Tuesday, March 31, 2009
Legislature / Woods Bar Gun Bill in Jeopardy After House Fight
Posted by Jeff Woods on Tue, Mar 31, 2009 at 5:18 AM
"You can't leave it wide open out there in my opinion and be responsible, to let them just carry it anywhere they want to carry it," said Todd, a former policeman. "I can't let them carry it into a bar. And I know what a bar is: pickled eggs, pickled sausage, pool table, shuffleboard and bar stools up there."
Comments (13)
Showing 1-13 of 13
"Only in TN"?
Jeff, you hack, they have this in 30+ other states without problems.
"That should cut down on any unnecessary recklessness with gun"
- What recklessness are these fools referring to? Besides Mr. Woods' desperate attempts at making something out of nothing...where is the info backing up ya'lls position? 30+ states....seems like this has been tested. Why not take a look at the results?
Is it maybe because they show the exact opposite as what you assert?
And since when is the mexican restaurant near my house a "saloon"?
F^cking idiot.
like
dislike
Jeff Woods fails to see past his fascist, control-freak world view. He thinks he should be able to define what is normal and what is not. Not everyone works 9-5. Some work 3rd shift. Some work 4th. The 11pm "curfew" is arbitrary nonsense proposed by cowards with tiny minds. And who the f%ck calls them "saloons"??? Please name some "saloons" in Nashville.
But I don't drink alcohol (or gasoline) so maybe I've just missed them.
The question is not "whether we should allow" but "what gives us the right to restrict" and the answer is
NOTHING.
Private business owners are the ones who should have the say as to whether or not their patrons can carry into their establishments.
So, Jeff Woods, not only do you despise the 2nd amendment but the 4th as well.
Another closet Marxist/Statist with a keyboard calling himself a "journalist".
Jimmy Naifeh is what is laughable. You and he obviously have something against democracy even though you shill for something called the democratic party.
"what gives us the right to restrict" and the answer is NOTHING."
Well, nice try, but no cigar. You gun nut loonies always cite the second half of the 2nd Amendment, the part about the right to have guns "shall not be infringed." But you conveniently leave out the first half of the 2nd Amendment, the part that talks about "well regulated."
I know you wish that first half of the Amendment weren't there, but it is Kevin.
And "well regulated" means just that. Your state government has the responsibility, granted under the Constitution, to see that your right to have a gun is "well regulated." That includes all kinds of things: gun safety standards (no saturday night specials), prohibition of tanks and flame-throwers and personal a-bombs and cop-killer bullets and assault rifles, and restrictions or even bans on guns in bars or parks or playgrounds.
No court has ever ruled otherwise. I know you are a deranged gun nut, but you are just wrong about this.
TennRod,
Learn to read.
The "well regulated militia" and "the people" are two different things (hence why a distinction is made within the amendment). It is BECAUSE a well-regulated militia is necessary that the rights of THE PEOPLE shall not be infringed. To suggest the 2nd amendment is some sort of "collective right" listed amongst INDIVIDUAL rights is completely absurd and an indication that you are in dire need of a civics lesson.
And I see you have fallen for all the lies that the fascist gunaphbes put forth about firearms. You have no idea about 99% of things you mention yet want to be taken seriously.
Fear of inanimate pieces of machinery is mental disorder.
"No court has ever ruled otherwise. "
Wrong. Most current "laws" concerning weapons are contempory and new. 100 years ago no one would take you idiots the slightest bit seriously but sadly your warped, tyrannical, fascist world-view has taken over the minds of more than a few...
By the way, all this stuff is going to eventually pass in TN and there is nothing you can do about it so maybe LA, NY, or CHI might be a better suited state for you?
Cowardly bootlickers of a feather flock together...
Sorry folks, Kevin broke into the ward's administrative offices again and got online. He's been taken back to his room, sedated, and will work through his extreme anger issues in group this afternoon.
Ha...thanks for proving my point. The antigunners have no facts or stats to back up the absurdity they label as truth, just pure retarded emotion. So, when you point out to them in fine detail how dumb they are, they get all pissy and retort with lame , unimaginative jokes.
Your side is going to lose. Get the f^ck over it, you coward.
So Kevin, just to clarify, anger is not an emotion? Or not a "pure retarded" emotion?
Sorry, this one always trips me up.
I never said it was a collective right, Kevin. You stupid shit. Read my post and see where I said that. I didn't.
You and I do indeed have a right to bear arms. Individually. And the state has the right and responsibility to put reasonable limits on that right, to make that right "well regulated." You can't have it both ways.
The idea that you crazies have that there can be no restictions whatsoever on gun-totin' is simply wrong.
Mr. Woods:
"Bar Gun Bill", eh?
Interesting that the wording of the bill goes out of it's way to make sure it doesn't allow carry in an establishment that would normally be considered a bar, or one that "morphs" into one accidentally at some point of the night. (The 11pm curfew..)
It's uninformed, sensationalistic, and heavily biased writings such as this that are serving to help drive print journalism right down the toilet.
Wonder why newspapers everywhere are going bust? Here's a hint: You can't out-stupid American Idol. You can't out-sensationalize Entertainment Tonight. And you can't out-T&A the Playboy channel.
What's that leave you with? How about honest, informed, and balanced reporting and opinions? With a level of detail that is only economically viable in print? Oh, wait..
TennRod-
WRT emotions: anger is an honest and, in this case, appropriate emotion that any intelligent person would experience when their rights are curtailed without good reason.
All who oppose-
I understand that the gun has been demonized in society. You think the word GUN and immediately get to shaking.. So of course you don't want them around. To that extent you support laws that ban them wherever you can.. Too bad laws don't stop the lawless from doing what they want. All the folks that have a handgun carry permit are asking is to allow them the chance to level the playing field between them and those for whom laws represent no barrier or constraint. Because if you think there aren't guns virtually everywhere you go, you need to think again.
NuMan:
I call BS on this stereotype of quaking weenie liberals who are afraid of guns. I enjoy shooting at the range. It's an activity that requires skill and practice, and it's just plain fun. In the near future, I even have plans to acquire a permit and a handgun of my very own. However, I can think of no good reason to ever take a handgun into a bar/saloon/honky tonk. (Word choice is somewhat irrelevant here; we all know what we're talking about.) And by God, I would never patronize any establishment that allowed me or anyone else to bring in a gun. There are just too many idiots out there. I mean, just look at Kevin. He seems angry and unhinged enough in the middle of the day, when he's (one would hope) sober. I certainly wouldn't trust him out in public with a gun after a few beers.
Guns are not inherently evil, but they are only a net good as long as, on balance, they tend to make you more safe rather than less safe. Reasonable people can disagree about what types of regulations, as a practical matter, actually make gun use safer. But no matter how you work out the equation, alcohol consumption is always going to swing the scales wildly toward "less safe."
"I never said it was a collective right, Kevin. You stupid shit. Read my post and see where I said that. I didn't."
- You didn't use those words but that is essentially what you and other idiots like you believe. I read your post. You haven't a freaking clue as to what you are pretending to know about (hence why you didn't address me SCHOOLING you on the subject). You ignored the point of my post for a reason...you coward.
Again, the amendment makes a distiction between "The People" and "a well regulated militia". They are not one and the same. And its talking about the militia being "well regulated" not the right itself.
And again, this stuff is gonna pass so man up and get over it.
You f^cking bootlicking retard. :)
Zoe, I do not consume alcohol. I don't go to bars or clubs. I mind my own business and have no criminal record. I have a permit to carry and don't think leaving my $600 gun in my car unattended is something that makes this city safer. I carry my weapon into restaurants all the time...just not where they happen to serve booze.
But so what? I don't drink and it would be ILLEGAL for me to do so anyway. Cops carry their weapons into Logan's and O Charleys...and they don't have a perfect record when it comes to firearms. Far from it. Do you want me to post all the accidental discharges and crimes committed by cops on a daily basis? You could fill a book with such instances.
But on the other hand, 30+ states allow this and the delusional wild west scenarios that Jeff Woods and Ronal Serpas say is inevitable have never come to pass.
Bad people who intend to commit gun crimes are going to commit them. Pieces of paper that have the approval of Jeff Woods have done and will do NOTHING to stop this.
It is common sense.
As a person who has spent many years working in a bar I have quite a strong opinion as to why this bill should be stopped.
Over the last 5+years I have been involved in breaking up many bar fights, witnessed alcohol related violence, and stunts at an incredible rate. It chills me to think about what would happen if any one of these individuals or situations could have involved a gun.
Alcohol is a behavioral modifier and we all know that. I'm not a crazy weenie gun-a-phobe by any means. I don't think that for the most part people with carry permits go out, with their gun in their pocket, to commit crimes....but after 17 shots of Jagermeister, it's not that persons intentions that come into question, it's what that person will do when intoxicated.
How many crimes have been committed under the influence of alcohol?? Do we really want to make it ok to bring weapons to where the alcohol is being distributed? Thats why it has been illegal for many years to bring weapons into an establishment that serves alcohol.
I know most gun owners and carry permit holders are responsible individuals that carry for their protection.....but that doesn't mean that the rest of us should feel at risk just because of the one guy that has too much to drink and doesn't wanna leave the bar when I tell him to...or thinks another guy is hitting on his girlfriend and wants to start a fight.....
While I have worked in a bar, I have never carried a gun or wanted to.......if this law passes, i would in my mind be forced to leave my job simply out of fear for my own life.
It's irresponsible to downright allow guns in bars at anytime or with a curfew.
How many of you remember Hurricanes on second avenue about 8-10 years ago......several people were shot over a summer.........
If this law passes that would be just the tip of the iceberg.....
