Following a recent series of high-profile shooting incidents in the United States, the southern state of Tennessee is changing its gun laws this week.
It is relaxing them.
Soon, Tennessee’s bars and restaurants will no longer be off-limits for registered weapons. State legislators – a quarter of whom own firearms – have passed a law allowing guns into bars and restaurants, but preventing their owners from buying alcohol.
The basic wingnut defense.
For the bill’s Democratic sponsor – State Senator Doug Jackson – it is a case of preserving the rights of individuals and those of individual states.
“People are fearful about tomorrow. They feel insecure. And the Second Amendment right is something that they cherish and it’s a means of protecting themselves and their family and defending what they have. It provides security in troubled times.”
Nashville’s police chief, Ronal Serpas does not believe that people who walk into bars with guns will steer clear of the shot glasses.
“If you think about how alchohol influences the choices people make… I don’t believe people are not going to drink and have guns, because I know they drink and drive,” he says.
A well-known restaurateur is fighting back against Tennessee’s newly enacted law that allows gun owners to bring their weapons into bars and restaurants that serve alcohol.
Randy Rayburn, owner of three top-rated restaurants in Nashville, filed a lawsuit on Wednesday challenging the state law’s constitutionality, arguing it creates a public nuisance by threatening the safety of the public…
At least 200,000 Tennesseans have permits allowing them to carry their guns concealed while in public…
Obey the Stupid Fracking Law defense
The new law was pushed by the Tennessee Firearms Association. Its executive director, John Harris, said critics had every opportunity to defeat the legislation — which state lawmakers passed with little opposition — and should not turn to court action at this point…
Rayburn’s lawsuit will receive a hearing on July 13, a day before the law is due to go into force.
Drunks don’t care about any law. Death and DUI statistics in every state in the U.S. bear that out.
#92, Still a tool.
93, Still an idiot.
#94, Yep, definitely a tool.
So, how does it feel to have your world-view shaken?
94, Yep, a genuine idiot.
How does it feel to continuously make no sense? I think you’re having a conversation in your head and you’ve decided to include me. I’m glad you think so highly of me. Since I AGREED with you back in 90 and you got upset, it’s obvious that you have brain damage.
96 BAH… that was for you Liberty Lover…
Wow! The libruls are still screaming about wanting to gut the Bill of rights. Figures, the farther left you go, the closer to communism you get…
98 Paddy-0
And from LEFT field, here comes Paddy-0!
#96, There is agreement and then there is being factitious.
If you weren’t being factitious, my apologies.
100, Do you mean facetious? If so, no I was not being facetious.
And, apology accepted.
#89 Hugh,
If they are only 3% of the population but have the second most popular name, most people would recognize that as a new trend and a sign of a population shift. No, of course most Muslims are not going to be bad for the country, and I certainly believe in freedom of religion. My comment was about people who do things that will drive themselves to extinction, and white Europeans seem to be driving themselves to extinction.
With white European’s low birth rate and open borders, Muslims are becoming a significant portion of Europe population, and unlike white Europeans, they are not liberal and do reproduce. Have you seriously not noticed the news stories in the last ten years with the difficulties Europe has had integrating Muslims? Remember the riots in France and cases with Muslims challenging laws and wanting separate Islamic courts.
My point was not that Muslims are getting ready to stage an attack on Europe. If you read my comment, you would see I am talking about people doing things that will ultimately cause the end of their kind. There were no opinions on whether I would rather live in a Liberal or Muslim state. Nice try to interject your own prejudices and assumptions though.
#101, Yes, facetious. Factitious is more like a Sham which is where I was heading.
Facetious fits better 🙂
According to FBI data for 2007, 2/3 of counties reported no murders, and half the remainder reported one murder. I guess 5/6 of counties ban guns.
Throw in cities, and 80% reported no murders, another 10% reported one murder. Top 100 cities accounted for 2/3 of murders.
This story is mainly about and motivated by bigotry against the South. As was said above, the law in question is the norm throughout the US. It’s not worth commenting on, except Eidard is a hater so he thought it’d be fun. A few other folks on this thread have shown their true colors too. I’ll bet they don’t think of themselves that way. My racist grandmother didn’t think it made her a bad person either, she just thought she was being sensible. Just like some of you fine folks! I guess what goes around comes around, and obviously I’d rather have the stupid contempt of thoughtless people to deal with on the internet than on my job search or in my face. But some of you should step back and think what sort of role you’re playing in the movie of your lives.
Named is a troll. Please don’t feed the trolls.
From the article:
“People are fearful about tomorrow. They feel insecure. And the Second Amendment right is something that they cherish and it’s a means of protecting themselves and their family and defending what they have. It provides security in troubled times.”
This cuts to the heart of the matter. Packing heat won’t do squat to stop the Wall Street barons from ripping off the rest of us. But by golly, it feels good. Like the man chewed out at work who beats his wife when he gets home, misplaced aggression is at the heart of this. To really make a difference, we need to write our elected representatives weekly if not more often, stay informed, write letters to the editor, etc. In other words, all the things that you’re supposed to do with a representative form of government. But for some reason some people don’t think that’ll make any difference, so they hunker down with their guns and try to feel better that way.
Phydeau: So Obama was right about the clinging to guns and god thing, eh?
Wrong.
You should probably cultivate the habit of looking at your public pronouncements before you hit ‘submit’. Ask yourself, “Am I asserting that I have special insight into the minds of others? Am I evaluating their behavior, or am I asserting that I have ESP?” Maybe that’ll help.
Good luck.
#108 Bob, have anything relevant to contribute to the debate, or just imperious proclamations that other people are wrong?
Hint: You can start with explaining how asserting their 2nd Amendment rights helps people deal with any of the serious problems facing the country now. Unemployment? Greedy Republican Wall Street Barons? Crappy economy? Take your time.
#109
You can start with your self-evaluation by making your statements accurate.
It’s the Greedy ‘Democrat’ Wall Street Barons that have caused the current financial mess.
Then you can take the step to understand how important it is to keep the government (Republican or Democrat…both are guilty at times) from taking away your rights. You may never want to take advantage of the 2nd Amendment…but it’s still your right, not something for the government to dole out like welfare.
#110 Rick, I understand the principle of keeping the government from taking away your rights. My point is that people in Tennessee getting to carry their guns into a bar may give them a warm fuzzy feeling, but it’s not going to solve any of the problems we have facing our nation right now.
And since we’re on the topic, why is it the same right-wingers who clamor for gun rights are so happy to let the government spy on us without warrants, seize and hold people without charging them, and other such violations of our constitutional rights? Republicans are fond of saying liberals like all the Amendments but the 2nd, but it looks like right-wingers like only the second and don’t care about any of the others…
I have an 85 year-old neighbor. She is losing her eyesight and hearing. But she still has her driver’s license. She has passed the tests for renewal. Do I like the idea of her on the road? No. Has she caused any problems? Had any wrecks? No and No. I don’t have any say when she drives, or where, though I’d prefer that she not.
My point is that, if a person goes through the trouble and expense of getting a concealed carry permit; and the state grants them the permit. I trust that they are responsible enough to follow the rules.
2nd amendment fans should realize that their precious right to own guns ain’t worth squat if the government can tap your phone or read your email without a warrant. Right, right… they say they’ll only wiretap the bad guys. But who’s more likely to be a bad guy in the eyes of the government than a citizen with guns?
Anyone? Gun nuts? Any 2nd Amendment fans care to explain why they’re in favor of warrantless government spying?
What if after Kelo, someone had shot the city council members that approved eminent domain taking of houses to give to corporate robber barons?
#113
Tyranny hides it’s ugly head in many disguises.
Why do you think that gun nuts would want their phones tapped by the government?
#115 Why do you think that gun nuts would want their phones tapped by the government?
I have no idea! That’s why I’m asking! It seems that when us liberal civil liberties types raise a stink about warrantless spying by the government, the wingnuts come back with their same old lame old excuses… they’re only spying on bad guys, if you’re innocent you have nothing to worry about, blah blah blah. And then it seems like these same wingnuts turn around and start bleating about their second amendment rights, as if those rights are worth anything when the government can spy on anyone at any time.
It seems like a massive contradiction on the part of the wingnuts. Do you like massive government spying without warrants or your Second Amendment rights? Because you certainly can’t have both.
Phydeaux, seriously.
You’re ruthlessly slaying straw men left and right.
I’d win EVERY argument I ever got into if I argued with what I say are the motives and reasoning of my opponents, without reference to their self-professed motives and reasoning. Or at least I’d think I won. I’d probably be pretty frustrated with how stupid my opponents are, too.
Is the standard for what should be legal or illegal REALLY the same as the standard for what will help the economy, or get a better administration elected, or take-your-pick? REALLY? Do YOU even really think so? Have you thought about what what you’re saying means, even for a second?
It’s just an asinine point. And if somehow you really mean it, I just don’t know what to say.
We’ll cross that bridge when we come to it- it’s not a rhetorical question- do you REALLY mean what you are saying?
Please go to wikipedia and look up ‘implications’, ‘straw man’, and ‘ESP’ (or ‘delusions of grandeur’) , it might help inform your response just a little bit.
#116, Um, I am dead set against FISA.
I am waiting on the Obamessiah to do away with it any day now.
#114, Someone would have gone to jail and the next batch of politicians would have thought twice about doing it again.
bob, my point is simple. Right-wingers seem to be advocating two conflicting positions:
1. The 2nd amendment over all, rah rah, carry a gun anywhere I want.
2. Sure, let the government spy on whoever they want without warrants, after all, if you’re innocent, you have nothing to fear, right?
Now those may be two disjoint groups — maybe the gun nuts hate the government spying, and the fans of government spying don’t give a rat’s ass about guns. But I’ve never seen two right-wingers arguing with each other taking those two opposite positions. So that’s why I’m asking.
I don’t see the conflict between your two positions. If anything, having 2nd Amendment rights allows for letting the government do more things, because there is a check of an armed populace.
#120
I can see your confusion in that there appears to be contradicting efforts by the same person (group of people). Doesn’t make any sense.
Maybe your assumptions are wrong instead?