John Harris calls for displaying "used crucifix" as reported by the Tennessean

[Guest profgunner]

This was just posted on the Tennessean's web page:

"Whether because it crossed the line or just an accident of timing, an email from Tennessee Firearms Association head John Harris that called for displaying a “used crucifix†against House Republican Caucus Chair Debra Maggart roiled the House floor early Tuesday afternoon.

Harris — who’s previous rhetoric this year has included describing GOP leadership as the “axis of evil†— said Maggart should be defeated in her re-election bid as an example to others, just as the Romans used crucifixion to intimidate others. The group objects to a decision yesterday by the GOP caucus not to hold a vote on pending “guns-in-trunks†legislation.

“Symbolicly, it is time to display a used crucifix at the entrance to the General Assembly as a warning. Rep. Debra Maggart’s race is not a race limited now to the 45 District from which she claims power.â€

The Scene’s Pith in the Wind posted the email around lunchtime, just as the House was debating an amendment to a cyberbullying bill that would have exempted religious imagery. Lawmakers quickly made the link, with Maggart’s Democratic counterpart, Rep. Mike Turner of Old Hickory, denouncing the email as a perfect example of why the amendment should be defeated.

The amendment, in fact, was defeated — first on a roaring voice vote in which the nays were literally shouted by opponents and then on a 65-28 roll call vote."

I'm not at all sure I understand what's going on here. Anyone care to explain? -Steve

[1gewehr]

Ron Ramsey, Debra Maggert, and other key Republicans have decided that you cannot be trusted to have a firearm in your car if it is parked in a parking lot.

The complete list:

Representatives voting aye (voting to kill) were: Brooks H ®, Casada ®, Cobb ®, Dunn ®, Harwell ®, Haynes ®, Johnson P ®, Maggart ®, McCormick ®, McDaniel ®, McManus ®, Niceley ®, Ramsey ®, Roach ®, Sexton ®

If your representative is on this list, I would ask them why they should go back to Nashville next winter since they obviously cannot tell that the right to defend your life is a higher priority than some corporations wish to keep people from leaving guns in their cars in a parking lot.

[Defender]

This was just posted on the Tennessean's web page:

"Whether because it crossed the line or just an accident of timing, an email from Tennessee Firearms Association head John Harris that called for displaying a “used crucifix†against House Republican Caucus Chair Debra Maggart roiled the House floor early Tuesday afternoon.

Harris — who’s previous rhetoric this year has included describing GOP leadership as the “axis of evil†— said Maggart should be defeated in her re-election bid as an example to others, just as the Romans used crucifixion to intimidate others. The group objects to a decision yesterday by the GOP caucus not to hold a vote on pending “guns-in-trunks†legislation.

“Symbolicly, it is time to display a used crucifix at the entrance to the General Assembly as a warning. Rep. Debra Maggart’s race is not a race limited now to the 45 District from which she claims power.â€

The Scene’s Pith in the Wind posted the email around lunchtime, just as the House was debating an amendment to a cyberbullying bill that would have exempted religious imagery. Lawmakers quickly made the link, with Maggart’s Democratic counterpart, Rep. Mike Turner of Old Hickory, denouncing the email as a perfect example of why the amendment should be defeated.

The amendment, in fact, was defeated — first on a roaring voice vote in which the nays were literally shouted by opponents and then on a 65-28 roll call vote."

I'm not at all sure I understand what's going on here. Anyone care to explain? -Steve

I am a supporter of this bill and have e-mailed everyone about it several times. But this crucifix thing isn't playing well in the press, and I suspect not with the legislators either. As much as said legislators piss me off and need to be gone...not sure if this crucifix thing is a smart way to go...seems to just piss THEM off to no avail.

Edited April 25, 2012 by barewoolf

[TGO David]

We've become a society of politically correct, overly sensitive pussies if you can't use historical references to illustrate a point without some hand-wringing minger's fragile sensibilities being used as carte blanche justification for a smear campaign from the opposition.

Decorum would almost dictate that I conclude this response with a statement along the lines of "Pardon my bluntness" or "Pardon my French" but the truth of the matter is more like this:

Screw you if this offends you. Get over yourself and grow some skin.

[Caster]

We've become a society of politically correct, overly sensitive pussies if you can't use historical references to illustrate a point without some hand-wringing minger's fragile sensibilities being used as carte blanche justification for a smear campaign from the opposition.

Decorum would almost dictate that I conclude this response with a statement along the lines of "Pardon my bluntness" or "Pardon my French" but the truth of the matter is more like this:

Screw you if this offends you. Get over yourself and grow some skin.

..and the congregation says..

AMEN!!!!!

[Bigiron]

Definitely AMEN.

Edited April 25, 2012 by Bigiron

[hipower]

And bringing up a 4th...I totally agree. But in this currently thin skinned, society of the perpetually offended; such probably will not happen. As long as the concepts of "hate crime and hate thought" can be brought to the forefront over common sense and rational debate...we don't stand a chance.

[mikegideon]

..and the congregation says..

AMEN!!!!!

Yep

[mikegideon]

Ron Ramsey, Debra Maggert, and other key Republicans have decided that you cannot be trusted to have a firearm in your car if it is parked in a parking lot.

The complete list:

Representatives voting aye (voting to kill) were: Brooks H ®, Casada ®, Cobb ®, Dunn ®, Harwell ®, Haynes ®, Johnson P ®, Maggart ®, McCormick ®, McDaniel ®, McManus ®, Niceley ®, Ramsey ®, Roach ®, Sexton ®

If your representative is on this list, I would ask them why they should go back to Nashville next winter since they obviously cannot tell that the right to defend your life is a higher priority than some corporations wish to keep people from leaving guns in their cars in a parking lot.

These folks need to be added to the Wall of Shame.

[Worriedman]

I view with interest the comments of five (5) different Republican Legislators to me yesterday, that prudence would dictate that I pay no attention to the law, and simply carry my weapon wherever I go, regardless of what the law says.

That I feel, is the real problem with the people elected to do our business, they have become immune to having to live by the edicts that they turn out to rule our lives, accepting the dollars of corporate sponsors of laws that the legislators themselves do not intend to obey. They have become immune to having to follow any rules due to their "special dispensations" they simply hold that no law is meaningful to them, and if you are one of the chosen, or as one put it to me, "smart enough to survive" pay no attention to that man behind the curtain, it is how they live.

[Volzfan]

We've become a society of politically correct, overly sensitive pussies if you can't use historical references to illustrate a point without some hand-wringing minger's fragile sensibilities being used as carte blanche justification for a smear campaign from the opposition.

Decorum would almost dictate that I conclude this response with a statement along the lines of "Pardon my bluntness" or "Pardon my French" but the truth of the matter is more like this:

Screw you if this offends you. Get over yourself and grow some skin.

How come we can't vote this post up?

[BryanP]

How come we can't vote this post up?

It appears you cannot up or down vote posts of moderators or admins. Which makes sense.

[Guest HvyMtl]

And this is what you get, when you vote for a person, simply due to party affiliation...

Maggart has been a nosy no good for the longest of time. Now you guys are starting to notice...

[TGO David]

I still say the best course of action is to fire them all. Every single last one of them. Clean house, start over. If the next batch doesn't represent us, fire them too and clean house once again. Keep doing this until these pompous asses realize they work for us and that failing to do so means going back to their regular day jobs.

We all seem to be forgetting that for many elected officials, they take the job because of the presumed prestige and power. Reluctant leaders are good leaders. How many of these jackasses seem all that reluctant to be in power?

Not many from what I've seen.

[hipower]

"Firing" them, aka removing from office is a great idea, but unfortunately, in most cases the damage is already done; and it seems that undoing the previous officeholders "work" just doesn't happen. I believe we need something like a "Vote of Confidence" in place to allow immediate removal from office, rather than having to endure 2/4/6 years of political insanity. But I can't see it happening in this country.

Edited April 26, 2012 by hipower

[wjh2657]

The issue for many of the Reps was not an issue of anti gun as it was an issue of whether the current bill isn't written to violate property owners rights. In the backlash of the Florida SYG law concerns, they are getting leary of violating any rights. What they were calling for was a more careful legal review before putting this into law. Protecting others rights isn't being PC, it is doing the job right the first time. If it would be found that the current bill would violate property rights after passing into law, the law would be declared unconsitutional by the courts and everything would have been act of futility. No matter how the Martin/Zimmerman issue is settled in court, Florida lawmakers are already in the process of reviewing that state's weapon laws. What will undoubtedly occur is a massive rewrite of all of their weapons laws. This does not bode well for Florida gun owners! The reps here were just trying to avoid this type of quagmire. A long history of legal decisions have already determined that Property rights over ride the individual's rights to do as he pleases on somebody else's property. The Second A will be trumped by property rights in court every time. Is it worth p****ng into the wind and lose all of your gun rights? I for one would rather they take their time and write a law that can stand up to court review.

The crucifixion is just bad taste. He had the right to say it, but it doesn't help the issue.

Edited April 26, 2012 by wjh2657

[Guest 6.8 AR]

I still say the best course of action is to fire them all. Every single last one of them. Clean house, start over. If the next batch doesn't represent us, fire them too and clean house once again. Keep doing this until these pompous asses realize they work for us and that failing to do so means going back to their regular day jobs.

We all seem to be forgetting that for many elected officials, they take the job because of the presumed prestige and power. Reluctant leaders are good leaders. How many of these jackasses seem all that reluctant to be in power?

Not many from what I've seen.

There was a time I would have thought this would be too extreme, but it may well be the only way to get

them to understand who's really their employer. That prestige and power should be guarded by those

who protect the republic, state and local, from tyranny, not project it. Reluctant leaders are the ones we

want.

Power is what a society uses to protect that society from outside influences, not control it. What you said,

David, tells me we are in for a long rough fight to regain our liberty. We will have to do it.

[Guest 6.8 AR]

The issue for many of the Reps was not an issue of anti gun as it was an issue of whether the current bill isn't written to violate property owners rights. In the backlash of the Florida SYG law concerns, they are getting leary of violating any rights. What they were calling for was a more careful legal review before putting this into law. Protecting others rights isn't being PC, it is doing the job right the first time. If it would be found that the current bill would violate property rights after passing into law, the law would be declared unconsitutional by the courts and everything would have been act of futility. No matter how the Martin/Zimmerman issue is settled in court, Florida lawmakers are already in the process of reviewing that state's weapon laws. What will undoubtedly occur is a massive rewrite of all of their weapons laws. This does not bode well for Florida gun owners! The reps here were just trying to avoid this type of quagmire. A long history of legal decisions have already determined that Property rights over ride the individual's rights to do as he pleases on somebody else's property. The Second A will be trumped by property rights in court every time. Is it worth p****ng into the wind and lose all of your gun rights? I for one would rather they take their time and write a law that can stand up to court review.

The crucifixion is just bad taste. He had the right to say it, but it doesn't help the issue.

Weapons laws, by their very nature are mostly unconstitutional, unless one disagrees with the 2nd Amendment.

You keep saying this about property rights, exclusively trumping other rights, such as the 2nd. There is no

provision to allow that one to carry on another's property, only keep that piece of private property contained

in his or hers private property, without risking retaliation from an employer. It was intended to prevent another

behavior from becoming potentially criminal behavior by an otherwise law abiding group of citizens. I reject

your property argument.

[GKar]

That's where this issue has been mis-framed all along: its not "prop vs 2A", but rather "prop vs prop". At what point does a lot owner's prop rights extend into the interior of your personal vehicle and dictate the content thereof, particularly when such content is otherwise legally owned and transported in same vehicle? If the lot owner doesn't like rap music, he can certainly prevent you from playing it audibly - but can he also prevent you from having a Snoop Dogg CD stuck inside the glove box? Indeed, I believe a proper argument can be made that the current situation itself constitutes a violation of property owners rights - those of the vehicle owner.

[quietguy]

That's where this issue has been mis-framed all along: its not "prop vs 2A", but rather "prop vs prop". At what point does a lot owner's prop rights extend into the interior of your personal vehicle and dictate the content thereof, particularly when such content is otherwise legally owned and transported in same vehicle? If the lot owner doesn't like rap music, he can certainly prevent you from playing it audibly - but can he also prevent you from having a Snoop Dogg CD stuck inside the glove box? Indeed, I believe a proper argument can be made that the current situation itself constitutes a violation of property owners rights - those of the vehicle owner.

Well, Faulk did a pretty good job of trying to change the conversation in this direction during committee testimony, but it didn't seem to catch on. Campfield pretty well derailed him.

[Caster]

"Firing" them, aka removing from office is a great idea, but unfortunately, in most cases the damage is already done; and it seems that undoing the previous officeholders "work" just doesn't happen. I believe we need something like a "Vote of Confidence" in place to allow immediate removal from office, rather than having to endure 2/4/6 years of political insanity. But I can't see it happening in this country.

Wouldn't that be a vote of NO confidence? I'd like to make a vote of no confidence in the leadership of every politician that is currently consuming oxygen.

[Grunt67]

The issue for many of the Reps was not an issue of anti gun as it was an issue of whether the current bill isn't written to violate property owners rights. In the backlash of the Florida SYG law concerns, they are getting leary of violating any rights. What they were calling for was a more careful legal review before putting this into law. Protecting others rights isn't being PC, it is doing the job right the first time. If it would be found that the current bill would violate property rights after passing into law, the law would be declared unconsitutional by the courts and everything would have been act of futility. No matter how the Martin/Zimmerman issue is settled in court, Florida lawmakers are already in the process of reviewing that state's weapon laws. What will undoubtedly occur is a massive rewrite of all of their weapons laws. This does not bode well for Florida gun owners! The reps here were just trying to avoid this type of quagmire. A long history of legal decisions have already determined that Property rights over ride the individual's rights to do as he pleases on somebody else's property. The Second A will be trumped by property rights in court every time. Is it worth p****ng into the wind and lose all of your gun rights? I for one would rather they take their time and write a law that can stand up to court review.

The crucifixion is just bad taste. He had the right to say it, but it doesn't help the issue.

A more careful review before putting this into law? This subject was brought up last

year. They have had two years to get it figured out & still can't get the hang of it.

This has nothing to do with Florida or SYG laws. It has to do with the big bucks business

dropped into lawmakers coffers. Harwell couldn't find the 2nd Amend. with Google, Ramsey

just flat lied about his support, Haslam is grinning like a possum because he didn't have to

deal with signing or vetoing it.

This isn't eminent domain, this is about a person protecting their life to & from work vs

some Liberals parking lot.

Without the 2nd Amend., there would be no parking lot.

[Glenn]

We've become a society of politically correct, overly sensitive pussies if you can't use historical references to illustrate a point without some hand-wringing minger's fragile sensibilities being used as carte blanche justification for a smear campaign from the opposition.

Decorum would almost dictate that I conclude this response with a statement along the lines of "Pardon my bluntness" or "Pardon my French" but the truth of the matter is more like this:

Screw you if this offends you. Get over yourself and grow some skin.

Thank You Thank You Thank You. The pussification of America has been driving me crazy for a long time. Harsh words can get you drawn and quartered these days.

Glenn

[Guest HvyMtl]

Never give ammunition to the enemy. They will use it on you.

He did not think about the use of his words against himself, his cause, and us. That is the only issue I have with his statement.

And yes, Maggart will be using it, and using it, and using it, as long as she can get anything out of it...

[Worriedman]

Never give ammunition to the enemy. They will use it on you.

He did not think about the use of his words against himself, his cause, and us. That is the only issue I have with his statement.

And yes, Maggart will be using it, and using it, and using it, as long as she can get anything out of it...

She needs to take remedial course in English first. Harris did not say he wanted to crucify Maggart, his exact words were "Rep. Debra Maggart's political career needs to end much as the Romans crucified criminals...". The apostrophe specifically relates to the career, not the person. And the use of the word " Symbolically" will be lost on the simple minded as well. Of course, expecting some one who cannot get a grasp of the Constitution to understand allegory WOULD be a difficult proposition...

Edited April 30, 2012 by Worriedman