Restaurant owners' plea fails to stop Tennessee's guns-in-bars law

In a perfect world, I would be against this law. I was in favor of President Clinton's assault weapon ban. But I live in Memphis, and it is not a perfect world. Criminals, gangs, and drug dealers rule the streets. The Police force is corrupt and inept. The citizens are forced to protect themselves, what other choice do they have. Everyone I know carries a gun to work with them, not to pick a fight, to protect themselves from the rampant crime in the city so they can get home to their families just one more day. And Nashville is just as bad. The people of Tennessee wanted this because they are tired of seeing hoodlums and gangbangers shoot down innocent people on the news every night, and that is no exageration. If you want less guns, all you have to lock the criminals away where they belong and make the streets safe again.

With this new law you'll hear a lot more of guns being cocked along with the cry - "Last call my ass!"

Robert A. Heinlein wrote that an armed society is a polite society. The common perception is that armed societies were polite because an act of rudeness might evolve into a duel, as portrayed in Dumas' The Three Musketeers. The real reason, though, is the mindset and psychology that come with responsible weapon ownership. The knight's sword was a symbol of his duty to protect weaker members of society and behave chivalrously, e.g. with respect and courtesy to women, elderly people, and so on. The sword was the soul of the Japanese samurai, a constant reminder of the samurai's duty and code of behavior. The sword was a symbol of taking responsibility, not only for one's self, but usually for others.

If you don't like cops (or armed citizens), the next time you're in danger-- call a hippie! (Or a Million Mom Marcher)

The modern American who buys a firearm for self-protection is saying, "I recognize that life involves danger, and by owning a weapon I accept my responsibility to protect myself and those who are entitled to my protection-- my wife/husband, children, parents, and perhaps friends and neighbors." An American who shoots at targets for recreation is practicing a form of self-discipline similar to kyudo (Japanese archery). If you are attacked by a criminal, it is the person with the armed-citizen mindset who is more likely to call the police. If you're in a car accident, this is the person who is more likely to stop and give first aid if possible, or else call an ambulance for you. The antigun activist is likely to look the other way, like the New Yorkers did when Kitty Genovese was stabbed to death. They didn't want to get involved, not even to the extent of picking up a telephone. More recently, a cab driver was attacked and robbed in the presence of dozens of New Yorkers, of whom not one called the police. You could probably bleed to death on a New York sidewalk while dozens of people walked past; these are the same people who parade in the Million Mom March and elect mayors and governors who enact handgun bans.

Many antigun activists are saying, "I do not want to recognize that life involves danger. I deserve to live in a protected environment, and I should not have to think about protecting myself, my spouse, my parents, my children, or my neighbors. This is the 21st century, and violence simply should not happen." It's the same mindset that went with the "ban the Bomb" movements of the 1970s and 1980s; they wanted to legislate the Bomb out of existence and pretend that nuclear war couldn't (and can't) happen. The mice voted to put a bell on the cat so they'd be safe. It all goes with dodging and avoiding responsibility, and the moral (and often physical) cowardice that goes with this mindset. Placing responsibility for violence on the inanimate object (the gun or the Bomb) instead of on people goes with it.

Heinlein also defined a gentleman as one who would rather be a dead lion than a live louse (or rabbit). It is really easier, though, to be a live lion than a live rabbit. Xenophon's The Persian Expedition says, "...the people whose one aim is to keep alive usually find a wretched and dishonorable death, while the people who, realizing that death is the common lot of all men, make it their endeavor to die with honor, somehow seem more often to reach old age and to have a happier life when they are alive." So it is with antigun activists and gun rights supporters. The former seek safety in ineffective laws and "this is how the world ought to be," and they find no safety; the latter look to themselves for security, and they are secure. Xenophon's Ten Thousand heeded his advice and most came safely home to Greece. Ronald Reagan and George Bush won the Cold War, not by trying to ban the Bomb, but by looking it in the face.. We, the supporters of the Second Amendment, are Xenophon's disciples, and that is why we will win; the lions will beat the rabbits every time.

I must be one of the luckiest guys in the country, I live in one of the largest cities in the country, and the better part of it in east L.A...never carried a gun or ever had any need to use one. I've never been mugged, wife and daughters never raped, never been in a mcDonalds shoot out...now I have had a number of people in my neighborhood shot down, one a little girl in her own front yard..All of the shooting that have occurred in my neighborhoods were young guys with guns showing each other that they will not be disrespected. All of them justified... in the minds of these guys.. because they thought they were 'representing" in other words, they were keeping their 'hood" safe from other gang members who dare "disrespect" them...Ricky say what you say but the fact is that young guys armed and high or drunk represent a huge threat..on that we clearly disagree no doubt. I don't know you or your circumstances but your insistence that more guns equals less gun related crimes doesn't make any sense to me, and i can only conclude that you must have grown up in a rurual area or a small town with no gangs. BTW no need to fire back I know where you stand on this...your words to me are as meaningless as mine are to you.

I think the funniest thing about this issue is how gun control advocates have consistently failed to realize the same law granting the ability to carry in a bar restricts an individual from DRINKING WHILE CARRYING. Then again this is nothing new. Gun control advocates love to blame law abiding gun owners for all the crimes committed by criminals. Damn that’s so mighty fine bigotry.

I carry...I eat...why me worry?!?

Oh, yes! This is exactly what the founding fathers had in mind when they mandated that citizens arm themselves against harm, that a bunch of Nashville drunks be legally able to take their arsenal with them into bars where they drink excessively, only to become potential lethal threats to innocent lives surrounding them. Yes, that was the intent of the 2nd Amendment! What's more frightening is that there is actually a majority of numbskulls who find nothing wrong with this inescable carnage that is certain to take innocent lives.

IDIOTS!

Guns and Alcohol have had huge increases in sales recently! Sadly, unemployment has been rising steadily as well (and it will continue to rise).

I think anyone who wants to use their right to bear arms is welcome to it, personally I value freedom of speech a little more. Maybe politicians will start listening to an armed citizenry. My only concern is when the armed citizen loses his/her job and home, then uses that same gun to commit crime. People don't wake up one day and become criminals, destitute situations and greed lead them there.

Will there be a breaking point?

If darts and drinking never went well together, what makes them thing bullets and drinking will? Though i must stay, it would be pretty sweet to walk into a bar with a shotgun =D

Wait... wouldn't that make it easier to rob the place in some cases? That is if your the only one there =P otherwise your gonna have every single gun in the place aimed and loaded on you...

Guns+Moronic alcohol consumers who consume alcoholic beverages at redunant levels= :/

:/=Does Not Approve.

Just my way of saying it.

I like shooters!

Great story - especially with gun control such a hot topic at the Sotomayor hearings.

I'm going to go ahead and feature this to see if we can get some more folks in on the discussion.

MarkButkus. "It's people with guns who start gunfights".

People who are granted concealed carry permits are far less likely to commit any crime than people who don't. Both FL and TX state crime stats confirm this. Handgun ownership has only grown over the past 15 years while crime has trended down. Looks like more guns does equal less crime.

Masterzip, to answer your question - NO. And I hope that I never do. This is not the point. The point is just what you stated. The world has changed. The criminals prey on the "gun free zones" knowing that a law abiding citizen like you and me will not risk breaking the law by carrying in these areas. If you take away these zones, you take away their free ticket.

I typically only carry my gun in places that I am not familiar with or have a concern about the safety of the area. At home and in places that I frequent, I leave it in my car. I am a member of the Tennessee Firearms Association and know many permit holders that do the same.

I and almost all HCP holders know that firearms make some people feel uncomfortable. I respect that. That is why you have been in many places where there has been someone with a gun on them and didn't even know it. Again, we are of no threat to you.

MarkButkus. "It's people with guns who start gunfights".

Out of all that I commented on that is all you have to say? I can assure you that I and my gun are of no threat to you or your family. I would never use my weapon to harm anyone unless my or anyone else's life was in imminent danger of loss of life or serious bodily harm. The problem is that you along with others and the liberal media portray HCP holders as people who are just waiting for someone to shoot. Why? Has any particular event lead you to that conclusion? Or, is it that you are listening to the biased media and being reeled in like a fish?

Memphis is the number two most dangerous city in the country only behind Detroit. Number two in murder, rape, and violent crime. And Nashville is in the top 10 as well. Don't blame anyone but the criminals for this law. If the police can't or won't enforce the law, then it is up to the people to do it themselves. Someone in Memphis gets shot every single day, several people most days, and all the city council and Mayor can do is bicker among themselves along racial lines. You people would prefer the criminals continuing to run wild and terrorizing the law abiding citizens?

legallyarmed: No! When you decide "to take that risk to defend ourselves and our family" you put me and my family at risk.

I'm not disputing gun ownership. Keep the weapons if it makes you and your family feel safe. But keep 'em at home.

It's people with guns who start gunfights.

Guns and booze don 't mix. Period.

It sounds to me like Mr. Rayburn is trying to use the government to protect his negligent behavior. If he wants a gun free workplace that’s fine but he should at least be mature enough to accept or deal with the consequences of his actions. CCW holders don’t get a free pass if they accidently injure or kill an individual so why should he get a free pass if the rules of his establishment create an unsafe environment?

At any rate publicizing your fear of guns is just plain stupid. This guy is seriously asking for it.

butkus, masterzip and Eleganza. Such intellectual arguments. Can it be that neither of you have a clue about the importance of protecting your rights or is it that you simply do not care?

These are the same lame arguments that have been on just about every blog since this bill was introduced. It is obvious that you take the safety of you and your family less seriously than I do. My gun, which I hope never has to be used for defense, is for my protection. Since it is my right and choice to carry a gun, why does this bother you so much. I guess the criminals that carry them do not bother you.

It is not so much that I may never have to use it, it is that I will have it if I need it. Every permit holder in this state understands that one can and likely will face criminally and/or civil lawsuits for any actions taken with weapons. We are willing to take that risk to defend ourselves and our families. You choose to fight crime with words and compassion for the criminal element. I choose to use a more effective form of elmination of a threat.

Interesting isn't it, we promote a policy that tries to keep nuclear arms from proliferating because we understand that the more of them out there the greater the risk..yet in our own country when it comes to hand gun proliferation many believe just the opposite, that is to say that the more guns the less risk... clearly we are talking out of both sides of our mouth.

Remind me not to make a smart-ass remark in a Nashville bar. Oh nevermind, I just won't go to Nashville again and blow a few hundred bucks in its bars and hotels.