Sethi opposes background checks, red flag laws

Republican U.S. Senate candidate Manny Sethi says he opposes universal background checks for gun purchases. He’s also against so-called red flag laws, which allow judges to issue orders allowing law enforcement to confiscate guns from people found to be a danger to themselves or others.

Here’s Sethi’s tweet about guns:

Sethi is running against former U.S. Ambassador Bill Hagerty for the GOP nomination to succeed retiring Sen. Lamar Alexander.


23 Responses to Sethi opposes background checks, red flag laws

  • Stuart I. Anderson says:

    Conservatives, please be careful!!! Red meat caries with it all kinds of bacteria that is very dangerous to your health and all of that saturated fat isn’t good for you either. So long a Chris Devaney tries to establish name recognition for his patently unqualified client, Chairman Manny, the chunks of red meat are going to be flying so please be careful.

    • Daniel Lindsey says:

      We do not want a Romney clone East Tennessee RINO as a Tennessee Senator—just got ride of one RINO and now need to replace the one left with with Dr. Manny. Smarter and more hardworking person than politician Bill every was or will be.

      • Stuart I. Anderson says:

        Daniel, I agree to a certain extent, but at least Bill from Establishment Central Casting has shown a long time deep interest in Republican politics with a record going back to 1991. Remembering that we are supposed to be electing a U. S. SENATOR here, Chairman Manny is a wealthy political dilettante with a blank sheet as a political background so we have to read the tea leaves. Tea leave one, the Chairman is friends with what you call RINOs, Chip Saltsman, Bob Davis, Bill Frist, and Devaney is running his campaign. 2. I’ve given Dr. Outsider the honor of calling him “Chairman” because the Republican establishment thought enough of him to make chairman of its flagship fundraising effort the 2016 Statesmen’s Dinner. 3. Against all this schmoozing with the bien-pensant of the Republican Party, or RINOs as you would say, we have NOTHING as to the Chairman’s relationship with solid conservatives or conservative organizations; this from a very wealthy man of 41.

        Bill is a known quantity, an establishment pol who nevertheless will probably be more conservative than the horrible Lamar (Heritage-50%) who he seeks to replace. Chairman Manny is a political creation of Chris Daveney, simply a poseur who is attempting to fool conservatives into believing he is something he is not. As a conservative I say vote Hagerty in order to discourage any Manny’s in the wings.

        • commenter says:

          He may be Chairman Manny with DeVaney, but RINO Hagerty is a known quantity. I am starting to come around on Chairman “Manny” despite his no record.

          • Stuart I. Anderson says:

            Ah, we now have someone to the left of me who thinks sending comments that are the opposite of positions that I hold and placing my name on them is funny. Oh, how I wish we all could be conservatives or at the very least honorable.

  • Leslie Parsley says:

    Is this candidacy someone’s idea of a bad joke? If so, it ain’t funny.

  • LeeAnn C. says:

    Well, I don’t find this statement very remarkable. Seems amateurish for a Senate campaign.

  • James White says:

    I guess Stuart will warn us every time Manny speaks. Stuart will tell us what Manny said and what we should think. Thanks Stuart, but we can read and think for our selves.

    • Stuart I. Anderson says:

      That’s odd James, you can tell us what you think and it never occurs to me that you are telling me what I should think, yet I express what I think and you interpret that as my telling you what to think. Damn it, I know that I should have gone further than one lousy survey course in Psychology, Abnormal Psychology comes to mind, which perhaps would allow me to understand your thinking here. I didn’t so I guess that’s that.

      • James White says:

        Well I try not to tell people Who to vote For or Against. I try just to point to the candidates or official’s previous votes or positions.
        But, point taken.

        • MARLE says:

          Stuart is not telling us what to think about Manny; he is telling us what to do about Manny which is to vote against him. Telling you what to think~ bad. Telling you what to do~ good! Someone should write that boldly on the side of a barn. And I did take Abnormal Psych.

          • Stuart I. Anderson says:

            So let me get this straight. In the world of James/MARLE when XYZ who is running for office says “Vote for me” or he puts up a sign or has a commercial that says “Vote for XYZ” he is not making a suggestion or a request, rather he is telling us what to do and we should react how? Should we be offended?

            Come on guys, tell me you’re not serious. You are making a joke, no?

          • MARLE says:

            Stay away from Orwell…’s clearly over your head.

  • Donna Locke says:

    This is bad. These positions.

  • Pingback: Thursday, October 24

  • Phil Lassiter says:

    He is just saying anything it takes to win a Republican primary.

  • Beatrice Shaw says:

    I can’t believe anyone would be against background checks. I also cannot believe anyone would take a picture of an assault gun on top of the Constitution!!

  • Perry Aubric says:

    Why would universal background checks be a problem for the Second Amendment?

    • Stuart I. Anderson says:

      I AM NOT GOING TO PARTICIPATE IN A “GUN” DISCUSSION. You asked a simple question and I was hoping some fine gun enthusiast would answer but until one does I will give it a shot by presenting my understanding of the CONSTITUTIONAL argument with which I feel almost certain you will not agree.

      Universal background checks are utterly unenforceable without a system of retroactive universal gun registration. Without such registration there is no way to prove that someone acquired the firearm in a private sale after the law came into effect. It is felt that mandatory federal registration of purely INTRASTATE sale or possession of firearms would place an undue burden on the exercise of Second Amendment rights by being a regulation that is NOT narrowly tailored to accomplish a compelling government purpose.

      • Perry Aubric says:

        Well, maybe, although I am not sure your premise is either correct or not at least overstated. I am actually not sure universal background checks would be all that effective, and I have never really understood what the background check is looking for other than a criminal record. If it’s just for a criminal record, then prior gun registration would not be relevant. If there is some push to keep guns out of the hands of the mentally ill, which seems to be the conservative answer to gun violence, then a background check would only be effective if there is some registry of who is mentally ill, which would necessitate a definition of what kind of mental illness would disqualify someone from being a gun owner, which in turn seems problematic both for personal civil liberty (of interest, but not exclusively, to the left) and for second amendment rights (of particular, but not exclusive, interest to the right.

        So maybe there is a tangential second amendment issue if we go down that rabbit hole. But the argument that background checks only work if there is gun registration seems illogical. If I have a murder conviction or a domestic violence restraining order on my record, that is not dependent on gun registration. Your argument, as you state it, fails.

        But my simple question is just that. It wasn’t about effectiveness. If I want to go this afternoon and buy myself another gun, why would a universal background check inhibit my second amendment right to do so? I don’t think it would.

        I am no anti-gun zealot. I have four guns, one of them a handgun. But I do think a background check might keep someone with a history of violence from getting a gun. You know, part of that “well-regulated” part of the second amendment.

  • Gail Baldwin says:

    I am appalled that your Political Ad is our U.S. Constitution with a handgun superimposed on it. Is that all it means to you? What an image for our country and our children. This ad diminishes the idea that is America. Our country is so much more and you as an immigrant should be aware of the importance of this document, not as an ad for hatred but as a shining beacon for our freedom and ALL that it means.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *