Friday, June 05, 2009

Allowing guns in bars, what could possibly go wrong?

Story: (emp add)
The Tennessee House of Representatives has voted to override Gov. Phil Bredesen's veto on the controversial "guns in restaurants" bill. The State Senate is expected to follow suit. ...

Last week, Bredesen – flanked by more than 50 law enforcement officials from across the state – vetoed the legislation, calling it "reckless" and saying it "defied common sense." ...

Prior to today's vote, former Speaker of the House Jimmy Naifeh gave a brief but impassioned speech against the bill, citing law enforcement officials' objections and the concerns of the Tennessee Restaurant Association. ...

State Rep. Glen Casada (R-Franklin) rose to rebut Naifeh and said that "an armed citizen is a safe citizen." He added that the "bad guys" are already bringing guns into bars and restaurants and people who have gone through the mandatory eight hours of training to have a carry permit can now protect him and his family. ...

Bredesen spokeswoman Lydia Lenker issued this reaction to the veto override:

"Governor Bredesen said last week when he vetoed this bill that he expected an override. He's disappointed with this action but that doesn't change his belief that we can exercise our second amendment rights and common sense at the same time. He believes guns and bars simply don't mix, and this legislation doesn't provide the proper safeguards to ensure public safety. Governor Bredesen stands by his decision to veto the bill."
Re "an armed citizen is a safe citizen": A drunk armed citizen is not a safe citizen.


Wait persons should avoid eye contact with low-tipping patrons who may be carrying more than a doggie bag.

By Blogger Shag from Brookline, at 6/05/2009 6:30 AM  

Perhaps the idea is, with the patrons drunk and armed, they won't make it to the cars and won't be driving drunk.

By Blogger nmisscommenter, at 6/05/2009 7:03 AM  

"A drunk armed citizen is not a safe citizen."

Well, jeez, just about every episode of Gunsmoke woulda taught you that. Whisky and revolvers never mixed very well in the Long Branch Saloon.

By Anonymous Screamin' Demon, at 6/05/2009 12:17 PM  

Would this mean that both "Bad Guys" and "Good Guys" have the right under the Second Amendment to "fire" in a crowded restaurant? Compare this to the First Amendment that does not give a person the right to falsely yell "fire!" in a crowded theatre. What's more damaging, guns or words?

NRA's response: "Smile when you say that, pardner."

By Blogger Shag from Brookline, at 6/06/2009 6:32 AM  

The state that outlawed evolution and held the Scopes "Monkey Trial" is now trying to make amends by offering more proof of evolution.

Those that carry guns into bars and get drunk will be removing themselves from the gene pool.

How will this affect the make-up of the population of Tennessee?

By Anonymous Rockie the Dog, at 6/06/2009 9:51 PM  

Well I am all for cities and states having the right to ban the possession of hand guns and think it was a travesty that the DC ban was overturned.

But that being said if your jurisdiction allows people to carry guns at all it doesn't make a lot of sense to try to control that situationally. I mean I don't much like it that people who combine anger management and alcohol problems might be carrying concealed but I wouldn't be much happier to know he had to leave his gun in his truck. Because you are lucky to get through a week without reading some story of a guy kicked out of a bar or house party who returns a few minutes later gun in hand.

Banning guns from a college campus or a whole city makes sense. But if you don't have the balls to do that don't think you are actually aiding public safety by multiplying the numbers of unsecured guns in the trunks of cars in the bar or church or school parking lot.

By Blogger Bruce Webb, at 6/07/2009 10:16 AM  

Post a Comment