Monday, May 4, 2009
Legislature / Woods Lawmakers Vote to Drop Curfew from Gun Bill
Posted by Jeff Woods on Mon, May 4, 2009 at 2:31 PM
"Her husband was killed in front of her at arm's length," Jackson said. "She is a handgun carry permit holder. She was required by law to leave her gun in her car. She is very, very upset with the legislature that a law existed that required her to be disarmed. She said, 'But for that law I believe my husband today would be alive.' Unfortunately these tragedies do occur."Update: SayUncle, an anonymous tough guy, takes a potshot at your correspondent: "As an added bonus, Jeff Woods poos his pretty bloomers, invokes wild west imagery."
Comments (9)
Showing 1-9 of 9
like
dislike
What the hell does the cross have to do with anything? Are you high? Your ability to link guns and Christians is second to none.
Jeff Woods said:
"The wackiest gun freaks in the legislature..."
With all due respect, you can blow that condescension out your rear. Maybe you cannot ... but most of us acknowledge that individual rights are important and substantive, and that they come as a package deal. Ergo, we acknowledge that the people have a right to possess and carry guns for protection in the case of offensive confrontation. That may seem "whacky" and "freaky" to you, but I submit such a view revolves around a lack of tolerance and understanding of free choice, and respect for a substantive right.
The notion of a "curfew" on substantive rights is nonsensical. I believe the bill's current intent is to uphold infringement of the right to carry into a bar (making the majority of income from liquor sales), but to repeal that prohibition in restaurants that merely serve alcohol. Quite frankly, it's reasonable to criminalize carry by persons with a BOC in excess of 0.08%, just as it's reasonable to prohibit operating motor vehicles at 0.08%. But to infringe on the right of someone who is not drinking to simply carry a protective arm in a bar? How can that sensibly be justified. We are not talking the whim of the democratic majority here ... we are talking about legislatively prohibiting conduct that is constitutionally protected.
Remember ... in our system the benefit always goes to individual rights and freedoms, not toward restrictive policy that by design limits freedom.
Another anonymous tough guy writes:
"Infringe not upon that which shall not be infringed".
Sincerely,
USCitizen from Traction Control
In Nevada, where it's legal to carry in bars, casinos and churches (provided you have a permit and you're not intoxicated), we don't seem to have a problem.
Of course, Jeff may be merely pointing out that he considers a bar full of Christian Southerners to be more dangerous to public safety than a "saloon" packed with Western outlaw bikers.
"After 11 o'clock, no family restaurant is open." Really?
IHOP. Denny's. Waffle House. Even McDonald's is open late in some places. Probably even in Nashville. (You aren't implying that they roll the sidewalks up at 10 PM are you? That is the kind of view of Nashville I would only expect from a New Yorker, or Californian.)
You never get a snack AFTER a movie in Tennessee? Well I guess not since it is - by law - dinner and then a movie - unless you want to give up your right to self-defense.
What's that you say, they don't server beer or wine at those places?
So since we have seen that family restaurants are open past 11 PM, are you still sure that no family restaurant serves beer or wine?
On the subject of remaining anonymous...
Have you ever dealt with a threat to your personal safety have you, like a stalker, or other problem along those lines.
I wonder because you don't seem to care much about privacy. Have you considered why some people might view privacy as an important thing? Have you looked into the impacts of publishing the names - and addresses - of all concealed carry license holders? Some of them are trying to keep stalkers from knowing where they are. That actually happened in Florida, when some self-righteous reporter/editor published the name and address of a woman in the Orlando area who was dealing with a violent stalker - not me if you were wondering. Do you think her being exposed to more violence was just part of the public good - the public's "right to know?" (Which is where exactly in the Constitution?)
So before you stop arguing about issues and engaging in argumentum ad hominem you might want to consider that some people have valid reasons for maintaining and cherishing their privacy.
"The wackiest gun freaks in..."
Yeah, stop right there. Never mind, you're disqualified. Nice slur. That make you feel good? Superior to all those "gun freaks"?
Are you gay? Shall I call you a "faggot"?
Maybe you're Mexican, or Puerto Rican - how about I call you "beaner", or "wetback"? That the tone you wish to set?
Go ahead. Keep it up. Says a lot about your side.
"'Pith' In The Wind", indeed...
