Tennessee legislature pasess guns in bars bill

Discussion in 'Politics' started by Dickie4:20, May 13, 2010.

  1. Last year, the Tennessee legislature overrode Gov. Phil Bredesen's earlier veto to pass a law that provided gun owners (which i am) the right to carry their weapon into any restaurant, except those whose biggest business was serving alcohol.

    The law was declared unconstitutionally vague by the state court, so now the Tennessee legislature is trying once again. But this time, the new bill includes, "No exclusions for where guns can be carried, as long as permit holders don't consume alcohol”.

    Heres what A+ NRA rated Tennnessee state legislature Republican Rep. Joe McCord had to say about this bill,

    "Essentially, NRA is saying to us, if you don't support and vote for carrying guns in bars, we will not endorse you, this line of reasoning borders on lunacy."

    Some legislatures voted for this bill, even though they voiced concern about it. I wonder if the NRA had anything to do with influencing them?:rolleyes:

    As of now, Gov. Bredesen doesnt know if he'll veto the guns in bars bill or not.

    He doesnt think the revised version is any better.

    This is just another stupid bill by 2nd Amendment crusaders. Gov. McDonnell, a Republican in Virginia, signed a bill that would let people who had concealed carry permits into a place that serves alcohol. Granted the law doesnt allow gun holders to drink alcohol, but the gun lobby is trying to change that. Georgia is also trying to get similar measures into law, their bill would let people go into a bar with a weapon and get drunk, just if the person doesnt shoot the gun.

    Most want strict no gun policies in their businesses.
  2. Are the businesses free to place a sign in plain sight at the entrance making clear "NO FIREARMS ALLOWED?"

    If so, then what's the problem? If not, they should be permitted to do so.
  3. I'm all for gun rights and all that, but allowing guns in bars is reaaaaaaaaally stretching.
  4. Here, let me get it out of the way, before we have 5 pages of the same posters cramming thoughts like the following down this messageboards throat.
    "So, what exactly is the issue? Certainly drunk people and guns wouldn't create a dangerous situation. Never.

    Fucking government taking our guns away yet again.

    There should be absolutely no barrier to who owns a gun and where they possess it. Just ask the NRA." :rolleyes:

    The sad part is, millions of people see not a fucking single problem with this.

    I wish I could live on my own planet by myself sometimes, fuck humans.
  5. Yea, that's what I want to know.

    I'm pretty sure private businesses have no rights to discriminate though, since the Civil Rights Act.
  6. #6 chiefton8, May 13, 2010
    Last edited by a moderator: May 13, 2010
    And then what happens when some inebriated idiot unloads their gun on your wife, gf, mother, sister or brother? I'm sure you'd still support this law 100% as long as the business put up a piece of paper that said "NO FIREARMS ALLOWED".

    I can only assume it would also be appropriate for airlines to simply put up signs on the outside of planes that say "NO TERRORISTS ALLOWED" or "NO WEAPONS ALLOWED", right? I mean seriously, the airline industry and its passengers shouldn't be burdened with annoying laws and security checkpoints to ensure these things don't happen. Simply putting up a sign should totally do the trick. Otherwise, they'd be infringe on your uncontrollable urge to carry a loaded gun everywhere you go. :rolleyes:

    Bottom line, I must agree. What's the point of getting some food and refreshments if you can't have a loaded magnum in your pocket? I know the last time I went out to eat or drink I needed one...the damn server gave me a Diet Pepsi instead of a real Pepsi. Imagine if he know I had a loaded gun in my pocket. I'm sure he wouldn't have made that mistake then.
  7. The people who carry firearms legally are not the ones to be worried about. Its the new people to firearms, like everyone in this thread (I'll excuse myself of course) who have no training, trigger discipline, or even knowledge of gun safety. You create this great freedom into a demon.


    I rarely handle my firearms when intoxicated but when I do there are always steps for safety, clearing the receiver, showing its clear to others in the room, trigger discipline, muzzle discipline etc etc.

  8. If the person unloads their gun on your wife, gf, mother, sister and brother they have already violated the law against murder.

    Your argument makes no sense.

    These laws and signs deal with people who are, by default, law abiding persons. If a person has decided they are going to violate the law in regards to firearm usage or firearms in bars, a sign saying "NO FIREARMS ALLOWED" or alternatively a law that says "NO FIREARMS IN BARS" allowed isn't going to stop the activity.

    Somehow, in magic unicorn land, the law that says "NO FIREARMS ALLOWED IN BARS" works to stop people, but the sign outside the bar saying essentially the same thing does not?

    No amount of laws or restrictions can prevent the person intent on killing from doing so. There is already a law against killing, but that didn't stop them.

    You may not perceive a 'need' for people to carry weapons. I may not perceive a 'need' for people to exercise free speech against our Lord And Savior Barack Obama. You want one banned, I want the other banned. They have no need to criticize Obama, so why do so at all?

    Fortunatly, just as free speech is a protected right, so too is the right to bear arms. And your desire to controls others actions based on your perception of need is utterly irrelevent to such rights.
  9. QUESTION: Is it already against the law to kill people? If so, why is that law not sufficient to stop people from killing other people?
  10. Why would you want to wear a gun like a cowboy ?

    I can understand having a gun for protection in your house but the street and bars.:confused:

  11. It isn't about what you deem "want-worthy" or not "want-worthy." It isn't about having a need or not having a need.

    It is about a person's right to bear arms.

    Let's substitute "speech" for "firearms":

    Why do people want free speech in public like cowboys?

    I can understand having free speech in your house, but not in the street or in bars.

  12. Yeah...I can see carrying a gun in certain rare situations, but if I ever did it wouldn't be a giant gun like in the picture above. Were they out of Rambo-style missile launchers that you wear like a backpack? I'd get something small and flat and wear it under my jacket or at my ankle. Anyone who wears it like that dude on his belt like a Blackberry is just looking for attention.
  13. Do you deny that by displaying it so blatantly he is now less likely to have to use it?
  14. There is a difference between Open Carry and CCW, one being the permit required for CCW.

    You still have the right to Open Carry a firearm in public (except within 1000 feet of school, federal buildings etc) and Loaded Open Carry on private property, BLM land, state and national parks all without a permit. Minus some parks that just require you to declare.

    So you are comparing apples to oranges, these are not the same they are separate rights.
  15. #15 sky dog, May 14, 2010
    Last edited by a moderator: May 14, 2010
    I really can't comment on a hypothetical situation like that, you could also say that he's now the primary target because he's a visible threat to a would-be shooter

    It's also like saying that a random rock on the ground will protect you from bears...it could be true, but it could also be possible that you were never going to personally encounter a bear in your lifetime anyway
  16. We can generalize hypotheticals. What I got out of that was that if there's a cop standing in a gas station, a would be shooter is going to shoot the cop because he threatens his ability to rob the place. Or is it more likely the criminal will simply move along and find a less armed place to rob?

    I also fail to see the connection between rocks+bears and guns+criminals. A rock will not make a bear less likely to attack you, regardless of the bear knowing you have it. A gun on the other hand will make Johnnie Junkie think twice before trying to harm you. You may never come across Johnnie Junkie, but the possibility of something not happening does not justify lack of preparedness. I may never get sick, but that doesn't stop me from having health insurance. Unless, of course, you're of the persuasion that it is not the individual's responsibility to take care of their self but the state's.
  17. Im all for it, control doesnt work. My state just became a shall issue state so when I turn 21 im going and getting my CCW licence. I dont see the problem they arent allowed to drink while they have the gun. Im sure if they are drunk and kill someone they are gonna get sent to prison . Its people who carry guns in their waistband that dont have any firearms training you need to worry about. Im a liberal btw. Ive seen a gun get pulled on someone and heard three diffrent gun shots near my sisters house. If one killed one of my little nephews I dont know what I'd do. I know a lot of good people who live in that neighborhood. Its just a few diffrent gang's that keep fighting for no reason sept colors. I wouldnt wanna use my gun but if I got caught up in the cross fire Id probably have to.

Share This Page