Monday, July 06, 2009

Gun nuts

I've decided that 'gun nuts' is better defined as those who have an irrational fear of anyone carrying a gun. Gun nuts, based on their own fears and lack of experience with those who handle weapons safely instead of any factual evidence that safety is an issue, usually react in a knee-jerk fashion to keep guns out of the hands of law-abiding citizens.

We've got a new state law that on Tuesday, July 14 will allow permit holders to enter restaurants where liquor is served unless the proprietor hangs a sign announcing no guns are allowed. The law passed through the legislative process and is presumably, the will of the people. However, this isn't enough for gun nuts. Because of their irrational fear and apparent inability to simply provide prohibiting signage for their establishments, they choose to usurp the will of the people and get their way via a judicial process. They've decided that it doesn't matter how the people's representatives voted the gun nuts will have their way.

According to a post on the East Nashville elist John Egerton is trying to recruit 200 'silent witnesses' for Monday, July 13th's 1:30 p.m. hearing before Chancellor Claudia Bonnyman in order to let her know how they want her to rule on a request to keep the law from taking effect the next day. The lawsuit was filed by Randy Rayburn proprietor of Sunset Grill, Cabana and MidTown Café.

Further, to add irony to the mix they set up a website that tells us that in honor of Independence Day we should support their effort to quash the 2nd Amendment rights of fellow citizens. Further they call the site "guns and alcohol don't mix". Well, duh. We all know that. The law is already clear. No one carrying can consume. It's already against the law to be intoxicated and carry.

They quote that there are 80 guns deaths in America every day! What they don't tell you is how many of those were the result of a legal carrier v. a street thug or distraught girlfriend. They don't because it's an inconvenient truth.

They say their liability insurance will rise if they permit guns and that will increase the price of dinners. Again, a simple sign prohibiting carrying and that's done. Regardless, they've decided that we'd surrender our freedom for 50 cents off the price of a meal. I don't think so.

The fact is money is an important issue for them:

"If a patron is packing a gun, but not purchasing alcohol they are taking the seat of a non gun holder who could be purchasing alcohol, tipping the bartender and providing much needed business to the establishment."
So they'll throw the 2nd Amendment under the bus in order to encourage drinking. Yeah, that's the socially responsible tack. Now we know what they really mean when they say guns and alcohol don't mix.


N.S. Allen said...

I actually decided to go number-mining on the "how many gun deaths are responsible self-defense killings" question.

Not much luck in general - just about all the numbers I found were fixated on the issue of guns in the home - but those that I happened across were pretty much what a reasonable person would expect. For instance, of the 8,503 handgun homicides in 1997, under 3% were "justifiable homicides by civilians."

That seems pretty inconvenient to me, though not quite in the way you were thinking. Unless 1997 was just an extreme drought for all the would-be Dirty Harries out there.

Sadien, Inc. said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
G.C. Hutson said...

Kay's post is great...

The restauranteurs' issue revolves around money, exclusively.

Not safety.

Not law abiding citizens' rights to self-defense.

Not the Constitution.

But Money. Period.

Kay brought up the fact that their insurance premiums might go up. Possibly. Insurance companies will use any excuse to raise premiums. That's life.

Kay mentioned the fact that most law abiding citizens in restaurants won't drink if carrying. I guarantee most of them won't. Because they're licensed, law abiding, prudent, respectful people... that's how they got licensed to carry in the first place. Restauranteurs will just have to manage "squeezing out a meager profit" on $6 brownies for desert. Boo hoo.

Here's the real issue...

They don't want to hang a sign that says "no guns."

Why? Because most people in Tennessee have guns, respect guns, abide by the law and believe in the Constitution, as it was intended.

And a sign that says "No guns" will cost them customers.

People licensed to carry will avoid those restaurants and bars, all together.

G.C. Hutson

Kay Brooks said...

GC, I think you're right about them not wanting to ID themselves as 'gun nuts'. It might fly in a few left leaning neighborhoods in Nashville but not generally. Not only are they afraid of guns, they're also afraid of a free market that might decide NOT to patronize their busine$$.

Ellen said...

Guns contribute so much to American society, where would a typical southern Republican be without his guns and beer?

Kay Brooks said...

All meaningless to this conversation, Ellen, without knowing how many of these were permit holders. We're not talking about drug buys that went bad or jilted lovers buying an illegal weapon in a parking lot from a felon. We're talking about legal carry permit holders. There is a difference. But gun nuts have a hard time realizing that.

And I'll point out that we wouldn't even have an American society without firearms. Which is why they made sure to include the 2nd Amendment.

G.C. Hutson said...

I'm confused as by whom Ellen is the most offended?


Last I checked, all of those items were mutually exclusive.

Democrats buy both guns and beer.

There are many Republicans that neither buy guns, nor beer.

I will say, that I have never seen a gun, nor a beer, vote Republican.

Then again, I've never seen a gun, nor a beer, vote for either party, now that I think about it.

I'm 72% sure, that's because neither guns, nor beer, have arms, thus making the voting process much more difficult.

You might say, that since guns, and beer, don't have arms, they are technically handicapped.

And if Ellen hates guns and beer, then Ellen, must also hate handicapped people.

Do you hate handicapped people Ellen?

Or are you just narrow-minded, blind and socially inept when it comes to anonymously lobbying feeble, stereotypical, "one-liner" arguments via a public blog?

(We all already know the answer Ellen.)

G.C. Hutson