Or, will the sky fall if this bill passes?This Constitutional Carry bill should pass with little debate in the Tennessee Legislature, and be quickly signed by the governor as he said he would. But, pundits such as Frank Cagle of the Knoxville News-Sentinel will hide behind the First Amendment while taking potshots at this Second Amendment restoration bill. Cagle, in his February 15th diatribe,* is correct in the second sentence of his piece, where he speaks about Second Amendment advocacy groups,
You can't declare victory and go home.Certainly, we on the right have made the mistake of staying/going home all too often, with the result that the left has taken us too far down the road of socialism/statism. Yes, Virginia, er Mr. Cagle, you got your 1968 Gun Control Act. You got your Brady Background Check. You've got the Veterans' Administration and Social Security Administration reporting individuals to the instant check system (as prohibited persons), without due process.
None of the above accomplished the alleged objective of reducing crime.
Cagle declares this Constitutional Carry bill to be unreasonable. He reminds us of all the tired arguments we heard when gun rights restoration bills were proposed and passed in times past:
- There will be blood running in the streets
- It will be the gunfight at the OK Corral every day
- Every fender-bender will result in a shootout
- Convenience stores will be more dangerous
- It will no longer be safe to go to restaurants that serve alcohol
- Et cetera, et cetera
Otherwise, why not commit a random act of journalism and research all the killings resulting from Constitutional Carry in Arizona? How about all the accidental gun deaths in Vermont, which has had Constitutional Carry since, like, FOREVER! Or how about all the Mainers who have emascualted themselves since it passed there.
Closer to home, how about all those folks in Kentucky, Virginia, and North Carolina who have been open carrying without the disability of a permit for decades?
Cagle states that freedom of speech doesn't allow you to yell fire in a crowded theater. In actuality, such speech can't be prevented, but the law provides a penalty if such yelling is unwarranted. Likewise the law (even now) doesn't prevent the gangbangers he mentions in his column from carrying a weapon.
Good thing proficiency isn't required of editorial writers, eh? Imagine the hue and cry if a bill were introduced to start licensing them!
*a bitter and abusive speech or piece of writing (Webster)