Home | Entries [Previous |Next]
11 Comments
Sorry, but I don't think it is right to deny me my right to defend my family. Statistics vary but it is estimated that anywhere from 500,000 to 700,000 times a year nationwide that firearms are used in self defense. Keep in mind the current law also denys me the right to carry at a store where alcohol is sold,ie gas station, grocery store. I bet you can guess where most hold ups occur...I am all for a very stiff penalty if you are armed and drinking, but do not deny me the means to protect my family in the best way available.
Posted by: t3rrible | January 23, 2006 07:53 PM
So you're expecting a shootout at the Cracker Barrel. I think the restaurants should post their gun policy on their doors, so we can be forewarned.
Posted by: Donna Locke | January 23, 2006 08:02 PM
there is a differnece between expecting something and being prepared for it. I am not, in fact, expecting a shootout at my local craker barrel, but I also am not expecting a tornado, or a earthquake, but guess what, I am prepared for it as best as I can be. I am like every police officer I know, I do not want to ever have to pull my weapon for any other reason that to clean it, but I am fully prepared to do so should the need arise. I would never dream of telling you whom to worship or what you can speak of, why do you think you can tell me where and if I can protect myself?
Posted by: t3rrible | January 23, 2006 08:36 PM
I guess you can argue that "right" with restaurant owners, some of whom already have "No Firearms" posted. You'll probably have to wear a shirt, too. One "accident" that ends up killing someone, possibly a child, in a restaurant will pretty much take care of these goofy gun-carry bills and laws, I imagine. Meanwhile, the companies that insure restaurants will take care of it before then.
Posted by: Donna Locke | January 24, 2006 12:20 AM
Two words: alcohol and guns. They don't mix, at all...
Posted by: Anonymous | January 24, 2006 01:09 AM
Given the horrible lapses in law enforcement across the state--THP, Cocke Co, Campbell Co and so forth I don't feel that uniformed law enforcement is uniquely qualified only to pack heat.
Posted by: Grayson | January 24, 2006 08:32 AM
Goofy gun carry...
Well at least you have kept the discussion on an adult level. What you call goofy, I call my Second Amendment right. And I am fully aware of the responsibilities that I have when I choose to protect my family. The very first thing a person taking a CCL class for the first time is "you are responsible for the bullet you fire no matter where it goes".
Posted by: t3rrible | January 24, 2006 05:26 PM
Guns don't belong in restaurants unless you are the proprietor or a law oficer. Now I can see how someone might be uneasy walking to their car in a dark parking lot, or even in daylight, but do what women learn to do early on: Park in front near a light, walk in and out with someone, look around and take note of your surroundings, and have your keys in your hand with your finger on the panic button.
Or go to a restaurant that allows you to check your gun at the door and pick it up on the way out, a la Robert Blake.
Posted by: Donna Locke | January 24, 2006 07:26 PM
Ed Bryant’s unconstitutional Corporate Welfare votes.
Ed Bryant’s unconstitutional Corporate Welfare votes. Our founding fathers never intended for taxpayers to finance private corporations.
Elimination of OPIC, Amendment to H.R. 1868.
Representative Bernie Sanders (I-VT) offered this amendment to abolish the federal Overseas Private Investment Corporation (OPIC), leaving $1 million for the State Department to close the agency. Sanders argued that “the issue here is whether or not multibillion-dollar corporations … need [tax-payer] subsidies and incentives to start factories and plants in other countries[.]” (June 27, 1995 Congressional Record, pages H6336-37, roll call 421) Ed Bryant voted against this amendment.
(Source: The New American January 22, 1996)
Elimination of the Market Promotion Program, Amendment to H.R. 1976.
Representative Dick Zimmer (R-NJ) offered this amendment to eliminate the $110 million in the bill slated for the Market Promotion Program (MPP). Zimmer explained that the MPP “epitomizes corporate welfare and congressional pork at its worst. Since 1986, one and a quarter billion taxpayer dollars have been used by MPP to underwrite the overseas advertising budgets of some of America’s largest and most profitable businesses like Gallo, Blue Diamond, McDonald’s, Burger King, Jim Beam, Hershey’s. “ Noting that the current Congress had given extensive consideration to getting the poor off of welfare, Zimmer reasoned that “it is time we showed the same commitment to getting the rich off welfare.” (July 21, 1995 Congressional Record, Pages H7426-27, roll call 550) Ed Bryant voted against this amendment.
(Source: The New American January 22, 1996)
Abolition of the Economic Development Administration, Amendment to H.R. 2076.
Representative Joel Helfley (R-CO) offered this amendment to the Fiscal 1996 Commerce, Justice, and State Departments appropriations bill to eliminate the $348.5 million funding for the Economic Development Administration (EDA). The EDA makes public works grants and loan guarantees for private corporations in economically distressed areas. Representative Wayne Allard (R-CO), a supporter of the amendment argued: “When we pass out federal dollars or government dollars and then businesses go ahead and compete, it becomes a system of grantsmanship: Who can write up the best grant, who can plead the hardest for what they need.” (July 26, 1995 Congressional Record, page H7751, roll call 579) Ed Bryant voted against this amendment.
(Source The New American January 22, 1996)
Eliminate Corporate Welfare (Market Access Program), Amendment to H.R. 4101.
“This program provides $90 million in taxpayer subsidies per year to agribusinesses to support their international advertising. This is a relic,” Representative Ed Royce (R-CA) said of the USDA’s Market Access Program. (June 24, 1998 Congressional Record, page H5197, roll call 262) Ed Bryant voted against this amendment.
(Source: The New American October 26, 1998
Amendment to H.R. 2606 prohibiting corporate subsidy programs.
This measure proposed by Representative Ron Paul (R-TX) would prohibit federal funding of three corporate export subsidy programs: The Export-Import Bank, the Overseas Private Investment Corporation, and the Trade and Development Agency. The Export-Import Bank alone has approximately $6 billion in outstanding subsidies sunk into Communist China, and Rep. Paul noted that “67 percent of all the funding of the Export-import Bank goes to, not a large number of companies, [but] to five companies… We give them the money. But where do the Goods go? Do the goods go to the American taxpayers? No. They get all of the liabilities. The subsidies help the Chinese.” Hypocritically, several representatives who had supported Normal Trade Relations (MFN) for China on the basis of “free trade” opposed the Paul amendment. To that opposition, Paul exclaimed, “please do not call it free trade anymore. Call it managed trade. Call it subsidized trade. Call it special interest trade.” (August 3, 1999 Roll Call 361) Ed Bryant voted against this amendment.
(Source: The New American January 3, 2000)
Small Business Administration Reauthorization.
This legislation would reauthorize programs and funding levels for the Small Business Administration through fiscal year 2003. This corporate welfare program would be authorized to guarantee $77.3 billion in business loans (and to make direct loans) over a three-year period. The Congressional. Budget Office estimates that enacting this legislation would result in $3.5 billion in new discretionary spending by 2005. (March 15, 2000 Roll Call 49) Ed Bryant voted for this bill.
(Source: The New American July 17, 2000)
Amendment to defund corporate welfare.
During consideration of the agriculture appropriations bill (H.R. 2330), Rep. ED Royce (R-Calif).) offered an amendment to defund the Market Access Program. This program, a form of corporate welfare, provides businesses with funding to promote their agricultural products overseas. (July 11, 2001 Roll Call 220) Ed Bryant voted against this amendment.
(Source: The New American December 3, 2001)
Posted by: mickey white | January 25, 2006 08:32 AM
Anonymous,
"Two words: alcohol and guns. They don't mix, at all..."
If alcohol and a 150 grain projectile don't mix then neither does alcohol and 3,500 pound projectile (aka an automobiles). Funny though, every restaurant that serves alcohol has a parking lot.
It's called responsibility. Personal responsibility and accountability.
Since the state of Tenn. turned self defense from a right into a privilege via the carry law, I think you'll find 99.99% of permit holders are very responsible. I don't believe you can say the same about driver license holders.
Posted by: Rick Forman | January 27, 2006 09:41 AM
Daily Dose for January 23, 2006
Daily Dose
Ethics Will Be Election Theme in 2006 -- The Chattanooga Times Free Press looks at how ethics will be the theme of the 2006 elections, even at the local level. Ethics stories have dominated state, federal, and in some cases local government reporting in 2005 and 2006. At the federal level, the Jack Abramoff controversy may have an impact on the U.S. Senate race in Tennessee and at the State Legislative level, voters are still mindful of Tennessee Waltz, an FBI sting that netted several sitting state legislators on public corruption charges. In Chattanooga, Clarksville and Memphis, ethics related stories have come up in either city or county government.
Ethics Reform Still Going -- The Nashville City Paper profiles some changes to the Comprehensive Ethics Reform Bill adopted last week. They include a provision to clarify spending limits on 'wining and dining' and an amendment by Sen. Steve Cohen to limit PAC contributions to the same level as individuals. The article concludes Cohen's amendment could cause PACs to multiply: "If those limits become law, corporations could set up many different PACs so they could still contribute the high amount of dollars they intend to give. 'Trying to limit special interest money is like trying to grasp mercury,' said Sen. Roy Herron (D-Dresden). 'It’s very slippery.'"
Cohen May Call Investigation on Adams -- Speaking of Senator Cohen, according to the Tennessean he may call on the Lottery oversight committee to investigation the firing of the state lottery's number two, Steve Adams. Adams was fired after being charged with workplace harassment, but the Lottery has refused to release documents related to his termination. Currently, the matter is being reviewed by a judge who could agree to release the records to NashvillePost.com. Another member of the lottery oversight panel, House Majority Leader Kim McMillan (D-Clarksville) said she thinks the lottery should release the file: "I think we're all kind of waiting to see what happens when that investigatory file is released. I want to withhold any judgment until that file is released."
Ford in WaPo Over Weekend -- Rep. Harold Ford Jr. has a guest article in Saturday's Washington Post: "We cannot leave Iraq and Afghanistan until they have adequate systems in place to govern and defend themselves...Just as Afghans and Iraqis are at a crossroads, so are we. We can adhere to policies that have led to some disturbing results, or we can learn from our mistakes and correct our course. I left Afghanistan and Iraq with a firm belief that we can still help each nation move toward stability. But we must have the clarity of mind and strength of character to acknowledge our shortcomings and make changes where necessary. The stakes are too high to do otherwise." Blogging for Bryant says Ford's position on a timeline for withdrawal has shifted.
Corker Open House -- Candidate for U.S. Senate Bob Corker, held his open house on Thursday of last week. Conservatives for Corker has some pictures. Corker also launched a section of his website over the weekend called "Video Blog," which features video from the headquarters grand opening as the first post.
Gun Lobby Will Push Dine Armed Bill Again -- The Chattanooga Times Free Press reports that guns rights advocates will push again this year for a bill that will allow gun owners to enter restaurants that serve alcohol. Under the current law, gun owners can enter an eatery and break the law without knowing the restaurant serves alcohol. Last year, the bill was killed through legislative maneuvering on the part of House Speaker Jimmy Naifeh.
Knoxville City Council Moves to Cut Back Oath -- Last week, State Rep. Stacey Campfield praised the oath required for office on the Knoxville City Council for its inclusion of so many specific pledges on ethics related issues, including a promise that the person taking office doesn't have any contracts with the local government and the promise not to enter such contracts while in office. Now, City Councilman Bob Becker says that pledge is too long and is moving to shorten it, citing the oath that the President takes before taking office as an example of brevity.
I strongly oppose allowing people, other than on-duty law enforcement officers, to carry guns into restaurants, whether alcohol is served there or not. I was thinking about that the other day when I was in a Cracker Barrel. I always ask for the no-smoking section, and in most restaurants there really is no such section because there is no real partition between the smoking and no-smoking sections. Anyway, I'm sitting there with my defenseless toddler grandchildren, breathing clouds of smoke from the morons whose health problems we subsidize, beginning to feel ill, and thinking, "If I only had a gun . . ."
We do try to find actual no-smoking eateries, particularly when the kids are with us. But then of course, some nut could be sitting there with a gun. Accidents happen. A friend of mine was in a high-class restaurant in Atlanta a few months ago when a woman at a nearby table opened her handbag and a gun fell out and onto the floor. Fortunately, it did not go off.
Posted by: Donna Locke | January 23, 2006 06:38 PM