Wednesday, April 1, 2009
Legislature / Woods Senate Judiciary Committee Votes to Close Handgun Records
Posted by Jeff Woods on Wed, Apr 1, 2009 at 9:51 AM
Comments (28)
Showing 1-28 of 28
Man...we are on a role. We keep winning and you guys keep losing.
Our record is still better than yours or the cops so...
:)
like
dislike
"so we can't find out when our fine, law-abiding licensed gunmen commit crimes"
You find out they committed a crime the same way you find out anyone committed a crime. Or are you saying that by keeping this list private that CCW holders can commit crimes but won't be caught because the only way to catch them is to be able to find their name and address on an online database?
I've read your other missives, you just *might* be thinking that.
How many murders were by non-CCW holders? How many crimes were committed by cops? I have a feeling that if you were to be honest (insert laugh track here) you'd post those numbers and realize that CCW holders by far are the most law abiding group you're going to find.
Now, if you'll excuse me, I'm going to go think about robbing a bank since there's no way to determine I committed a crime since I have a CCW, according to your 'logic'.
I have a solution, abolish the need for a concealed carry permit by following the Constitution that states "the right to keep and bear arms SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED".
then there's no list, no fighting over the list, no publishing of a list and less crime all around. How would there be less crime?
those that are prone to violence are usually predators and cowards. If everyone MIGHT be carrying a weapon..they'd never know who to attack and if they choose to attack someone similarly armed..chances are they're going to have a very bad day.
still, putting that idea aside. Many folks that I know who have a permit to carry a weapon do so with the highest moral regard for liberty and safety and to achieve those ends they practice regularly and stay abreast of the laws that affect carrying a weapon.
In other words, they're a bit more responsible than Mr. Woods here, who uses the NRA trademark without their permission.
Who knew?? a Media HACK who's also an intellectual THIEF is advising you on what is good and bad.
Nice.
Robb Allen & Elliot,
Great posts. These people, Jeff Woods and his cheerleading keyboard commandoes, don't seem capable of getting it. This is evident in the fact that they refuse to address the actual truth of the matter that we keep hammering home.
Jeff Woods wouldnt debate this face to face if his life depended on it. Hiding behind his PC seems to be his MO.
But I'm fine with that. They will bitch and moan on the internets while peope like us help get legislation passed.
And we are on a role aren't we?
:)
"I have a solution, abolish the need for a concealed carry permit by following the Constitution that states "the right to keep and bear arms SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED"."
Indeed.
All of my rights, including my 2nd Amendment rights are unconditional and absolute.
"bangers nad mash says:
Yeah Kevin we are on a real 'role'.
Charades anyone?
Posted On: Wednesday, Apr. 1 2009 @ 12:46PM"
Yeah, keeping up with all the idiocy that spews forth from The Scene is a daunting task...so I made a typo, how does that negate the facts that I continually post, exactly? BTW, you misspelled “and”.
Not one of the gunaphobes cheerleading Jeff Woods and his retarded blog entries have made any coherent, fact-based points regarding this issue. They might as well all be
"I mean....come ON...can you believe it? WTF?? OMG!!! HUH? WOW!!! Im scared of guns!!!"
I wonder if that's why our side is winning? :)
Our legislators will certainly not be stamping the NRA logo on their foreheads. Quit trying to label the NRA as some evil organization, the facts are on their side. The Nashville Scene is grasping at straws to make headlines at this point. And if you haven't gotten permission to use that NRA logo, that would be infringement of intellectual property and trademark, and you are opening yourself up to a hefty civil suit.
The 200,000+ permit holders and fellow pro 2nd Amendment/civil rights Tennesseans are getting these bills passed, not the NRA.
Democracy in action.
:)
"Marrero also expressed puzzlement over why the NRA is demanding that its puppets in the legislature seal the records. "The people I know who have permits are right proud of it," she said. "If I had a permit, I'd put up a sign in my front yard that says 'Don't mess with this woman. She's got a gun in her house.' "
I'm not sure I would be able to fit such a sign in my yard. I already have a "If you're going to burglarize this house, the owner works 8-4 and the lock box is under the bed" and "Dear rapist, daughter sleeps in the 2nd bedroom to the right" signs.
Geesh.
"Quit trying to label the NRA as some evil organization, the facts are on their side."
Funny quote Josh. The NRA is actually quite wrong on the meaning of the 2nd amendment. They are wrong, not in the right to bear arms part but the fact that they refuse to acknowledge that governments do in fact have the right and the responsibility to regulate weapons. They do have the right to abolish certain kinds of weapons. Governments have the right to ban them in certain places also. The federal courts have consistently ruled this way. And Kevin, your side is winning in Tennessee. It's winning in making this state look like a backwards state who doesn't understand the 2nd amendment and feels it has to cowtow to backwoods rednecks and lobbyists from the NRA. I support your right to bear certain types of guns. I don't want them in my house because I have young children and they scare me more than the threat of some burglar or prowler. I wasn't raised around guns and we came out just fine. And I'm not about to go and get a gun now. And Kevin, and others like him that keep posting, again, neither Woods, nor Obama, is going to take away your gun. Relax, bros.
And for the record, I'd much rather this country have strong gun laws like they do in Europe, where violent crime is way lower, but it's never going to happen here, regardless of you guys conspiracy theories regarding Obama. The 2nd amendment is pretty clear that you do have the right to own CERTAIN types of guns under CERTAIN conditions.
Chris,
Would you be so kind as to point out where, exactly, in the Second Amendment it gives the government the power to restrict which types of firearms I can own under which types of restrictions?
Furthermore, can you please point out where in the Constitution that the federal government is recognized as having any "rights"?
I would be much obliged.
Jeff,
You might want to be a little careful with that copyright infringement, there.
In other news, would you be so kind as to list the number of individuals murdered by criminals, non-permit-holders, and police officers this year? Further, those people who do want to put up signs in their front yard still can... but those of us who want to keep our permits private will now have that right guaranteed by this new legislation.
You will forgive me if I see nothing wrong with that.
Chris 1974 may want to knoe the definition of regulate in the 1770's it is not what he thinks if the 2nd gives the fed govt authority to setermine what typ of gun is OK or not. Even the dreaded machine gun was only taxed in the 1934 act . Why else is the ATF under the Treasury because it was an excise tax on guns not a prohibition.
Jeff Wood ridiculous asssertion that onlt with a dtabase can police fiund criminal is absurd. What have the police done all these years when there were no lists of of CCW holders. Does he think criminals registere themselves as criminals?
Well, Linoge, like the Bible, everyone sees what they want to see in the 2nd amendment. The first line says "a well-regulated militia." Many scholars, who are a lot smarter than me (and probably you, I don't know you) think the 2nd amendment was a collective right, not a private one. I happen to think that they are probably right but the language was too muddled. Regardless, you can't just take the parts you like. The sentence in the 2nd amendment describes one thing, not two. If you think it is all about a private right, you still can't explain away the "well-regulated" part. You simply can't although I'm sure you will try.
And Anonymous, OMG. There were no machine guns in the 1770's. Why insert that into the conversation. All they were dealing with were muskets and cannons.
In short, we can argue until we are blue in the face about what the 2nd amendment means. It's like Catholics arguing with Baptists. Everyone sees what they want to see and believe what they want to. In the end, no one is taking your gun away, so relax.
And by the way, we have been regulating machine guns since their inception. I can't just go out and legally buy one. Is this unconstitutional all you NRA fans?
Chris, there are no scholars that can be taken seriously that believe that a list of explicit individual rights contain a "collective right". The notion is absurd and a complete and utter fantasy concocted by brainwashed cowards with low IQs. You would have been laughed at by 90% of the population before the 1930s. Sadly, you people breed.
We have explained the "well regulated" part. How have you missed it? The Founders believed they needed a standing army to defend against foreign invasion. They also knew that standing armies (regulated militias) were dangerous to a free society. Thus, because a well regulated militia is necessary, the right OF THE PEOPLE, to keep and bear a arms SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED (note there is no reference to govt's "right and responsibility to regulate firearms" as you made up in your tiny head).
The founders never realized that people so stupid would come around 200 years later and not know how to read English.
No, we cannot argue about the meaning of the 2nd amendment. The people that wrote the Constitution and the 2nd amendment TOLD US what they meant. Did you know that? Its not some secret riddle that only unelected men in drag can figure out. The men that wrote the documents talked about what they wrote.
You having an irrational fear of inanimate pieces of machinery doesn't change what we know as fact.
Kevin, you do a lot of name-calling in your posting. And you take yourself and your alleged intelligence level way to seriously. I know you think that all judges are liberals and can't be taken as seriously as rednecks, yada, yada, yada, but most of them disagree with you. And they have spent years studying the Constitution and the people who wrote it. The 2nd Amendment clearly gives responsibility to the government, who are the people by the way, the right to regulate weapons. And you can't argue the point. That you don't, or won't, get this doesn't exactly speak well for you. And for your record, you have already lost, as there are many weapons laws on the books and many weapons that you or I cannot buy legally. Case closed. But let me ask you something, since you know it all: does the government have the right to regulate any kind of weapon, even chemical, nuclear, or any other weapon of mass destruction? If you answer is yes, than you have just conceded the point. If the answer is no, than you clearly have no grasp of law or what the authority the Constitution gives to the government. And by the way, you keep throwing out "the founders" as if they were a group of people completely on the same page agreeing on everything. As soon as the ink was dry, they were already arguing about what they meant. So when people say "the founders meant this" or "the founders meant that" they already are saying "I don't know what I'm talking about so don't take me seriously."
Pay no attention to chris - he's just spouting 20th century liberal revisionist history about the 2nd Amendment.
Here's a direct quote from somebody who knew a lot more about it than he does.
"The said constitution shall never be construed to authorize Congress
to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens
from keeping their own arms." - Sameul Adams - at the state of MA U.S. Constitutional Convention.
Gilbert, Gilbert, Gilbert, YOU ARE MISSING THE POINT (sorry for screaming). The point is the government has the right to REGULATE weapons and they have the right to PROHIBIT certain types of weapons. I have never said on this blog anywhere that you could, or should not, be able to bear arms.
Here is a quote from conservative hero, Antonin Scalia: "It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose." Is he now a "liberal." (I've always know Scalia agreed with me on the issue by the way). So stop misconstruing what I'm arguing. The government has the right to regulate weapons but not prohibit them out-right. Case closed, stop arguing.
"Kevin, you do a lot of name-calling in your posting."
Ha...and?
Have you ever read The Nashville Scene? That is all they are really capable of doing. I call it how I see it. Get over it.
People like you are a direct threat to this Republic so, yeah, I think you are a f^cking moronic bootlicker and don't have a problem stating it as fact...because it is truth.
Antonin Scalia is a NEOconservative. A liberal in conservative clothing, ultimetly. Duck hunting with tyrants doesn't make someone a conservative.
"Case closed"
Ha...right. You're laughable assertions regarding the meaning if the 2nd amendment are rock solid, let me tell ya. Have you gotten around to reading the opinions of the people that wrote the law? Why not?
Why are you quoting Scalia and not Jefferson, Washington, Henry or Franklin?
"The point is the government has the right to REGULATE weapons and they have the right to PROHIBIT certain types of weapons."
This is simply what you THINK they should have the right to do but nothing before the 1930s, when men in drag decided they didn't like the idea of armed peasants, would suggest there is any truth to the assertion.
It is a "liberal/progressive" fantasy created by cowardly worshippers of The State.
Kevin, last comment from me. We will agree to disagree. In fact, you win by attrition. The only quote that matters is the "well regulated" part of the 2nd amendment. It is funny that you can google gun control quotes and NRA fans constantly drag out the founders for quotes. None of the quotes, though, say that the government can´t regulate weapons. They are just like the Gilbert Martin quote from above. They tend to say things like the people have the right to bear arms. Well duh, I agree. But you don´t have the right to bear chemical weapons, Kevin. You don´t have the right to purchase cop killer bullets, Kevin. So stop arguing. This issue has been settled by the people that we have designated to settle this issue a long time ago.
And BTW, that is the first time anyone has ever called me a threat to the republic. I think I will have a t-shirt made with that on it.
"The only quote that matters is the "well regulated"
- Um, no, all the words matter. You don't get to pick and choose like most fascist believe. "The People" matter and "The People" are not a "well regulated militia", hence the distinction. Go read the opinions of people who wrote the law. Unlike you, they had a grasp of the English language. Nowhere in the amendment does it mention "a right and a duty to regulate weapons" as you so pulled out of your uneducated arse.
You are grasping at straws with this fantasy of a concept...its hard to take you seriously.
Chemical weapons are not arms. Chemical weapons cannot be possessed without effecting the life and property of those in the vicinity.
There are no such thing as "cop killer bullets" (proof you know NOTHING about firearms) and the rounds that people like you dubiously label "cop killers" are actually completely legal and can be bought at most gun shops and shows. Do some actual research and find out how clueless you are...please.
"And BTW, that is the first time anyone has ever called me a threat to the republic. I think I will have a t-shirt made with that on it. "
- Glad I was the first to point out the obvious. :)
The first line says "a well-regulated militia." Many scholars, who are a lot smarter than me (and probably you, I don't know you) think the 2nd amendment was a collective right, not a private one.
Those scholars are wrong.
One interesting thing (apart from the obvious) came out of the DC vs. Heller Supreme Court Ruling - though the Justices were divided, 5-4, on the topic of whether or not DC's firearm bans were Constitutional, they were unanimous on one point. That point was that the collectivist interpretation of the Second Amendment is completely and utterly fallacious - it grants an individual right, to individual citizens of our republic.
If you do not agree, just compare it to the First, Fourth, Fifth, and/or Ninth - same mention of "the people", same individual nature of rights.
Regardless, you can't just take the parts you like. The sentence in the 2nd amendment describes one thing, not two. If you think it is all about a private right, you still can't explain away the "well-regulated" part. You simply can't although I'm sure you will try.
No one is trying to take away anything, but rather you are trying to add something that is not there. The opening phrase of the Second Amendment is a clarification... an explanation. It is not a binding requirement.
As Justice Scalia himself said, "The Amendment’s prefatory clause announces a purpose, but does not limit or expand the scope of the second part, the operative clause. The operative clause’s text and history demonstrate that it connotes an individual right to keep and bear arms."
If it makes you feel any better, though, I am a member of a "well-regulated" militia.
In short, we can argue until we are blue in the face about what the 2nd amendment means.
No, you can argue. I will not, because the Supreme Court has already settled what the Second Amendment actually means. Your ignorance of this decision is not my problem.
I know I said I wouldn't comment anymore but this really will be my last time. Kevin, stop misconstruing what I'm saying. I don't mean those words are the only important words in the amendment. I only point those out to point out the obvious: that the constitution mentions the word "regulate." Dude, I've got a clue. You obviously do not.
And Linoge, seriously. The courts have consistently ruled that government has the right to regulate. I can't believe some of you still argue this point. There are numerous regulations on the books. And I agree with the scholars over guys like you. So let's stop arguing. We're not going to agree. I know that makes me a moron (and a threat to the republic no less)to guys like you, but oh well. Have a nice life with your guns and I will have a nice one without them. Notice I'm not arguing to take yours away.
And comment if you like but I'm done with this posting. Maybe we will spar in another posting.
"The point is the government has the right to REGULATE weapons and they have the right to PROHIBIT certain types of weapons."
Wrong.
Governments don't have "rights" - governments have powers. Only individuals have rights.
And the only powers the federal government has are those specifically delegated to it by ennumeration in the text of the Constitution as stated in the 10th Amendment.
Regarding the 2nd Amendment, "well regulated" only applies to governing of the the militia itself when it's acting in it's capacity as an organized military unit. It has no relation to regulating the right of the people to keep and bear arms.
"Well regulated militia" is in the dependent clause of the sentence and places no constraints on the right of the people to keep and bear arms that is ennumerated in the independent clause of the sentence.
