverse.
January 17, 2023 @ 1:37 pm
Well, the U.S. Court of Appeas 5th Circuit in Louisiana just ruled the bump stock ban invalid, stating that Congress does, in fact need to enact such a ban and the President does not have the power to do it on his own.
https://www.reuters.com/world/us/us-appeals-court-strikes-down-ban-bump-stocks-2023-01-07/
Courts of Appeals in the 5th, 10th and D.C. Circuits have ruled otherwise. Without turning this into a legal blog, that means its likely headed for the Supreme Court.
January 17, 2023 @ 4:35 pm
Sounds about right.
Congress requires 60/100 votes to pass most bills. However, it’s in the best interest of the minority party to block legislation. Doing so makes the party in power weaker and helps the minority in the next election. President then tries pass legislation himself, only for the courts to strike it down and say that these changes must come from Congress.
This is the cycle that’s happened under the past 3 presidents.
January 19, 2023 @ 7:07 am
A president can’t pass legislation by himself.The attempt to rule by presidential executive order by both parties has gotten out of hand. It is also illegal, and the reason the courts eventually overturn them. If the elected representatives of congress cannot come to a consensus for a need to make a change to a law or constitutional amendment, then it means that there is not a majority of the citizens who have elected them who have come to the conclusion that there needs to be a change.
January 19, 2023 @ 10:53 pm
I don’t disagree. But,
There is legislation that the some in minority party would vote for, but do not because it’s hurts their individual re-election campaigns, and keeps the majority popular (and thus electable).
I suppose I’d be in favor of breaking the filibuster. It’s not used the way it was designed, it’s archaic, and it would benefit both parties (given the natural cycle of who is in the majority). Instead, we get failed votes and draw-out budget reconciliation bills, which are time consuming and create worse laws.
I’d also be in favor of term limits.
January 17, 2023 @ 6:55 pm
Replying to Desolationrow @ 12:19pm: You say you want “stricter gun controls” so that shootings would be a “very rare event.” But why do we need controls on guns? It is already illegal to murder, so there aren’t any murders, right? Many drugs are illegal (meth, cocaine, etc), so nobody uses those drugs, right? Heck, it is illegal to drive at a speed that is above the speed limit, so of course nobody ever speeds, right? Oh, wait. People do break those laws, in spite of those laws! So why would you think that criminals would obey anti-gun laws? Answer: they won’t. (Of course I didn’t mention the businesses that put up “no guns allowed” signs. Of course, that’s where the mass shootings will take place.)
I am a lawful gun owner, and I WILL NOT BE DISARMED and become prey to criminals. If you want to take away guns from law abiding citizens just because some others shoot people, then you should also take away cars from sober drivers in an attempt to stop drunk driving. For that matter, you could arrest all men because they have the equipment to be rapists. Or you could arrest all women because they have the equipment to be prostitutes.
I dated a woman in the 1970s who was murdered by her ex-husband. He stabbed her to death one night on her front porch. She knew he was out to get her, and she wanted to carry a pistol for protection, but back then my state wouldn’t permit just anyone to legally carry. She didn’t want to “break the law” so she didn’t have a gun, and now she’s dead. If you come to the Detroit area I can take you to visit her grave sometime.
But to get back to country music, why do musicians let garbage publications like Rolling Stone spread garbage articles just to get people stirred up? And why do people get stirred up by such articles? Of course, I’m really amazed that anyone would even glance at anything in Rolling Stone these days, much less read it. Heck, I’m sure the Weekly World News is more reliable and truthful than Rolling Stone!
January 18, 2023 @ 8:10 am
Gun control clearly doesn’t work!
That’s why mass shootings happen at all regularly, anywhere else in the world!!!!
January 19, 2023 @ 4:30 am
@The other Rusty
Cars, unlike guns, are not made to kill. How difficult is that to understand?
January 19, 2023 @ 11:09 am
To LM45: Guns are not just used to kill, they also save lives. If some miscreant means to do you harm, and you have a gun, that miscreant will probably decide they had something more important to do and will then leave you alone. This happens at least a couple million times a year, but it doesn’t show up in crime statistics.
Also, the elephant in the room is that most gun crimes take place in crowded, urban areas, using stolen firearms. Michigan, for example, has at least 750,000 deer hunters, yet there aren’t 750,000 murders in the state. In 2019, there were 556 murders in Michigan. 275 of those murders were in Detroit. Traverse City, a tourist location in northwestern Michigan (lower peninsula) had 3 murders in that same time span. It’s the culture, not the guns.
And speaking of guns, it’s about time they charged Alec Baldwin with a crime for killing his producer of the movie “Rust.” Mr. Baldwin tried to deflect blame by saying he didn’t know the gun was loaded, when all of us serious gun owners always assume that all guns are loaded until you personally verify that it is not loaded. Instead of Baldwin’s previous anti-gun rants, perhaps he should have taken a gun safety class.
January 17, 2023 @ 2:54 pm
Church didn’t really say anything in those posted quotes that would represent any side of the argument other than those of a fence sitting chameleon. I have less respect for those fence sitter types than those who have opposing views to my own values and beliefs. They will usually just do the best they can to say nothing or maybe something that someone who may be listening might want to hear. Seems to me SCM felt the guy needed a pat on the ass for some reason? Or needed to fill some space.
BTW how many bullets and how many guns does Church think we should own?
January 17, 2023 @ 8:46 pm
Sometimes people are “fence sitting chameleons.” Sometimes people’s lives just don’t constantly revolve around their political beliefs and fighting with the other side since it only results in an endless stalemate of inaction that makes it impossible to even implement common sense improvements universally agreed upon by all parties. They just live their lives, try to be good people, and don’t bog down in worrying about or fighting over things they generally can’t control.
January 18, 2023 @ 8:00 am
Church accurately understanding the political beliefs of both sides puts him above average as far as political acumen. His music and persona isn’t political. He should in no way feel any compulsion to ‘pick a side.’
January 17, 2023 @ 3:47 pm
Eric Church’s answers demonstrated a person who thinks as opposed to being indoctrinated. I was impressed with his responses (as supplied in this article) which indicated an open minded person who was willing to say what he thought regardless how that would impact his fan support.
January 17, 2023 @ 3:57 pm
As a student of the Constitution, here are a few questions I submit to gun-grabbers and other busybodies, and their reactions are for the most part, filled with outrage on top of nonsensical muttering . . . but devoid of intelligent, truthful answers.
1. Where in the Second Amendment do the words, “permit” or “license” appear?
2. When the Second Amendment was ratified, were muskets “weapons of war?”
3. Have you never researched the meaning of the word, “infringed?”
4. Where, in the Constitution, are judges granted the right to declare any duly-enacted federal legislation “unconstitutional?”
January 17, 2023 @ 7:11 pm
The Second Amendment has been broken and trampled for decades by both parties.
Shall not be infringed is more ignored than the Tenth Amendment.
It is why this country is going to hell quicker than a speeding bullet.
January 17, 2023 @ 7:58 pm
Correct.
The Tenth Amendment has been violated repeatedly, and the citizens who are victimized by the violations, by and large, have no clue!
January 18, 2023 @ 8:23 am
YA DOOD!!!!
There’s no mention of ANY REGULATION in the 2A!
Certainly no suggestion that it was specifically written regarding the right of states to keep militias independent from the federal government, who would be entitled to keep their weapons!
Ur so gud at reeding!!!!
January 18, 2023 @ 9:29 am
Does the Second Amendment grant the right to keep and bear arms to “the militia,” or to “the people?”
January 18, 2023 @ 11:07 am
And the militia was the people in the jargon of the period.
January 18, 2023 @ 11:33 am
Wow! I have witnessed some off-the-wall responses through the years, but yours takes the cake. Provide evidence which validates your statement.
January 18, 2023 @ 11:43 am
As someone with a degree from a southern university focused on the United States during that period, I’m happy to inform you that the phrase “militia” very specifically meant “the local militia” in the jargon of that period.
January 18, 2023 @ 12:04 pm
interesting! i read in a paper that ‘bearing arms’ just slang for gay stuff. you guys have got it all wrong!
January 18, 2023 @ 7:20 pm
Sorry! I misunderstood your post! My apologies, because you are correct!
January 20, 2023 @ 3:01 pm
i gotta chime back in on this, because it is just so stupid, but you think the line “a well regulated militia” means “a well regulated people”?
isn’t that the exact opposite of what you are prattling on about? regulations? regulated people? control?
lmao.
January 18, 2023 @ 12:22 pm
Man, we really need a national investment to help our schools teach subjects like grammar and logic more effectively, haha!
It helps to be familiar with 18th century writing styles (or mathematical/philosophical proof-writing), but the 2A is very clearly structured as “Given A, therefore B.”
To wit: “Because of how important local militias are to maintaining order, we won’t ban their formation.”
(The historical context here is *immensely* important: At the time, there was no standing army, so it was local militias who had been raised to put down Shays’ Rebellion in early 1787).
A modern example of the system the Second Amendment describes can be found in Switzerland and the Nordic countries, which all have high rates of private gun ownership, and low gun violence rates:
After completing mandatory military service, people who leave the military are permitted to keep their service weapons, so that they will be at the ready in case of an attack (presumably by Germany or Russia).
Otherwise, gun ownership is tightly, tightly regulated, because most people don’t need guns.
January 18, 2023 @ 12:58 pm
Once again:
Does the Second Amendment grant the right to keep and bear arms to the “militia,” or to the “people?”
January 18, 2023 @ 3:11 pm
The great George Jones was a student of the Constitution, and, as such, he knew that the right to keep and bear arms was granted to the people. And what, you ask, is meant by the term “the people” in the Second Amendment? Well, fortunately old George explained it to us in song.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CXRaREGQM8U
January 19, 2023 @ 9:09 am
To anyone who knows how to read 18th Century English?
It grants individuals the right to keep arms in order to bear them in service of local militias.
What can I say? I fucking hate activist judges who pervert the Founders’ Original Intent, as written in the Constitution, in service of their own political ends.
January 17, 2023 @ 5:06 pm
Eric Church’s comments may seem middle of the road, but they do not sound very well thought out to anyone who cares about our rights. So you want the government to spy on and track our purchases? Maybe we should limit them number of cars you can own, since so many people die in car accidents. Oh, and gas stoves too while we are at it. And why do you need that subversive Alt-country outlaw music anyway?
January 17, 2023 @ 8:48 pm
See, these are the kinds of mischaracterizations the bleed the nuance out of a discussion. Eric Church didn’t say he wants the government to track all of our purchases of everything.
January 17, 2023 @ 5:21 pm
Reading that folks are calling Eric Church a leftist, or a communist, is an unfortunate reminder of how so many on the right(the folks attacking Church) have no idea what they’re talking about, much less what they’re dealing with, or of the hell that awaits their children. They use the word “communist” as a pejorative(instead of a description), to attack those with whom they disagree, because they are oblivious to the real, imminent threat that communism poses.
Eric Church is an uninformed normie. He holds approximately the same uninformed, well-meaning, misguided views that I would guess at least 40% of this country hold. He’s the kind of guy that won’t figure things out until it’s far too late to do anything about it. He probably believes his views are reasonable and level-headed, and has never given any thought to what “inalienable” means. He doesn’t realize that history is decided by people who have values, things they believe strongly in, political will, etc. He doesn’t consciously realize that acknowledgment of “inalienable”, came as the result of brave men shooting other brave men in the face.
I said all that to say, that if you’re on the right, and you think Eric Church is a leftist, or a communist, then you are as ignorant as Eric Church is.
January 17, 2023 @ 7:13 pm
Yup.
If America didn’t have such a gun culture back in 1775, we would still be British subjects.
If you dislike guns, you dislike America and her freedoms.
January 18, 2023 @ 7:55 am
1775 gun culture? lol. what history books are you reading?
people having muskets for practical purposes vs. those slapping a gun on everything they own like its part of their personality and need them for sustenance are very different things.
a lot of people in 1775 used to shit in a little pot and leave it in their room all night too.
January 18, 2023 @ 11:10 am
Yes, gun culture. Guns were a fundamental part of the colonial experience.
Guns are necessary for everyday existence. I prefer to protect myself. That is a practical purpose. Many a hero has stopped a criminal because they carried a gun while the police were minutes away.
And social media didn’t exist when the Constitution was written. Guess that means the 1st Amendment doesn’t apply. Times change; fundamental American freedoms do not.
January 18, 2023 @ 11:21 am
guns are necessary for everyday existence in 2023? do you think people in other countries that have gun laws do not exist? i knew you were a nationalist, but that’s really taking it to the next level!
January 18, 2023 @ 8:30 am
Don’t get upset, but I would gladly be subjected to British rule if it meant we didn’t have hundreds of mass shootings and an obsession with guns.
On a related note, it’s possible to appreciate the great features of our country while also wanting to improve some of the not great features.
January 18, 2023 @ 8:49 am
too bad conservatives have shown time and time again they are not interested in improving the country (look at this comment section) – it was perfect in 1775! we haven’t learned anything in almost 250 years.
but hey, maybe i’m wrong and i’m a big gay commie because i think i would be able to change a part of my life and worldview so less kids get murdered senselessly.
January 18, 2023 @ 9:13 am
Things are better today than 1775. Come on. And let’s not paint conservatives (of which there are millions of) with one broad brush. It’s not true, and ineffective given that we need conservatives help for any gun safety legislation.
Though I wish 2A was never written and we had no gun culture, that’s just a wish and not reality. The fact is there are many law-abiding gun owners whose rights should be protected. Focus should be on gun-safety bills for which there is broad support for.
January 18, 2023 @ 11:12 am
I am not upset. I just acknowledge that you and your kind prefer peaceful slavery to dangerous freedom. You prefer to be a Tory and live on your knees. That is your right, but don’t expect me to agree and go along with your fearful beliefs.
Myself, millions of other Americans, and the Continental Army preferred dangerous freedom.
January 18, 2023 @ 11:54 am
If peaceful slavery means that I don’t have worry about my local elementary school being shot up, then yes, sign me up.
January 18, 2023 @ 12:06 pm
‘fearful beliefs’ says the guy who needs to carry a gun around to feel safe. lmao. can’t make this stuff up.
January 18, 2023 @ 7:22 pm
And most elementary schools aren’t shot up, Tom.
Quit being fearful over the rare exceptions.
January 18, 2023 @ 8:38 pm
My hometown elementary school was shot up 10 years ago, and 27 lives were lost.
Please, never ever make assumptions like that again. You never know what someone has been through.
January 19, 2023 @ 5:52 pm
Newtown?
And you, please don’t demand that my 2nd Amendment rights are taken away because of one incident that happened in your hometown.
January 19, 2023 @ 7:16 pm
“I would gladly be subjected to British rule”
i don’t know if you are aware of this, but there is in fact a place where you can move, for the simple price of a plane ticket, where you CAN in fact live under British rule. you can test your theory out. be safe from all those hundreds of mass shootings that happen here, and live out the rest of your days as a subject not a citizen.
“Though I wish 2A was never written”
there are many places in this lovely world of ours where there is no Constitution at all. you do not have to wish. if you can dream it Tom, you can be it.
“My hometown elementary school was shot up 10 years ago, and 27 lives were lost. ”
my home was broken into three times and having a gun saved 2, 3, and 5 lives. lives NOT lost. end of the day, the lives of my kids take precedence over anyone’s desire to live in “peaceful slavery”
there remain places where that option is available to you.
see you at the Gun Show, where i will be exploiting that loophole and buying tactical nukes. low yield of course. i am not a complete savage or Hessian
January 19, 2023 @ 10:45 pm
A couple things here. First, I’m glad you were able to protect yourself and your home.
America has provided tremendous opportunity here. I’m thankful for that. I don’t want to leave, I want to make our country better. If something is broken in your house, you’d like it fixed not uproot life.
Yes I wish 2A was never written and guns were scarce. 2A was written though, and guns are common, and gun culture is a thing. Today, I do not wish to turnover 2A. I do not wish to ban any guns, it’s not practical. Perhaps it was 300 years ago, but not now. I do think there are gun safety measures that would be beneficial to all, including gun owners.
Newtown was a tragedy. So was Las Vegas. And Parkland. And Uvalde. And dozens more. Guns were used in all of these attacks, though there are many causes. Gun safety measures could help. So could school guards and better resources for mentally ill.
Lastly, the fact that you acknowledge there are loopholes with gun laws indicates you know our laws are not working as design. Again though, I don’t want to ban guns or gun control. I’d simply like to see gun safety legislation.
January 20, 2023 @ 7:07 am
Folks,
Just to be clear, although I enjoyed this comment, whoever left it is not me.
January 17, 2023 @ 7:37 pm
I agree with your assessment, but cept- it’s UNalienable in the DOI- the black dress wearers defined INalienable as “grants and privileges” in a 14th amendment case addressing aliens vs citizens-
UNalienable rights are inherent (endowed by their Creator) = non-tangible, therefore they can only be restricted. They can’t be given, taken or loaned out.
INaliebable rights = tangible, as in grants and privileges, which can be given, taken and/or rescinded.
The constitution codified UNalienable rights in the Bill of Rights.
That people don’t get it lays at the feet of IMproper education… approved by BOTH left and right congresses, seemingly, forever…intentionally as BOTH sides of the monoparty want to control citizens, which is NOT why the constitution was written.
Citizens are merely tools or enemies to the swamp creatures in the District of Corruption.
They have their acolytes who worship their stripe/religion- and the media does what it’s told by who signs their pay check- especially teen magazine writers, like Rolling Stoned…
EC’s question/statement about numbers is not by someone who understands politics, never mind the 2nd amendment. Need has 0 to do with it (in most cases)- it’s a desire that NO one has the right, nor are they entitled, to determine another’s desires. Period.
We hold these truths to be self evident- unless you’re improperly educated-
January 17, 2023 @ 8:03 pm
Deej,
I appreciate the information, but those two words mean the same thing and can be used interchangeably. They both mean: rights that are not granted, and therefore cannot be taken away.
January 17, 2023 @ 8:16 pm
No. They just are used interchangeably- the SC court defined INalenable rights and grants and privileges, which can be taken since they are tangible- you can argue til the cows come home but won’t change the fact- AND to keep using them INcorrectly, exacerbates the problem of not understanding the difference, because people will argue with you about “rights”… the ignorance (not you in particular) is pervasive in an intentionally dumbed down society-
But, go ahead. I know you’re always correct.
January 18, 2023 @ 5:47 am
Deej,
You’re not someone whose comments I dismiss as nonsense, at the sight of your handle. I agree with a lot of your comments here. So I don’t want you to think I’m not taking this claim seriously.
But man, I looked a several articles, and they all say you’re wrong. One even mentioned Jefferson using ‘inalienable’.
So if you have some proof, please provide a link, otherwise I’m giving you the ‘L’ on this one.
January 18, 2023 @ 7:51 am
you gotta be kidding, right? you call everything communist. this has to be the most self-unaware comment you have ever made. lmao.
January 18, 2023 @ 4:29 pm
….you gotta be kidding, right? you call everything communist. this has to be the most self-unaware comment you have ever made. lmao.”……
Folks,
Please don’t be deceived by comments like the one I’m replying to. Communists LOVE when uninformed, reactionary conservatives, like the folks attacking Church, call everyone with whom they disagree “communists”.
They love it, because it dilutes the meaning of the word, and renders it just another meaningless pejorative to throw around. It provides cover for them, and makes it extremely difficult to convince folks, not only of their existence, but of the real threat they pose.
Communists rely on the blurring and confusion of language. It’s one of their greatest weapons.
January 18, 2023 @ 4:50 pm
george? george santos? is that you?
January 17, 2023 @ 5:33 pm
What a tool 🤷♂️
January 17, 2023 @ 5:58 pm
Being that the article in about 5 years old, I think not bringing it up would be the best way for people to forget what they thought of church one way or the other but maybe that’s just me
January 17, 2023 @ 8:51 pm
The whole entire point of the article, and spelled out in great detail with specific examples, is how over five years, this issue has shown incredible persistence, if not even grown worse over time from few if anyone challenging this canard. For five years, I have been patiently trying to explain to folks that call Eric Church “anti-gun” the specifics of the situation, how Rolling Stone mischaracterized his words, etc., and it still persists. So I decided to address the situation head on, and create a landing page so if anyone wants the truth, it’s all laid out here for them, even if they ultimately choose to still believe Eric Church is “anti-gun” (which he’s not).
January 17, 2023 @ 10:18 pm
I don’t know. I guess I just don’t hang out in the same areas you do. Nobody I know or have ever known has even brought that up about church. I guess you can find that stuff somewhere on the internet if you look hard enough. I guess I just don’t care enough about church one way or the other to do that.
January 17, 2023 @ 6:02 pm
“I’m a 2nd Amendment guy – though I don’t understand it’s purpose, whatsoever” – Eric Church
January 17, 2023 @ 7:13 pm
So he thinks once someone buys so much ammo they should be on a government list and he loves Bernie.
Yeah, hes antigun. The phony “im a second amendment guy” schtick only fools left wing austinites.
January 17, 2023 @ 8:54 pm
I was fooled into believing Eric Church is anti-gun by the fact that he owns six guns. Man do I feel like a cuck.
January 17, 2023 @ 9:15 pm
The term you should have used is Fudd, which is what Church is.
January 17, 2023 @ 9:25 pm
Church brought that on himself. The article made him look like a complete douchebag. He misrepresented himself.
January 18, 2023 @ 5:08 am
You had me until the Bernie Sanders comment. Unbelievable.
January 18, 2023 @ 5:57 am
Almost entirely off topic, does anyone know Eric Church’s current stance on reselling tickets for the Outsiders tour? Will he prohibit that on Ticketmaster? Limitations?
January 18, 2023 @ 7:25 am
“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.”
I don’t care what Church thinks about the 2nd amendment. He is a free American, and has a right to his opinion. However, the best way to spot an anti 2nd amendment proponent is when they start off by saying, I’m pro 2nd amendment, but….
There are no ifs, ands, or buts in the constitution. It is not a living document to be subject to later interpretation. It is a right. Same as freedom of speech, freedom of the press, ect. The amendment was written by founding members of this country who had escaped from the tyranny of their homelands. The whole point of the amendment wasn’t to allow citizens the right to hunt or for protection against criminals. The point was to allow an armed citizenry to protect itself and their state from tyranny and overreach from the federal government. To not allow the possibility of a tyrannical government to overtake the will of the people. To this point it has mostly succeeded, yet slowly but surely these safeguards are being torn down, and without the required congressional process for amending the constitution.
It’s amazing how easily American citizens are willing to ignore the forfeit of their constitutional protections, and the means to protect them.
January 18, 2023 @ 8:40 am
But you have to draw a limit somewhere, and that doesn’t mean that you’re walking on the Constitution. You cannot have the general population walking around with automatic weapons. That’s how you get things like the Route 91 Harvest Festival massacre, where 60 people died, over 400 were injured, because ONE man is able to shoot off 1,000 rounds in a few short minutes. You want to have the kinds of weapons in the stores of a local “well regulated” militia? Sure, let’s have that discussion. But everyone should be able to purchase rocket-propelled grenades just because disallowing them may be characterized by someone as walking on the Constitution. This is all Eric Church was trying to say, and it seems like a pretty reasonable statement to me. Even if you disagree with it, doesn’t mean he’s “anti 2nd Amendment.” And some people may feel different it it was their fans that got murdered in Vegas.
January 18, 2023 @ 10:03 am
These are straw man arguments used by the government and the media to feed the narrative that a militia is a group of right wing nut jobs who want tanks and rockets to overthrow the government. It is a use of the fear of the outrageous to scare the populace into acceptance of a gradual removal of our rights. The goal is to remove any form of resistance to the government by the people. President Biden alluded to this the other day when he said gun owners can’t defeat the government’s F-15s, implying the federal government no longer fears the citizens they are elected to represent.
No respectable gun rights organization is arguing for the ownership of military weapons, nor approving of the misuse of weapons for criminal activity. There are already laws to regulate criminal behavior. There are also means to amend the constitution if congress so desires. They have failed to do so, and instead turn to activist judges, executive orders, and unconstitutional laws in violation of the Constitution that congress themselves enacted.
January 18, 2023 @ 11:15 am
We are in trouble now because the government no longer fears the people.
“When government fears the people, there is liberty. When the people fear the government, there is tyranny.”
Thomas Jefferson didn’t utter this quotation, but it is still true.
January 18, 2023 @ 11:45 am
He should have lol. The government shouldn’t fear a constituency that they are fairly representing. The should however be fearful of trying to forcefully enact tyrannical restrictions on a citizenship that is capable of defending itself. This country was founded on these ideas.
January 18, 2023 @ 12:37 pm
Let’s step back a bit.
This is not an article about gun control. This is an article about how Rolling Stone used Eric Church to forward a political agenda that had the public believing he is “anti-gun” as opposed to accurately portraying his more nuanced stance on guns, which can be boiled down to being pro 2nd Amendment, verified by his own gun ownership, with some concerns for how someone like the guy who shot up a Las Vegas concert that Eric Church performed at could do as much damage as he did so quickly.
I completely understand that the 2nd Amendment is there so that the citizenry can rise up against a tyrannical government. So does Eric Church. He’s also for the ownership of guns. That means saying he is “anti-gun” is empirically false. And not only am I tired of seeing him attacked over it, I’m tired of being attacked over it simply because I reported that he’s talking some cool folks out as tour openers for him.
January 18, 2023 @ 1:47 pm
I don’t believe he is some radical anti-gun lobbyist. I do believe he agrees with the media and what many of his fellow celebrities tout as “reasonable gun control.” I think his quote supports this, which is what I was attempting to show with the actual text of the amendment and a brief description of its meaning.
I agree with you however that the attempt to cancel Church for having an opinion is wrong. I no more support this than I do the cancellation of those with different viewpoints. Church has a right to his opinion. I disagree with it, but don’t think it defines him as some America hating communist.
January 18, 2023 @ 8:46 am
So he doesn’t want to track all purchases, just my purchases. Got it. You can keep your nuance. Eric Church is entitled to his opinion. So is everybody else. It’s ok to discuss these things openly, why to try to control the narrative and control the definition of anti-gun?
January 18, 2023 @ 9:36 am
Slow news day.
January 18, 2023 @ 12:19 pm
There are currently 51 topics on my white board. I have been juggling so many topics and stories today, I can’t even get one finished and posted. There are no slow news days, only slow news people. I wake up every morning and write about what I’m most passionate about. I was very passionate about this topic.
January 18, 2023 @ 10:18 am
Going to jump in here, with some food for thought, for my fellow U.S. Veterans & any others wishing to employ the simplest critical thinking skills.
At 5’1″ it “amuses” me that my drivers license is marked on the back right corner, with a large V. Clearly indicating to all government/law enforcement agencies that I am a veteran.
Now why would a Bureau – or – Division of Motor Vehicles care whether or not I have honorably served The United States of America?
When asked the BMV representative, and their supervisor why my license had been “marked” in such a way, they stuttered and stammered and looked like your run of the mill, minion.
: D I know damn good and well why the tracking information.
Will say it again.
People need to wake up.
January 18, 2023 @ 10:53 am
they don’t have to track anyone via your license to see if you were a vet, lol. there are records of that already.
next you’re gonna tell me that every citizen has another little card with their names and a number on it assigned at birth! or that your internet connection has a number and your phone has a number or that your health insurance has a number or your house has a number or your bank account has a number or fishing license has a number or your …
January 18, 2023 @ 10:57 am
but i did also like how you judged the lowest level employee at the dmv a stammering stuttering minion tho. do you also berate the kid at mcdonald’s for not knowing what farms the beef comes from?
January 18, 2023 @ 11:59 am
While I hate to argue about the lunacy that has taken over California as a former resident and veteran, the veteran status on California’s drivers licenses are placed there only at the driver’s request, and in fact cost $5.00 to have it placed there.
The intention is for the driver to be able to prove his veteran status without need of carrying a DD 214. This can be used for veterans discount at several retailers. or simply for the driver to represent his pride in service. It’s one of the few common sense laws passed by California these days.
https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billTextClient.xhtml?bill_id=202120220SB837
January 18, 2023 @ 1:35 pm
@Scott S.
Your answer, with the link provided, is designed for that “feel good” acceptance/response reaction from citizens. Specifically the legislation.
I neither asked for, nor paid for, the Veteran designation.
In fact, told the people at the BMV that I would like a new license without the Veteran designation.
They, in turn, told me that was not possible.
Told them I would be happy to pay for a new license without the Veteran designation.
They adamantly informed me that they had to place the Veteran designation on the license, but they certainly could not tell me why.
You need to dig deeper.
January 18, 2023 @ 1:56 pm
The link I posted is to the text of the actual law. If the DMV placed a veteran status on you license without your approval, they are not following the law. It is intended as a convenience that is to be requested by the licensee. A a cost of $5.00.
If they refuse to remove it, I would suggest speaking to a supervisor. Show them the actual bill signed into law. If they continue to refuse to help you, and it is something you feel that strongly about, consider a letter to the head of DMV, speaking to your congressman, or hiring legal representation.
Hope you get it sorted out.
January 18, 2023 @ 2:22 pm
@Scott,
A cavalier approach to this, is a dangerous one.
And, just the type of response “lawmakers” are counting on.
January 18, 2023 @ 3:09 pm
Trust me, I don’t take a cavalier approach to anything our government does, especially not the government of California. I lived there a majority of my life, and a primary reason I relocated is the insane bureaucracy in the state. In this instance though, I don’t think there were nefarious reasons for implementing the program. Other states have also enacted similar legislation, and overall I think veterans are happy with the option to have it. As I stated earlier, it is a convenience over carrying sensitive documents like a DD 214.
January 18, 2023 @ 7:11 pm
Ugh, such a lame dude to be having this conversation over.
I’d rather talk about the Mile 0 festival. I’m thinking of going. I’d drive down and since I’m gay I can just stay at a glorified bathhouse, relatively cheap. Ride scooters and have a blast. Hopefullly avoid the bad gays like in White Lotus 👎
January 19, 2023 @ 4:09 am
Rolling Stone really is the worst. While it is not country music related, don’t forget that several years ago they published a long piece about a gang rape at UVA here in Virginia that damaged a lot of lives and careers. The entire thing turned out to be fabricated. One of the people they attacked was a very conscientious assistant dean, who to her tremendous credit brought a defamation suit against RS and won a $3 million verdict.
January 19, 2023 @ 1:44 pm
I wouldn’t say he’s anti-gun, but he was far to ignorant to make the comments he did about guns.
First off, the government did know about the mass shooter guy, so his comments there were stupid.
Also, the whole point of the second amendment is to cause the government to fear and respect the people so they don’t become tyrannical, so the government doesn’t have any business knowing how many guns or Ammunition anyone has.
That mass shooting was the fault of the government, because they knew all about this guy and did nothing to stop him.
His stance on immigration is ridiculous as well because we aren’t a country of immigrants.
January 19, 2023 @ 3:31 pm
The amount of complete and utter nutters that post in this comment section will never cease to amaze, nor disappoint. It is equally hilarious and frightening. I simultaneously commend and condemn Trigger for allowing the crazy to flow like the shit from an RV’s emptying black water tank.
January 19, 2023 @ 5:53 pm
Doug: “I am scared of people who think for themselves and don’t mindlessly obey the government.”
January 19, 2023 @ 7:12 pm
Hahahahaha! Thank you for providing immediate anecdotal evidence of my prior statement. Also, why don’t you nutters use your names? Oh wait. Because the government would send the black helicopters.
January 20, 2023 @ 7:25 pm
CountryKnight is my real name.
Did you assume differently? Bigoted viewpoint there.
January 20, 2023 @ 7:44 pm
I would be willing to wager my home, my retirement accounts, our cars, my entire wealth, that your actual name is not Country Knight. Wait. Scratch that. You likely had it legally hanged to throw of the tyrannical government.
January 19, 2023 @ 9:35 pm
We all see that you think, just without the intelligence or mental capacity to think rationally.
January 21, 2023 @ 6:11 pm
Y’all ignoring my bathhouse comment? My trolling didn’t work?!! Well here’s a story, I once went to a Loretta Lynn concert with a guy and these two, uh, twinks mocked me and my date but what stood out was that their female friend was pushed out front to do same…awkward…feminism!!!
January 21, 2023 @ 6:39 pm
Not ignoring you.
“Ride scooters and have a blast.”
You going to Mile 0 Fest, or not?
If want to experience a very laid back local scene, on the way to Key West, stop at the Lorelei, Gulf side of the highway. MM (Mile Marker) 82, on Islamorada.
January 21, 2023 @ 7:06 pm
Thank you, I got a bit carried away honestly. I’d probably go to the fest but my twin love is tennis and it’s going down in Australia!
January 21, 2023 @ 7:18 pm
Cool.
And, Honey? We all get carried away now & then, on Trig’s site.
Part of the fun.
But if Trig is headed to Mile 0, might enter into detente with the gentile for a week, or so, – so Trig doesn’t have to do his Helicopter Mom, bit
January 23, 2023 @ 12:22 pm
The Vegas thing had nothing to do with the NRA, the Constitution or the Second Amendment. It had everything to do with Vegas hotel-casinos having NSA level security on the gaming floor and Wackenhut level Rent A Cop security in the hotel.
I still believe that there was much more to that incident and that things were covered up. Notice we never hear about this anymore?
Church loses all credibility when he praises Comrade Bernie.