I find a number of things about the “guns-in-everywhere” debate frustrating. And I keep saying it repeatedly, but I think that’s just because I’m still struggling to wrap my head around it.
1. I do think it was a misstep by the legislature. Like I said before, there are a lot of people in this state, even pro-gun-rights people who are like “Everything that’s going wrong in this state and you’re passing gun legislation? WTF?” And a lot of bar/restaurant owners were blind-sided by this. You really don’t want people who have easy access to a lot of voters to be able to say, night after night, to a large group of people “If the guy’s supposed to be representing me, why didn’t he talk to me about this?”
2. I’m a liberal, so I’m all for imposing shit on people who don’t want it for their own good as determined by me (ha), but my understanding is that what’s happening now is how it’s supposed to work. The state says, “Hey, we’re not going to forbid you from carrying wherever you want. Go ahead.” and then individual communities and businesses set the standards that work for them. I don’t see how threatening to go back to the state to force communities and businesses to not opt out of this is in line with conservative principals. Isn’t this how it’s supposed to go if you’re a conservative? Isn’t forcing communities and businesses to do what you think is best for them to do nanny-state-ism?
I guess I need someone to explain that to me, because I don’t get it.
3. I am really kind of taken aback at how gendered this discussion is. Almost every debate I’ve read online ends up in a fight about who has the smaller penis, who’s the biggest pussy. And, frankly, after about half a second, I feel like this debate is more about masculinity and how men should behave than it is about whether we need to have concealed carry everywhere. Is it a man’s job to be an agent of authority and protection at all times?
The answer on both sides seems to be “yes.” So, now the debate becomes about how men display their authority and their ability to protect others. Is it by modeling a peaceful non-gun existance and working to keep guns out of the hands of others, so that everyone will be safe? Or is it by responsibly carrying a gun and being ready to act in an emergency when the police aren’t or can’t be present in order to protect his family and the community?
But, of course, I reject the notion of a hierarchy of authority in which a man’s job is to act as an agent of authority when no representatives of state authority are present.
So, I don’t really find either of those arguments compelling or helpful when I’m trying to understand if people who want to should be allowed to carry.
For me, it comes down to two things–it clearly spells out in the Constitution that people have a right to bear arms. Yes, blah blah blah militia blah blah blah. But that only makes the concealed carry argument more clear, doesn’t it? You can’t have a militia that exists only in your house.
And the other is like I said over at Pith the other day, if a woman is being stalked, are we really saying that our concerns about what might happen trump her right to be safe? I don’t like that.
Hell, if the problem is men with guns, let’s just take the guns from men.
Ha.
Filed under: The State of Tennessee
Isn’t forcing communities and businesses to do what you think is best for them to do nanny-state-ism?
It depends. See if you’re doing it to improve THEIR lives it’s nanny-state-ism and conservatives are against that, but if you’re doing it to improve YOUR life, it’s daddy-state-ism and that’s A-OK with conservatives.
‘Almost every debate I’ve read online ends up in a fight about who has the smaller penis, who’s the biggest pussy’
Well, i try to win the debate with facts and wit. the other side likes dick jokes.
[...] B. looks at Tennessee’s year of the gun. She notes what we’ve said all along: we have the facts the other side has dick [...]
The state says, “Hey, we’re not going to forbid you from carrying wherever you want. Go ahead.” and then individual communities and businesses set the standards that work for them.
There was a time where “individual communities” could set standards that worked for them by discriminating against blacks. Doing it to gun owners is still bigoted.
i’m not gonna comment on #1, because i’m not a Tennesseean and i wouldn’t know what’s smart for your state lawmakers to be spending their time on. and your point #2 had too many double-negatives or something in it, because i couldn’t follow those twists of reasoning; they gave me headaches.
since turning into a gun nut, i’ve noticed the same phenomenon myself. and, thing is — on the whole, i really don’t think you can blame the gun nuts for this. their side really isn’t the side that usually degenerates to that sort of B.S., in my experience anyway.
i don’t really see that, although i think i can see how someone might. i think this part of the debate is about how people (okay, perhaps mostly men, but at least in principle people) should be allowed the option of behaving.
as in, you don’t want to carry a gun, don’t carry a gun then. you don’t even have to buy one. but let me do it if i decide to choose differently for myself. (well, as long as i’ve got a clean record and stay sober, anyway. that goes without saying.)
and then it’s not that “men” should be the valiant protectors of anything; it’s that those of them who want to protect something should be allowed that option. don’t force them to cower helplessly under a table if they would hate that. if you want to do that, go ahead, but don’t make anybody else do that.
and that whole “agent of authority” thing… i have not the faintest notion of where you’re seeing the “authority” bit. if anybody’s really saying that, they’re deranged for saying it. being able and willing to protect yourself and maybe your family doesn’t make you any sort of authority whatso-fucking-ever, and anybody who thinks it does probably isn’t emotionally stable enough to carry a gun IMO. we don’t want overgrown Cartman clones out there demanding we all respect theah authori-tay while carrying concealed, that really would be dangerous. it’s not about “authority”, it’s more like preparedness.
sure, if that’s the problem. but is it?
There was a time where “individual communities” could set standards that worked for them by discriminating against blacks. Doing it to gun owners is still bigoted.
WOW, that comparison is so incredibly bizarre it’s offensive.
Businesses are not discriminating against gun owners, they’re discriminating against carrying a gun into their business. I’m sure most would welcome unarmed gun-owners. It’s no different than “No Shirt, No Shoes, No Service.”
(posting, try #2. wordpress delenda est.)
i’m not gonna comment on #1, because i’m not a Tennesseean and i wouldn’t know what’s smart for your state lawmakers to be spending their time on. and your point #2 had too many double-negatives or something in it, because i couldn’t follow those twists of reasoning; they gave me headaches.
since turning into a gun nut, i’ve noticed the same phenomenon myself. and, thing is — on the whole, i really don’t think you can blame the gun nuts for this. their side really isn’t the side that usually degenerates to that sort of B.S., in my experience anyway.
i don’t really see that, although i think i can see how someone might. i think this part of the debate is about how people (okay, perhaps mostly men, but at least in principle people) should be allowed the option of behaving.
as in, you don’t want to carry a gun, don’t carry a gun then. you don’t even have to buy one. but let me do it if i decide to choose differently for myself. (well, as long as i’ve got a clean record and stay sober, anyway. that goes without saying.)
and then it’s not that “men” should be the valiant protectors of anything; it’s that those of them who want to protect something should be allowed that option. don’t force them to cower helplessly under a table if they would hate that. if you want to do that, go ahead, but don’t make anybody else do that.
and that whole “agent of authority” thing… i have not the faintest notion of where you’re seeing the “authority” bit. if anybody’s really saying that, they’re deranged for saying it. being able and willing to protect yourself and maybe your family doesn’t make you any sort of authority whatso-fucking-ever, and anybody who thinks it does probably isn’t emotionally stable enough to carry a gun IMO. we don’t want overgrown Cartman clones out there demanding we all respect theah authori-tay while carrying concealed, that really would be dangerous. it’s not about “authority”, it’s more like preparedness.
sure, if that’s the problem. but is it?
Ignoring my little pet peeve that gun owners feel guns are the ONLY way one could possibly defend themselves and so your only options in a confrontation are to shoot somebody or run and hide; a notion which is so ridiculously laughable on it’s face that it only serves to hurt the arguments of the very people making it. Oh wait, I guess I’m not really ignoring it there am I?
ANYWAYS, who is forcing who to do anything? Business owners are being forced to allow guns on their property against their will. Gun owners are not being forced to patron businesses who’d prefer not to have guns on their property. If that’s happening, let me know and I’ll absolutely support your right not to be forced into visiting a particular restaurant or bar.
Let’s be 100% clear here. This legislation restricts freedom, it doesn’t grant it.
No, it seems that you get it rather well. :)
AARGH. is there nothing between refusing to take my comments at all, and taking them with a one-minute delay?! once again, i’ve had my fill; i’m giving up on wordpress blogs for another few weeks.
The mistake you are making (and probably intentionally so) is equating businesses with “communities” (i.e. local governments).
Business owners are not being “forced” to accept anything. All they have to do to prevent guns from being lawfully carried in their establishments is post a sign (apparently, they have no problem with them being unlawfully carried, because that’s been going on for decades and I’ve seen very few private establishments with metal detectors on the doors) Is this such an egregious requirement? I know of no efforts to change that.
The proponents of pre-emption are talking not about forcing businesses to allow guns, but of preventing local GOVERNMENTS from instituting their own laws…which creates a patchwork of rules and regulations that are impossible to follow and artificially creates criminals where no criminal intent existed.
If a business doesn’t allow guns, I have every opportunity to go somewhere else…or to start my own, gun friendly business.
Governments, on the other hand, are agents of the people, not private entities, and have no business infringing the rights of those people…not even just a minority of those people.
That is why the idea of pre-emption is not “nanny-statism”. We’re doing the exact OPPOSITE of asking the government to take care of us…we’re asking the government to get the heck out of the way so that we can take care of ourselves.
You being offended about someone drawing comparisons between bigotry based upon race versus bigotry based upon fundamental beliefs is irrelevant. You are saying that I must leave my principles, rights and beliefs at the door in order to be accepted. That is offensive to me…no less so than if I were required to denounce my religious beliefs before entering.
In the case of a private business, I can go somewhere else, and take my money and business elsewhere. Bigotry practiced by government actors, under the color of law, and on public property is a completely different issue.
My favorite method for handling confrontation is to avoid confrontation. If someone really wants to get me for whatever reason, I can carry all the weaponry I want; but if he thinks I’m carrying, won’t he just sneak up behind me or shoot me from a distance? Fat lot of good a gun would do me then.
Granted, my apathy toward guns really comes from living in a big city with grocery stores and a police force, and my having no need for firearms in order to feed or protect myself. So guns– for me– would be an indulgence. And as a black man who is also a student of history, I harbor no delusions that my maintaining a personal arsenal would in any way protect me from gov’t. tyranny.
So I guess I look at the whole debate with sardonic amusement. The only entities who materially benefit from the massive circulation of guns and the liberal interpretation of the 2nd Amendment are the gun manufacturers, the gun dealers, and everyone else with a financial stake in keeping the flames whipped up. Everyone else is just jerking off. And who am I to legally oppose someone’s jerking off, as long as they aren’t hurting anyone else?
No, it sounds like some folks might just ask you to leave your gun at the door.
Oy!, forgot to close the tag. only the first sentence should have been a quote.
Of course they do. Our freedom of speech does not include shouting “FIRE!” in a crowded theater. Our freedom to carry a concealed weapon does not mean we can use it whenever and wherever we desire to intimidate or even to emphasize a point. Almost all laws are particularly designed to infringe on what some of “we, the people” do, particularly when doing so has significant potential to harm another.
Nobody says you can’t ban guns from your property. They just say you have to make it clear with a sign, or else the default legal state–guns allowed–will be applicable.
Of course, the anti-gun perverts have always liked weird little patchwork gun law regimes, so as to make people fearful of bearing arms at all.
Aunt B. seems to be trying to take a moderate tone here. Well, how about this? Decriminalize all or most gun laws that are specific to one locality, so that someone won’t go to prison in one state or city for doing something that’s perfectly legal anywhere else.
Of course, the anti-gun freaks cling to their Brezhnev Doctrine of gun control, which says that no gun control legislation ever enacted, no matter how weird or extreme, will ever be repealed. Problem is, their Brezhnev Doctrine is already dead, whether they like it or not.
Let’s put everyone on the same page here. Sailorcurt seems to be unaware of the gun lobby’s latest vow that in the next legislative session they’ll be looking to remove the right to opt out that the new laws give business owners (the guns in bars law) and local governments (the guns in parks law). That’s what Aunt B is talking about.
Isn’t forcing communities and businesses to do what you think is best for them to do nanny-state-ism?
I suppose you could look at it that way. But in this case you can argue that what they’re doing is forcing communities and businesses to honor an individual’s choice.
I’ve never understood all the prattle about violating second amendment rights. The second amendment is the US constitution and binding on the federal government. Is that binding on state and local governments in some fashion? What does the TN constitution say about gun rights?
‘a notion which is so ridiculously laughable on it’s face that it only serves to hurt the arguments of the very people making it.’
It is laughable which is why no one advocates that, except, apparently, some figment of your imagination.
‘the gun lobby’s latest vow that in the next legislative session they’ll be looking to remove the right to opt out that the new laws give business owners (the guns in bars law) and local governments (the guns in parks law).’
Show me where the gun lobby said that? I know I’ve said it but I’m not the gun lobby. I’m curious where they’ve said such a thing.
How your principles, rights, or beliefs are being infringed by me not letting you carry a gun (or for that matter simply a t-shirt with an offensive message) onto my private property?
I was making two completely different points; you cherry picked parts from both and combined them to try to make them both SEEM invalid…but what you actually accomplished was to avoid addressing either.
Point 1: Private businesses and public property are two completely different things and should not have been lumped together either in the initial post, or in your subsequent comment. Arguments against “forcing” private property owners to allow guns on their property are invalid because that is not being proposed and those arguments are irrelevant to the subject of public property.
Point 2: Although not a perfect analogy, racial discrimination and discrimination based upon deep seated philosophical beliefs are both egregious, your feelings of offense at the comparison notwithstanding.
Oh and Nomen Nescio, on July 15th, 2009 at 8:25 am on Tiny Cat Pants, this comment thread. (and frankly I’ve heard the “Don’t stop me from being able to protect myself” line quite a bit). It may be a figment of my imagination but it’s a figment of my imagination that it printed in this very comment thread for everyone else to read, so it’s a pretty physical figment.
Except that that IS what is being proposed.
Agreed, but that’s irrelevant as there is no discrimination based on deep seated philosophical beliefs occurring so far as I can tell.
The SCOTUS has often interpreted the 14th Amendment to bind states to the much, though not all, of the federal Bill of Rights. I’m not aware off the top of my head of any incorporation cases applying explicitly to the 2nd Amendment, but then I don’t really follow gun-related legislation that much as I have no strong feelings on it either way. Still, it’s not completely unreasonable to suggest that the 2nd amendment may have the potential to limit state and local government action.
Pay attention. You said:
‘Ignoring my little pet peeve that gun owners feel guns are the ONLY way one could possibly defend themselves and so your only options in a confrontation are to shoot somebody or run and hide;’
that’s what i was referring to. that was your assertion. gunnies do not advocate that the only options are your pretty little made up false dichotomy.
Of course they do. Our freedom of speech does not include shouting “FIRE!” in a crowded theater.
So if there’s a fire in a crowded theater, you can’t tell anyone about it?
Our freedom to carry a concealed weapon does not mean we can use it whenever and wherever we desire to intimidate or even to emphasize a point.
Exactly. Our freedom to exercise a right does not equate to freedom to abuse the right.
But preventing the exercise of a right in anticipation that it MIGHT be abused is a completely different proposition from assessing consequences for ACTUAL abuse.
As soon as you are required to tape your mouth shut prior to entering a crowded theater to prevent you from shouting “fire”…come back and make that argument again.
wordpress better not eat this too, is all i’m saying…
i’ll thank you not to put words in my mouth, dolphin. the focus and point of my whole comment was choice, as in, you shouldn’t get to choose for me the tools i get to defend myself from violent assault with.
maybe you can fight off entire drug-crazed gangs wielding submachine guns and semiauto shotguns using nothing but, i dunno, your kickass kung fu skillz and some improvised nunchucks you whittled out of a pool cue with your teeth. hey, you’re free to choose to try that, if you’d like. maybe you are just plain cool enough to do that, for all i know. but don’t come forcing such a choice on me, when i’d rather just carry a HiPower or something.
and, yeah, maybe i am unimaginative and uncreative for not being able to think up a way to fight off any given attacker without having to pick up a weapon. maybe i’m even cowardly for wanting the best tool i can think of to be available to me in the gravest extreme. since when do either of those things give you the right to make my choices for me?
I hate that analogy, since it attributes an ability to law which does not exist, i.e. the ability to “prevent” a person from performing an action. There is no law that will prevent a person from shouting “FIRE!” in a theater, or stop a person from waving a gun in your face. There are laws, however, which spell out, quite clearly, the potential consequences of shouting “FIRE!” in a crowded theater, or of waving a gun in the face of someone. Everyone still has the ability to perform those actions, and they will suffer the consequences of such should they be found guilty in a court.
And just so everyone here is aware, if you were to go to a bar while carrying a concealed weapon (in TN) and have a single drink, you would be subject to a greater violation than if you got plastered and got behind the wheel. Brandishing a concealed weapon (even if it never leaves it’s holster) to intimidate is a felony in TN and you will potentially get to spend up to three years in jail and a $10K fine.
Imagine if DWI earned that kind of penalty.
Dolphin, once again, just because you are a physically fit Kung-Fu master does not mean the rest of the world is. We should all be allowed the choice of how best to defend ourselves, as long aa we are responsible with that means.
A martial artist who decides to kick the crap out of someone for no good reason is in just as much trouble as a person who pulls a firearm for no good reason.
Except that that IS what is being proposed.
Not that I’ve seen. Of course, I’m not a regular reader here so I may have just missed it. I would hope that, were such a law proposed, it would fail, and if it passed, it would be thrown out by the courts.
that’s irrelevant as there is no discrimination based on deep seated philosophical beliefs occurring so far as I can tell.
Interesting.
So…you get to decide what my deep seated philosophical beliefs are? Who granted you that authority? Just out of curiosity.
No, you pay attention: Nomen said: don’t force them to cower helplessly under a table if they would hate that.
If prevent guns from being allowed in your property forces someone to cower helplessly under a table than you ARE saying that those are your only two options. If I say, “I have no apple so I’m forced to eat an orange,” than I am necessarily saying my only two options are to eat an apple or an orange. Otherwise, the absence of the apple would NOT force me to eat an orange.
He also heavily implied the same thing later in his authority argument, but since that one was only an obvious implication and not an undeniably clear cut statement such as the former reference, I’ll leave that alone. And on that note, I’ll leave it to others to read the plain text shown on the screen, so you can go back to sticking your fingers in your ears, closing our eyes and screaming “I can’t hear you.” It’s there for anybody to read whether you acknowledge it’s presence or not.
I, for one, would be all for allowing a theater to require people to tape their mouth shut before entering their property. Granted, I think it’d be a poor business decision that would put them out of business fairly quickly, but I’d be in favor of allowing them to make it.
Now where on earth did you get that idea? You’re free to have whatever deep seated philosophical beliefs you want, just if you’re coming into my property, check your gun at the door.
You’re welcome to philosophically think the way I use my property is wrong, but you don’t get to dictate my use of my property for me. And the fact that you don’t like the way I use my property doesn’t indicate discrimination against you on my part. If you don’t like the way I’m using my property and come onto my property anyways, the problem lies squarely with YOU.
On that whole penis thing:
Let’s just, for argument’s purpose, say that the anti-gun weirdos are entirely right. Let’s say that I secretly feel shame over my 3 incher and I want a gun to make me feel like it’s bigger.
How the hell does this give the anti-gun minority the right to deny me my civil rights?
I missed the part of the 2nd Amendment that said, “This amendment doesn’t apply to uncool people with small dicks. After all, sex is the only really important right, and we, the Sexual Elite, have a right to deny the rights of our sexual lessers, so that we can brag about how sexy we are every time we hang out at meat markets.”
Speaking of meat markets: Rayburn has said he doesn’t want gun owners in his nightclub because he’s concerned about the safety of his patrons. It would be very interesting to conduct an undercover investigation to see just how many of his employees are engaging in drug trafficking, If his nightclub is in any way average, my guess would be–almost all of them.
Not my point (and I study Japanese Jiu-jitsu, not Kung Fu, and I’ve yet to attain the rank of “Master”). My point is that there are many (nearly infinite) options available to anybody in any given situation. I’m not opposed to one of those options being gun. I am opposed to the gun option being seen as such a necessity that it must trump other people’s property rights.
Okay Uncle, I over stated. The article I saw that in only mentions removing a local government’s ability to opt out of guns in parks. It doesn’t say anything about business owners and the guns in bars.
Here’s the article I read……
http://www.newschannel5.com/Global/story.asp?S=10726865
I know of no law regarding bars or restaurants that says gun rights trump property rights. However, I see no reason to make Tennessee give Rayburn, et al, a leg up on the competition by disallowing that competition from going after the business of gun owners. These men have the legal right to ban guns on their property; they don’t have the legal right to get the state to do it for them. They can post a sign and see the pro-2A business go out the window, or they can not post a sign and allow guns. Their choice.
I’m exhausted from trying to follow all of the forth and back.
The way I see it is this.
The CC laws prohibiting guns in various locations were unconstitutional as they limited the free exercise of gun owners. The object of the “guns in bars law” was really to strike down the previous unconstitutional laws using the prefered way to do such a thing–the legislature.
All of the municipalities who want to counter this are like , in my mind, the Little Rock school system. Was it nanny-stateism to federalise the National Guard and override Gov. Faubis? I happen to think it was on its face, but I happen to think as a libertarian that the main purpose of statehood– a gentlemen’s agreement ensuring the free exercise of rights of all citizens–trumps the rights of state or municipal governments to make their own laws contrary to the constitutionally proscribed freedom of citizens of the U.S.
I knew I’d misspell his name.
Faubus. Sorry.
None of us can ever be prevented from doing anything we’re capable of doing. I could easily shout fire or any other f word in a crowded theater. It is the consequences of the actions that take place as a result of my exercise of a constitutional freedom that laws affect.
I really don’t care if people can CC or not anywhere I am. Hell, as far as I’m concerned it might as well be open carry. That’s fine if you want to, I don’t. Whatever. One of the reasons I don’t is that in all my years on this planet, some of which were spent in a lot worse places than you’ll find around here, there’s never ever been a need for me to have one or for anyone within a fifty yard radius of me to have one. The incidence of need is low enough that it’s not worth carrying several more oundes of unnecessary weight.
My only objection is the possibility that the state legislature might have done something more significant or of greater impact to a substantial portion of the population with their time in lieu of this legislation. I guess it’s that faint hope that the state might be actually useful that makes me more progressive.
‘No, you pay attention: Nomen said: ‘
Which is not advocating what you said he advocated.
Ok, I’m confused. All of this talk about a concealed carry… I thought in Tennessee you didn’t have to have a permit to carry a concealed weapon? I knew you couldn’t bring weapons into places that served alcohol, but what’s with all the CC talk?
that’s only true in two states, Vermont and Alaska. everywhere else you do need a permit, and not everywhere else will give you one even if you ask.
you may be thinking of carrying unconcealed; that’s legal (and usually needs no permit) in a whole lot of states, often because nobody ever got around to making it illegal. i don’t know if Tennessee is among them, though. but carrier beware; in a good many of the open carry states, actually trying to do so will get you arrested for breach of the peace or some similar charge. that’s one more reason for folks to want concealed carry rights, because it’s simply more polite to those fellow citizens who’d get seriously freaked out by open carry.