Tennessean: Private sale; also, anyone have contact with Bill Goodman re: gun show?

[Mykltn]

You're not looking very hard. There are countless examples. I'd give you a wikipedia link but it is currently blacked out because an infringement on free speech known as SOPA is up for debate.

Sopa is a misguided attempt to prevend internet piracy. It may very well be a form of censorship. It is not however an arguement of the merits of free speech. Please allow me to clarify my ealier comment. I should have said "The Media" instead of "No One". I assumed since I directed these comments to Brian (he is part of the media) that it would be understood to mean the media. Sorry for any confusion.

Yep, cause nothing happened to those

. Pretty sure that right is under attack as well.

Now please tell me you are not using the Occupy Protesters as an example of the right to peacably assemble. I would hope you do not seriously believe that taking over property that is privately owned, refusing to vacate when ordered and trashing it in an attempt to get the government to take money away from those that have earned it and give it to those who have not is a good example of First Amendment rights.

Don't go blindly into the night imagining that only one right right is crucial. If you don't stand up for the rest of your rights, besides the 2nd, you'll only be left with one right,

What? Did you not read or understand the post? Did I somehow imply that the only right you should ever be concerned with is the right to keep and bear arms? I realize I didn't cover the other 25 amendments in as much detail as I did the first two, but this is after all a thread about the second amendment and the issues surrounding it.

[BigK]

Definitely not "blood on the streets." I meant that there appears to be a national dialogue waiting to happen on the extent of exactly what our Second Amendment rights are and what the practical reality is of those rights.

I believe the recent Supreme Court rulings on 2A have concreted that meaning for the most part. Dialogue is always welcome, however, given both sides of the argument are heard. I'm really proud of the SCOTUS for it's rulings, which fly in the face of the current administration's wishes and take the opposite side that the mainstream media seems to have.

I've got to hand it you personally, Brian, for your professionalism and demeanor. Some of us (especially me) have been pretty critical and pessimistic in this thread about your motives on this subject. I hope you understand it's not personal. It's just that this is a very dear subject to us and we are very protective of it.

You've been more fair than any other member of the media on this subject and I do honestly appreciate that. It's just hard to see the hatchet job most of the media does on this subject and not take an adversarial role in the argument.

[Oh Shoot]

...The issues surrounding the 2A are really quite simple. There are those who believe they have a pre-existing right to defend one’s self, family and property from those who wish to take or do harm. They also believe they have the right to defend themselves from a government that would wish to do the same. ...

Actually (and and certainly not alone) disagree that the 2nd had anything to do with normal self defense, hunting, sport shooting or the like. It is only there so that the populace can band together collectively to overthrow enemies from without or tyranny from within. Fortunately it has also (sort of) guaranteed that (some) individuals may own (some types) of firearms (under certain conditions) and that (some, under certain conditions) may also bear them.

But the founders didn't put that in there so you can defend yourself against a robber, or shoot deer, or go to a turkey shoot for prizes, or plink in your back yard. They didn't conceive of the future need for such a declaration for those purposes, anymore than they would have made an amendment protecting hoes, axes, knives, or fishing poles.

(wish they had also mentioned knives, though).

- OS

Edited January 18, 2012 by OhShoot

[TMF]

Originally Posted by brianhaas

Well, you guys gotta understand that you guys are really in the know on Second Amendment issues. The general public is not. That's where I come in to (hopefully) help them understand what's on the way or already here.

So I must have been mistaken for the last 46 years. I thought I was part of the "general public". Is there something about owning a firearm that precludes me from being a member of the "General public"? Because I choose to exercise my 2A rights, does that give me some special insight into the constitution that is not available to the average Joe? The "general public", I feel, is well aware of the 2A and what it represents. There is really no magic in its language, or mystery in its meaning.

I wouldn't look too much into that statement or play the word game on his comments; you know what he means. There is a reason he comes to TGO for opinions versus going to an internet site that discusses interior decorating. I appreciate any journalist that ensures to get as many relevant facts for their story as possible from as many different angles as possible. Unfortunately that is not the norm anymore and the reason I decided long ago (despite childhood aspirations) not to become a journalist... and the pay sucks.

[Lumber_Jack]

I wouldn't look too much into that statement or play the word game on his comments; you know what he means. There is a reason he comes to TGO for opinions versus going to an internet site that discusses interior decorating. I appreciate any journalist that ensures to get as many relevant facts for their story as possible from as many different angles as possible. Unfortunately that is not the norm anymore and the reason I decided long ago (despite childhood aspirations) not to become a journalist... and the pay sucks.

I agree!

Brian has always stood by his word and presented the story from both sides. Just because you don't like the other side doesnt mean he lied to us. I appreciate Brian coming here to ask opinions of true gun enthusiasts as opposed to someone who claims to have seen a gun once.

Sent from my Mom's basement

[DaveTN]

So I must have been mistaken for the last 46 years. I thought I was part of the "general public". Is there something about owning a firearm that precludes me from being a member of the "General public"? Because I choose to exercise my 2A rights, does that give me some special insight into the constitution that is not available to the average Joe? The "general public", I feel, is well aware of the 2A and what it represents. There is really no magic in its language, or mystery in its meaning.

The issues surrounding the 2A are really quite simple. There are those who believe they have a pre-existing right to defend one’s self, family and property from those who wish to take or do harm. They also believe they have the right to defend themselves from a government that would wish to do the same.

And then there are those who, despite all the facts and laws regarding 2A, believe no one should have the power to protect themselves. No one but the government and police should have the power to own arms. And that those who do own guns are a threat to these beliefs.

I find it interesting that no one argues against the merits of the first amendment. I see no one challenging the right of the people to free speech, or freedom of religion. Or even of the right to peaceable assemble and petition the government for a re-dress of grievance. These all seem like very common sense rights that every person should be allowed to exercise. But the Second Amendment, the very one that enables us to exercise those first amendment rights. Well, that’s considered an open topic for public debate.

Take away the right of the people to defend themselves and you take away their rights to all the other amendments. Ask the German Jews of 1938, or the Turkish Armenians of 1915. See how those "Responsible Gun Laws" turned out for them.

But that’s just my two cents.

If you are part of the “General Public†you don’t have a right to bear arms in Tennessee; it is a crime.

The distinction is made because as HCP holders we are part of a “Special Groupâ€. We are less that 5% of the state population that have bought the privilege of bearing arms.

You can claim anything, but the reality is that the states have taken control of when and where you will carry as States Rights, and the Supreme Court of the United States has upheld that. You have a right to keep arms, but that right stops at your property line.

Sorry, but I have to bring this up every time I see someone start claiming rights that they truly do not have. Four states recognize the right to bear arms and Tennessee is not one of them. So, if you are part of the “General Public†it is a crime for you to carry a loaded gun off your property. If you have an HCP you are part of our “Special Group†that purchased a privilege and does not include the general public.

There is a history lesson here for everyone. The SCOTUS separated “Keep†and “Bearâ€. Why? Because they had no other logical choice. 75 years after the Constitution was signed we fought a war over “States Rightsâ€. Regardless of the outcome it was the bloodiest war our country has ever been in and clearly showed that “States Rights†was an issue worth going to war over. In the current decisions the SCOTUS had to “Split the Babyâ€. They gave you a warm fuzzy feeling by saying the 2^nd is an individual right to ownership, but make it clear that when and where you “Bear Arms†is controlled by the state. Both sides of the issue claim victory.

The 2^nd amendment will have to be validated one state at a time. Right now the score is:

FOR: 4

AGAINST: 46

Tennessee is on the wrong side.

[Fourtyfive]

When is this "story" going to press ?

[daddyo]

But the founders didn't put that in there so you can defend yourself against a robber, or shoot deer, or go to a turkey shoot for prizes, or plink in your back yard. They didn't conceive of the future need for such a declaration for those purposes, anymore than they would have made an amendment protecting hoes, axes, knives, or fishing poles.

(wish they had also mentioned knives, though).

- OS

There's no way you could possibly know that.

[Mykltn]

If you are part of the “General Public” you don’t have a right to bear arms in Tennessee; it is a crime.

The distinction is made because as HCP holders we are part of a “Special Group”. We are less that 5% of the state population that have bought the privilege of bearing arms.

You can claim anything, but the reality is that the states have taken control of when and where you will carry as States Rights, and the Supreme Court of the United States has upheld that. You have a right to keep arms, but that right stops at your property line.

Sorry, but I have to bring this up every time I see someone start claiming rights that they truly do not have. Four states recognize the right to bear arms and Tennessee is not one of them. So, if you are part of the “General Public” it is a crime for you to carry a loaded gun off your property. If you have an HCP you are part of our “Special Group” that purchased a privilege and does not include the general public.

There is a history lesson here for everyone. The SCOTUS separated “Keep” and “Bear”. Why? Because they had no other logical choice. 75 years after the Constitution was signed we fought a war over “States Rights”. Regardless of the outcome it was the bloodiest war our country has ever been in and clearly showed that “States Rights” was an issue worth going to war over. In the current decisions the SCOTUS had to “Split the Baby”. They gave you a warm fuzzy feeling by saying the 2^nd is an individual right to ownership, but make it clear that when and where you “Bear Arms” is controlled by the state. Both sides of the issue claim victory.

The 2^nd amendment will have to be validated one state at a time. Right now the score is:

FOR: 4

AGAINST: 46

Tennessee is on the wrong side.

So I am special and not part of the "general public" because I have an HCP? HMMM? I wonder what other things might exclude me or make me special. I'm latino, does that take me out of the "general public"? How about being a military vet? Could you please provide me a list of other things I have done that may also remove me from being part of the "general public"?

I think you may have missed the point to the post dude. You might want to read it again.

BTW, a 2008 USA Today/Gallup poll found that 73% of americans believe the second amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear arms. A second Gallup poll in 2011 found similar results. This would seem to support my comment that "The "general public", I feel, is well aware of the 2A and what it represents". And since my beliefs are in line with that 73%, I feel I am a part of that "General Public".

But please feel free to send me that list, I do enjoy being told when I am special.

[Mykltn]

Actually (and and certainly not alone) disagree that the 2nd had anything to do with normal self defense, hunting, sport shooting or the like. It is only there so that the populace can band together collectively to overthrow enemies from without or tyranny from within. Fortunately it has also (sort of) guaranteed that (some) individuals may own (some types) of firearms (under certain conditions) and that (some, under certain conditions) may also bear them.

But the founders didn't put that in there so you can defend yourself against a robber, or shoot deer, or go to a turkey shoot for prizes, or plink in your back yard. They didn't conceive of the future need for such a declaration for those purposes, anymore than they would have made an amendment protecting hoes, axes, knives, or fishing poles.

(wish they had also mentioned knives, though).

- OS

Please read the post as I wrote it. No where in my post did I say the second amendment gave you the right to normal self defense, or the right to hunt, or plink in the back yard.

I said

"The issues surrounding the 2A are really quite simple. There are those who believe they have a PRE-EXISTING right to defend one’s self, family and property from those who wish to take or do harm. They also believe they have the right to defend themselves from a government that would wish to do the same.

And then there are those who, despite all the facts and laws regarding 2A, believe no one should have the power to protect themselves. No one but the government and police should have the power to own arms. And that those who do own guns are a threat to these beliefs".

This was in response to Brian's comment about the general public not understanding the issues surrounding the second amendment.

So please Sir, if you are going to debate my words, please ensure they are MY WORDS.

[mikegideon]

Lighten up, Francis.

[Fivestring63]

I understand where you're coming from Brian but there really is no "issue" to learn about.

Private individuals may legally sell guns to one another whether it be at a gun show or Wal-Mart parking lot. There are no licensed dealers involved so a background check is not required by federal law.

There are many in this country with the mistaken assumption that this is some type of "loophole" in the system. One could argue semantics all day on whether that is the case or not but the fact does exist you can buy a gun without going through a dealer and in this state pay a fee to run a background check.

Other than inciting hysterics of the often emotional and completely uneducated posters on the Tennessean website I see no purpose in furthering misunderstanding on gun, and property, rights in this country and more importantly this state.

You will learn that it is indeed possible to buy guns without going through a dealer. Many dealers hate that because they are not getting $20-$50 to run you through the system.

Your articles have mostly been fairly unbiased. I hope that continues.

Hey Brian , What Garufa said.

OK So you want to do a story about what some people call a "gun show loophole" that has absolutely nothing to do with gun shows.

You are going to further spread this misinformation by doing interviews at a gun show.

[Smith]

There's no way I could get either published, you're correct. Not because of any sort of bias, but because I can't take sides on issues where there are significant matters in dispute. I cannot advocate for one side or the other, all I can do is try to present both sides fairly and accurately.

If I were a columnist, it would be far different. But as it is, I don't get paid enough to spout off on my opinions

Problem is you ARE presenting from a bias. The use of terms like "gun show loophole" already accepts one sides definition of the discussion. You should know full well that who ever defines the terms defines the discussion. So by allowing the oppositions terms as normality you are being biased whether you realize it or not. It's just lazy to not work past that issue to truly present a level story. Facts are that the issue at hand is not against the law, there is no factual basis to back up the opposition, and in fact the statistics support the pro private sale opinion. A story based on anything other than the facts of the discussion is disingenuous and IS an article of opinion.

Not trying to beat you up, but you are correct that an actual factual story would not be published becasue facts tend to be biased. Opinion sways with emotional instability, facts stand regardless. The system is stacked against you and I am glad you are at least making an attempt. Welcome to our side.

[Guest brianhaas]

Problem is you ARE presenting from a bias. The use of terms like "gun show loophole" already accepts one sides definition of the discussion. You should know full well that who ever defines the terms defines the discussion. So by allowing the oppositions terms as normality you are being biased whether you realize it or not. It's just lazy to not work past that issue to truly present a level story. Facts are that the issue at hand is not against the law, there is no factual basis to back up the opposition, and in fact the statistics support the pro private sale opinion. A story based on anything other than the facts of the discussion is disingenuous and IS an article of opinion.

Not trying to beat you up, but you are correct that an actual factual story would not be published becasue facts tend to be biased. Opinion sways with emotional instability, facts stand regardless. The system is stacked against you and I am glad you are at least making an attempt. Welcome to our side.

No, there is no bias. If you notice my original post, I put "loophole" in quotes. By doing that, I'm actually calling the term into question as something that is a matter of debate. I'm not the one calling it a loophole, but a lot of folks do call it that, folks who actually have a stake in the matter and could actually make policy on it.

And no, a factual story will be published. What you're asking for is an advocacy piece, which will not make it into the paper. The story is this: There's a debate about background checks in private sales as part of a larger dialogue going on about Second Amendment rights. That's literally it. Then I present both sides of the issue.

As to when the story will be published, I anticipate it will be in Sunday's paper.

[TMF]

I still think he's doing his best to get all the facts. He is still bound by his bosses as to what stories to cover. Coming here to get information and actively seeking comments/advice from the folks here show that he's trying to be as unbaised as possible. Plenty of the journalists that we consider to be "anti-gun" wouldn't do that. I would hope in the future we give him the benefit of the doubt so he continues to seek information from those passionate about 2nd Amendment issues, instead of looking for reasons to label him (or his paper) as biased. Picking apart his wording and finding reason to be offended by it doesn't create an conducive environment for information exchange.

[TMF]

As to when the story will be published, I anticipate it will be in Sunday's paper.

I look forward to reading your article. Thank you for coming here and letting us play a contributing role in the development of the story. I hope you choose to continue to use this site as a source of information and opinion.

[Guest brianhaas]

I look forward to reading your article. Thank you for coming here and letting us play a contributing role in the development of the story. I hope you choose to continue to use this site as a source of information and opinion.

Oh absolutely. And, just to be clear, I don't take any offense to the questions and arguments offered here. I think it's healthy to debate these issues and it helps me to see how folks see things so that I can try and frame stories in a fairer manner. I think more newspapers need to engage their critics so they can learn from each other on these things.

That being said, I've been in this biz long enough to know that if a person wants to find bias in a story, they'll find it. A simple word usage or a phrase is often enough to send some people into a tizzy, even if the overall story is well balanced. I'll do my best to be as fair and impartial as humanly possible.

One other thing. My editors in general don't tell me what to write. Most of the time, they ask reporters for story ideas. Of course, they'll help refine story topics or angles to make sure it's interesting and/or informative, but in general, the stories I write are ones I choose to write about. And editors here have never asked me to take a particular side or go at a story with a particular agenda. I'd tell them to go to hell if they did.

I know a lot of folks on here may not believe it, but we do really try hard to go at things in a fairly objective manner.

[Mike.357]

And i am sure you know that your story is objective if I agree with it, but not objective if I don't.

[Smith]

I still think he's doing his best to get all the facts. He is still bound by his bosses as to what stories to cover. Coming here to get information and actively seeking comments/advice from the folks here show that he's trying to be as unbaised as possible. Plenty of the journalists that we consider to be "anti-gun" wouldn't do that. I would hope in the future we give him the benefit of the doubt so he continues to seek information from those passionate about 2nd Amendment issues, instead of looking for reasons to label him (or his paper) as biased. Picking apart his wording and finding reason to be offended by it doesn't create an conducive environment for information exchange.

Absolutely he is doing a good job. The label is not on Brian but the paper he works for IS biased and does not hide that fact. They have been more open since their subscriptions have plummeted over the years but it is what it is. My point is not with Brian but the system and the premise. If the facts advocate for themselves then the facts have been presented. Everything else IS opinion. However, even using the "loophole" terminology in quotes shows you how stacked it is against us. The minority has dictated a word usage that we have to use in the conversation. Kinda like "guns in bars". That's actually counter factual.

As to being offended ... hardly offended and I doubt Brian needs coddling either.

[Capbyrd]

No, there is no bias. If you notice my original post, I put "loophole" in quotes. By doing that, I'm actually calling the term into question as something that is a matter of debate. I'm not the one calling it a loophole, but a lot of folks do call it that, folks who actually have a stake in the matter and could actually make policy on it.

And no, a factual story will be published. What you're asking for is an advocacy piece, which will not make it into the paper. The story is this: There's a debate about background checks in private sales as part of a larger dialogue going on about Second Amendment rights. That's literally it. Then I present both sides of the issue.

As to when the story will be published, I anticipate it will be in Sunday's paper.

Brian, there are those of here that appreciate the time you take to research your articles. I am one of them. Unfortunately, some here assume all of the media is out to get us.

I understand that using common colloquialisms for policy or beliefs does not make you bias.

I also understand what you meant about the general public. Yes we here are all part of the general public most of the time but when you used that term in the context you did, we became the experts. I get that. Not sure why others can't.

[Oh Shoot]

There's no way you could possibly know that.

Blatantly obvious. "Militia being necessary to the security of a free state" is only reason mentioned, so it obviously was reason they felt the need to mention firearms at all.

It's fortunate that this is what has also allowed us (to a certain degree) to keep and bear arms for other purposes. But they would have seen that as an unalienable right, simply part of life and liberty.

- OS

[Oh Shoot]

...So please Sir, if you are going to debate my words, please ensure they are MY WORDS.

Yes sir, sir. I was merely expounding on one side of the two theses you posited. Apologies if it was unclear enough that you saw it as some sort of attack.

- OS

[Mykltn]

Yes sir, sir. I was merely expounding on one side of the two theses you posited. Apologies if it was unclear enough that you saw it as some sort of attack.

- OS

I extend to you sir, my hand in friendship.

[hkgonra]

Blatantly obvious. "Militia being necessary to the security of a free state" is only reason mentioned, so it obviously was reason they felt the need to mention firearms at all.

It's fortunate that this is what has also allowed us (to a certain degree) to keep and bear arms for other purposes. But they would have seen that as an unalienable right, simply part of life and liberty.

- OS

There are no words to express just how blatantly obvious it is to anyone that is willing to look.

[QuietDan]

There's no way I could get either published, you're correct. Not because of any sort of bias, but because I can't take sides on issues where there are significant matters in dispute. I cannot advocate for one side or the other, all I can do is try to present both sides fairly and accurately.

God Bless you in your work Mr Haas, but there are HUGE fallacies therein.

Ten thousand can understand an issue, and three, either idiots or malign, can create an "issue" with two sides. And then, the "issue" must be discussed ad nauseam with both sides of the "issue" getting equal time? That is an intellectual fallacy that the leftists at the helm of the Tennessean affect, and we are not fooled. That's one of the reasons why the circulation of the Tennessean, and other leftist newspapers, is dropping like a rock. It's because ideologically driven publications tend to sing the tune of the idiot and malign three instead of the ten thousand. Well, the ten thousand get their news elsewhere now.

Normal people, well read normal people (perhaps a contradiction in terms), understand clearly the plain language of the Constitution and the Second Amendment. The recent Supreme Court rulings, especially the perspective of brilliant Justice Clarence Thomas, only makes it more clear, and underscores the political history behind the Second Amendment.

The right to free will, the right to self-defense, the right to keep and bear arms, are all natural rights that pre-exist the Constitution, and the drafters of the Constitution clearly acknowledged this. The Constitution did not grant "the right of the people to keep and bear arms;" the Constitution's Second Amendment only clearly acknowledged that the people already have that right, and that it shall not be infringed.

'A well-regulated Militia, being necessary for the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.'

Many of us cry for our nation to have four judges on the Supreme Court make convoluted arguments to the contrary that frankly embarrass the other five judges, twisting their arguments to support an elitist, leftist ideology on which they maintain a death grip in spite of all logic and legality to the contrary. Justice Clarence Thomas in his argument, takes their arguments to pieces.

Regular people retain the free will and the free association necessary to buy and sell firearms, whether they are standing in a gun show marketplace, the parking lot of said marketplace, or in their HOMES, again, under the Second Amendment, which clearly states: ". . . The right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed." And, the leftist lawyers aren't after the firearms transacted in the marketplace, they are after the firearms transacted in the homes. They cannot go after one without going after the other.

Additionally, for a government, already verging on the tyrannical, to attempt to further restrict firearms, can create an environment in which the soft, elitist words of the most elegant lawyer will not stand up to a punch in the face.

The right to keep and bear arms pre-exists the Constitution, and it doesn't exist to merely and narrowly allow The People to shoot paper targets, or to shoot sporting clays, or to shoot deer. It exists so The People can shoot Burglars in their Homes -- and, the Second Amendment primarily exists so The People can shoot Tyrants in the Public Square. And, the Tyrants, or the proto-Tyrants know this.

That is the primary reason the Tyrants and the proto-Tyrants spend so much time and effort working to neuter the Second Amendment. The Constitution and the Second Amendment have helped hold off the Tyrants for more than two hundred years. And The People, at least normal well read People, know this. And there are more of The People than there are Tyrants.

Edited January 18, 2012 by QuietDan