Bredesen on guns
I’ve always like Phil Bredesen on guns. He’s endorsed by NRA, signed castle doctrine into law, and signed a law that requires local chief law enforcement officers to approve NFA transfers. And he’s even got some decent stuff to say on the right to arms. I’m still trying to figure out why he vetoed the restaurant carry bill.
June 1st, 2009 at 8:47 am
Umm… Because he’s a politician? He knows it’s going to be overridden anyway but by vetoing the bill, he can have his cake and eat it too.
June 1st, 2009 at 1:02 pm
“I’m still trying to figure out why he vetoed the restaurant carry bill.”
Is he trolling for a job in the Obama administration? Maybe in this national health care thing…
June 1st, 2009 at 2:50 pm
Caught this article on MSNBC.com today…. seems he is pretty much like your average person, or at least that is what he is portraying. This is really a case of a bad sound bite. “Guns in bars” sounds bad on the face of it to your average person. Once you explain that it’s only for people who have CHL’s, and that CHL’s are prohibited from drinking while carrying, and that it’s not in bars per se but in restaurants that serve alcohol, it sounds a lot more reasonable, but that kind of argument doesn’t penetrate your average civilian’s brain (possibly because it’s not spelled out for them by the unwilling media). So either it hasn’t penetrated Bredesen’s brain, or he knows how it plays with the public and doesn’t want to seem too much of a gunny.
http://www.newsweek.com/id/200088
“Guns in parks” is much the same way, but your average person can come up with a reason why it’d be good (defense from bears) so it doesn’t face quite the opposition that “guns in bars” faces. If somebody had spent a good couple tens of millions on television ads in Tennessee, I bet it wouldn’t have been vetoed.
Good quote from him:
“I enjoy pointing out to my more liberal friends that when they want to (e.g. choice v. right to life issues) they can happily find justification for their (and my) position in rights emanating from implied privacy rights lurking in the penumbra of our Constitution, but where they disagree (e.g. on guns) they are perfectly happy to wave off or reinterpret the clear language in the Bill of Rights.”