More from the Commercial Appeal
Not content trampling privacy, they are now crapping their pants over some TN gun bills:
Editorial: Logic lacking in gun bills
A fast track to a bad policy: Making it easier to bring firearms to places where families gather defies common sense.
I looked for the logic and have yet to see it. Seems mostly hysteria. After all, using logic, you would know that there are already lawful firearms in places where families gather.
Via AC.
On a personal note: I’d like to graciously thank the Commercial Appeal. Their disregard for privacy will contribute to these firearms bills being fast tracked. So, thank you.
February 20th, 2009 at 11:31 am
We just got the same bills introduced in Oregon. Remember the high school teacher that was outed by a paper? Also there is another bill that would exempt CHL holders from background checks. Yay that would save me $10/gun.
February 20th, 2009 at 11:38 am
Gorram it, stop pointing me at things I will feel impelled to fisk… we are going on vacation shortly!
February 20th, 2009 at 1:11 pm
“Do we really want loaded handguns on the golf course? At our favorite picnic sites? On the sidelines of our kids’ soccer games? At the table next to us at our favorite steakhouse?”
I’ve had antis ask me what I’ll do with my guns once I have kids. They’re always suprised when I say “That will be the #1 reason for me having guns then.”
Oddly enugh they never apply the “Just Run Away” and “Just Give them What they Want” tactic to somebody who has a small child under their care. Can’t run very fast when when you’re dragging the kids along with you can you? Kinda dodgy to “Give them what they want” when what they want is to take your child….
So yeah when the Mrs. and I have some Weer’d-lings I will be VERY glad that even opressive Massachusetts doesn’t have a stupid law on the books that says I need to leave my gun at home when I take the kidlets to Chuck-e-Cheese, or to a Soccer game….
February 20th, 2009 at 1:43 pm
HardCorps…
I’m in Oregon as well and belong to OFF but I haven’t heard about the CHL exemption. Got any specific info?
February 20th, 2009 at 1:51 pm
“Kinda dodgy to “Give them what they want” when what they want is to take your child….”
— great point
As for Uncle’s comment: It is always a good idea to look for the positive in every contrast you encounter. Each exhale has a bit of contrast – you must now inhale. And each inhale has a bit of contrast – you must now exhale.
February 20th, 2009 at 4:11 pm
The very ones that say personal information required by the State to exercise our 2nd Amendment and Article I, Section 26 State RIGHT to carry arms for self-defnse are usually those who SAY they are for “civil rights”. Yet they want the State to trample our 4th Amendment rights.
If editors and reporters of the Commercial Appeal and the Tennessean had to undergo intrusive background checks and devulgence of personal information to exercise their 1st Amendment rights, I wonder if they would be eager for the State to also violate their 4th Amendment right of privacy??? …..NOT!
February 20th, 2009 at 4:40 pm
Some of these responses are just STUPID; Look people, criminals dont obey the law. They dont pay any attention to the “No Guns Allowed”signs, they dont play by the rules. It is stupid to restrict law abideing citizens from anything. IT is especially stupid tpo restrict people from carrying thier weapons ANYWHERE THEY WANT when they have taken a class, submitted fingerprints to the authorities, given a photo as well and had a STATE,FEDERAL and LOCAL background check to get the permit. You are ALL SAFER with people like us carrying guns. I dont know about other states, but in TN we have a little thing called 3rd party self defense. Anyone famillier with that? It means if I see a crackhead etc. about to cut your head off with a dull knife(or some other life threatening situation) I can dfend YOUR life and it is the same as…..yes…..SELF DEFENSE. Er go, it is to all of your advantage to have an ARMED public under our system of law in this state. YES I want to carry my gun into resteraunts, I dont drink, the only reasonable restrictions on concealed carry should be alcohol only establishments(bars) Court Proceedings and POLICE/Sheriffs Depts. Any other PUBLIC place should not be off limits after a person JUMPS THROUGH HOOPS and PAYS for the PRIVILEDGE of observing thier CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS!! In fact, we should not have to PAY the state for the RIGHTS gueranteed to us buy the CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES! Anyone who can read can figure this out.
February 20th, 2009 at 4:42 pm
“Do we really want loaded handguns on the golf course? At our favorite picnic sites? On the sidelines of our kids’ soccer games? At the table next to us at our favorite steakhouse?”
Markie Marxist sez: “Of course we do! We want loaded handguns all over the place! But only if they are carried by our de facto Marxist, government agents. Private gun ownership is an affront to the authority of the Marxist state and the Marxist sensibilities of the Memphis Commercial Appeal.”
February 20th, 2009 at 8:02 pm
Sometimes watching Karma in action is sooooo much fun.
February 21st, 2009 at 1:59 am
http://www.ar15.com/forums/topic.html?b=8&f=36&t=347062
February 21st, 2009 at 9:19 am
Do we really want to guarantee unarmed victims on the golf course…. That really worked at Virginia Tech, let’s do it more often.
I don’t have a pistol. I don’t feel threatened by law abiding citizens who do. In fact, I’d rather keep the bad guys wondering.
February 21st, 2009 at 9:20 am
In fairness, there are some Lefty (and a few Rightie) types who want all weapons destroyed. They want no weapons in the hands of civilians, law enforcement, or the military. They are the only ones being intellectually honest – which means of course that you can count them on one hand. Other than that, MM has a very good point.
February 21st, 2009 at 10:44 am
#6, Ron W. There is no “right to privacy” in the 4th Amendment. “The right to privacy” was one of those unenumerated rights belonging to the people and identified by the Supreme Court. They did not invent it; It was always there according to the framers of the Consitiution, they just recognized it.
If your right to privacy is so important, why did you give your real name, home address, and birthdate to the DMV for a drivers licanse? I have many guns and weapons. I don’t really mind if the state would like to have some sort of idea that I am not going to shoot up my neighbors on a drug induced whim. The state knowing that I have guns, and the state unconstitutionally getting them from me, are two different things.
The military puts guns in the hands of strangers voluntering (or used to be drafted) off the street. They also do background checks on these people. They would be stupid not to. They want to know that their oath to defend the Constitution (and obey lawful orders) will be honored. Why shouldn’t they expect the same of We The People?
February 21st, 2009 at 10:55 am
“In fairness, there are some Lefty (and a few Rightie) types who want all weapons destroyed. They want no weapons in the hands of civilians, law enforcement, or the military.”
If that’s what they really want, then they’ll be doomed to disappointment. They have obviously overlooked the fact that more weapons can be fabricated by knowledgeable individuals and groups with access to the right tools. If illiterate Pakistani tribesmen can produce serviceable AK-47 copies…what’s to stop good old American Know-How?
February 21st, 2009 at 12:56 pm
MarkJ nails it with: “..weapons can be fabricated by knowledgeable individuals and groups with access to the right tools.”
Anybody know how many thousands of machinists have been trained in our prisons alone?
February 21st, 2009 at 1:09 pm
Old Country Boy, in essence asked “what’s wrong with registration?” He also said “The state knowing that I have guns, and the state unconstitutionally getting them from me, are two different things.”
The short version of the answer is that the state knowing who has weapons has ~always~ lead to confiscation. Always. Look at the UK, Australia, Germany in the 1930s, etc. This is why I consider gun registration to be just step 1 of confiscation.
No government should be trusted to rule over disarmed people. Based off the last 100 years of history if anyone should be disarmed, it should be governments.
Doubt me? Go ask the Chinese during the cultural revolution, Turkish Albanians, The German Jews, Cambodian intellectuals, Tsarist Jews, Soviet Georgians… I’ve seen estimates of over 100,000,000 humans killed by their own governments in the 20th century.
There is never an acceptable reason for weapons registration.
Fair enough?
February 21st, 2009 at 1:48 pm
I wasn’t alluding to the actions of countries that have an army intertwined with civilian duties and the political class with the military experience to use it to disarm the population. Particularly historical populations that never had modern arms in the first place.
Although registration can be a first step in confiscating arms, particularly in a mostly unarmed or small country; it is a large and difficult step to go from registration to confiscation in a large armed country like the U.S. It is even more difficult with an army that won’t cooperate in the effort (and 23,000,000 veterans mostly on our side). In addition to that, there are 300,000,000 of us and, at the most if every registered dem/lib/prog/marx suited up to do it, only 43,000,000 maximum of them. I personally know I can take out my 7 and probably your 7 also.
February 21st, 2009 at 3:01 pm
I’m sure that our British and Aussie cousins thought it would be a difficult step to go from registration to confiscation in an armed country too. Look where it got them. You forget the voluntary tax compliance in this country resides at over 90%. If a bill is passed to confiscate guns how many of this compliant people will follow the law? I know that a fair number of us will only lose our weapons when they are pried from our cold dead fingers but I’m not convinced their are enough of us yet. In the area I live in I am sure each of us can account for a lot more than 7 apiece also.
February 21st, 2009 at 3:57 pm
The Aussies and the Brits did not have a constitutional guarantee to the right to have personal weapons. Not only do we have that guarantee, but that guarantee is guaranteed by common consent. Voluntary compliance will only apply in small amounts unless the consensus of Americans believe the guarantee to be properly and legally nullified.
There are enough of us. They may be able to nibble awa at us a little, but consider this: The entire weight of the U.S. and other armed forces have not been able to confiscate a significant portion of personal weapons in full wartime conditions in Iraq and Afganistan. In our case, the military are at the most on our side and at the least will sit it out.
February 21st, 2009 at 4:05 pm
part of the problem with registration is that criminals, by the 4th amendment, are exempt from registration. For a criminal it would be a requirement to self incriminate.
So you can exempt yourself from the requirement to register fully automatic weapons is you don’t pay the tax- hence making you a criminal.
February 21st, 2009 at 5:32 pm
The editor at the Commercial Appeal is attempting to demonize guns and gun owners by suggesting that we have to fear and loath law-abiding, fingerprinted, background-checked that the state has certified to carry concealed firearms. This despite the fact that I personally provided proof that licensed concealed carry individuals are far more law abiding than the average soccer mom.
First the Commercial Appeal published their names. Then they slander CHP licensees by suggesting that they are likely to commit homicides at soccer matches (when they are not).
What’s next? Demanding that we wear the equivalent of yellow Stars of David on our sleeves?
This about more than privacy. This is about being made subject to a manufactured program of fear and loathing for daring to exercise our rights. This is about ending concealed firearm carry everywhere in the United States.
February 22nd, 2009 at 4:57 am
Old Country Boy you need to read the 4th amendment again. “…..secure in their persons, papers,and effects…..” Is the very definition of privacy. DUH!
As for England at one time every man was required to be armed. Now that is not exactly the definition of a right to bear arms, but the type and number of arms was specifically spelled out that each member of each caste or class was required to have and bear in service to the king.
So at one time, even England understood the virtue of an armed populace. Reserving the most effective arms, of course, for the peerage. Notice any similarities?
February 22nd, 2009 at 10:41 am
I’d just like to point out that through 22 comments, no name calling and a lot of good points.
Nice crowd you got here, Uncle.
February 22nd, 2009 at 11:02 pm
Jim has got it nailed. I doubt I could have expressed it better myself.