Who's Winning in Tennessee?

[mikeb302000]

http://www.knoxnews.com/news/2011/jul/15/gop-creates-pro-gun-group/">knoxnews.com reports

Facing criticism for failure to expand gun owner rights this year, Republican state legislators have established a task force to set an agenda for passage of pro-gun legislation next year.

After all the boasting and bragging on the part of the gun-rights advocates, I suppose it's a bit embarrassing that even in Tennessee they've had some difficulty.

One of the proposals for next year is "Constitutional Carry," which is so unrealistic that only a couple of the most extremist gun-loving States allow it.

What's your opinion? If they can't even pass these types of laws in Tennessee, in the wake of the major "victories" of Heller and McDonald, and with the god-given 2nd Amendment protection behind them, what hope is there for the future of the gun-rights movement?

None, and I'll tell you why. The families and friends of the 100,000 victims of gun violence every year will continue to accumulate in numbers and power, year after year. The citizens at large, even the gun-owners among them will become more and more fed up with the inevitable cycle of gun flow into the criminal world and all its implications. The balance of the Supreme Court will change at some point.

Prediction: by the second half of Obama's second term, the gun-rights movement will be all but crushed by common sense and reasonableness.

http://mikeb302000.blogspot.com/">(Cross posted at Mikeb302000)

What do you think? Please leave a comment.

[LAGC]

1. No offense, but your blog doesn't look very well trafficked.

As for your prediction, if Obama fucks with Social Security, there will be no second term, plain and simple.

Even when Democrats controlled Congress there was no serious gun control push.

You're fighting a lost cause.

As more people realize that CCW in more places doesn't lead to more violence, they will eventually liberalize the laws and allow concealed-carry everywhere.

[pipoman]

4. He knows it isn't well trafficked

that's why he keeps blog spamming this very well trafficked site...looking for victims and undeserved hits..

BTW, unrecing this thread for more blog spam..

[Hangingon]

16. I agree and add an un-rec

I do not like to tone of these posts - a discussion leader talking down to us.

[beevul]

2. Yeah...you're right...were going down. Just look at the trend.

Pack a lunch.

[mikeb302000]

3. yeah, I see the trend.

keep watching it. It's about peaked out and some of the recent failures like in Tennessee are a harbinger of what's to come.

[beevul]

5. A harbinger of whats to come?

Based on what facts exactly, do you come to this conclusion?

Are you under some sort of delusional impression that momentum is moving in the anti-gun direction?


You bring up an example such as Tennessee, but all that is, is an example of a battle.


Tell everyone which way the "war" (as opposed to a few selected battles) has been going.


Better yet, tell yourself.


Then ask yourself honestly if the OP reflects truth or reality in any way shape size or form, where the entire issue is concerned.

If you can't be honest with yourself about it, why would you expect anyone else to think you're being honest with them?

[DonP]

6. "Peaked out" - as in we're running out of states to go CCW?

49 states with CCW, more moved to shall issue, 4 with constituoonal carry so far, and only 1 state holding out by only 6 legislative votes for now.

Two major Supreme Court wins in the last 2 years, not counting multiple circuit court wins, and even Daley's Chicago getting a bill for $5 million in legal fees worth of a spanking.

Another fan of the imaginary "backlash" I see.

You let us all know when the first state repeals CCW OK?

[krispos42]

45. So it plateaus... do you think it's going to reverse? n/t

[We_Have_A_Problem]

62. Um...

If by "Its about peaked out" you mean "All but one state allows CCW" then yes, "its about peaked out"....

[Name removed]

12. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[mikeb302000]

18. it's not "destroy the second"

your side's already done that. You heroes, the slave-owning, misogynist but sacred founding fathers would not even recognize what's become of the 2A. It needs to be restored to its proper place, which is as completely anachronistic and meaningless in today's society as the 3rd.

That's what's coming eventually. So, you better stock up on guns and ammo while you can because once we destroy the second we may just decide to come for your guns after all.

[gejohnston]

20. Will you be using Carrie Nation's ax?

your side's already done that. You heroes, the slave-owning, misogynist but sacred founding fathers would not even recognize what's become of the 2A. It needs to be restored to its proper place, which is as completely anachronistic and meaningless in today's society as the 3rd.

Are you a historian or a scholar of the founders or are you just talking shit? Might want to read up on the Enlightenment and the writings of John Locke and Tom Paine on the subject.

Actually, one of founders who had our view of the second owned no slaves, had no money to buy any to begin with. None other than Tom Paine. Other none slave owning founders include:

Ben Franklin, John Jay, Ben Rush for starters.

[Hoyt]

23. Ben F did own slaves-- and all those guys were involved in Constitution that allowed slavery.

In any event, I don't think they envisioned folks in a modern society being obsessed with tactical weapons and chit.

[eqfan592]

24. And if there were large portions of people "obsessed" as you say, I'd be concerned as well.

Thankfully, being a rational person, I can tell the difference between something people own as a hobby/tool and something people are "obsessed" over. Honestly, I think you're projecting a bit here, Hoyt. ;)

EDIT: Oh, and if by "tactical" firearms you mean firearms that share similarities with modern military firearms, I have a feeling that is precisely what the founding fathers had in mind.

[gejohnston]

27. I stand corrected with a caveat

http://www.pbs.org/benfranklin/l3_citizen_abolitionist.html

http://www.archives.gov/legislative/features/franklin/

To them, that was modern society and yes just like we think this is modern society. Need to register the pen gun in your pocket.

[Name removed]

31. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[ileus]

34. and tactical firearms are bad why?

[one-eyed fat man]

56. You do recall

The frontiersmen's Pensylvania and Kentucky long rifles were far superior for skirmishing than the military musket of the era. In 1775 the British officially believed that shooters were exhibiting a “high degree of precision” when one of every five or six rounds from a Brown Bess musket hit a three-foot wide target at 100 yards. In other words, when at least 80 percent of their shots missed a yard-wide bullseye at what was regarded as the optimal combat range, military contemporaries praised such performance as extraordinarily good! As a saying sorrowfully beloved of musketmen went, “One went high, one went low, and where in Hell did the other one go?”

A soldier's musket, if not exceedingly ill bored, will strike the figure of a man at 80 yards; it may even at 100; but a soldier must be very unfortunate indeed who shall be wounded...at 150 yards, provided his antagonist aims at him; I do maintain...no man was ever killed at 200 yards, by a common soldier's musket by the person who aimed at him.¹

- British Col. George Hanger, 1814

The colonial militiamen were not perfect. They were citizen short-term irregulars, not long-service professional troops, and they neither took orders kindly nor could face an infantry assault in the open field. But in 1775 they did know how to shoot. American shooting, however, somewhat overcame these disadvantages by dint of long experience, a lot of practice, and personal knowledge of a gun’s idiosyncrasies. Thus, during target practice Capt. Samuel Stockbridge (according to contemporary accounts) calmly “shot at a mark about 12 or 14 rods and hit it exactly within an inch.” He knew every inch of his gun.

The British noticed that among their hit officers “few had less than three or four wounds,” indicating that each was the reluctant subject of several Americans’ attention. They were appalled that American rifleman were targeting individuals, namely the officers, rather than firing into the mass of troops. Indeed, at Bunker Hill, every one of the 12 staff officers escorting the British commander Gen. Howe was either killed or wounded.

Those "colonials" living on the frontier who became the Founding Fathers knew one sweet hell a lot more about the tactical weapons of their time that you do about the present...or the past!

[iverglas]

63. why? really: why?

Might want to read up on the Enlightenment and the writings of John Locke and Tom Paine on the subject.

In all sincerity: why do you care?

Why do you not care one little bit about any philosophy or sociology or psychology or science that has gone on since the days of somebody born in 1632?

Do you know how long ago that was?? John Locke died over 300 years ago.

Are you suggesting that anybody follow his ideas about personal hygiene, or child-rearing, or any other aspect of human life?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Locke

He postulated that the mind was a blank slate or tabula rasa.

You know this is nonsense, right? You know about DNA and genes and stuff like that? You know that this man was utterly and completely - and of course through no fault of his own - ignorant of the major building blocks of philosophical and social and political thought today? The knowledge we have today? He seemed to have a fair respect for knowledge; why would he want you to live as if you were as ignorant as he was? Why would you care what he wanted anyway?

This is quite a pantheon you have adopted for yourself: the gods of "classical liberalism" sitting atop Olympus guiding your every thought and deed. Why?

Why do you care what someone thought 300 years ago, except for its obvious historical interest? These things are data; they are not scripture. I think the whole lot of them would consider you to be a worshipper of graven images, myself.

[beevul]

21. Not quite.

"your side's already done that"

From your point of view, I'm sure thats true.

But...


We CORRECTLY interpret it as the restriction on governmental power that it is, and as the bill or rights itself says it is:

THE Conventions of a number of the States having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best insure the beneficent ends of its institution

http://billofrights.org/

I'm sorry you can't accept reality.

"we may just decide to come for your guns after all"

Who "we" white man?

Will you come to get them yourself, or will you have people with *gasp* guns try to do it for you?

[SteveM]

28. You actually bring up good points in the gun-control debate...

"You heroes, the slave-owning, misogynist but sacred founding fathers would not even recognize what's become of the 2A."

I believe that what motivated the ill-advised and phony gun-control movement was the combination post-civil rights era politics which sought to demonize firearms (and of course, their owners) by associating them with the racist remains of the Civil Rights Movement of the 50s and 60s. This combined with some radical feminist notions that men used guns "to control their women." It was an opportunity to deliver pay-back to a hated group in this society: tens of millions of white males, the all-purpose enemy and brunt of a million sitcom jokes and pratfalls. These gun-banners wanted a fast, cheap & easy victory to dovetail onto the Civil Rights Movement, and to validate some feminist notions about the inherent evil of men.

That was a slim thread to suspend a culture war on, and inevitably you lost. Big time. Now, all you can do is waste time speculating on the future:

"That's what's coming eventually. So, you better stock up on guns and ammo while you can because once we destroy the second we may just decide to come for your guns after all."

Yeah, behind every extremist claiming allegiance to a better and more peaceful society is someone spoiling for a fight in an empty bar room. Thanks for revealing yourself, and thanks for outlining the rotten intellectual basis for the gun-control "movement."

I must concur with others, however, that you are spamming this thread with re-runs that failed during their pilots.

[Euromutt]

35. Seriously, "men used guns 'to control their women'"?

Well, that certainly explains why women had full and equal rights in every society prior to the 15th century! There was just no means to oppress women before man-portable firearms were invented!

[Glassunion]

50. I gave up my "right" to opress my woman...

When we met, I owned firearms and she did not.

After I got her hooked on shooting sports, I had to buy her a firearm.

It has gotten out of hand since then. She now wants a Kimber $$$$ and her own AR. I'm so glad she has a dislike of jewelery.

[iverglas]

65. "I'm so glad she has a dislike of jewelery. "

Yeah, because it's not like she could buy her own ...

[Name removed]

64. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[bellcrank]

51. Love to see you try it.

...

[rl6214]

57. You worry about what's going on in Italy and blog spamming

And we'll worry about our founding fathers and what's going on with gun control here in our US of A.

And are you going to swim the Atlantic to come take them away?

[jpak]

7. More Republican Gun Douchebaggery and the Backlash Cometh

:hi:

[eqfan592]

8. No no no, the backlash HAS Cometh...

...it's been going on for over 15 years. ;)

:hi:

[SteveM]

29. 'Tis only a shower. nt

[eqfan592]

9. "Constitutional Carry" is unrealistic, eh?

Why? Do you have some evidence that shows that the states that have adopted constitutional carry experienced some sort of dramatic upswing in firearm related offenses after the fact that could be directly related to the passage of a constitutional carry law?

Oh, and I love how you tossed in "extremist gun-loving States" there. Really underscores how out of touch you are. ;)

[OneTenthofOnePercent]

10. I have seen a slow down in gun rights expansion...

I mean... in the past month or so Ohio has passed guns in bars, lifted restrictions on guns in cars, commuted people with previous possesion/transportaion violations, and politicians are now discussing getting rid of CHL permits like Vermont, Alaska, and (recently) Arizona so anyone qualified can carry with no permits. Not to mention that wisconsin just joined the other 48 states in allowing concealed carry of firearms in public.

Yes, the trends in the past year... let alone the past 2 decades are very telling. Gun control is TOTALLY winning around here

:sarcasm:

LOL GTFO

[petronius]

26. Actually, I think the OP's prediction is spot-on accurate

Based on current trends, at some point gun rights will be so widely acknowledged that no further expansion will be possible... :)

[beevul]

11. "Constitutional Carry"

Thats an interesting phrase, isn't it?

"Constitutional Carry"


And that leads us to an interesting term : "backlash".

Our spam friendly coleague from the other side of the isle just LOVES to use that term.


Well, where it pertains to this issue, "backlash" can pretty accurately be defined as follows:

Backlash: The act of pushing back tenfold at the antigunners that seek to undercut gun culture and the people it is comprised of. Including taking the issue to the courts to FORCE federal government, state and municipal government, to obey the laws that govern it - namely the the bill of rights, and specifically the second amendment.

And that brings us back to constitutional carry.

It DOES say keep and bear - and those words describe the exercise of a right which government shall not infringe.


That does not bode well for...your vision of whats to come.

[slackmaster]

13. You're calling the home of Senator Bernie Sanders an extremist gun-loving state?

:crazy:

[X_Digger]

14. unrec -- blogspam

Why should we care what someone in Italy thinks about US policy?

You're obviously ignorant of the history of the advance of RKBA legislation. It took three attempts in TX to get concealed carry. It took two attempts to get parking lot storage.

TN got concealed carry in places that serve alcohol- after two attempts. Progress isn't linear-- it rarely is, and you'd know this if you actually lived here and paid attention to local politics.

One of the proposals for next year is "Constitutional Carry," which is so unrealistic that only a couple of the most extremist gun-loving States allow it.

Like Vermont? LOL!! Your obvious lack of knowledge on this subject makes me giggle.

[rl6214]

58. Why should we care what someone in Italy thinks about US policy?

I would say that goes the same for the posters from canada, don't cha know.

[rrneck]

15. More senseless blog spam.

Have you ever tried to take a gun away from somebody? Do you know why people have them?

Yet another brilliant display of ignorance on your part.

[mikeb302000]

17. who's talking about taking guns away?

only you and your friends. Gun control is not about that. But keep saying it anyway.

[rrneck]

19. So what's it about?

And see if you can manage a straight answer.

[mikeb302000]

38. you want a straight answer

to "have I ever tried to take a gun away from someone?"

What are you, 14 years old in the school yard?

[rrneck]

47. So

where's the straight answer?

Gun control laws take guns away from people. They are supposed to disarm those who shouldn't be armed for any number of obvious reasons. A well crafted law will largely disarm those who should not have guns and not affect those who can safely own them. Unfortunately, there will always be a measure of injustice in the implementation of any law and some remedy must be offered for those who " fall through the cracks". And of course since firearms occupy a rather unique place in society there are any number of civil rights implications that extend well beyond sporting and personal self defense.

All of those things are of little interest to an ideological consumer bent on squeezing a buck out of a social policy attitude he plucked off the shelf. When you advovate for the control of anything you are advocating the limitation of access to it. You are, in fact, trying to take guns away from people. Albeit in a corporate, risk averse, profit maximation sort of way.

When people realize their personal safety and their civil rights are being placed on the altar of some obtuse ideology designed to benefit whoever cooked it up they get a little pissed off. That causes them to vote against whoever proposes such foolishness instead of voting for their own best interest. And that's where we find the toxic partisanship and divisiveness among groups of people who have more in common than they realize.

The debate isn't about some shit you saw in a zombie movie. It's about the impact public policy has on the lives of real people- lives that won't fit in some blinkered ideology. And trying to force them to fit always results in horrible injustice.

Are YOU fourteen years old in a schoolyard?

[beevul]

22. YOU are.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=118x438276#438536

[SteveM]

30. Give him a break; he's probably already forgotten he said that. nt

[rrneck]

33. That happens with off the shelf opinions. nt

[mikeb302000]

39. that was a joke

are you really so bereft of a sense of humor that you didn't know that? Or are you feigning?

My ideas have been made very clear. Very strict gun control laws, enforced on a national level, which will weed out many of the bad apples and compel the rest of you to hang onto your guns and stop letting them flow so easily into the criminal world.

Does that sound like "take your guns away?"

[eqfan592]

44. There was literally nothing in that post...

...to give that statement away as a "joke." I think you're saying now it was a "joke" simply to cover your ass, so sorry, I don't buy it one bit. You give your true self away without thinking, and now you can be expected to be called out on it for the remaining part of your stay here.

Good day. :hi:

[rrneck]

48. Bull. Shit. nt

[Hoopla Phil]

36. I believe you did, when you let down the cloak of "reasonable".

Why is it that anti's will not come out in the open with their true intentions? Only in a moment of passion, or ease (that no one is watching or recording) do they allow their true intentions to be known.

[mikeb302000]

40. that's bullshit and you probably know it n/t

[eqfan592]

46. No, what's bullshit...

...is your back peddling after the fact. The "joke" excuse has been used many-a-time to try and weasel one's self out of a position they did not wish to reveal.

[Hoopla Phil]

54. Not bullshit, it's your own words.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=118x438276#438536

[rl6214]

60. Your own spam

mikeb302000 (169 posts) Wed Jul-20-11 10:40 PM
Response to Reply #12
18. it's not "destroy the second"
your side's already done that. You heroes, the slave-owning, misogynist but sacred founding fathers would not even recognize what's become of the 2A. It needs to be restored to its proper place, which is as completely anachronistic and meaningless in today's society as the 3rd.

That's what's coming eventually. So, you better stock up on guns and ammo while you can because once we destroy the second we may just decide to come for your guns after all.

[lawodevolution]

25. I think your anti-gun Faith/religion has blinded you to reality

It's too bad you have no idea what is going on and why the pro gun movement will continue advancing in the future.

[Name removed]

32. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Hoopla Phil]

37. yup

[mikeb302000]

41. the discussion was about gun control

did you miss that and think it was about me?

[Hoopla Phil]

53. Oh, I know what you are doing here.

Didn't miss that at all.

[MicaelS]

59. It's all about you....

If it wasn't you wouldn't be posting links to your blog.

[mikeb302000]

42. the discussion was about gun control

did you miss that and think it was about me?

[aikoaiko]

43. I think the manner of your posts indicate that your posts are more about your blog than topic.

Why blind link your blog and ask people to leave comments?

[PavePusher]

49. He was doing the same at DKos.

Don't know if he still his....

[iverglas]

66. are you complaining about the moderation?

If you all object so much to these threads (and can't manage to ignore them), I imagine you know where to address your complaints.

I'm going to be alerting on comments like these, myself. They are pure personal attacks. And the target of the attacks is really not of any concern to me.

[bellcrank]

52. If you're really in Italy, why would this subject be any of your business?

And if you're not, why are you lying about it?

[rl6214]

61. Same goes for any version of canadian

[oneshooter]

55. Un Rec Don't care what a Italian says about American laws. n/t