Bill Haslam at TFA meeting last night

[Worriedman]

I haven't read through this whole thread but about Haslam addressing the "Mayors Against Illegal Guns issue" with him saying he signed his name before realizing the left-wing, anti-freedom agenda, and has regretted it since wreaks of the type thing I've heard the Washington elite leftist saying "I was for the war before I was against it". I just don't trust him and those like him that make decisions politically based instead of simply having their stance on a topic and having the backbone to stand firm on their beliefs.

My suggestion is to get to know the man, let him know your thoughts and what you expect of him. Hold his feet to the fire.

I believe we have a much better chance of advancing our 2nd Amendment objectives with a man who allows that if the Legislature passes a Bill related to Gun Rights, that he is willing to sign it, than one who believes in Gun Registration.

[daddyo]

Someone please show me where the settlers had to have a permit to carry their firearms around. I don't believe it was a requirement, because "shall not be infringed" means exactly that.

Excuse me for saying so, but this is exactly why I give no credibility to gun store employees who think they are experts on the Second Amendment, or even guns for that matter.

[Punisher84]

Someone please show me where the settlers had to have a permit to carry their firearms around. I don't believe it was a requirement, because "shall not be infringed" means exactly that.

Excuse me for saying so, but this is exactly why I give no credibility to gun store employees who think they are experts on the Second Amendment, or even guns for that matter.

I know several people who are for the permit process simply because they make money off it. Training classes are big business some places and they are all profit basically. I had a co-worker once tell me "I'm against it because it will put me out of a job."

I honestly don't mind the permit in itself, but the fees and hoops are what aggravate me. I shouldn't have to do all that to carry my gun legally. Advanced training is something I do agree with and am all for, but let's face it, the permit class doesn't cover much and is pretty much a joke. We aren't sending people out of permit classes combat ready shooters.

I did find it interesting that McWherter said something to the effect that he was "shocked that his opponent would advocate putting guns in the hands of rapists and murderers." So obviously the Democratic candidate has no effing clue what he is talking about.

[DavidM]

Well kids, as I promised, here is the responce from the Haslam camp:

Mayor Haslam has said consistently throughout the campaign that he supports the current permitting law as it’s written. When asked recently if he would sign legislation passed by the General Assembly that would change the current concealed carry permit system, he acknowledged that he would if determined through the legislative process to be the best course. However, as Mayor Haslam has made clear throughout the campaign, his focus if elected will be on creating jobs, improving our schools, and managing an incredibly difficult budget situation through conservative fiscal leadership.

Sincerely,

Bill Haslam for Governor campaign

Don't know about you, but I thought that was a great job of skirting my question, which was very straightforward only regarding reciprocity. I never asked about jobs, schools, budgets, etc.. Typical rhetoric. I'll be honest. I will vote for this man, I just wish he wasn't so much of a politician!

[enfield]

I won't vote for him.

I'm tired of holding my nose and pulling the lever.

I won't vote for McWherter either, though he's apparently more honest than Haslam (he admits to being a Democrat).

I'm voting for Sam Duck for Governor and doing write-ins for US House and Tennessee Senate and House - I'll probably vote for myself.

I'm sick and tired of professional "politicians".

[Guest HexHead]

I voted for Linda Perry. I couldn't find anything about her on the internet. No personal information or anything about any of the issues. Nothing. The other alternative for me was to not vote for governor.

I made the decision right after the primary that there was NO WAY I would ever vote for someone that belonged to Mayor Bloomberg's group. Haslem says he didn't know what the group was about. Well, to me that means he's either a bold faced liar, or too stupid to be governor. There is no other alternative.

Conveniently he made the connection when he decided to run for governor and realized it was a political liability for him, and became a life member of the NRA instead. As a life member of the NRA myself, he disgusts me. I wouldn't piss on him if he was on fire, unless I was pissing gasoline.

[daddyo]

I voted for Linda Perry. I couldn't find anything about her on the internet. No personal information or anything about any of the issues. Nothing. The other alternative for me was to not vote for governor.

I made the decision right after the primary that there was NO WAY I would ever vote for someone that belonged to Mayor Bloomberg's group. Haslem says he didn't know what the group was about. Well, to me that means he's either a bold faced liar, or too stupid to be governor. There is no other alternative.

Conveniently he made the connection when he decided to run for governor and realized it was a political liability for him, and became a life member of the NRA instead. As a life member of the NRA myself, he disgusts me. I wouldn't piss on him if he was on fire, unless I was pissing gasoline.

While everyone makes mistakes, I have to agree that if Haslam will sign his name to something without knowing what it means, then he is not qualified to be dogcatcher, much less governor.

[RobertNashville]

I haven't read through this whole thread but about Haslam addressing the "Mayors Against Illegal Guns issue" with him saying he signed his name before realizing the left-wing, anti-freedom agenda, and has regretted it since...

That was not what he said or at least it wasn't what I heard on Monday night.

What he said/I heard was that he initially joined this conference based on its goal of keeping guns out of the hands of criminals which, frankly, I don't think is a bad idea and probably something most or us here would support. That was the issue he signed onto.

Then group THEN was essentially taken over by the mayors of large cities like New York, Chicago, etc. and it was then it became the group we know about now. I can sympathize with something like that happening because over the years, I've been part of groups that seemed good at the time I joined but then I later decided to un-join when their agenda/purpose changed.

Now, whether you believe Haslam's account or not is entirely up to you but I do think we need to be as accurate as possible regarding what he specifically said. I don't know him personally and Monday night was the first time I ever met the man. What I can say is that I have gotten to know a few folks whom I know to be as conservative as I am and whom I've come to trust and they believe him and support his run for governor and given our choices, I will be voting for him when I go to vote.

He may be lying to us and he may not be. However, I do believe that whether he is or isn't lying, that he will support firearm-friendly legislation that comes out of the legislature which is a LOT better situation than we would have with McWherter (McWherter impressed me as a decent guy but he simply should not be governor).

[RobertNashville]

..Excuse me for saying so, but this is exactly why I give no credibility to gun store employees who think they are experts on the Second Amendment, or even guns for that matter.

I noticed that too.

I was thinking that if someone is that opposed to people exercising their right to keep and bear arms without a permission slip from the government because they "might" not be responsible probably should not be in the business of selling firearms to anyone because of what they might do someday to someone!

[DavidM]

I noticed that too.

I was thinking that if someone is that opposed to people exercising their right to keep and bear arms without a permission slip from the government because they "might" not be responsible probably should not be in the business of selling firearms to anyone because of what they might do someday to someone!

+1!!!!!

[mikegideon]

I'm sick and tired of professional "politicians".

This is one of those rare statements that should get 100% agreement from everybody on the board. Unfortunately, professional politicians are always the ones that get seated. I can't vote for Haslam with any kind of enthusiasm, but I'm pretty enthusiastic about voting against McWherter. There's only one way to do that effectively.

[Worriedman]

This is one of those rare statements that should get 100% agreement from everybody on the board. Unfortunately, professional politicians are always the ones that get seated. I can't vote for Haslam with any kind of enthusiasm, but I'm pretty enthusiastic about voting against McWherter. There's only one way to do that effectively.

I agree with that 100%.

[Punisher84]

This is one of those rare statements that should get 100% agreement from everybody on the board. Unfortunately, professional politicians are always the ones that get seated. I can't vote for Haslam with any kind of enthusiasm, but I'm pretty enthusiastic about voting against McWherter. There's only one way to do that effectively.

Well put my friend.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[JAB]

And to those who are opposed: Please don't claim to support the right to keep and bear arms. That would be hypocritical.

Not necessarily.

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.

Notice that it does not say, "Personal arms, being necessary to self defense, the right of the people to carry a handgun shall not be infringed."

By reading works such as Madison's Federalist #46, we realize that the 2A was intended to protect the right and ability of the citizenry (no, not the National Guard, etc. but the armed citizenry as a whole - which is what 'militia' meant, to them) to be armed in case they needed to resist government tyranny. This was in response to opposition to the federal government having a standing army. The idea was that, as long as the right to keep and bear arms is protected, the whole of the people need not fear a standing army as the people would have the army outnumbered.

As such, this had nothing to do with carrying a pistol for personal protection. Of course, I believe that the Founders probably never thought that such a natural right would need protecting. As common sense and the idea that we are, ultimately, responsible for our persons have gone out the window, something has to be done to legally protect our natural right (which, to me, is even greater than a Constitutional right.) Therefore, we turn to the 2A for help. Yes, I use the 2A argument, myself, sometimes - although I am still not convinced that it really applies to carrying handguns any more than the Founders intended it to mean we could all own muskets as some antis like to say.

That people carried personal arms in the days of the Founders is undeniable. Jefferson advised his nephew (iirc) to always take his pistol with him on his walks. I don't think the Founders had a problem with carrying for self defense - they just probably never dreamed of an America where there would be any question about it.

Therefore, we make the 2A more and more about personal protection and less about 'the security of a free state'. SCOTUS - as a branch of the federal government - is more than happy to more or less go along with this idea because it takes the focus off of the real intent of the 2A - that our right to own weapons that could be used to resist the government is not to be infringed. By that, I mean that the 2A probably more properly protects fully-automatic rifles, armor piercing ammo and other 'military' weapons much more than it protects my .357 Magnum. Of course, if they can slowly ban the former then it will be no problem for them to eventually take the latter. By allowing the focus to switch to 'personal defense' rather than the defense of liberty, SCOTUS can allow 'reasonable restrictions' such as the federal government restricting ownership or outright banning certain weapons - the very weapons we would most need to carry out the intent of the 2A.

[JAB]

That was not what he said or at least it wasn't what I heard on Monday night.

What he said/I heard was that he initially joined this conference based on its goal of keeping guns out of the hands of criminals which, frankly, I don't think is a bad idea and probably something most or us here would support. That was the issue he signed onto.

Then group THEN was essentially taken over by the mayors of large cities like New York, Chicago, etc. and it was then it became the group we know about now..

I call BS. The group wasn't 'taken over' by the mayors of large cities. Instead, the group was founded by New York mayor Michael Bloomberg and Boston mayor Menino. Chicago mayor Daley is the CEO. I don't know much about Menino but Daley and Bloomberg are the poster children for anti-2A beliefs. These antis did not hi-jack this group, they FOUNDED it. It is their group. It has always been their group and, as such, would have always been an anti group. How could anyone involved in politics and with an ounce of grey matter in their skull ever think otherwise? If Haslam is trying to spin things to sound like it was a legitimate group that was later taken over by these antis, he is lying, plain and simple. As to joining the group, as I said, before, either

A. Haslam really didn't know what they were/are about and joined, anyway, because it sounded good. In that case he is an idiot.

or

B. He knew what they are/were about, is lying about it and is in truth just as anti-gun as the group he joined and whose agenda he signed on to.

[RobertNashville]

Not necessarily...

I would suggest that there were multiple reasons for the existence of the Second Amendment; as my George Washington quote below would suggest, he seemed to feel it was both a right and an obligation of a free people to have arms, ammunition and know how to use them including using them to protect themselves and the people at large from those who would seek to do them harm whether the harm was coming from a government or anyone else.

In any case, the language of the second amendment seems pretty clear to me and there is nothing in it that would necessitate or support having any sort of government permission to keep or to be armed.

I have no desire to see the HCP process be eliminated; in fact, I would like to see it strengthened and improved; but the idea that no one should be allowed to carry within the state without the state's permission flies in the face of both the wording and, I believe, the intent of the Second Amendment (at least in my layman's opinion).

There is always a risk it allowing people to actually be free - it is always possible, perhaps even inevitable that some will misuse their freedoms and their rights; that is the price we pay for liberty. But, it's a small price, in my opinion, because the other way leads to tyranny which is the direction we've been heading toward for a very long time.

We need to reverse direction!

Edited October 21, 2010 by RobertNashville

[mikegideon]

My money says A.

[Guest slothful1]

I'd vote for him over the Democratic candidate because not voting for him is defacto voting for his opponent.

I see people saying this all the time, which I have to attribute to mindless repetition, since a moment's thought will show that it is flatly untrue.

[JAB]

I would suggest that there were multiple reasons for the existence of the Second Amendment; as my George Washington quote below would suggest, he seemed to feel it was both a right and an obligation of a free people to have arms, ammunition and know how to use them including using them to protect themselves and the people at large from those who would seek to do them harm whether the harm was coming from a government or anyone else.

In any case, the language of the second amendment seems pretty clear to me and there is nothing in it that would necessitate or support having any sort of government permission to keep or to be armed.

I have no desire to see the HCP process be eliminated; in fact, I would like to see it strengthened and improved; but the idea that no one should be allowed to carry within the state without the states permission flies in the face of both the wording and the intent of the Second Amendment (at least in my layman's opinion).

There is always a risk it allowing people to actually be free - it is always possible, perhaps even inevitable that some will misuse their freedoms and their rights; that is the price we pay for liberty. But, it's a small price, in my opinion, because the other way leads to tyranny which is the direction we've been heading toward for a very long time.

We need to reverse direction!

What I am saying is that, in my (also layman's) opinion, the Founders would have no more thought of Constitutionally protecting the right of a law-abiding citizen to be armed for personal defense than they would have thought of Constitutionally protecting the right of that same citizen to breathe, to see or to hear. I believe that is the same reason they didn't Constitutionally protect the right to hunt or fish for food (or raise crops or keep livestock, etc.) - because such things are natural rights which they probably never envisioned a government infringing upon.

In other words, I believe that hunting and fishing licenses, while they might serve a legitimate purpose, violate a person's natural right to take advantage of natural food resources. Restrictions on law-abiding citizens carrying personal weapons (any personal weapon - be it a handgun, cudgel, brass knuckles, Bowie knife, dagger, switchblade or whatever) is also a violation of natural rights. As I said, before, I believe that natural rights are superior even to Constitutional rights. They are human rights, if you will, and are more important and much more fundamental than governments, countries or laws. However, I am not convinced that any of these are directly addressed by the Constitution or the Second Amendment - not because the Founders considered them unimportant but because the Founders considered them to be both common sense and unalienable. In other words, they fall under "Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" - the sovereign rights of man as mentioned in the Declaration of Independence. These are things that no government has the right to grant nor deny and that no Constitution can defend or reject.

My fear is that, by allowing the Second Amendment to be blurred into a protection for such a right, we cease to recognize it as a sovereign, inalienable right and begin to see it as a 'legal' right - something that can be taken away if the Constitution were changed and something, therefore, that can be regulated or even denied by human law. To me, it is akin to regulating the right of a law-abiding citizen - even in the positive by 'guaranteeing' it - to have a pulse. Further, I fear that as people begin to see the right to self defense as a legal right (which can, theoretically, be taken away by a change to the Constitution) they will forget the real intent of the 2A - that we have Constitutional protection to have the means for recourse, as a last resort, to resist any of our rights - whether natural or legal - being taken away.

To me, by making the 2A about self defense, we both lessen the import of a sovereign right and take the teeth out of the real purpose of the 2A. Will that stop me from referring to the 2A to help support an argument for handgun carry? No, because I am pragmatic enough to realize that the America of our Founders, as well as their noble political philosophies (with which I mostly agree) are long gone and we have to hold on to whatever rights we have left by any means necessary - even if it means blurring what the 2A really means. I am also pragmatic enough to realize that it is much more likely that I will need my handgun to defend myself and my family than that I will ever take up arms against the government. Do my actions vs. my real beliefs about self defense, sovereign rights and the Second Amendment result in a bit of hypocrisy? Well, I had might as well admit it - yes.

Edited October 21, 2010 by JAB

[RobertNashville]

I see people saying this all the time, which I have to attribute to mindless repetition, since a moment's thought will show that it is flatly untrue.

Actually, while it's not true in every state it IS true in Tennessee.

[RobertNashville]

What I am saying is that, in my (also layman's) opinion, the Founders would have no more thought of Constitutionally protecting the right of a law-abiding citizen to be armed for personal defense than they would have thought of Constitutionally protecting the right of that same citizen to breathe, to see or to hear. I believe that is the same reason they didn't Constitutionally protect the right to hunt or fish for food (or raise crops or keep livestock, etc.) - because such things are natural rights which they probably never envisioned a government infringing upon.

In other words, I believe that hunting and fishing licenses, while they might serve a legitimate purpose, violate a person's natural right to take advantage of natural food resources. Restrictions on law-abiding citizens carrying personal weapons (any personal weapon - be it a handgun, cudgel, brass knuckles, Bowie knife, dagger, switchblade or whatever) is also a violation of natural rights. As I said, before, I believe that natural rights are superior even to Constitutional rights. They are human rights, if you will, and are more important and much more fundamental than governments, countries or laws. However, I am not convinced that any of these are directly addressed by the Constitution or the Second Amendment - not because the Founders considered them unimportant but because the Founders considered them to be both common sense and unalienable. In other words, they fall under "Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" - the sovereign rights of man that no government has the right to grant nor deny and that no Constitution can defend or reject.

My fear is that, by allowing the Second Amendment to be blurred into a protection for such a right, we cease to recognize it as a sovereign, inalienable right and begin to see it as a 'legal' right - something that can be taken away if the Constitution were changed and something, therefore, that can be regulated or even denied by human law. To me, it is akin to regulating the right of a law-abiding citizen - even in the positive by 'guaranteeing' it - to have a pulse. Further, I fear that as people begin to see the right to self defense as a legal right (which can, theoretically, be taken away by a change to the Constitution) they will forget the real intent of the 2A - that we have Constitutional protection to have the means for recourse, as a last resort, to resist any of our rights - whether natural or legal - being taken away.

To me, by making the 2A about self defense, we both lessen the import of a sovereign right and take the teeth out of the real purpose of the 2A. Will that stop me from referring to the 2A to help support an argument for handgun carry? No, because I am pragmatic enough to realize that the America of our Founders, as well as their noble political philosophies (with which I mostly agree) are long gone and we have to hold on to whatever rights we have left by any means necessary - even if it means blurring what the 2A really means. I am also pragmatic enough to realize that it is much more likely that I will need my handgun to defend myself and my family than that I will ever take up arms against the government. Do my actions vs. my real beliefs about self defense, sovereign rights and the Second Amendment result in a bit of hypocrisy? Well, I had might as well admit it - yes.

I think we pretty much have the same opinion, then...just different ways of getting there.

[Guest Major Pain]

Once again I will hold my nose and vote for the lesser of two evils.--MP

[Chucktshoes]

I see people saying this all the time, which I have to attribute to mindless repetition, since a moment's thought will show that it is flatly untrue.

I really despise this line. This is the thought process that keeps us locked into the two party sham that has bankrupted our nations coffers and much more tragically, its spirit.

Always votefor a candidate, never against a candidate.

[gregintenn]

I noticed the NRA refused to endorse either of these a$$bags.

[RobertNashville]

I noticed the NRA refused to endorse either of these a$$bags.

Well..the NRA (for a time anyway) DID endorse Harry Reid so given that recent history, I would say that who the NRA does or does not endorse is not really meaningful!