Ammo For Sale

« « Uncleared tabs | Home | Not for the squeamish » »

All I need to know about the TN gubernatorial

The Democrat said:

Dean said in an interview last week that banning bump stocks, increasing the purchasing age for assault-style weapons to 21 and bolstering the state’s background check system were “reasonable proposals.”

And the Republican said:

I dont think that we should look at more restrictions and more regulations on gun ownership

9 Responses to “All I need to know about the TN gubernatorial”

  1. Lyle Says:

    “I don’t think” (gives an out)

    that we “should” (gives another out)

    “look at” (and another out)

    Who-Boy! There’s some fire and brimstone, Baby! (not) He sounds like Fred Thompson could whip his ass with a wet noodle.

    States no reasons or principles? Does not rally to the second amendment or the spirit of the constitution? He just “doesn’t think”?

    It’s no wonder we’re still fighting the Democrats after more than 150 years.

    Go ahead and vote for him, as a holding action…until a real man comes along.

  2. Ron W Says:

    Article I, Section 26, Tennessee Constitution Declaration of Rights: “That the citizens of this State have a right to keep and to bear arms for their common defense; but the Legislature shall have power, by law, to regulate the wearing of arms with a view to prevent crime.”

    According to this which the Governor and ALL elected and appointed officials SHALL obey by oath of office, the State only has a delegated power to regulate the WEARING of arms, that is, how we carry the arms we choose for our self defense. Example, the State may regulate that pistols must be holstered or rifles carried with a sling with the reason being to prevent crime.

  3. JTC Says:

    And the Libertarian said…?

    Note upper-case to differentiate Party from conviction.

    Ron W, as a native Tennessean (Columbia) I would infer the same definition of those words as you do…but you can bet that others see the Constitution of the Great State of Tennessee as open to the same subjective definition as they do the other one. To them “…regulate the wearing of arms to prevent a crime.” is implicit of the capacity to regulate whether you wear one at all and when and where, and to define the “crime” they wish to prevent as that very wearing.

    They don’t have the numbers to apply their definition now, but with the trend toward socialism in Nashville, Memphis, and even K-ville…how long will it be until they try?

  4. Ron W Says:

    ” To them “…regulate the wearing of arms to prevent a crime.” is implicit of the capacity to regulate whether you wear one at all and when and where, and to define the “crime” they wish to prevent as that very wearing.” –JTC

    Yes, such thinking would demonstrate an abysmal grasp of basic English grammar and dictionary word meanings word or, worse, a refusal to obey their Constitutional oath of office.

    The clause preceding the one delegating a power, to regulate wearing, DECLARES we have a right to keep and bear, or the precise synonym, carry, arms for self defense. Thus, at best, they misunderstand the meaning of bear arms versus the wearing of arms, that is, HOW the right to carry is exercised. Any person without the ability to read basic English grammar of the document to which they are to take an oath to uphold, have NOT the ability to enter into such a position.

  5. Sigivald Says:

    “Style” reveals all we need to know about the thought process.

    It’s aesthetic and instinctual.

  6. Silence DoGood Says:

    Anybody who calls them “bump stocks” has only had contact with them through the brouhaha in the news. The inventor/manufacturer called them “bump-fire stocks.” When SlideFire first sent a sample of their product to the BATF to get their ruling on the device, the idiot who wrote the ATF’s official reply (in which they ruled that they WERE NOT an NFA device) truncated the name to “bump stock.” So it ranks right up there with “assault weapon” and “high capacity magazine” as one of those terms that anyone who is RKBA-minded should NEVER use. Except when instructing others that its non-use.

  7. JTC Says:

    Ron W, yeah I wouldn’t be depending too much on lack of reasoning and linguistic abilities to disqualify for gov office, but the truth is that clause leaves way too much weasel room for subjective interpretation.

    “The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.”

    That’s all that’s really needed, and even then they want to parse those words into something unrecognizable by us who read them and they who wrote them. Original intent is irrelevant to them, and imprecision is their friend.

  8. Ron W Says:

    “Original intent is irrelevant to them, and imprecision is their friend.”–JTC

    Yes, that and “subjective reasoning” which is NOT a part of reading the words of the Law objectively.

  9. Fred Says:

    I’ll say it again. Lee told me directly, in person, with 30 onlookers, that he would defer to police about constitutional (permitless) carry. He was unprepared for the question very early in his campaign which was good, because I saw his heart on the matter. I would characterize his response as adamant. It came straight up out of his gut without hesitation. He raised his voice some.

    The king and his men shall decide your rights!