Bellevue Kroger

[bteague2]

BigBoostDSM: ya sure, I'll send ya a message in a week or so when I'm back in Knoxville.

Rabbi: with high 90s/100s the temperature is at now I'd rather be asked to leave then wear layers.

Fred LE FI: tacticly unsound? are we all swat now? I think I missed that memo.

Tungsten: I have talked to security guards, police officers, store managers on multiple occasions. the kroger manager was the only one who was anything more then curious. The police officer didn't even ask to see my permit, so I know it isn't about being abused.

[DaveTN]

Perhaps the reason why we are losing the 'hearts and minds' of the general public about the RKBA is, in part, that no-one sees normal folks exercising the right. If other interest-groups' public displays advocating homosexuality, racial equality and other 'civil-rights' issues can be so successful in bringing them into the main-stream of society (when they were just as unpopular at first)... I submit that we are simply not pursuing our agenda in the most effective way.

Homosexuals and minorities have rights, you do not you have a right you have the privilege that the state of Tennessee has given you. Just like a drivers license; no more, no less.

I am not saying this right; just that it is fact.

Simply hoping to be ignored is not the best tactic for expanding our freedom.

Neither is getting arrested.

[Guest BigBoostDSM]

BigBoostDSM: ya sure, I'll send ya a message in a week or so when I'm back in Knoxville.

Where do you go to school? We can keep it to PMs if you'd like.

[bteague2]

UT, I live in south knoxville. what part are you in?

[Guest BigBoostDSM]

UT, I live in south knoxville. what part are you in?

North Knoxville just off of Emory Rd. I go to Pell. State and my girlfriend goes to UT.

[towerclimber37]

Homosexuals and minorities have rights, you do not you have a right you have the privilege that the state of Tennessee has given you. Just like a drivers license; no more, no less.

Dave. something tells me that you're REALLY upset with what happened to you up in yankeeland.

I'm sorry about that, but I'll tell you, folks down here normally aren't all that bad. ONCE in awhile you get buttholes..but for the most part, you really have to be in the wrong place at the right time for something like that to happen down here.

[DaveTN]

Dave. something tells me that you're REALLY upset with what happened to you up in yankeeland.

I'm sorry about that, but I'll tell you, folks down here normally aren't all that bad. ONCE in awhile you get buttholes..but for the most part, you really have to be in the wrong place at the right time for something like that to happen down here.

I’m not upset about it. I just find it amusing when people talk about rights that they do not have. Rights do not come with a $150-250 price tag…. Privileges do.

There are a few of us here that moved from states that did not allow carry of any kind. You need to know exactly why you are allowed to carry and who is allowing you to carry. Your Tennessee legislators are why you can carry; it is a privilege and has nothing to do with rights. It could all change with an election.

[The Rabbi]

I’m not upset about it. I just find it amusing when people talk about rights that they do not have. Rights do not come with a $150-250 price tag…. Privileges do.

There are a few of us here that moved from states that did not allow carry of any kind. You need to know exactly why you are allowed to carry and who is allowing you to carry. Your Tennessee legislators are why you can carry; it is a privilege and has nothing to do with rights. It could all change with an election.

Excellent! Very well said.

[Mark@Sea]

I’m not upset about it. I just find it amusing when people talk about rights that they do not have. Rights do not come with a $150-250 price tag…. Privileges do.

There are a few of us here that moved from states that did not allow carry of any kind. You need to know exactly why you are allowed to carry and who is allowing you to carry. Your Tennessee legislators are why you can carry; it is a privilege and has nothing to do with rights. It could all change with an election.

Make that "allowed to carry legally".

In point of fact, some will carry regardless.

I agree that paying for a 'permit' is an abrogation of my rights. It does nothing to enhance the public safety, it does nothing to restrict those who would do evil. Even if it did - it is still an infringement, and as such, should be attacked at every opportunity.

Allowing someone to tell them they couldn't be armed, and going along with it in order to show what good citizens they were, has been a dead end road - literally - for millions.

How far would accepting restrictions, and not pushing the boundaries on their civil rights, gotten people?

Where would we be today if the colonists had shrugged, decided that disagreeing with the king was a waste of time, and given up their arms?

Accepting restrictions and infringements without complaint or challenge isn't 'accepting reality'. It is, instead, deciding to sit on the back of the bus because you are afraid of the fight. Its' deciding to go ahead and get on the cattle car, because there isn't anything you can do. I guess for some people the will to fail is a powerful force.

Losing a battle doesn't mean the war is lost - unless you give up. Over the last 40 years we've lost a lot of battles. On the other hand, in just the last 10 we've started to win quite a few, and most folks would agree the tide is turning in our favor. It would be great to wake up tomorrow to Alaska/Vermont style recognition of our rights. It isn't terribly realistic to expect it, nor is it terribly adult to whine and sulk about it.

The DC case is almost certainly going to the SCOTUS. What if we lose?

Well, so what? At one time the Supreme Court found in favor of slavery, in favor of segregation, etc. etc. Doesn't mean I'll sigh, shrug my shoulders, and turn my pistol over to the nearest LEO.

What if we win? You think that means we'll never face those who want to disarm us again? This country faced that 230+ years ago, and as a consequence wrote a very clear amendment to the bill of rights. This fight will never - NEVER - be over.

DaveTN, I accept that you had a difficult time. Sorry to hear it. Even sorrier if you continue to 'doom and gloom'. We didn't get to where we are today by accepting dumbass restrictions and telling each other that things can't change for the better. You lost a round. Get back on your feet, man. Down isn't out unless you quit.

[The Rabbi]

I couldnt lay out all the issues I have with the previous post.

I will pick out one and say that in one sense it really doesn't matter what the Supreme Court decides in the DC case. The net effect for us here is likely to be zero.

People who think a favorable outcome will mean they can open carry in Manhattan are sadly uninformed about the entire debate and the structure of Constitutional Law.

[Mark@Sea]

Rabbi, the Parker case could conceivably lead to incorporation of the Second. What does that tell you?

[TGO David]

Accepting restrictions and infringements without complaint or challenge isn't 'accepting reality'. It is, instead, deciding to sit on the back of the bus because you are afraid of the fight.

Ok, I've really got to get this off my chest...

#1) Those were different times in a different political climate dealing with totally different issues.

#2) It was widely accepted among forward thinking people in the era of Segregation that Segregation was wrong and went against the notion that God created all men equal. Slavery had long since been abolished, and the nation at large was trying to turn away from narrow-minded thought patterns that continued to "enslave" people of color. That grass roots belief provided a sturdy foundation upon which men like Martin Luther King Jr. could build the Equal Rights movement.

#3) There is no such widely accepted forward thinking about private gun ownership in the United States at this time. It is my own personal belief that we, as supporters of our interpretation of the 2nd Amendment (the interpretation that we feel is correct and in keeping with the spirit of the Amendment as expressed by our forefathers -- namely that private citizens shall be afforded the right to bear arms) are in the minority.

The Liberal Left, the media and whomever else you want to accuse of being complicit, have poisoned the thinking of the typical "progressive American" and made them believe that guns are evil and that citizens have no need for them. Firearms have been villainized and those of us who own them have been labeled as everything from backwoods, knuckle dragging redneck cromagnons to neo-nazi militant extremists hellbent on bringing about homegrown terrorism.

So we, as gun owners, don't typically enjoy the same moral or ethical support that say... the gay rights advocates do. It's trendy to be gay. It's brutish and uncivilized to own a firearm.

See my point?

Anyone who contrasts the current state of affairs of the fight for the preservation of the historically accurate interpretation of the 2nd Amendment with the trials and tribulations of the Equal Rights movement really doesn't have a firm grip on what we're facing. They are two are totally different battles and ours must be won through totally different tactics.

Activism through civil disobedience will only further deteriorate our chances of success. Mark my words.

Of course, that's just my opinion and I could be totally wrong.

[The Rabbi]

Rabbi, the Parker case could conceivably lead to incorporation of the Second. What does that tell you?

Not a damn thing. I don't even know what you mean. What is "incorporation of the Second"??

The first issue the court will face is whether the 2nd confers an individual right at all.

The second issue is whether the 2nd also applies to the states.

The third is whether states and/or the Federal gov't have the power to regulate private ownership of firearms.

My gut on this is that they will decide very narrowly (as has been the habit of the court) and say that the 2nd does apply to individuals and that DC cannot outright ban private ownership.

But I predict the court will stop at that point and not address the other issues.

D.C. will end up with an ownership regime that will resemble NYC's, a ban in all but name.

Don't look for this to be a watershed event or a cure-all for RKBA. It won't.

Our best hope for expansion is nationwide reciprocity. There are several bills pending for just that. Let's support those.

[molonlabetn]

Exercising one's rights is rarely popular... If the right thing to do was governed by majority support, this country would not exist.

Governmental restrictions on carrying firearms do not constitute a removal of that right, they are simply a hindrance (a violation, if you will...). The 'permit' system is an aberration, one which most people, including me, put up with for the sake of compliance with the laws out of respect for the law... That does not mean that those who do not recognize the government as the source of their rights wouldn't carry anyways even if it was not accepted... Self-defense being more critical to maintaining life and liberty than mere social approval.

The government derives its power from the consent of the people, and without that consent, if the government becomes destructive and oppressive, it is the right of the people to throw it off. Noone here is suggesting taking that right lightly... but it is a simple fact that the majority are willing to suffer the exchange of liberty for perceived safety when that suffrage is familiar. Most people are less inclined to resist abuses of government power upon their rights... to the point of denying them to themselves, and others.

Open-carry is merely a symbol of the rights which some of us cherish, obviously if that became illegal, it would indicate that the majority of people do not find it acceptable... But that would not mean that the RKBA does not exist. It means that the majority is wrong (big surprise). OC is still legal, and because it is, it is no less legitimate than carrying concealed, or owning a gun at all. I realize that it will take more of our rights being restricted for the majority of gun-owners to actually stand up and be counted. When the government comes to take away your concealed carry permit and handguns, the majority of hunters will use the same arguments we have seen here to downplay our right to self-defense... And when they come for the hunter's rifles and shotguns, the unarmed populace will use the same arguments against their right to have them.

...Activism through civil disobedience will only further deteriorate our chances of success. Mark my words...

It isn't civil disobedience if the act is not illegal.

Homosexuals and minorities have rights, you do not you have a right you have the privilege that the state of Tennessee has given you. Just like a drivers license; no more, no less.

I am not saying this right; just that it is fact.

Does that mean when homosexuals' and minorities' rights were previously not recognized, that they in fact did not actually exist?

[The Rabbi]

Exercising one's rights is rarely popular... If the right thing to do was governed by majority support, this country would not exist.

The government derives its power from the consent of the people,

Aren't these statements contradictory? If the people consent not to have RKBA then it isn't a right, despite what a minority want.

[jgrauman]

Aren't these statements contradictory? If the people consent not to have RKBA then it isn't a right, despite what a minority want.

when the quotes are taken out of context, yes, they are

[saintsfanbrian]

I think there is a lot of confusion as to what exactly is a "right" and what is a priviledge. A right is something that CANNOT be taken away. Rights CANNOT be limited. Unfortunately, too many people in this country are willing to have their rights limited by stupid laws that should never be on the books.

Life - I have the right to live, unless I am an unborn fetus or a murdering SOB. (I am rethinking my stance on the death penalty lately)

Liberty - the power to do as one pleases, unless that is against the law, like smoking pot (I don't, but does that mean you shouldn't be allowed to?)

Pursuit of happiness - doing things that I enjoy, again, unless there is a law against it, I can't drive 100 MPH down the highway regardless of how good of a driver I am.

Now, what is a right and what is a priviledge. I have the priviledge of paying taxes every year for a government that has grown way to large to keep getting bigger because people won't reign them in. I have the priviledge of being affraid for my life in some parts of this city regardless of what weapon I may have with me. I have the priviledge of paying the utility bills and food bills for people that are too lazy to get off of their duffs and go out and find a job, any job to bring money in to their households or who think it is easier to keep squirting out kids to get more money from the government. I have the priviledge of working 40+ hours a week and then seeing 1/4 of my paycheck go to things like health insurance and dental insurance because the doctors have to spend a ton of money on malpractice insurance because half the people in this country think the way to get rich is to sue some one else. Stop and think of where that money is going to come from.

I could go on and on, but I think you all get the point. Rights don't come with strings attached. If they are truly rights, no government has to put out a document to "recognize" them. They are yours and there is only one being that can change them.

So, again, carry open, carry concealed, carry in your car or in your front yard, I don't really care. Just carry, and in October/November elections, tell the idiots that have been sitting on their duffs getting richer and richer off of YOUR money exactly what you think of them. Send them ALL home!

[The Rabbi]

Your notion of rights is seriously flawed. You are also confusing "natural rights" with enumerated rights.

I defined earlier:

A right is something that takes positive action for the gov't to deny it. Felons lose their right to vote etc as part of the judicial process. The gov't has to demonstrate some reason to deny rights.

A privilege is something the citizen has to demonstrate a need for or a qualification for. It requires positive action on the part of the citizen to be able to do whatever it is legally.

It is clear that in this state anyway, buying and owning guns is a right but carrying them is a privilege.

[molonlabetn]

Aren't these statements contradictory? If the people consent not to have RKBA then it isn't a right, despite what a minority want.

Only if you think that the RKBA is endowed by the government. It is not. The RKBA is currently oppressed by the government upon the minority, which contradicts the 2nd Amendment... it was meant to prevent the government (by definition, the people), from infringing upon the RKBA of the rest of the people.

It is clear that in this state anyway, buying and owning guns is a right but carrying them is a privilege.

Rights are not governed by geographical location... in Alaska/Vermont, for instance, the right to keep and bear arms is not restricted. In this (and most other) states, it is... But the point is that the right does exist, this state simply does not recognize it.

A right existing, and a right not being recognized are two different things which you are trying to equate.

[saintsfanbrian]

Your notion of rights is seriously flawed. You are also confusing "natural rights" with enumerated rights.

I defined earlier:

A right is something that takes positive action for the gov't to deny it. Felons lose their right to vote etc as part of the judicial process. The gov't has to demonstrate some reason to deny rights.

A privilege is something the citizen has to demonstrate a need for or a qualification for. It requires positive action on the part of the citizen to be able to do whatever it is legally.

It is clear that in this state anyway, buying and owning guns is a right but carrying them is a privilege.

Okay, I think we have a clear misconception of what a right and what a privilege is. Personally, Life is a right. Liberty is only truly defined by our constitution therefor it is a privilege. The pursuit of happiness is a right. You cannot take away my pursuit of happiness. Everything else is a privilege.

Don't get me wrong. I support the bill of rights and the second as much as the first, but in all actuality, since the government can and frequently does take them away, they are not rights.

With life being a right, I have the right to protect it with any means necessary from being taken from me. The best defense against someone with a gun is another gun.

Voting is not a right, it is a privilege. Actually, I think it is a duty, but that is beside the point. If it was truly a right, well, 16 year olds, 12 year olds, etc would be able to do it. Driving a car is a privilege, owning a home is a privilege, having a computer is a privilege, working is a privilege. You can call them what you will, but as soon as some one has the authority to take something away from you it is no longer a right.

We can talk about enumerated vs. unalienable until the cows come home. And I am sure Rabbi will pull out all kinds of documentation and paragraphs of why I am wrong and my views are flawed, but in this republic that we have, just about everything that we consider to be "rights" are actually just glorified privileges thanks to the fat cats that we put in power.

By the way, does it sicken anyone else to know that these guys get paid $160,000 + for working less than 200 days a year? Don't give me the garbage of the fact that they come home and have to work in their home areas because I am sure they do some, but I bet they spend less time working than the average person who has but in 20 years at their job. I don't know any company that gives 165 days off a year I don't care how long you have been with them.

We as citizens are duty bound to tell these idiots that we will not sit idly by ANYMORE!!!! It is time for a revolution of sorts where we send the incumbents packing back home. Get rid of ALL of them and start anew. I am starting to think that there should be some sort of rotating system whereby ALL citizens are put in a hat like jury duty and when your time comes you pack up and go off to DC to do what your constituents want you to do. No more elections, everybody gets a turn. Then and ONLY then will we truly have a government of the people by the people for the people. Right now we have an elected aristocracy. They sit up in Washington spouting out to the serfs what they are going to let us do. How many of them have had things happen that if you or I did we would be under the jail? How many people has Ted Kennedy killed?

How many times can a man turn his head,

Pretending he just doesn't see?

[Guest BigBoostDSM]

I’m not upset about it. I just find it amusing when people talk about rights that they do not have. Rights do not come with a $150-250 price tag…. Privileges do.

There are a few of us here that moved from states that did not allow carry of any kind. You need to know exactly why you are allowed to carry and who is allowing you to carry. Your Tennessee legislators are why you can carry; it is a privilege and has nothing to do with rights. It could all change with an election.

I agreed. I just moved here from IL so I'm happy to be in a free state no matter how they allow me to carry!

[molonlabetn]

By loose definition, a 'right' is a natural, intrinsic, and undeniable state which all humans deserve equally for the entire duration of their existence.

And likewise, a 'privilege' is a revokeable, temporary benefit created by a collective, and rewarded to deserving individuals.

The only commonly held 'rights' which truly match the definition of a 'right', are, the right to exist... since that alone is granted by forces other than human; and the right to think/feel, since emotions and thoughts cannot be prevented or controlled by any human power. Thoughts, feelings, and existence are all intertwined, and in each human, independent of governance by other individuals or collectives.

The argument, then, is whether or not the right to exist supports a right to an ability to prevent non-existence. I believe that it does, moreover I have the right to believe so, and act accordingly. I also believe that the willful actions of any individual or collective to revoke the existence, thoughts, or feelings of another individual in turn surrender their own.

If people have no 'rights', then neither does the government, which is made up of people. If there is no tangible proof of rights, there is likewise no greater 'proof' for the govt's collective 'right' of authority over my existence.

[saintsfanbrian]

I agree with you, Molon. The government is "overstepping" it's bounds when it tries to limit my ability to live by enforcing laws to the contrary of my existence.

[Mark@Sea]

Rabbi,

Incorporation, as in the 14th amendment, would cause the second amendment to act as a restraint upon the several states, regardless of what the individual state constitutions might say. It would require the states and the federal govt to provide equal protection under the law, require substantive due process, and require a much higher hurdle for denying or infringing.

If SCOTUS affirms the Parker case, no matter how narrowly - and it would be damn hard for them not to, as the decision was comprehensive and well founded - then all the circuit courts are required to affirm that the second is an individual right - not that national guard nonsense. If SCOTUS overturns, then we're still in the same boat we are right now, dependent upon the state constitution.

It would, indeed, have very little effect on us here in Tennessee. Until someone sued the state over having to pay a fee for exercise of a recognised and protected constitutional right. Thus were poll taxes done away with.

That the case even reached the DC circuit court of appeals indicates to me that we are in the midst of a paradigm shift regarding gun ownership.

OC is not always the wisest choice, but I feel that making that choice as often as is prudent isn't a bad thing. Be a role model. Be a positive example. How else will negative stereotypes be countered? "Oh, heck, Ol' so-n-so carries all the time, and he's a real nice guy. Maybe gun owners aren't bloodthirsty gang bangers or wannabees after all".

"Take not counsel of your fears"

[The Rabbi]

They could (and probably will) affirm the 2nd is an individual right but will not press that on the states (many of which already have constitutions with RKBA in them). Nor will they declare unconstitutional measures "to control crime" i.e. gun control laws already in place. The decision will be very narrow and allow the most restrictive of laws as long as they do not include a total ban.

I honestly would be shocked if it turned out any differently.