Who in their right mind voted no?

I am all for gun ownership, the federal government staying out of our business,state sovereignty, etc., but I am curious as to the purpose of this bill when it states the firearms made in TN and stay in TN. Are many firearms made in TN?

Also, firearms made or sold must have the words "Made in Tennessee". If I buy a firearm at auction, will it need to be stamped?

Somehow I am missing the importance of this bill unless it is all about State sovereignty.

Actually Montana already passed a law just like this one a couple weeks back.

As for guns made in TN, Barrett Firearms is in Murfreesboro and they make 50 caliber sniper rifles that are famous the world over. They also make smaller caliber rifles too.

If this law passes I predict several new gun companies will start up in Tn, as anyone with a half decent machine shop can easily make a gun, and the biggest obstacle to becoming a maker is the ridiculous amount of red tape from the feds.

Way to go for Tn legislators.

And people like "lazarus" are the reason that the federal government has been able to filch the powers that rightly belong to the states.

I believe muzzleloaders are made in Union City.

They should issue a copy of the Constitution in book form to each Congressman upon arrival (every year) and when they hand that to them inform them that this is their instruction manual. Not that I think most of the folks up there now would pay any attention to it. I would be willing to bet that the vast majority of them couldn't even tell you what the Bill of Rights contain.

Of course not! They pass legislation such as the stimulus package without even reading it so why would they bother with such a silly thing as reading the Constitution or Bill of Rights.

Wasn't that the purpose any way? It usually is...

Runnin' By . . . I am not part of any base as you state. Please get your statements correct and what I read from your statement, it had nothing to do with the bill either . . . just the usual political rhetoric and stereotypes.

Guns and alcohol.. I believe we had a deputy in this very county who murdered a Hispanic man, who was (drinking) on private property with a gun. Yet, now we are going to allow them to be in bars where the majority of people who leave are in no shape to drive, much less carry a potentially deadly weapon. I am just thankful to see a huge portion of businesses continuing to outlaw them, since they do have that right :)

Where is the next place we'll allow guns? Schools?

"Where is the next place we'll allow guns? Schools?"

To answer that, Google "Joel Myrick".

Ever heard of him? Probably not. He's the vice-principle at Pearl High School (MS) that stopped the 16 year-old that had just shot kids at his school. He was going to a nearby middle school to continue his rampage.

The reason you've probably never heard of this is because a man used a gun to STOP violence and the mainstream press totally ignored that fact.

A few local papers around southern MS ran articles noting that Mr. Myrick had stopped the shooter, but not one major media outlet even bothered. They just filled peoples' heads with "guns are bad" stories.

The American Association of School Administrators has an article about this event on their website.

http://www.aasa.org/publications/saartic...

The reason he had to run to his truck and get his gun to stop this kid is that he parked his truck off-campus because he had a gun in it.

Wonder where you think criminals get their guns now? Do you honestly think that just because this law is passed anything will actually change except the law abiding people will be able to carry a gun. I hope no one believes criminals have a registered hand gun now... they buy them from the back of cars along with the drugs and will continue to do so.

I think we have been asking for trouble for quite some time because the criminals carry un-registered guns. Ready to shoot your hinny if you say or do something they do not like because they KNOW you can not protect yourself.

My biggest question is this... when you go to a bar, WHY DO YOU NEED A GUN? The next thing you know, instead of 4 cops outside of Pop-a-Top on an hourly basis for breaking up fights, there will cops rushing to the scene of a horrific murderous rampage. The likelihood of an event happening is very small, but by making it much easier to do so, is counter-productive.

You never heard of a school shooting just because they were allowed in school? That makes absolutely no sense... School shooting haven't increased because they are outlawed from school, they have increased because as the population has dramatically increased, so too has the crime and accessibility of guns.

-- Posted by jesuslovesevery1 on Sat, Jun 6, 2009, at 3:48 PM

There are more school shootings now because crazies know that is one of the best places to have a captive audience that is almost certainly unarmed=easy targets. How many mass shooting have you heard about in police stations or gun stores? Using your logic, given the easy availability of guns at these places, they should be some of the most dangerous places on earth!

Try this, Since you apparently despise guns, put a sign in your yard saying it is a gun free house. Your neighbors can then put signs in their yard saying how they're proud members of the NRA, and we'll all take bets on which house gets broken into first. :-)

Try this, Since you apparently despise guns, put a sign in your yard saying it is a gun free house. Your neighbors can then put signs in their yard saying how they're proud members of the NRA, and we'll all take bets on which house gets broken into first. :-)

-- Posted by quietmike on Sat, Jun 6, 2009, at 5:28 PM

This is where YOU blur the lines... my house, is private and I own guns. Always have, always will. But if I were to go to WalMart, Chili's, or any random bar, I'd feel no reason to carry my gun into public. It is rational people who understand that putting ammunition in the hands of drunks is no more wise than putting them behind the wheel of a car.

My biggest question is this... when you go to a bar, WHY DO YOU NEED A GUN? The next thing you know, instead of 4 cops outside of Pop-a-Top on an hourly basis for breaking up fights, there will cops rushing to the scene of a horrific murderous rampage. The likelihood of an event happening is very small, but by making it much easier to do so, is counter-productive.-- Posted by jesuslovesevery1 on Sat, Jun 6, 2009, at 3:53 PM

Thank you for explaining that jesuslovesevery1, that is exactly what I mean.

I can see it now, a person goes into a club/bar, get drunk and act a fool, pissing another person off, a fight breaks out and out comes the guns pow-pow, both people are shooting at each other and accidentally shoots Bob in the leg, Bob pulls out his gun and shoots at both of the two men fighting because he don't know which one shot him, and now their is a 3 way shoot out going on, and another stray bullet hits Heather in the head killing her, and her husband gets upset and pulls out his gun and starts shooting everyone in the bar, including the police because now the police is suspecting everyone with a gun shooting is the problem and they have to be dealt with.

Now their are "MANY" lives lossed or damaged because of this IDIOTIC right to carry guns in public places, or bars, etc. And after two more incidents they make a new law that no one can even get a permit to carry a weapon outside of their own home. Now what, you gained a privilege just for other idiots to get it taken away along with loosing the privilege of having a permit to carry your weapon outside of your home. "Like I Said Before", Trouble waiting to HAPPEN!

all of a sudden "SNAP"

At the point of "SNAP", they become irrational people. Also, the bill was originally so that responsible people could carry their firearms that they are legally carrying into restaurants rather than "hide" them in their cars while they're in the parking lot so that everyone around can see them.

Now their are "MANY" lives lossed or damaged because of this IDIOTIC right to carry guns in public places, or bars, etc. And after two more incidents they make a new law that no one can even get a permit to carry a weapon outside of their own home. Now what, you gained a privilege just for other idiots to get it taken away along with loosing the privilege of having a permit to carry your weapon outside of your home. "Like I Said Before", Trouble waiting to HAPPEN!

-- Posted by Momof3&3step&1gran on Sun, Jun 7, 2009, at 12:32 AM

Then while your at it why not prohibit that IDIOTIC right toward free speech once you step outside your house?

You can say what you want at home but why do you need free speech at a bar or club where people may be drinking, tempers may be high, and careless words may start a fight.

Make it where only paid government officials have the right to speak their mind in public!

Good morning.

I am just weeks away from having my FFL. If any of you nonfellons need a great deal on a new or used firearm. Please let me know. I can also help you with your carry permit.

Jesuslovesevery1

I originally posted that the increase in school shooting was due to the fact it is a known gun free zone, and asked if you knew of any mass murders in police stations or the like. I posted the dare about your and your neighbors house to illustrate the point of why criminals choose gun free zones, and why every single place that has allowed civilian carry has seen a marked reduction in crime, despite the chicken little predictions of the past.

I challenge you to find one example of any state, municipality, or city whose crime rate has increased after allowing civilian carry.

If you can't, exactly what evidence do you base your doom and gloom predictions?

As for the archaic law bit, if you think the constitution is that antiquated, there are several other countries without one.

"people like "lazarus" are the reason that the federal government has been able to filch the powers that rightly belong to the states."

how is that? because i see no purpose in passing a bill which has absolute zero effect? is there any federal law to which anyone in tennessee is now not subject to? will there be any federal law in the future which this bill will exempt us from? no, instead of any meaningful action, we have the legislative equivalent of giving the feds the finger behind their back. i'm just not sure how juvenile posturing on the part of our legislature is going to protect anyone's rights?

"Actually, when guns and knives were allowed in schools, before the whining liberals had their way, you never heard of a school shooting, and we didn't need deputies posted in every school!"

actually; numbers on school shootings are less than they used to be. but the media has a lot more tools at their disposal, and a fine sense of which news sells. and it is questionable whether we actually "need" deputies posted in every school.

over the past 10 school years there have been a whopping total of 122 fatal school shootings, an average of just over 12 per year.

08-09: 7

07-08: 8

06-07: 13

05-06: 15

04-05: 24

03-04: 23

02-03: 3

01-02: 5

00-01: 14

99-00: 10

and this includes not only shootings during school, but any shooting on school property, any shooting at a school event, and any shooting outside of school which might have been related to something that happened at school.

meanwhile over 800 students per year died in vehicle accidents just on the way to or from school. (not to mention the 152,000 students per year injured in vehicle accidents going to or from school)

those deputies would save a lot more student lives if they were out enforcing traffic laws during the hour before and the hour after school. instead we set their priorities based on media induced hysteria.

needless to say, any discussion of the NEED to have MORE guns in the schools in response to a "threat" so miniscule is patently ridiculous.

"If you wanted to go out in an infamous blaze of glory by killing as many people as you could, what kind of place would you target? Why?"

i would target a school, of course. that's a no-brainer. because it would get the most attention. you could as easily blame that on media coverage. if someone wants to go out in a blaze of glory, we cant stop it unless we institute "green zone security" around all the schools.

this isnt about security philosophy, or gun rights, it's about math. we have the statistics. school shootings are tragic, but they are a miniscule threat.

schools are full of children, and children are accidents waiting to happen. if we have a lot of guns in the schools (and think about the faculty & staff at any school. do you really want every one of them allowed to carry a loaded firearm into a building full of children?) accidents will happen. it is problematic whether having armed faculty and staff might reduce the rate of school shootings, but the plain fact is, the current method of minimizing weapons in the schools works. 122 deaths in 10 years... including shootings away from school, on the way to or from school, or occuring elsewhere, but possibly related to schoool. less than a 1 in 4 million probability...vehicle deaths on the way to or from school, more than 8,000 over the same time period.

something is wrong with a nation that spends more effort on debate about weapons deaths than it does on a threat 70 times as great.

momof3,

You still haven't answered the question of why you think the police are any better than private citizens to carry a gun. What difference does it make that they are performing a (PAID JOB)to protect and serve? They are still just regular folk.

Did you know police are under no legal requirement to protect an individual, or that there is no law requiring police to respond even if you call 911?

Just so you know Mace is a joke. I have been sprayed with it and it has almost no effect. The current Pepper Spray is a little better but I would not bet my life on it being able to stop someone.

i would target a school, of course. that's a no-brainer. because it would get the most attention. you could as easily blame that on media coverage. if someone wants to go out in a blaze of glory, we cant stop it unless we institute "green zone security" around all the schools.

something is wrong with a nation that spends more effort on debate about weapons deaths than it does on a threat 70 times as great.

-- Posted by lazarus on Sun, Jun 7, 2009, at 10:54 PM

Don't you think taking out a police station single-handedly would get even more media attention?

But because almost everyone in a police station is armed they have a built in "green zone". That is all I'm trying to point out-That the more private citizens who are armed, the more a potential criminal will have to consider the consequences.

I will agree that more coverage given to (fewer) victims of guns than of cars, or negligent doctors for that matter is absurd.

I do think it is because of the predatory nature of a gun killer, and the thought of someone actually hunting down humans, is more terrifying than an accidental car crash.

So from what I am gathering, we should be able to protect ourselves if were at home, but should not be able to do so if we are at a restaraunt that happens to serve alcohol. I hope the real "criminals" get that memo, so they wait till I get home to try anything.

For 47 years I have protected myself at bars, nightclubs, home, vacation, etc all without the need to carry a gun.

-- Posted by nascarfanatic on Tue, Jun 9, 2009, at 4:11 PM

I have went almost as long without the need of protection from self incrimination, unlawful searches, or cruel and unusual punishment....should we restrict those rights as well?

I have went almost as long without the need of protection from self incrimination, unlawful searches, or cruel and unusual punishment....should we restrict those rights as well?

-- Posted by quietmike on Tue, Jun 9, 2009, at 4:34 PM

The Bush administration carried out a few of those. So.......

Wow, perhaps I was wrong...

The logo "To Protect & Serve" is misinforming to citizens. Maybe everyone should go armed where ever they go.

http://www.firearmsandliberty.com/kasler...

http://www.firearmsandliberty.com/kasler...

http://www.lewrockwell.com/hein/hein180....

Maybe we should just go back to the "Tombstone" days: "I ain't saying you can't carry a gun I am just saying you can't carry one in town"

Oh, I forgot to say to all you who say you want to "get your country back"... umm, we had an election a little over 6 months ago, and your country was taken back, because the last time I checked the majority rules, it just seems none of you know how to handle a massive defeat.

I certainly wouldn't call 7.26% a "massive defeat".

fanatic - I don't believe I've personally ever said that we should "get our country back", I have said that we need to "take our country back". It's a more assertive tone. The real power in this nation SHOULD be wielded by the states, NOT the federal government. I don't like all of the powers and rights of the individual states that the federal government has taken away unconstitutionally. Meanwhile the states just sit back and say there is nothing that they can do about it. Some states are starting to wake up, actually read the Constitution, and noticed that Tenth Amendment thing said that they have their own powers. What a concept!

As for the fact that I don't like the Obama administration, you're 100% correct. I don't think that's a surprise to anyone. I didn't much like the Bush administration either, I think I've been pretty straight-forward about that as well. You, unfortunately, are one of the sheep that perpetuate the two party system that we, the people, are slaves to by not thinking for yourself and blindly going with the information that you're spoon-fed by the major media outlets.

Lastly, the arrogant "we won, you lost" attitude is GREAT for this country and will lead us all through these rough times, thanks. That was sarcasm in case the media hasn't let you know about that yet.

Why do people keep bringing up Bush? Oh I know why, because they have no intelligent or reasonable answer to any question posed about the current administration. Bush was stupid but that doesn't mean I have to put up with stupidity from Obama either.

Come on . . . the Bush card has been played and now its time to actually have an answer that requires real thought and facts.

Of course not . . . it's easier for some to resort to a child-like mentality and say things like that instead of addressing the issue at hand.

now its time to actually have an answer that requires real thought and facts.

-- Posted by jaxspike on Wed, Jun 10, 2009, at 1:22 PM

LOL, some people just dont have the equipment for that Jaxspike.

-- Posted by greasemonkey on Wed, Jun 10, 2009, at 3:31 PM

As is evident by the numerous facts and thoughts presented in these two comments.

fanatic,

If you're worried about your retirement fund swinging 7.26% then you REALLY are a sheep. You probably sold any stock that you might have had while the market was down. And then sat there and complained about how much you lost.

memyselfi,

"As a matter of fact, if we are all armed, we actually become easier to govern on a local level. We do all the work." - GREAT comment. We SHOULD be governed at the local level and we SHOULD be doing most of the work.

"no standing army has ever defeated a guerrilla force."

at least not in nearly a month:

uk guardian headline sunday may 17, 2009

'Tamil Tigers announce plan to surrender'

...Selvarasa Pathmanathan, the Tigers' chief of international relations, said the rebels had abandoned the fight and were laying down their arms. In a statement on the pro-Tamil website TamilNet, he admitted that the three-decade war was over. "This battle has reached its bitter end," he said....

quietmike, I appreciate your optimism. The problem is that there are many types of warfare and many different desired outcomes anticipated. Most successful guerrillas throughout history have been trained/funded/directed by external political entities that have a stake in the events unfolding. There is currently no entity that could come even close to accomplishing those goals here. A couple of snipers in Washington may scare the populous, but I doubt the military was particularly concerned at all. If you are looking for historic and current parallels, look no farther than the Palestinians (and they actually have support).

I imagine there have been many rebellions put down (or narrowly avoided) that never even made it into the military history books, especially in the last 60 years. An isolated and dependant population can be controlled with no difficulty, all the more so given the technological advances in the last 60 years. We are no different, even with our guns. I would go so far as to say that our population is easier to control than most.

Thom, I guess that would depend entirely on the disposition of our particular lords. For example, while you may be a champion of this particular bill, would you be so happy if it were a complete ban on all firearms? If one state could enact laws that actually changed something important with no interference from the federal government, and the laws then be upheld, the opposite could become a reality as well, even in our fine state. The issues would eventually multiply and each state could end up needing its own border patrol. I think the founding fathers clearly desired some uniformity between the states though.

If I am reading you right, your problem is not with the current political parties, but the Federalists and the individual states and their leaders who traded their sovereignty (and eventually ours) for some shiny beads and shells? If that is the case, it may be a little too late for us to rectify that. The federal government ultimately trumps almost every state's rights. The Constitution is pretty clear about that, at least as I understand it. What originally went through as a perceived protection for the states, bound us into an economic and political level playing field that can and does enumerate and encompass just about everything. I have no problem with state rights, just pointing out that there is very little that the Federal government has not legally laid claim to, using the very framework of the Constitution. I am pretty sure this was the original desired outcome. It was fought, but the federalists had the advantages, and those who were not bought off, were not strong enough to fight the movement. Either way, I do not anticipate the landscape will be changing anytime soon, just ask the confederates. ;)

Looks like you cannot take the firearm out of the state of Tennessee.

The Clear Law Enforcement for Criminal Alien Removal Act would assist local governments and officers in removing criminal illegal aliens. The CLEAR Act, HR 2406, introduced by Representative Marsha Blackburn (R-TN), affirms that state and local law enforcement personnel have the inherent authority to assist in the enforcement of U.S. immigration laws.

The bill would also reimburse states and localities for the costs of incarcerating illegal aliens and cut off certain federal funds to states that have laws or policies prohibiting such law enforcement assistance.

We must not allow our country's vast interior to become a free zone for aliens who slip past our borders. By allowing the thousands of local law enforcement officers to apprehend criminal aliens they encounter during the routine performance of their jobs, this legislation will greatly enhance our security

memyselfi - It would actually require a Constitutional Amendment to allow a state to ban firearms altogether. While there IS a guaranteed right for the people to bear arms, there's nothing in the Constitution saying that a state has to kowtow to the federal government for allowing firearms in their state.

fanatic - Except that banks are regulated by the federal government because they're insured by the federal government.

You should really get out from under those power lines, that can't be healthy for you. I'm pretty sure it's having an effect on your brain.

You are right, it's not funny.

It's sad and I apologize because I should not have insulted people who have truly been affected by electromagnetic fields by lumping you in with them. They deserve better.

Thom:

I would not buy a Tennessee only firearm, if I could not take it across state lines of what value is it? The only market for these things would be with the residents of Tennessee - and that market is probably saturated. Since the federal government would not be involved in the manufacture; there would be minimal quality control on these items, clearly if one of them were faulty; there would be no recourse for personal injuries etc. Finally, since there is no federal involvement, how do you keep these firearms out of the hands of felons? I guess the state of Tennessee would have to assemble some type of bureacracy to do this and probably put together some agency to monitor the production and quality of these items. Sounds like more government to me.

Quietmike,

Why have a username like that when it obviously doesn't describe you? Not that I mind, I just find it ironic.

jesuslovesevery1 - Thank you so much for your insightful assessment of my comments. Fortunately, for me, my dogs love me regardless of my comments on the Times-Gazette blogs. Just out of curiosity, if the clever moniker that you use is correct, doesn't Jesus (that really should be capitalized, by the way) love even the "pathetic" lot of us on here?

Grit - I would imagine that the state already has a system in place to identify felons (or at least I should hope so). I, personally, would prefer to have quality firearms made here (such as Barrett) but that kind of quality is rather expensive. I will have to stick with purchasing via the federal government's process...at least for a while. It would certainly be nice to have a quality local manufacturer that made firearms for the average citizen, but I don't know of any.

I dont think so Thom. Theoretically, a state could make unconstitutional laws left and right without an amendment. There would just be the question of the laws being upheld or overturned, and then the voluntary compliance, or the enforcement of compliance coming from the understanding at the federal level which could come in many forms, or perhaps none at all. In the meantime, a state has some ability to do as it sees fit. To draw a parallel, think back to the disputes over desegregation a few decades ago, or the DC handgun ban just recently. With the differing interpretations and vagueness of the 2nd I think you can still find grounds for a state challenge, as that has yet to be played out that I know of.

What is very clear in the Constitution however is the Supremacy Clause which asserts that the authority of all states is the federal government. There is just not much room for differences among the states. Dont get me wrong, I do not desire the banning of firearms, I just do not believe this will do much to protect that right. In the last year there has been much progress made to protect our guns anyway. To me, the whole concept of this bill is just a can of worms that has more negative potential than positive. Posturing is one thing, but if this bill is intended to lay the groundwork for changes that circumvent the federal position (now or in the future), the state laws will be overturned.

I certainly believe someone should be able to prevent you from carrying on their personally owned property.

Any gun made should be able to be purchased by individuals, this would include machine guns, and any other weapon used by the military. The purpose of the 2nd Amendment is for citizens to be able to overthrow the government, and these types of weapons are exactly what was supposed to be protected.

They should be able to be purchased from any store, company, or individual without any government interference whatsoever, and should be able to be taken into any area the owner is free to go, except for private property as mentioned above.

As for who owns them, I would say anyone not currently in a prison or mental institution.

This is a very slippery slope as most past dictators used a "finding" of mental instability to take away rights of certain individuals

This is policy from the NRA:

"The NRA vehemently disavows any connection with, or tacit approval of, any club or individual which advocates (1) the overthrow of duly constituted government authority, (2) subversive activities directed at any government, (3) the establishment or maintenance of private armies or group violence"

Where did you Thom and quietmike get the idea that the purpose of the second amendment was to overthrow the government.

The NRA wasn't involved in forming the Bill of Rights, so I wouldn't use their policies to argue about the meaning or purpose of the Second Amendment.

George Mason - That's the guy you should really research if you would like to know how your rights came about. Most people don't even know who he is...aside from the fact that there is a school named after him.

Thom and Quietmike:

If you intend to overthrow the government, I will do everything in my power to stop you.

If it walks like, quacks (sounds) like, and looks like, then.....

Timothy James McVeigh (April 23, 1968 -- June 11, 2001) was a United States Army veteran and security guard who was convicted of bombing the Alfred P. Murrah Building in Oklahoma City on April 19, 1995, the second anniversary of the Waco Siege, as revenge or to inspire revolt against what he considered a TYRANNICAL FEDERAL GOVERNMENT.(from Wikipedia)

This is my fear. Them were those folks in the federal building. Them could be me.

Anyone find it interesting that many of our "founding fathers" were Freemasons. Fourteen of our presidents were also Freemasons... They were all human and all imperfect. MANY owned slaves, they silenced newspapers, participated in manipulating and destroying votes, created partisan gerrymandering, and held numerous private meetings (without regard of the public opinion)... Yet somehow today, living NOTHING like them, we are expected to abide by archaic law. Makes sense. NOT. They "governed" 4 million people in 13 states, so of course their intent was limited government. Now that we have 50 states, and 300 million citizens, don't you think many of their views were fitting for 1776 and not 2009? There is no doubt that our founding fathers were men of ideas, and the leading intellectuals of their day, but none of our founding fathers were prophets, most were not religious, and all were human, who made many mistakes. Why is it that you think they had no political motivations for their laws? Seriously. Everything has changed since the founding of what we now call America. So, this blog about Firearms Freedom has nothing to do with the U.S. Constitution and everything to do with politics.

Why do you, Thom, view them as immortal and feel as though what their implications 200 years ago, had anything to do with society as we know it today? Odd to me that our founding fathers fled England where they were oppressed and weren't allowed to be free, but with them they brought slaves of their own to establish a new world order... one in which they ruled rather than obeyed.

Grit

your fear of people having firearms is because someone blew up a building using homemade explosives whose components can be bought at the CO-OP or any other garden supply house today?

I am not taking away the fact that 168 people died in the blast at all, just the difference in the "logic" of attacking the second amendment while it is heresy to attack the others in similar circumstances.

For example I could make a very good argument that in 1978 Jim Jones used his rights of free speech and religious freedom to persuade 900 people to drink poisoned Kool-aid.

should the government control religion to stop future mass suicides? Free speech?

I believe most anti-gun folks are driven by misconceptions about guns spouted by other people instead of first hand experience or facts they have personally researched.(No offense intended to anyone, just an observation)

You don't know me very well or you'd know I oppose the banning of guns from any of the places you've mentioned and pretty much any public place. All this does is tell criminals there are (relatively) easy victims inside. If you'll read some of my earlier posts you'll see my position.

If a government doesn't trust it's citizens with guns, why should a citizenry trust it's government with them?

I hope a (surviving)victim of some mass shooting files a massive lawsuit against a property owner who banned civilian carry on their premises, for failing to protect them while also denying them their right to defend themselves.

Shall not be infringed seems like a fairly simple phrase that wouldn't take long to "interpret".

It applies to government, be it federal or local, so that would cover schools, libraries, some museums, and the white house.

Private property owners are, and should remain free to prohibit weapons on their property if they choose too.

But, when they do prohibit them, they are assuming the responsibility of protecting those same people, at least civil basis.

> Thom <

Sorry! Looks like I shut your Blogs down. I better stay off all these blogs. Again I'm sorry!