Thursday, June 4, 2009
Legislature / Woods Jackson Lashes Out at Media as Senate Overrides Gun Veto
Posted by Jeff Woods on Thu, Jun 4, 2009 at 11:45 AM
Comments (27)
Showing 1-27 of 27
Good news. Now, TN next might consider repealing their licensing system for bearing arms and follow the lead of Alaska and Vermont.
It's called the "right" to keep and bear arms, not the "privilege" to do so. To me, if one has the right to do something, one does not need a license or "permission" from the government to do so.
Think about it. If you can lawfully possess arms (are not a felon or mentally ill) then you have the right to bear them. The government's charge is to protect the right, not to provide permission for a privilege. Prohibited persons and the like will simply do as they wish without regard to the law. Having a licensing system to ensure "only good people can carry guns" is logically laughable.
like
dislike
" Is it possible someone has polled and discovered guns-in-bars isn't so overwhelmingly popular?"
It's touching to see such a new-found concern for the "will of the people" allegedly demonstrated by some opinion poll.
If you want to get rid of the legislature and start enacting laws based on opinion polls, we can start with the issues of gay marriage and abortion.
If the gun issue is worthy to be determined on such basis then every other issue on earth is exactly equally worthy as well.
Sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander.
"Before a vote that was a foregone conclusion, why did Jackson spend so much time defending his bill?"
Gee, Jeff, I dunno...Maybe it was because there was not a single positive story about this change? Maybe it was because people like you made predictions that there will be drunken gunfights over who gets the last breadroll at O'Charleys? Maybe it's because people like you paint carry permit holders as felons-in-waiting?
The House Speaker was hilarious yesterday when he told the members basically to just shut up and vote since all the arguments on both sides had already been heard.
Scott, I have told him MANY times and challenged him repeatedly to a Youtube debate on this issue. Needless to say he's never even responded. Pretty typical.
Dug Jackson says:
Watch DOUG'S FINEST MOMENT.
Posted On: Thursday, Jun. 4 2009 @ 12:22PM
That is the weakest Colbert segment EVER and Jackson does a pretty good job considering it was a hit piece with no intent on being fair. I watch Colbert every night, BTW. Love it. But that piece is pretty pathetic.
I think Jackson took time to call out all the yellow journalism (Jeff Woods defines this term). It was needed and refreshing.
We won, Jeff. Could you find something else to b^tch and moan about now? How about more articles sticking up for PLO-pimping La Raza!! Can't wait!!!
Woods says:
Why not, Carl? It's worthless now anyway. Eight hours of training. Hah!
Posted On: Thursday, Jun. 4 2009 @ 12:15PM
I see where you are coming from, as those who support mandatory training can easily argue that 8 hours is pretty minimal.
But I would not support the mandatory training and licensing of bloggers, either. After all, speech is a fundamental and protected freedom.
I remember something that happened to me in Louisville, KY. I was down there on the "strip" outside some bars, and walked up to some fellow there by himself, sipping on a drink. I struck up the conversation by asking if he was there for the NRA meeting. He said "Hell no, I hate guns. I am from Chicago where people kill with guns." I told him I was from Chicago, too, and that I was concerned with the level of street violence there. He then got even more stern and asked "are you carrying a gun?" I responded with a "maybe" and a "why would you ask?" He then said "Well don't shoot me." I asked him why on earth I would do anything bad to him ... push him, hit him, curse at him, hit him over the head with the chair nearby ... let alone shoot him. He said that anyone who carries a gun is nuts and that he didn't trust them. I suggested he try giving folks the benefit of the doubt. But it was obvious he didn't want to talk to me, so I said good evening and walked away.
I don't often meet folks like that, but he seemed pretty darned miserable, to me.
Woods Rocks! says:
Fuck 'em, Woodsie! We still love ya.
Posted On: Thursday, Jun. 4 2009 @ 2:44PM
Awww, what a cute little psychofant...I can tell between all the intelligent posts from fans of Jeff and Jeff's POWERFUL skilss as a journalist that The Nashville Scene probably has a lot of influence on the local political scene. Too bad you guys couldn't block the passage of this bill...but keep your heads up and keep up the great, uh, work...lol
Carl in Chicago, have you ever been in a bar in Alaska? I have, and when a fight breaks out, I don't feel particularly safe knowing that someone in the establishment is probably drunk and armed.
That said, I guess there's always a risk that a bear might walk in the door.
"I don't feel particularly safe knowing that someone in the establishment is probably drunk and armed."
- Once again, drinking and carrying is against the law. A person will lose their permit on top of probably being jailed. Out of the MILLIONS of permit holder in America, and the 30+ states with this same law...how many times do you think your little fantasy has actually played itself out? Why would you assume people with no criminal records are "probably" breaking the law?
Actually, I'm just projecting. I have a small penis and I'm afraid of inanimate objects.
It's also against the law to serve alcohol to someone who is drunk, but that's a pretty tough law to enforce and it's broken all the time.
The argument that this bill is motivated by safety concerns doesn't strike me as genuine in the least. I'm in no way as anti-gun as Woods, but I don't understand how banning guns in bars is unreasonable. If you don't feel safe going into a bar to have a drink without your gun, have a drink at home.
Okay . . . okay . . . i'm a fearful little boy that has to carry my gun everywhere to feel safe . . . my mommy whupped me as a baby and didn't breatfeed me long enough . . . daddy never loved me . . . i guess because i was born without nuts . . . most days, it's all i can do to keep from finding a clock tower, climbing up with my rifle and . . . well, you know the rest . . . you'd be all bitter and afraid too if you had no nuts . . . and really wanted to have sex with men . . . but were too afraid . . . like i am.
Yup. You can totally see why they were able to put a stop to the passing of the bill...They employ substance over rhetoric. If only we could learn from them...
Yup, I'm in my mid-40s. I'm white . . .
And I've never had sex with an adult human.
If I don't get me a man soon, I'm going to shoot up a bar
Terrific. I can't wait for me or my family to get accidentally shot by some cowboy who's going to save the day hero style.
I'll be sticking to restaurants who make it a policy not to allow guns in their places of business.
Kevin,
Your point is well taken - there ought to be tons of laws and regulations to keep people from fucking and spawning more of your ilk.
"We believe law-abiding citizens should have the right of self-defense," Jackson said.
Yeah, did he want his daughter to be holding a gun when he was beating her up for dating a black guy? And using his crony political hack local judge to try and hide it from the media?
What was that deal all about? He beat his daughter for dating a black guy? Man, how come that never came out?
Again, the baseless, desperate insults are probably why you guys lost by just wide margins...YOu lost. Now get over it...
Tygard to withdraw Council guns-in-restaurants bill
Monday, June 8, 2009 at 4:52pm
By Nate Rau
At-large Councilman Charlie Tygard will withdraw at the June 16 Council meeting his recently filed bill outlawing guns in Davidson County establishments which serve beer.
Tygard said he consulted the Metro Legal Department, which told him the legislation did not pass the legal litmus test. Tygard said the bill wouldn’t fly because it is pre-empted by state law established in the 1986. The law said local governments could not limit the right to bear arms, unless they already had a law on the books.
Tygard to withdraw Council guns-in-restaurants bill
Monday, June 8, 2009 at 4:52pm
By Nate Rau
At-large Councilman Charlie Tygard will withdraw at the June 16 Council meeting his recently filed bill outlawing guns in Davidson County establishments which serve beer.
Tygard said he consulted the Metro Legal Department, which told him the legislation did not pass the legal litmus test. Tygard said the bill wouldn’t fly because it is pre-empted by state law established in the 1986. The law said local governments could not limit the right to bear arms, unless they already had a law on the books.
