KNS story shows Williams showing his true colors

[GLOCKMEISTER]

I agree with ya but Its been eons since anyone carried "arms" at the capitol. So why does it matter?

Btw... everyone thinks about the US constitution until they start screaming for the 10th and states rights... ya cant have it both ways.

[Mike.357]

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

states rights trump national rights.

[Guest SomeGuy]

With regards to the TN state Constitution, it was actually 100% legal BEFORE the Civil War. That little part Media quoted (our revised State protection of RKBA) that some of you think is such a great point, was crafted to keep dark skinned folk from having guns.

In other words "with a view to prevent crime" really means "except for blacks".

Know your history folks.

[macville]

states rights trump national rights.

Umm...no. The Constitution is there so that ALL people in the US have the same basic rights. It's about unity in the "essentials" (aka: basic rights), and what's left (what the Constitution left up to the states) we can control in our State. I noticed that in the US Constitution it doesn't say anything about making laws for carrying. It says the right to bear arms shall not be infringed. Now, I agree that it's not good to have guns (or any kind of weapons) in the hands of Felons who haven't served their entire time, mental paients, etc. However, law abiding citizens are not being permitted to use their Constitutional RIGHT to bear arms in certain places-especially places that we paid for with our tax dollars. Something is wrong there.

Think of it this way. If states rights trump the federal rights we have, then we can reimpose slavery. Why? Because suddenly we say that we have the right to ignore the constitution.

So how do we approach this? It's obvious that our gun laws are not really working and are only limiting good people from protecting themselves. However, to fully use our "rights" when it comes to carrying a handgun, we have to pay over $200 for the class and permit. If you look through the Federal or TN Constitution, how many rights cost you a single penny to use? Free speech is free. Voting is free as I don't remember paying a "fee" to register to vote like I did to drive. Heck, even if you are charged with a crime you are entitled to a free lawyer. However, when it comes to our "gun" rights as far as carrying in public. Nope, we have to pay money to exercise that right. Last time I checked, "A right is the sovereignty to act without the permission of others."

Sorry for rambling a little. But I think it's important to understand what a "right" really is. Of course, a right is only as good as the people who wish to uphold it.

Matthew

[Guest grimel]

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

Then, we shouldn't have been b!tching about not carrying in bars, grocery stores, parks, or anyplace other than our own property. EVERY argument for preventing carry in the capitol building is equally valid for not carrying any place else in the state.

[Guest grimel]

Umm...no. The Constitution is there so that ALL people in the US have the same basic rights. It's about unity in the "essentials" (aka: basic rights), and what's left (what the Constitution left up to the states) we can control in our State. I noticed that in the US Constitution it doesn't say anything about making laws for carrying. It says the right to bear arms shall not be infringed. Now, I agree that it's not good to have guns (or any kind of weapons) in the hands of Felons who haven't served their entire time, mental paients, etc. However, law abiding citizens are not being permitted to use their Constitutional RIGHT to bear arms in certain places-especially places that we paid for with our tax dollars. Something is wrong there.

Think of it this way. If states rights trump the federal rights we have, then we can reimpose slavery. Why? Because suddenly we say that we have the right to ignore the constitution.

10th am: The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

The US Constitution puts LIMITS on the federal government (even Obama understands and rues this). Until the USSC decides one of the amendments also applies to the states it doesn't (notice the 9th circ recently decided the 2nd applies to everyone in a minor miracle opinion).

[Guest HexHead]

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.

If it gets to that point, the sign won't mean squat. The last thing you'll be concerned about it whether you're carrying legally or not.

[Guest HexHead]

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.

By definition then. they'd be unlikely to get a carry permit, so it would still be illegal for them to carry there.

[Guest HexHead]

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.

He's got a point there.

[GLOCKMEISTER]

SO if all you guys totally believe the 2nd amendment is a total right to carry every/anywhere with no limitations.... then why did you all give in and obtain a State carry permit. Is that act alone not enabling the erosion of our rights? Why not file a suit in court and fight for your right? I mean really?

Not trying to pizz anyone off... I'm just asking a legit question.

I love the 2nd, and I fight for it every day but there are limitations..

[Guest slothful1]

10th am: The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

The US Constitution puts LIMITS on the federal government (even Obama understands and rues this). Until the USSC decides one of the amendments also applies to the states it doesn't (notice the 9th circ recently decided the 2nd applies to everyone in a minor miracle opinion).

Incorrect. Generally, the 14th Amendment ("...No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States...") is regarded as prohibiting states (and local governments) from infringing on *any* rights recognized in the federal Constitution.

[ukerduker]

Incorrect. Generally, the 14th Amendment ("...No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States...") is regarded as prohibiting states (and local governments) from infringing on *any* rights recognized in the federal Constitution.

I'm not fluent in legalese, but does this mean the state cannot infringe (ie, make laws) for or against the constitution? In turn, any law restricting the 2A (lets say the process to gain an HCP) is not legal?

Even if this thinking is correct, didn;t the Heller ruling from the SCOTUS also state something about the 2A having "some limits"?

[Guest MediaBuster]

Thomas Jefferson: "The only legitimate purpose of civil government is to secure or protect the freedoms and liberties that have been given to man by our Creator. Whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness."

The Point is that our State Capitol is not actively campaigning against our people, they are by & large working for us, & taking back some ground.. If you ever had a legitimate reason to storm the Capitol, I would hope you wouldn't be dumb enough to do it with your CCW & a pistol in tow..

That is why this whole discussion is stupid & neanderthal.. If there's a necessary revolution in our country, we won't be worried about laws or rules anymore.

The other thing that the "way extremists" in this thread are ignoring is that Government leaders are often targets for assassination for a number of nefarious reasons, unlike most of us. I believe they have a right to reasonable security measures, & as I stated before, our state constitution regarding Gun Rights provides for reasonable control of weapons.

Here's an example for anyone who can't get their heads wrapped around this.. Have you ever been to a gun training school where they don't allow ammo in the classroom? I know I have.. It didn't offend me. There were plenty of trustworthy individuals outside the classroom to protect us. Are they violating your rights? Or just trying to protect everyone?

[Guest MediaBuster]

SO if all you guys totally believe the 2nd amendment is a total right to carry every/anywhere with no limitations.... then why did you all give in and obtain a State carry permit. Is that act alone not enabling the erosion of our rights? Why not file a suit in court and fight for your right? I mean really?

Not trying to pizz anyone off... I'm just asking a legit question.

I love the 2nd, and I fight for it every day but there are limitations..

A good example would be that if I knew how to build a nuclear weapon in my house, I would find it reasonable for the state & federal authorities to say: Um... No.. That would be a reasonable limitation, since the implications of such a weapon in one person's hands could effect thousands of lives...

[Guest crotalus01]

Honestly, Glockmeister, if I were independantly wealthy I probably would do exactly what you suggested (I love a good fight). As I am marginally above paycheck to paycheck in the financial scheme of things, and as an arrest would cost me my job, I sullenly give in and buy my right from the state.

And yes it is an absolute part of the erosion process - a person who cant afford the cost of the class and the cost of the license is having their inalienable right of self defence trampled on.

Pretty disgusting when you put it in that perspective.

As far as limitations go, I admit I am conflicted. As a strict constutionalist I believe the constitution provides no limitations; however, common sense dictates you do not allow a mentally defective person access to weapons when they are a danger to themselves and others. I personally believe the only people who should lose their RKBA are the mentally ill (and only as long as they are ill, should they get treatment and get better the rights should be retored) and persons with more than one felony (I belive in one chance at rehabilitation and then life in prison and obviously prisoners don't need weapons).

As far as limitations on what I can own, I believe that I (or you or anyone in this country) should be allowed to own anything that the US Military can use in warfare short of a nuclear bomb (and I could make an arguement for that, but why bother?).

[Guest SomeGuy]

I am seeing guys compare private gun ownership and the carry of personal arms to nuclear weapons.

Am I talking to blatant trolls, or am I not at a forum for gun owners?

[Mike.357]

I don't think even the most liberal gun owner can make the journey from owning personal arms to possessing bombs or other destructive devices.

I have read a lot on 2A and where it came from, I never once have gotten the idea that "arms" included these things. Crew served cannon maybe, but not bombs.

[Guest MediaBuster]

I am seeing guys compare private gun ownership and the carry of personal arms to nuclear weapons.

Am I talking to blatant trolls, or am I not at a forum for gun owners?

No trolls, you just can't stand that you had your ass handed to you in a debate..

Answer the question. A nuclear weapon can fit in a suitcase.. Should we allow everyone to own & walk around with one of those too? I mean its considered an "arm", or armament in the modern sense, & a suitcase is generally considered a "personal item".. So should we allow someone to carry those on the capital? I mean just in case China attacks the capital & they happen to be there? I mean they could also where an anti-radiation suit, & carry a grenade launcher too, in case the guards at the capital turn on the people.. Come on someguy, tell me what the plan is! It seems like you know more than the rest of us.. Just let me know where you draw the line.. Do you think people should be able to drive Abrams tanks to work too?

Edited May 15, 2009 by MediaBuster

[Guest Jamie]

I don't think even the most liberal gun owner can make the journey from owning personal arms to possessing bombs or other destructive devices.

I have read a lot on 2A and where it came from, I never once have gotten the idea that "arms" included these things. Crew served cannon maybe, but not bombs.

Uh oh... I guess I'd better do something with this then.

[Guest SomeGuy]

Media,

Keep living in that fantasy of yours where non sequitors matters. I am not leaping onto your nuclear straw man either. If you think that not leaping onto your absurd thought patterns with you means I have had my ass handed to me in a debate, you obviously think like every left-winger I had to debate in college; where they thought the random and disjointed thought patterns they held were true, and failure to follow them down every straw man and non sequitor they wanted to throw in was tantamount to throwing in the towel.

You have dodged a very basic, and relevant question I posted in post #6. I am asking why you thought we had the RKBA enshrined in our constitution in the first place. If you knew the answer, you would know why we should not be restricted from carry anywhere. Pretty much everything you responded with was typical anti-gunner commentary on why it was OK to restrict our rights.

Edited May 15, 2009 by SomeGuy

[Mike.357]

aint to worried about people with sand or water filled practice bombs

I am asking why you thought we had the TKBA enshrined in our constitution in the first place.

two answers to that.

self preservation and keeping the mans foot off of our neck.

[Guest SUNTZU]

For tyranny. In all its forms.

[Guest Jamie]

aint to worried about people with sand or water filled practice bombs

Not that difficult to substitute something more unpleasant for that sand or water. And a detonator is pretty easy too.

The hard part is the plane... But then, those are perfectly legal to own.

Somebody earlier mentioned driving an M-1 tank to work... I don't figure those are really any more dangerous than any number of other heavy vehicles on the road. Besides, anybody with enough money to afford an Abrams isn't likely to be commuting every day anyway.

As for the 2nd amendment... isn't it's main purpose supposed to be to ensure a government doesn't turn tyrannical? How can the populace do that without the same or better arms than the government has? I don't know about you guys, but I wouldn't want to be the fool who tries to take on that M-1 with nothing but a pistol or "deer rifle".

Nuclear weapons, on the other hand, I don't think anybody should have. Most especially the government. The reason for that is that I'm pretty sure the damned things are much better at starting wars than preventing or even ending them.

Edited May 16, 2009 by Jamie

[Guest crotalus01]

+100 Jamie, and the point of my post. The citizery should have access to the same weapons the military has. That is the whole point of the 2A.

Mike .357 - Destructive Devices are covered under the NFA and are perfectly legal to own. Its the BATFE - the E is for Explosives. So yeah, I can make the journey from owning personal guns to owning bombs - all legal to boot.

Edited May 15, 2009 by crotalus01

[Guest Jamie]

+100 Jamie, and the point of my post. The citizery should have access to the same weapons the military has. That is the whole point of the 2A.

Mike .357 - Destructive Devices are covered under the NFA and are perfectly legal to own. Its the BATFE - the E is for Explosives. So yeah, I can make the journey from owning personal guns to owning bombs - all legal to boot.

The other side of the argument is - Alright, so you say crew-served field artillery is okay. So what are you going to fire out of 'em, solid rounds? last I checked, an HE Howitzer round is little more than a flying bomb. And isn't a tank more or less self-propelled artillery? Or maybe a rolling pillbox...

Any way you go about it, it's a matter of splitting hairs. And everybody seems to split 'em in a way that would no doubt have the founding fathers shaking their heads and wondering why they even bothered.

The bottom line for me is that either a person can be trusted to act responsibly with a weapon - any weapon - or they can't. And if they can't then they probably can't/won't act responsibly with much of anything else either, and therefore shouldn't be left run loose by themselves.

No matter how you stack it though, it still comes down to the person, not the object.