Pages

Thursday, May 20, 2010

Mr. Bredesen, why do you hate us SOOOO much ??

On May 18, 2010, Phil Bredesen vetoed legislation passed by both chambers of the Tennessee General Assembly that would have changed state law and allowed Tennessee's 270,000 carry permit holders to take their lawfully owned and carried firearms into establishments that serve alcohol. This is the second time in two years Bredesen has pulled this stunt and infringed upon law-abiding Tennesseans right to defend themselves. This after he received the NRA's endorsement in his 2006 re-election campaign because he promised to support this legislation. Either he has the beginning stages of Alzheimer's and forgot or he lied. I suspect it is the latter. But then, he is a Democrap, so I shouldn't be surprised.

His reason for the veto was because many, many, many years ago in a NRA safety course, he was taught that "guns and alcohol don't mix." Well, at least he remembers that. However, he obviously doesn't have a clue what that phrase actually means. Like most Progressives, he just throws words around and spins them into whatever meaning serves his purpose at the time. Therefore, I feel it is my duty to explain it's meaning to him. "Guns and alcohol don't mix" means that the person drinking does not handle and / or carry a firearm. It does not mean that if you are carrying a firearm, you should not be around people who are drinking. Furthermore, the carry law he vetoed establishes stiff penalties for anyone drinking and carrying a firearm, as it should.

Let me give you a few fictitious, but possible, scenarios as we try to follow Bredesen's Progressive thinking :
  • A single mom takes her two young children out for dinner at O'Charleys. She has a carry permit and usually carries in order to defend herself and her children in the event of a mugging or assault. They go to O'Charleys, but due to Bredesen's veto she either has to leave her gun at home or leave it in the car when they arrive. If she leaves it at home, she has no way of defending her family. If she takes it with her and then leaves it in the car, she risks it being stolen. Then, law enforcement has another problem - a thief on the street with a stolen gun. She chooses to take her gun with her and leave it in the car. O'Charleys is busy so she has to park a distance from the building. When returning to her car from the restaurant, she and her children are forced into a van by two men before she opens her car door. She is brutally raped and then killed in front of her children. Good thinking on that veto Mr. Bredesen. She could have prevented this if she had not had to leave her gun in the car.
  • A man leaves Nashville for Chattanooga on a two-day business trip. He's a carry permit holder who usually carries his gun when on the road alone. However, the hotel he's staying at in Chattanooga has a bar. Due to Bredesen's veto, he can either leave his gun at home, which means he's unarmed on the road, or he can take his gun with him and leave it in his car when he arrives at his hotel. Once again, his firearm is at risk of being stolen and being on the street in the hands of a criminal. He chooses to leave his gun at home against his better judgment. Halfway to Chattanooga, after dark, he has a blowout. He pulls over and begins changing the tire. Moments later, a man stops "to help." Unfortunately, he's a prison escapee who robs and murders the businessman. If the man had his firearm, this attack could have been stopped quickly. Mr. Bredesen, how will you explain this to this man's widow ??
  • Myself and friends go to The Wildhorse Saloon in Nashville for a concert. I'm the designated driver, will not be drinking, and have a carry permit. Due to Bredesen's veto, I can either leave my gun at home rendering me unable to defend myself and my buddies in the event of an assault, or I can leave it in my vehicle and run the risk of it being stolen. I choose to take my gun with me but leave it in my vehicle. My vehicle is broken into and the gun stolen. Now, Metro Police has a gun on the street in the hands of a criminal. The thief robs a convenient mart shooting and killing the clerk. Once again, thanks Mr. Bredesen.
Now, before a liberal anti-gunner says, "Are you just sooo scared that you have to have a gun all the time ??" Nope. Let me ask you this - do you get in a car without putting a seatbelt on ?? In my opinion, putting on a seatbelt and carrying a gun are the same. They are both safety measures taken so that we are prepared in the event of an "emergency." You don't put a seatbelt on when you know you're gonna be in an accident. You don't carry a gun when you know your gonna be mugged. You never know. So, you prepare for the worst and hope for the best. It's that simple.

Mr. Bredesen has said that he supports the right to keep and bear arms. Unfortunately for him, actions speak much, much louder than words. So, I ask again - Mr. Bredesen, why do you hate gun owners so much ??
Enhanced by Zemanta

2 comments:

Sherrie said...

The first example you gave is exactly what I tell people. I am more worried about getting back to my car when I leave a restaurant as well as being worried it will be stolen while it sits in a car doing NO good for the owner...which is me.
And, yeah, Bredeson supports the right to keep and bear arms...as long as you leave it in a cabinet and have no ammo in it.

Bob said...

Hello Johnny, and everyone. I have really been enjoying your posts and sending all my friends your link. It took me a while to get my account set correctly but i am back with a new look.
Every example you gave is not just a "what if". Chances are these have been played out again and again anywhere a bad guy sees a "Gun Free Zone" sign, or easy target. Of course Virginia Tech instantly comes to mind, but one tragedy that is burned in my memory is the Diner out west (Denney's i think) where a gunman crashed through the place, made everyone stay in their seats, and one by one, executed them. I read an article later from a survivor, that she was there with her mother and watched helplessly as he killed her mother. The tragedy of it all was that she was well train with her sidearm and could have easily stopped him from killing about a dozen innocent human beings. One problem...She was a law abiding citizen who had to leave her weapon in her car. She goes around the country now, advocating the basic human right to defend one's self at all times, whether she ever has to again, she is determined not to be a defenseless sitting duck for another thug.
I have heard some of the lamest, most ridiculous counter scenarios, but mainly from people who know little about guns and safety, that may someday WISH, someone in that room beside the killer had a way to stop him. 10s of millions have died in the last century, because good men did nothing when evil presented itself. I'd rather die standing anyday than to live on my knees! A man with armed bodyguards anywhere he goes obviously thinks more of himself than he does the people he is supposed to serve. Our Right to Life is a natural, God-given right that our founders were clear about, putting it in writing for all citizens to keep alive.
I Hope everyone has a good, safe day and i really enjoy your blog posts.