Guns in bars can be like lighted matches in gasoline

[Guest johnnyo]

We read and hear a lot of talk about key amendments to the Constitution of the United States. Unfortunately, too many of us have more than a vague memory of the content of the two short and most important amendments:

"Amendment I

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press, or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Amendment II

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."

Obviously, they assure us freedom of religion, speech, press, assembly and the right to bear arms.

The writing of laws concerning these freedoms and their interpretation and application occupy a large segment of the population today: the legal profession, members of the U.S. Congress, state legislatures, local governments, and local, state and federal courts.

Unfortunately, politics and personal agendas get involved and far too often legislators with a special interest weave wording into bills which become law that are not in the best interest of the general public.

Unless we lived in an area away from the rest of the world, we could not have total freedom. Some regulation of our most precious freedoms is necessary in a civilized society.

We appreciate the freedom of press, but we know quite well it is not - and should not - be totally free. We have to be responsible for what we print, we can't just print anything because it could be unfairly harmful.

While we have freedom of speech, to use an old example, that does not give us the freedom to falsely shout "fire" in a crowded theater. If we did we could be punished.

Unfortunately, too many of us apparently take the freedom of religion to be "freedom from religion." However, that is our guaranteed right.

We also have the right of peaceful assembly.

We fully support the right for individuals with permits to bear arms. Unfortunately, a few legal permits are issued based on false information in their applications. That is the reason we believe the application information should be a public record. There is too much room for inaccurate information.

We think also think there should be restrictions on where individuals other than those in law enforcement can carry weapons. That includes both bars and parks.

Even with trained weapons handlers it is not smart to take weapons into bars. Almost daily, we read of an occurrence some place in the nation when a gun is snatched from a legal carrier and used to kill someone. Guns in bars could be like lighted matches in gasoline.

We commend Gov. Bredesen on vetoing that bill. Obviously, most of the members of law enforcement agencies in the state support his action.

Unfortunately, it is quite likely there are enough votes in the legislature to overturn his veto.

If you think guns in bars are not the smartest thing to do, give your legislators a call:

Senator Doug Overbey 1 (615) 741-0981.

Rep. Joe McCord 1 (615) 741-5481.

Rep. Bob Ramsey 1 (615) 741-3560.

Rep. Jimmy Matlock 1 (615) 741-3736.

scorce: Guns in bars can be like lighted matches in gasoline

[Guest johnnyo]

Looks like all the media outlets across the state are getting together to try and stop the overturned veto. screw the media.

If you support the 2nd ammendment give your legislators a call and let them know.

Senator Doug Overbey 1 (615) 741-0981.

Rep. Joe McCord 1 (615) 741-5481.

Rep. Bob Ramsey 1 (615) 741-3560.

[Guest cjames38464]

Starteed calling at 8am tis morning...

[Guest pws_smokeyjones]

I used to think that Joe McCord was a good guy, but I have lost a lot of respect for him throughout this session. Luckily none of those folks are my reps. I have emailed mine and am waiting on a response, but I suspect I know what they are going to say since they have been for the legislation the whole time.

[Punisher84]

E-mailed Kelsey and Stanley.

[Guest pws_smokeyjones]

I just sent Joe McCord this email;

Rep. McCord

After reading the article in on thedailytimes.com, I have a question for you.

In the article, you say "Almost daily, we read of an occurrence some place in the nation when a gun is snatched from a legal carrier and used to kill someone."

I find this hard to believe and I would appreciate it if you could provide some specific examples of this happening.

thanks

[Guest m&pc9]

Almost daily, we read of an occurrence some place in the nation when a gun is snatched from a legal carrier and used to kill someone.

WTF? Is this crap for real. I hate the media.

[guyandarifle]

The one thing that I'd lob at the detractors trying to work this angle would be a very finite concession to the idea that a place where alcohol is served* can statistically carry a slightly greater risk of just "running" into trouble. That would be that restaraunt carry be limited to concealed carry only. To the best of my knowledge this is not something specified in the bill. People don't get drunk and start grabbing people's guns if they don't know they have them.

*Pet peeve but this is NOT a "carry in a bar" bill, it's a "where alcohol is served" bill. To try comparing the former to the latter is like trying to stand Hillary Clinton and Cindy Crawford together unclad and describe them as "naked women". Going strapped into a club and ducking into Applebee's for dinner with the family without having to disarm yourself are very much different things.

[Guest pws_smokeyjones]

guyandarifle - you are preaching to the choir. That level of detail and factual information is completely beyond the scope of the media's attention span at this point. From here on out they will simply try to maintain an inflated sense of paranoia and sensationalism and that can only be done by ignoring facts and reality.

[RinTN]

... If you think guns in bars are not the smartest thing to do, give your legislators a call:

Senator Doug Overbey 1 (615) 741-0981.

Rep. Joe McCord 1 (615) 741-5481.

Rep. Bob Ramsey 1 (615) 741-3560.

Rep. Jimmy Matlock 1 (615) 741-3736.

scorce: Guns in bars can be like lighted matches in gasoline

I'm confused - though that may be the intent. Is this an OpEd by the paper, that just happens to list contact information? Or, is this something written/endorsed by the gentlemen listed?

[Guest pws_smokeyjones]

My understanding was that it was something written/endorsed by those listed. If I am wrong, then so be it, but their names are still attached to total propaganda in my opinion and they should answer for it.

[Guest pws_smokeyjones]

RinTN - it appears you are correct. Those reps didn't write the article. Whoever did just attached their names at the bottom. I was wrong to single out Joe McCord the way I did and I sent him an email stating so.

[Guest benchpresspower]

So what will the media latch onto next after they fail at stopping the override? "Oh my god, people shouldn't take their guns to parks, they might shoot a goose!" Sounds like something Naifeh would say ya think?

[Guest CrazyLincoln]

What's wrong in this picture, lol?

Let's look at the argument here....

It is illegal to defame someone's character. Lie under oath, or cause disorder, but there are no restrictions on how, what, when, or what words you use. You are only prosecuted after being found guilty committing a crime by causing harm.

So this is justification to tell you when, how, where, and what kind of arms you can bear causing you to be guilty of a crime before harm has been done on the assumption of danger when the statistical chance of you being murdered or negligently killed by a permit holder is less likey than winning at roulette or even getting shot by a non-permit holding criminal.

Yup, that argument holds about as much water as my collander.

When will people realize we have a justice system and not a "protection" form of government? It is good for the government to prevent crime within the law, but it is not the job of government to prevent crime with the law. Especially when the law violates a right explicitly defined in the constitution. Justice is a reactive system, not a proactive one. If you have a problem with that, either get some self reliance or go to one of the many countries where they will gladly take your rights for "your protection". The purpose of law is to maintain order by punishing those who disrupt order, not those who might disrupt it.

</rant>

[Guest SPD223]

What's wrong in this picture, lol?

Let's look at the argument here....

It is illegal to defame someone's character. Lie under oath, or cause disorder, but there are no restrictions on how, what, when, or what words you use. You are only prosecuted after being found guilty committing a crime by causing harm.

So this is justification to tell you when, how, where, and what kind of arms you can bear causing you to be guilty of a crime before harm has been done on the assumption of danger when the statistical chance of you being murdered or negligently killed by a permit holder is less likey than winning at roulette or even getting shot by a non-permit holding criminal.

Yup, that argument holds about as much water as my collander.

When will people realize we have a justice system and not a "protection" form of government? It is good for the government to prevent crime within the law, but it is not the job of government to prevent crime with the law. Especially when the law violates a right explicitly defined in the constitution. Justice is a reactive system, not a proactive one. If you have a problem with that, either get some self reliance or go to one of the many countries where they will gladly take your rights for "your protection". The purpose of law is to maintain order by punishing those who disrupt order, not those who might disrupt it.

</rant>

That is the best comment I have read in a long time. Totally agree..