Support for Common Sense or for Common Criminals
Posted by: in 2nd Ammendment, Anti Dictionary Democrats, Breaking News, Common Sense, Constitution Issues, Individual Responsibility, Law Enforcement, Politics, Smaller Government, Tennesee TipsTennessee’s Governor, Phil Bredesen, sent a letter to the Speaker of the House informing him of his intent to veto HB0962. HB0962 permits Tennesseans with carry permits to be armed in restaurants serving alcohol as long as they aren’t drinking alcohol. In so doing, the Governor demonstrates the basic problem with Government. Government will deceive the people to get what it wants and it has either no understanding of or commitment to the foundational documents that rule them, the Constitutions of the US and the separate States.
The Governor begins with a meaningless statement of support for the US 2nd Amendment and the TN Constitution. Then he proceeds to ignore them. Of what value is the right to self defense if it is taken from you depending on where you are sitting? What protection do you have when your right to protect yourself is taken from you because someone believes firearm safety tenets supercede your unalienable rights? The right to self defense is not limited by our Constitutions to place and time. We are able to defend ourselves at all times. If we abuse that right that we ought to answer to Government. But leaving us defenseless because something bad might happen and claiming to support self defense is hardly common sense.
Respecting current law, law abiding citizens leave their weapons in their cars if they enter a restaurant serving alcohol. Common criminals do not. The Governor says “Guns and alcohol don’t mix” but HB962 prohibits those carrying a weapon from consuming alcohol. Law abiding permit holders will comply. Common criminals will not. Citing common sense and public safety, the Governor makes law abiding citizens less safe and empowers the common criminal.
How is this common sense? You take away my rights because there might be problems? We don’t tell people they can’t speak because their words might be dangerous. We prosecute those abusing their right to speak. We don’t prevent people from assembling because riots are bad. We prosecute those abusing their right to assemble. Why forbid self defense because of what might happen? Why not simply prosecute those abusing their right? Words and crowds pose just as real a threat yet we use common sense concerning those rights. Why not with our right to self defense?
As to deception, the Governor mentions restaurants but closes with the picture of carrying a gun into a bar at midnight. HB0962 doesn’t permit carrying guns into bars; into businesses which only sell alcohol. He’s playing misleading word games. It’s not a Guns in Bars bill. It’s a Guns in Restaurants bill. Phil Bredesen knows this and still uses pejorative and deceptive language.
The General Assembly should override the veto. There was broad support for the bill in the Legislature and in the state. Unlike the Governor, Tennesseans see common sense as being able to defend oneself wherever they are, not just here and there, now and then, which seems to be the Governor’s idea of common sense. I cannot see the common criminal disagreeing.
Blue Collar Muse
SEE ALSO:
Is Phil for Guns in High Schools by Stacey Campfield @ Camp4 You;
Bredesen to Veto Guns in Restaurants that Serve Alcohol Bill? by Uncle @ Say Uncle;
Statement from Rep. Curry Todd on the Veto by Uncle@ Say Uncle;
Whining the Override by David Oatney @ The World According to Oatney.
Popularity: 52% [?]
Tags: 2nd Amendment, Guns in Bars Bill, Guns in Restaurants Bill, Phil Bredesen veto of Gun Legislation, Self Defense, TN HB 0962
Entries (RSS)
June 1st, 2009 at 10:14 am
So, wait…is it your argument that time-place-manner restrictions on Constitutional rights are illegitimate? Because that’s a little nuts.
You could use the same argument to say, for instance, that people ought to be able to yell “FIRE!” in a crowded (and non-burning) movie theater. Sure, people might get hurt, but the Constitution gives us a right to free speech, and that right is absolutely inalienable! What’s it’s use if we lose it in certain places or when we want to say certain things?
Likewise, we have freedom of religion. If that right is totally inalienable, I ought to be able to go out and set up a bonfire for a public, bloody sacrifice to Pan in the park, this afternoon. What’s the use of that right, if I lose it depending on which religious practices I choose to observe or where I observe them?
But it doesn’t take a constitutional scholar to realize that our rights just don’t extend that far. In fact, with just about every right other than the right to bear arms, conservatives seem to be all for a narrow reading of what the Constitution demands. The obvious fact is that the Constitution is supposed to protect certain exercises – say, peaceful, political speech – and not other, socially unacceptable ones – maliciously slandering people or shouting fire.
The same holds true for the Second Amendment. The people have a right, under the Constitution, to keep and bear arms for certain, acceptable purposes. It just so happens that those purposes cease to be acceptable and become a danger to society and to everyone else’s right to keep breathing a lot more often than, say, speech does.
So, even if you want to argue that this particular gun control law is a bad idea, your Constitutional dismissal of all gun control is just bunk. To believe otherwise is, essentially, to call the Bill of Rights a prescription for mass chaos.
June 1st, 2009 at 1:58 pm
Is anyone so deluded as to believe that guns aren’t already in bars? Wake up governor!