If the dollar has little value, then donate a few.

Wednesday, November 30, 2011

Why? I'll tell you why.

A letter in the Tennessean wants to know why I support constitutional carry.

Sen. Stacey Campfield, R-Knoxville, says, “If you are a legal, law-abiding citizen, you have a constitutional right to carry a gun.” Well, senator, if you are a legal, law-abiding citizen, why would you object to going through the legal process of obtaining a handgun permit?


You want to know why? I'll tell you.

Mostly it comes down to the second amendment.

"the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed"

The Supreme courts Heller decision made clear gun ownership is an individual right.

To me, having testing, having to pay, etc, for an individual freedom is an infringement. Just as if I were to say "Before you can speak your point of view you have to go through a background check, You have to be finger printed, you have to pay for, take and pass a course on speech, you have to pass a test to make sure what you say is not going to be misunderstood, then you have to pay the state money. then, possibly you can speak your thoughts."

Sound like your freedom to free speech would be infringed? Would you stand for those sorts of state regulations on free speech? I don't see why not since I am sure you would probably agree the pen is mightier then the sword.

3 comments:

  1. I agree, Senator. I'm an avid shooter and Tennessee handgun carry permit holder.

    Unfortunately, Newt Gingrich threatens the Second Amendment, since he is in favor of abolishing our national sovereignty and Constitution, and replacing it with a "third wave" (his words) system that's globally governed by giant transnational corporations and financial institutions. How do I know this, Senator? Because he said that's what he wants to do.

    If Newt Gingrich becomes president, the Second Amendment along with the rest of the Bill of Rights will be infringed.

    I sincerely wish you would reconsider your support for Newt Gingrich.

    Thank you.

    ReplyDelete
  2. To me, having testing, having to pay, etc, for an individual freedom is an infringement. Just as if I were to say "Before you can speak your point of view you have to go through a background check, You have to be finger printed, you have to pay for, take and pass a course on speech, you have to pass a test to make sure what you say is not going to be misunderstood, then you have to pay the state money. then, possibly you can speak your thoughts."

    The same is true for driving a car. A gun can kill as many people as a car. If you shouldn't have to prove that you can properly operate/use a gun, then why should you have to for a car? Why tag it and be licensed? Ea$y $$$, and control. Now be a good $erf and get your infringement biometric ID driver$ licen$e and carry permit. It's for your $afety.

    ReplyDelete
  3. "I think we prefer to go to instant check on an immediate basis and try to accelerate implementing instant checks so that you could literally check by thumbprint... Instant check is a much better system than the Brady process." -- Newt Gingrich June 27, 1997
    http://www.great-quotes.com/quote/14859

    Read more: http://gunowners.org/newtgingrich-2012.htm

    This tends to be the opposite of what you claim to support.

    ReplyDelete

Here are the rules for comments. Know them. Live them.

http://lastcar.blogspot.com/2011/04/rules-for-comments.html?m=1