Tom Gresham bashes GOA on radio

[TFL Rangmaster]

Wow, I normally don't have time but I caught a few minutes of "Gun Talk" on Sunday and heard Tom Gresham bash the living heck out of GOA. You name it he said it, except actually saying the words "Gun owners of America."

The bee in his bonnet was the veterans disarmament act. He said anyone claiming that any veterans have been disarmed is a liar and only trying to make money. He flat out said that "no veterans have been disarmed by this bill." This was the bill that GOA got a senator to put on hold, which got us a few improvements (which improvements nra hailed even though they fought the hold that was placed on the bill).

I knew Tom Gresham only saw things the nra way, but I would never have thought he would take it so far as he did yesterday. He said straight up that "no one will have their guns taken away unless a judge approves it." It had been a while since I'd seen the bill but even I knew that was not true. I mean, I WISH that was the truth but it just isn't. The problem is either Tom hasn't done any research besides nra press releases or he is lying because not only have veterans' names been added to the NICS database by the THOUSANDS, they've been added WITHOUT judicial oversight. These are veterans who have had someone placed in charge of their FINANCIAL affairs. Now many people like to shut down discussion and just start bashing GOA at this point, but clearly it is Tom and the NRA who are hiding things because a senator has introduced a bill to remove names of thousands of veterans from the NICS database who EVERYONE AGREES SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN RECENTLY ADDED BY THE VA. Furthermore, the new bill forbids VA from adding names without judicial oversight. If Tom and nra are telling the truth then there is no need for this bill.

I found this from several news stories:

As things stand now, the VA adds veterans to the NICS database if they've been assigned fiduciary guardians, Burr says. The VA apparently believes bouncing checks makes people mentally incompetent. "The (national database) is for criminals, not for folks who have troubles handling their own financial affairs," Burr said.

According to a McClatchy Newspapers report, Burr's amendment would require the VA to have a judge or magistrate declare a veteran dangerous before adding his or her name to the database. These veterans pose a danger to their checkbooks, not themselves or others. If not being a good money manager is suffcient reason to bar an American from exercising his or her rights, how many members of Congress would make the cut?

http://www.newsobserver.com/politics/story/1153560.html

I really don't want this to turn into an NRA VS GOA thread because those types of threads always go the same way, the GOA side tries presenting evidence and the NRA side starts name calling (calling GOA fear mongers/liars etc).

 

[Stagger Lee]

Hey, if GOA's Larry Pratt wasn't known as the biggest liar in North America and a parasite on the backs of every real gun owner, maybe he wouldn't get "bashed" so much when he lies and makes up fake problems and tells people that he'll solve them if everyone sends him money...money that he refuses to account for when asked to do so.

Pratt's a scammer and no US Senator has proposed any legislation at his request that I'm aware of. He's persona non grata in Washington, just like he is everywhere else.

 

[zxcvbob]

Here's more information from Senator Burr's own .gov web page (no mention of Larry Pratt, so those who go into a rage over the mere mention of his name can still read it) HTH

http://burr.senate.gov/public/index...a12d-4b8b-b638-8807a5c6b4d3&Month=6&Year=2008

 

[Tennessee Gentleman]

knew Tom Gresham only saw things the nra way, but I would never have thought he would take it so far as he did yesterday.

The one I listened to yesterday was an old or "reloaded" show so I think it aired sometime ago.

I do not Know Tom Gresham and I could be wrong, but everything I have seen and read from him is pretty good. I have spoken with him over the phone and again I could be wrong but he does not appear to me to be someone who would just lie over the air that way. He posts on here from time to time so I think he should answer this one. I really like what he has done for gun owners through the media. I think it has been very good for us.

I do not know much about GOA but I do know about scamming non-profits and there are a lot of them out there. I am NRA and very careful where I send my money (what little I have).

Now that said and I am a Tom Gresham fan. I don't agree with everything he says or believes but except for my wife nobody gets that much clout with me and the same for the NRA.

I also don't think Tom is a shill for the NRA and your post disturbs me. Maybe you should take this up personally with Tom.

 

[TFL Rangmaster]

Wow stagger, so what you're sayin' is, you're a lifetime GOA member? If Larry Pratt is so wrong then why is a U.S. senator sponsoring a bill to undo the damage from the bill the nra pushed? Just wondering Tennessee.

Tennessee, you are very gentlemanly. I simply related what I heard him say on his show yesterday. I also related what happened with the recent veterans disarmament bill where GOA got the bill held. I think it was senator Coburn who held the bill and got some small changes. I remember how nra put a link on their nraila website that was VERY nasty towards pro gun groups who didn't like the bill. They didn't like the bill precisely because it was had provisions which facilitated disarmament of veterans (which Senator Burr is now trying to fix). Tom Gresham was pretty nasty in the way he said those provisions are a fantasy, but he is just plain wrong.

Here's a quote from NRA's website:

VETERANS DISARMAMENT UPDATE

In other Senate news, Richard Burr's bill to repeal large parts of the Veterans Disarmament Act is gaining steam. The Republican senator from North Carolina introduced the Veterans Protection Act (S. 3167) after President Bush signed a gun ban into law this year -- a law which, among other things, disarms military veterans who have been diagnosed with PTSD. The Burr bill, which now has 18 cosponsors, would protect the rights of military veterans and make it more difficult for the Veterans Affairs to deny them their Second Amendment rights.

EDIT: Ok very very funny. Whoever the mod is who altered my post show yourself.

Somebody thought they'd be funny and switch the names of stagger and tennessee in my post (I have since fixed it back to the way it was). If you recently read this post and wondered why for a short time my post said "Stagger, you are very gentlemanly," just know that it wasn't me saying that. I don't mind a joke but whoever did it just come clean.

 

[Musketeer]

Pratt is a twit who makes a living off of diverting NRA membership dollars to the GOA by bashing the NRA and misrepresenting issues to his benifit at every opportunity.

If someone is going to attack him I am inclined to simply let Pratt receive what he so often gives.

 

[copenhagen]

NRA side starts name calling

if GOA's Larry Pratt wasn't known as the biggest liar in North America and a parasite on the backs of every real gun owner,

Pratt's a scammer

Pratt is a twit

Ok, now I need some popcorn and a Coke for this one...

Hey, I belong to the NRA, and soon, I'll join the GOA and the JPFO. Doesn't hurt to hedge your bets ya know?

 

[Stagger Lee]

Hey, I'm still waiting for any GOA kool-aid drinker to show me one thing that GOA has ever accomplished, other than providing a lavish lifestyle for Larry Pratt and other members of the Pratt family who make up most of the paid employees of this so-called "pro-gun" group.

I do have to point out that the NRA elects it's leaders, and the NRA accounts to it's members and the public every year for every dollar brought in and every dollar spent. They disclose all of that.

GOA on the other hand, is really a private business, with no membership control whatsoever. They do not disclose--to the members or anyone else--how much money they take in OR what they spend it on. That should be a red flag right there. No one can ever know how much of the GOA funds are paying for Pratt's satellite TV or fur coats for the Pratt women because they refuse to open the books to anyone.

 

[copenhagen]

how much money they take in OR what they spend it on

Obviously they don't spend it on website design. While it has some good info in it, have you taken a look at the design of that thing? That is a big reason I haven't joined them. At least try to have a decent face to the public ya know?

 

[Tennessee Gentleman]

Wow Tennessee, so what you're sayin' is, you're a lifetime GOA member? If Larry Pratt is so wrong then why is a U.S. senator sponsoring a bill to undo the damage from the bill the nra pushed? Just wondering Tennessee.

Well, I don't know Larry Pratt from Adam's housecat and I know less about the GOA. If what Stagger Lee says is true (and so far in my discussions with him he has been) then it should concern you and any GOA members if Mr. Pratt keeps closed books. I sort of like the sunshine to come on in, it is a great disinfectant for sleeze if you know what I mean. Same thing with lots of relatives on the payroll. If true with GOA then that can be a red flag.

 

[Bartholomew Roberts]

Let address some of your claims point-by-point:

He said anyone claiming that any veterans have been disarmed is a liar and only trying to make money. He flat out said that "no veterans have been disarmed by this bill." This was the bill that GOA got a senator to put on hold, which got us a few improvements (which improvements nra hailed even though they fought the hold that was placed on the bill).

Senator Tom Coburn put the bill on hold. You supposition that "GOA got a senator to put the bill on hold" is not supported by the facts. While Coburn was GOA's "Most Important Election" in the year he was elected, Coburn lifted the hold while GOA was still demanding the bill be sunk and GOA protested this action at the time. So it seems to me questionable that Senator Coburn was acting at the behest of GOA.

The GOA press release from December 18, 2007 (the same day Coburn release his hold on the bill):

Gun Owners of America has emerged as the leader on Capitol Hill in fighting to defend your gun rights. It was GOA that teamed up with Republican Senator Tom Coburn of Oklahoma to stall the Veterans
Disarmament Act in the Senate. ...We plan to keep mobilizing against the bill in 2008. Please help us get more gun owners ready to muster in the fight for our liberties!

GOA Press Release from December 19, 2007 (the day the bill passed unanimously in the Senate):

"Next year, GOA will continue fighting the Veterans Disarmament Act. That's where you will find GOA... on the front lines in the war to defend our rights."

- Source

As you can see, GOA did not even realize that the hold had been released or the bill passed at the time. At best, GOA can be given credit for bringing the matter to Coburn's attention (assuming it was GOA and not one of Coburn's constituents or anyone else who might have written on the issue).

He said straight up that "no one will have their guns taken away unless a judge approves it." It had been a while since I'd seen the bill but even I knew that was not true.

Here is the text from the enrolled version of H.R. 2640 that passed both the Senate and the House:

(c) Standard for Adjudications and Commitments Related to Mental Health-

(1) IN GENERAL- No department or agency of the Federal Government may provide to the Attorney General any record of an adjudication related to the mental health of a person or any commitment of a person to a mental institution if--

(A) the adjudication or commitment, respectively, has been set aside or expunged, or the person has otherwise been fully released or discharged from all mandatory treatment, supervision, or monitoring;

(B) the person has been found by a court, board, commission, or other lawful authority to no longer suffer from the mental health condition that was the basis of the adjudication or commitment, respectively, or has otherwise been found to be rehabilitated through any procedure available under law; or

(C) the adjudication or commitment, respectively, is based solely on a medical finding of disability, without an opportunity for a hearing by a court, board, commission, or other lawful authority, and the person has not been adjudicated as a mental defective consistent with section 922(g)(4) of title 18, United States Code, except that nothing in this section or any other provision of law shall prevent a Federal department or agency from providing to the Attorney General any record demonstrating that a person was adjudicated to be not guilty by reason of insanity, or based on lack of mental responsibility, or found incompetent to stand trial, in any criminal case or under the Uniform Code of Military Justice.

As you can see, it is now AGAINST THE LAW for a Federal agency to put veterans on the NICS list if they do not meet this criteria.

I mean, I WISH that was the truth but it just isn't. The problem is either Tom hasn't done any research besides nra press releases or he is lying because not only have veterans' names been added to the NICS database by the THOUSANDS, they've been added WITHOUT judicial oversight.

According to you, Gresham said "no veterans have been disarmed by this bill." If you read YOUR OWN NEWS STORY THAT YOU LINKED TO, it says:

In the past decade, the Department of Veterans Affairs has sent the names of about 115,000 veterans and their dependents to the National Instant Criminal Background Check System, known as NICS, under an agreement with the FBI.

In case you still failed to understand this, the news story is reporting that these veterans had already been added to the NICS list before H.R. 2640 had even been introduced. If you can point to a single veteran that has been added to NICS since this bill became law, I would certainly love to know which agency is violating federal law; but I have the feeling I will be waiting awhile for you to provide that evidence.

a senator has introduced a bill to remove names of thousands of veterans from the NICS database who EVERYONE AGREES SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN RECENTLY ADDED BY THE VA. Furthermore, the new bill forbids VA from adding names without judicial oversight. If Tom and nra are telling the truth then there is no need for this bill.

It should be blatantly obvious from reading my previous points now, why you have misunderstood this; but since simple comprehension of the English language appears to be a shortcoming for you, let me explain this so you don't miss it:

1. H.R. 2640 (The NICS Improvement Act or "Veteran's Disarmament Act" as GOA called it) prevents veterans from being added to NICS unless they have been adjudicated mentally ill; but the only thing it does for the 115,000 who were added in the past 10 years is give them a process to appeal their inclusion.

2. As a result, Burr has introduced a bill that will remove these wrongfully included veterans (i.e already on the NICS list) without them having to go through the appeals process. I would also note that your own news article says:

"The National Rifle Association and several veterans groups support Burr"

I really don't want this to turn into an NRA VS GOA thread because those types of threads always go the same way, the GOA side tries presenting evidence and the NRA side starts name calling (calling GOA fear mongers/liars etc).

Well, I don't know about GOA; but the shoe sure fits you doesn't it? I'm going to hope that the problem here was simply that you misunderstood a subject too complex for you and not that you deliberately misinterpreted something to fit your particular point of view. Since I won't always have over an hour of my morning to go around and correct certain factual errors or partial disclosure of your sources, I hope you will at least honor my effort today by taking a little more time to be sure of your facts and understanding before posting something similar in the future.

 

[Te Anau]

Well,its a shame as usual.Thread starts out OK and turns into a "The GOA is the devil" rant.I just renewed my GOA membership two weeks ago and I'll stand by my signature.

 

[Bartholomew Roberts]

Thread starts out OK

The thread started out OK? What was OK about the initial post? The author didn't understand basic facts of what he was talking about and hadn't even read/comprehended his own supporting sources.

 

[Musketeer]

Thread starts out OK

It's OK if you are an imbiber of Pratt's Kool Aid.

 

[johnbt]

"The VA apparently believes bouncing checks makes people mentally incompetent."

A plainly foolish statement. It's not the bouncing checks, it's the demonstrated inability to care for oneself that results in a judicial order for someone to take over the person's billpaying, etc. This inability is manifested in cut-off utilities, lost houses and apartments, etc. It's not just bouncing a few checks here and there.

In my experience, the VA uses just about the same guidelines as Social Security when making the decision to assign a representative payee. You can google the standards and see them.

John

 

[TFL Rangmaster]

Thank you john for admitting my core point, that veterans are being disarmed because they aren't good with finances. Thank you. It's very disturbing that you think they should lose their 2nd amendment rights. Very disturbing.

Bartholomew, that super long drawn out post wasn't even remotely necessary. Why couldn't you just clarify the one or to items needing clarification without writing a book and going over things that ARE NOT THE POINT. The point WAS and still IS that veterans are being disarmed merely because they are given a financial steward and that nra is avoiding this issue. I'm the one being simple, you tried to make it complicated. Tom Gresham said no dangerous veterans were being disarmed and that is simply not true. NRA has said the same thing. Tom and the nra constantly make in sound like only "DANGEROUS" veterans were being disarmed. That is horse plop. Making bad financial decisions does not make you "dangerous" but thank you john for admitting that YOU think it does make a person deserving of losing their 2nd amendment rights.

Thank you copenhagen for pointing out how the "nra only" crowd did exactly what I said they would. They did not disappoint in the slightest. I said they'd name call and they did. I was hoping they would check themselves and be adults, but apparently the urge to throw personal insults at Larry Pratt is just to strong for them. The fact that the "nra only" crowd can't behave themselves if GOA is given any credit, is proof that nra has anti gun behavior to hide.

One more thing bartholomew, saying that nra supports Burrs current bill is like saying water is wet. Of COURSE they will support it at this stage, holy hannah that is so the issue. The issue is that the veterans bill that nra pushed LAST TIME facilitated the disarmament of GOOD AND DANGEROUS VETERANS just like GOA said it would. The "nra only" crowd can sit there and pretend that these veterans are dangerous all they want, in an attempt to help nra save face, but it wont fly.

I get really tired of the "nra only" crowd utterly refusing to ever give GOA a drop of credit for being right. They wont be civil, and they wont discuss any nra goa disagreement in good faith. The "nra only" crowd has the most closed minds I've ever seen. They start every conversation with an attitude that nra is big and therefore is always right, and that goa is just a bunch of cooks. It really gets old guys.

 

[buzz_knox]

I said they'd name call and they did. I was hoping they would check themselves and be adults, but apparently the urge to throw personal insults at Larry Pratt is just too strong for them.

You do realize that you began the problem with the last line of the OP. If you wanted people to act like adults, you need to set an example by doing so yourself.

The fact that the "nra only" crowd can't behave themselves if GOA is given any credit, is proof that nra has anti gun behavior to hide.

Now turn that critical gaze upon your own actions in this thread (and the other forums you've been shotgunning this too) and see what it says about the "GOA only" crowd.

 

[Stagger Lee]

EDIT: Ok very very funny. Whoever the mod is who altered my post show yourself.

Somebody thought they'd be funny and switch the names of stagger and tennessee in my post (I have since fixed it back to the way it was). If you recently read this post and wondered why for a short time my post said "Stagger, you are very gentlemanly," just know that it wasn't me saying that. I don't mind a joke but whoever did it just come clean.

Wow. So now the mods are hacking into your posts and making typos in your name?

 

[Bartholomew Roberts]

The point WAS and still IS that veterans are being disarmed merely because they are given a financial steward and that nra is avoiding this issue.

Veterans have been disarmed over the past decade (PAST TENSE); but the bill the NRA supported (H.R. 2640) NOW makes that illegal unless the conditions listed above are met. Once again, there is ZERO evidence offered in your news link that veterans are currently being disarmed (PRESENT TENSE). If you have the evidence, then how about offering it instead of trying to weasel out of your earlier intemperate and libelous statement?

Second, the NRA is not avoiding the issue. According to your own news link, they are supporting Burr in passing his bill. I'll quote it again for you since you seem to have missed it (7th paragraph after "Correction" from your own link: http://www.newsobserver.com/politics/story/1153560.html)

The National Rifle Association and several veterans groups support Burr

Tom Gresham said no non dangerous veterans were being disarmed

Well, I did not hear Tom Gresham so I have to go on what you tell me; but earlier you said that Tom Gresham said "no veterans have been disarmed by this bill." The fact that veterans were disarmed long before this bill was even introduced has nothing to do with your claim that Gresham was lying.

NRA has said the same thing.

As the quote above from the bill shows, it is actually illegal for a federal agency to add a veteran to NICS without having a due process hearing. So the NRA, Gresham or anyone else is quite right when they say that no veterans have been disarmed by H.R. 2640.

The issue is that the veterans bill that nra pushed LAST TIME facilitated the disarmament of GOOD AND NON DANGEROUS VETERANS just like GOA said it would.

No, it has not. I challenge you (AGAIN) to show one single veteran who has been added to NICS without receiving a due process hearing since H.R. 2640 passed into law. You seem to be unable to comprehend the critical difference between PAST and PRESENT when you read news articles.

 

[Bartholomew Roberts]

You know on second thought, you don't even need to go find the one non-existent veteran who has been disarmed without a due process hearing since H.R. 2640 was passed into law. I am going to give you the benefit of a doubt and assume that much like a thousand monkeys with a thousand typewriters, you would eventually hit upon an example to support your point. So I'll give you that..

All you need to do now is explain to me how H.R. 2640 "facilitated the disarmament of GOOD AND NON DANGEROUS VETERANS" - I mean after all, according to all sources this has been going on for over 10 years without this bill and H.R. 2640 actually forbids federal agencies from adding someone to NICS without a due process hearing showing that they are dangerous to themselves or others. So how is it that this bill facilitates (facilitate means "to make easier" just in case you were cutting and pasting that word from somewhere else) adding people to the list IF the VA is still doing this?