KNS story shows Williams showing his true colors

[macville]

I know there has been a lot of talk here recently about Williams showing that he is on our side. However, this article in today's Knox News Sentinal shows that he's not as gun friendly as he's led us to recently believe: Legislators discuss guns in Capitol : Local News : Knoxville News Sentinel

Let him know that if permit holders can not be trusted at the Capitol then they shouldn't be trusted any were. Therefore, they should be allowed to carry there!

Matthew

[Mike.357]

I think he has shown he is a huge supporter of gun owners.

Just because he feels no guns are needed in the capital does not make him an enenmy to us. He flatly pointed out that there is plenty of armed security there already.

Plain and simple, he has repeatedly allowed gun legislation to come to a vote in this session.

I feel he has been showing his true colors.

[GLOCKMEISTER]

"I've supported all the gun bills," Williams said. "But I don't think I could support that, because I would have been shot on Jan. 13."

hey.... he screwed the Republican party, but as a citizen and gunowner I couldnt be more pleased. I could care less if we carry at the capitol, its not that far up the gun agenda for me.

[Trekbike]

I could care less if we carry at the capitol, its not that far up the gun agenda for me.

Ditto

[Guest MediaBuster]

I know there has been a lot of talk here recently about Williams showing that he is on our side. However, this article in today's Knox News Sentinal shows that he's not as gun friendly as he's led us to recently believe: Legislators discuss guns in Capitol : Local News : Knoxville News Sentinel

Let him know that if permit holders can not be trusted at the Capitol then they shouldn't be trusted any were. Therefore, they should be allowed to carry there!

Matthew

Matthew, while I appreciate & share your enthusiasm for the second amendment, even I (the one who argued ferociously against any Restaurant Carry curfew or restrictions) think there are some valid reasons why we can't let just anyone walk around our Government leaders without a security clearance, & having a deadly weapon on them.. It's just common sense.. There are certainly those out there who would like to silence some of our leaders by force. So, in the interest of maintaining a society that is lawful & not anarchist, I think its reasonable to support maintaining some level of security around our leaders.

[Guest SomeGuy]

Media,

think there are some valid reasons why we can't let just anyone walk around our Government leaders without a security clearance, & having a deadly weapon on them.. It's just common sense.. There are certainly those out there who would like to silence some of our leaders by force.

Simple question, do you even know why the 2nd Amendment was crafted in the first place?

If you actually do, and for the right reasons, come read what you posted and tell me how they are compatible.

[Rightwinger]

Respond to him and state you understand his logic so the next bill before the State houses should read "So that the people are able to receive the same level of access to security that we, the leaders of this state do, it should be the law of the State of Tennessee that anywhere security is NOT on duty for the specific protection of any individual who is legally able to possess and carry a firearm, that person's rights shall not be infringed".

Simply put, if having a bunch of security around PREVENTS us from carrying then we should be able to carry anywhere there isn't any! Period. He's good to go then and so are we.

[E4 No More]

Respond to him and state you understand his logic so the next bill before the State houses should read "So that the people are able to receive the same level of access to security that we, the leaders of this state do, it should be the law of the State of Tennessee that anywhere security is NOT on duty for the specific protection of any individual who is legally able to possess and carry a firearm, that person's rights shall not be infringed".

Simply put, if having a bunch of security around PREVENTS us from carrying then we should be able to carry anywhere there isn't any! Period. He's good to go then and so are we.

Very good point. Make his words bite him in the butt!

[Guest sstouder]

Respond to him and state you understand his logic so the next bill before the State houses should read "So that the people are able to receive the same level of access to security that we, the leaders of this state do, it should be the law of the State of Tennessee that anywhere security is NOT on duty for the specific protection of any individual who is legally able to possess and carry a firearm, that person's rights shall not be infringed".

Simply put, if having a bunch of security around PREVENTS us from carrying then we should be able to carry anywhere there isn't any! Period. He's good to go then and so are we.

BRILLANT!

[Guest bkelm18]

Media,

Simple question, do you even know why the 2nd Amendment was crafted in the first place?

If you actually do, and for the right reasons, come read what you posted and tell me how they are compatible.

I fail to see your point. It's fairly simple, with the amount of people who are of the criminal mindset in this country, it would be quite ludicrous to allow them near our leaders with firearms. The second amendment protects our right to keep the government in check, by force if necessary, not to pop a cap in one of our leaders because they voted against cotton candy at the dentist's office.

[GLOCKMEISTER]

we can keep them in check just fine protesting in the streets, we dont have to be in the building armed to do it.... IMHO.

[Guest SomeGuy]

It's fairly simple, with the amount of people who are of the criminal mindset in this country, it would be quite ludicrous to allow them near our leaders with firearms.

So, it is OK to infringe on a citizens rights, because somewhere, a criminal might attack an elected official?

I take it that if Obama were to visit your town, you would not be opposed to the SS paying you a visit, and maybe confiscating your carry permit for the duration of his stay, just because we cannot have people going armed in public, simply due to the pervasive criminal mindset?

[Guest MediaBuster]

Media,

Simple question, do you even know why the 2nd Amendment was crafted in the first place?

If you actually do, and for the right reasons, come read what you posted and tell me how they are compatible.

Hmm.. Do I sense a hint of elitist sarcasm in this question?

Anyway, I think I'll answer this one like Jesus would when he knows the questioner's motives are askew..

If you get pulled over by a Police officer while you have a pistol on your hip, do you tell him you won't surrender it until after he's done his business based on your Second Amendment rights?

Or would you do the right thing & ensure the safety of both of you until the stop is concluded & all your paperwork checks out?

Listen Rambo, we're not in the middle of an armed Revolution.. There's no need to have a pistol at the Capitol building..

If there was an armed revolution in our country, I would hope you'd leave the Pea shooters at home & bring something worthwhile. As it stands, we aren't quiet there yet..

Obama visiting, to people coming into your house to confiscate your CCW is a bit of a stretch.. When you have a case of that even close to happening, then come talk about it. You're making yourself sound a little nutty here.

Edited May 12, 2009 by MediaBuster

[Guest MediaBuster]

Respond to him and state you understand his logic so the next bill before the State houses should read "So that the people are able to receive the same level of access to security that we, the leaders of this state do, it should be the law of the State of Tennessee that anywhere security is NOT on duty for the specific protection of any individual who is legally able to possess and carry a firearm, that person's rights shall not be infringed".

Simply put, if having a bunch of security around PREVENTS us from carrying then we should be able to carry anywhere there isn't any! Period. He's good to go then and so are we.

I agree! I always joke with the cops if I get pulled over, that while they have my gun, they have to make sure I don't get shot.. Incidentally, no officers out of like three traffic stops has even asked me to surrender my weapon..

There are always going to be Nazi like public officials, but lets not forget the majority of our Government officials are trying to do the right thing, otherwise our Restaurant Carry Bill would have never gotten this far.

[GLOCKMEISTER]

So some things you have to have common sense about.

I for one have been to the capital and protested, yes "AX the Tax" baby...

I also remember when Ronald Reagan was shot... I dont want nut jobs like that to have complete access to our elected officials, even if it means me giving up some of my rights to insure their security. Now Im not calling permit holders nut jobs, but those whom got arrested in the Knoxville park last week would qualify. Just because you have a permit doesnt mean your top secret clearenced or 100% sane.

In short I dont expect to sleep in the Governors bed, even though my tax dollars paid for it. I also don't need to have complete access to the nuclear football just because I'm a citizen of the United States. So I dont mind not arrying to the capitol. If needed I'll be outside with...

Edited May 12, 2009 by GLOCKMEISTER

[Guest crotalus01]

Hmmm. Slippery slope there Glockmeister. IIRC Hinkley was not a permit holder.

The 2A does not say the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed unless you are at the Capitol Building.

I believe even convicted felons should have their 2A rights restored once they have served their time. Of course, I also believe the death penalty is one of the most underused punishments available to the Justice System.

[Guest slothful1]

I also remember when Ronald Reagan was shot... I dont want nut jobs like that to have complete access to our elected officials, even if it means me giving up some of my rights to insure their security.

Yeah... because if there's one thing homicidal nutjobs are unwilling to do, it's break the law.

[macville]

The thing is, if someone wants to shoot an official, why would they care what the law is? At least if HCP holders are allowed in with their weapon they could help stop someone who sneaked a gun in. Last time I was there I didn't see many LEO's walking around BTW. Not to mention, why would you bother trying to hunt down some one to kill in the capitol? Why not just go to their house and shoot them there? (not that I am suggesting any one do this, but that would make far more sense if you are wanting to kill some one.) The issue here, and with all the laws we are trying to push forward, is that the 2d amendment says, "shall not be infringed." I'm sorry, but a restriction like this is infringing. If you can't trust me in the capitol, then logic says you can't trust me any where. Think of it this way, if you can't trust me to drive in the city, then why can you trust me to drive in the country?

Matthew

[Guest grimel]

Matthew, while I appreciate & share your enthusiasm for the second amendment, even I (the one who argued ferociously against any Restaurant Carry curfew or restrictions) think there are some valid reasons why we can't let just anyone walk around our Government leaders without a security clearance, & having a deadly weapon on them.. It's just common sense.. There are certainly those out there who would like to silence some of our leaders by force. So, in the interest of maintaining a society that is lawful & not anarchist, I think its reasonable to support maintaining some level of security around our leaders.

Really? Hmm, "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."

Yup, those old dead white guys who started this little show sure seemed to agree. Half the problem now is the ba$tards think they are above the law.

[Guest grimel]

Listen Rambo, we're not in the middle of an armed Revolution.. There's no need to have a pistol at the Capitol building.

No valid reason NOT to have a pistol at the Capitol building. I have to GET to the Capitol building. I have to get home from the Capitol building. Just another "common sense" gun control law that makes no sense. I'm about 99% sure the criminals and nutjobs will pay just about as much attention to this law as they do the don't rob, steal, murder, or deal drugs laws.

[Mike.357]

so why am I reading a bunch of guys go off on this, how about going off on not being able to carry in court houses, post offices and other federal buildings?

Ken Williams has been a friend to us, don't skew it over guns in the capital building.

Maybe you would all prefer Naifeh back in charge.

And FWIW there is no right to bear arms in TN. You have to pay for that priviledge, last I checked rights don't cost anything monetary.

[GLOCKMEISTER]

some cant be happy with anything...

[Guest MediaBuster]

Really? Hmm, "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."

Yup, those old dead white guys who started this little show sure seemed to agree. Half the problem now is the ba$tards think they are above the law.

Are you suggesting that we are in a place where we need to storm the Capitol with weapons? I should hope not.. You are confusing the issues. There is NOT AN ARMED REVOLUTION GOING ON. At least not that I know of. By not letting you have arms in standing next to elected officials, we are actually utilizing the provision of the state's constitution that says:

"That the citizens of this State have a right to keep and to bear arms for their common defense; but the Legislature shall have power, by law, to regulate the wearing of arms with a view to prevent crime." - Tennessee Constitution, Article I - Declaration of Rights, Section 26

What we are talking about here is a concept that was approved when the constitution was ratified.. That concept was that common sense has a place in law. Waaaay back before you were even a twinkle in your father's eye, they decided that the constitution would only work with a Godly & moral citizenry. But I digress.. The common sense bottom line is that We don't want people near our leaders who may be able to shoot them over some radical agenda.. This is just common sense that even a dog would probably have, because Dogs don't get blinded with personal agendas & selfishness.. The founders in the state of Tennessee obviously saw this as reasonable, & so did the Federalists when they accepted Tennessee's own constitution.

Edited May 13, 2009 by MediaBuster

[Punisher84]

I gotta say Mike, Glock, and Media are making more valid points. I, honestly, couldn't care less about carrying at the capital.

I'm not big on settling for other people to protect me by any means, but there are cases where even police officers can't carry their weapons.

I'm as Pro-2A as the next guy, I'm a "clean-bill type" as well, but I just don't see this as a major lobbying issue. Get me restaurant, park, post office, carry, let me own whatever type of firearm I want. Then maybe we can work on this.

I wonder out of all the people arguing how many of us have ever even been to the capital and walked near an elected official??

[Guest crotalus01]

All good points, and I have never been to the Capitol and don't plan to. I am not unhappy with the bills that are passing Glockmeister - just pointing out that your post falls in the slippery slope area, meaning its small steps from no guns at the capitol to no guns period. Thats the way the liberals work, they erode our rights in small steps starting with ones that seem "common sense" on the surface but lead to more and more restrictions.

I respect the TN constitution but I respect the US constitution MORE, and the US Constitution says Shall Not Be Infringed.

I understand why there is a no guns policy in certain .gov locations, but my understanding it doesn't make it constitutional.