GOP leaders seek to avoid repeat of Gun law Fight

[Guest HvyMtl]

http://www.tennessean.com/viewart/20121123/NEWS02/311230078/GOP-leaders-seek-avoid-repeat-gun-law-fight

Thoughts?




My opinion is Beth Harwell will do a "Neifeh" on it and kill it. (Neifeh: A political term specific to Tennessee Politics, where the residing Speaker of the House uses back channels, and brow beatings to block, kill, or table any piece of legislation, the Speaker does not want to recieve a floor vote, effectively preventing the legislation from ever becoming law...)

[Chucktshoes]

If she pulls a Naifeh, then I think she will get Maggarted. Next election.

[mikegideon]

[quote name='Chucktshoes' timestamp='1353713018' post='849885']
If she pulls a Naifeh, then I think she will get Maggarted. Next election.
[/quote]

[Garufa]

[quote name='HvyMtl' timestamp='1353707805' post='849865']Thoughts?[/quote]

Whatever they do will only complicate things further.

[monkeylizard]

[quote name='Garufa' timestamp='1353715628' post='849890']
Whatever they do will only complicate things further.
[/quote]

This. Edited November 24, 2012 by monkeylizard

[East_TN_Patriot]

So, from what I read in that article, our elected officials don't think I am being "reasonable" because I strongly believe that I have a right to keep an item secured in my vehicle regardless of where it is parked. When the debate starts off like that, you know it's not going to bode well for gun owners.

[TripleDigitRide]

[quote name='East_TN_Patriot' timestamp='1353732766' post='849942']So, from what I read in that article, our elected officials don't think I am being "reasonable" because I strongly believe that I have a right to keep an item secured in my vehicle regardless of where it is parked. When the debate starts off like that, you know it's not going to bode well for gun owners.[/quote]

Our elected officials don't know what to think. In one hand they have the pro-2A crowd, in the other hand they have the filthy rich business owners. They're running around like chickens with their heads out off, trying to figure out which group can benefit them the most.
Edited November 24, 2012 by TripleDigitRide

[Moped]

[quote name='TripleDigitRide' timestamp='1353734098' post='849949']
Our elected officials don't know what to think. In one hand they have the pro-2A crowd, in the other hand they have the filthy rich business owners. They're running around like chickens with their heads out off, trying to figure out which group can benefit them the most.
[/quote]

I can easily answer that and so can Maggart. The ones with the most voters on their side. There is an easy way to cut Harwell off at the legs. It's a bit odorous but it might be necessary if she doesn't see reason. Simply stop voting for Republican candidates in the house. Withdraw the support for one term and they will get the message loud and clear when the Democrats take back over. Then in the next election cycle, vote them back in, but only the ones with a pro-second amendment bent. Who knows, we might even get some pro-second amendment Democrats voted in. There are some out there.

[Dolomite_supafly]

How about doing a popular vote. That way the people of the state can decide what they want.

Eliminate the legislative middlemen that ruin the process.

Dolomite

[Oh Shoot]

[quote name='Dolomite_supafly' timestamp='1353781283' post='850102']
How about doing a popular vote. That way the people of the state can decide what they want...
[/quote]

If TN were run by referendum, we'd likely have scary weapons ban, no hicap mags, and no handgun carry. For sure, that would be the nationwide result. Half the actual gun owners in the nation and probably in this state would vote that way too.

A lot of Kali state law comes out of their endless referendums. There's a real clue there as to why the USA was set up as a representative Republic and not a pure democracy.

- OS Edited November 25, 2012 by OhShoot

[Chucktshoes]

[quote name='OhShoot' timestamp='1353781987' post='850107']

If TN were run by referendum, we'd likely have scary weapons ban, no hipcap mags, and no handgun carry. For sure, that would be the nationwide result. Half the actual gun owners in the nation and probably in this state would vote that way too.

A lot of Kali state law comes out of their endless referendums. There's a real clue there as to why the USA was set up as a representative Republic and not a pure democracy.

- OS[/quote]
This X eleventy.

The Founders held a low opinion of pure democracy as it is nothing more and a tyranny of the majority with zero regard for the rights or liberty of the individual. The closer we have moved in that direction, the more problems we have created in this nation.

[Guest 6.8 AR]

[quote name='Dolomite_supafly' timestamp='1353781283' post='850102']
How about doing a popular vote. That way the people of the state can decide what they want.

Eliminate the legislative middlemen that ruin the process.

Dolomite
[/quote]The mob would overrule us.

[RobertNashville]

[quote name='OhShoot' timestamp='1353781987' post='850107']
If TN were run by referendum, we'd likely have scary weapons ban, no hipcap mags, and no handgun carry. For sure, that would be the nationwide result. Half the actual gun owners in the nation and probably in this state would vote that way too.

A lot of Kali state law comes out of their endless referendums. There's a real clue there as to why the USA was set up as a representative Republic and not a pure democracy.

- OS
[/quote]Amen...there is a damn good reason why we DON'T have a democracy in this country and our founders knew that reason very well.

[RobertNashville]

[quote name='Chucktshoes' timestamp='1353713018' post='849885']
If she pulls a Naifeh, then I think she will get Maggarted. Next election.
[/quote]She already needs to go and I hope that she is the next target of the TFA and NRA regardless of what she does now. She is not now nor has she ever been partial to the original intent of the Constitution/constitution and she needs to go.

I also concur, the best way to get reasonable action out of Republicans is to not have too many of them around...we need more Democrats in the legislature; at least enough to make Republicans very nervous about their re-elections.

[seez52]

On a national level we're pretty much at a pure democracy already considering how many people each rep. Is supposed to represent. Representative govt only works when its small and close to the people. We lost that a long time ago.

[Guest ArmyVeteran37214]

Businesses are not people and do not have the same inalienable rights given to us, the people by the State and U.S. Constitution. IMO, Businesses do not have the right to restrict our rights.

[Rowdy]

Businesses are property owners and they exercise their rights everyday. If a business states "no large bags or purses allowed" that's the way it is.

[RobertNashville]

[quote name='Rowdy' timestamp='1353856947' post='850418']
Businesses are property owners and they exercise their rights everyday. If a business states "no large bags or purses allowed" that's the way it is.
[/quote]Actually, for pretty much our entire history as a country, the law has treated property used for business purposes differently than it treats property used for private purposes..."who" (and sometimes there are many, many of those) owns/controls the property is not as important as what it is used for.

Even property used for totally private purposes (your home, for example), can and usually is subject to regulations (often dependent on how closely you live to other property owners.

It is a basic principle, dating from almost as far back as one cares to look, that property owners have the right to use and enjoy their property but that right is not sacrosanct (and I would suggest, never has been and shouldn't be).

That said, this really has nothing to do with whether politicians, who can't decided whether they like )votes or campaign contributions the most, shouldn't be removed from office at the first opportunity. ;0

[Rowdy]

[quote name='RobertNashville' timestamp='1353858428' post='850429']
Actually, for pretty much our entire history as a country, the law has treated property used for business purposes differently than it treats property used for private purposes..."who" (and sometimes there are many, many of those) owns/controls the property is not as important as what it is used for.

Even property used for totally private purposes (your home, for example), can and usually is subject to regulations (often dependent on how closely you live to other property owners.

It is a basic principle, dating from almost as far back as one cares to look, that property owners have the right to use and enjoy their property but that right is not sacrosanct (and I would suggest, never has been and shouldn't be).

That said, this really has nothing to do with whether politicians, who can't decided whether they like )votes or campaign contributions the most, shouldn't be removed from office at the first opportunity. ;0
[/quote]

^+1

You said it much better than I did.