birds of a feather

It would appear as though Otis L. Sanford was jealous of all of the attention Richard Locker was getting over his idiotic comments earlier, so he has decided to go ahead and jump into the fray with his own variety of ignorance as well. I am going to go ahead and leave out vast tracks of this article, simply because most of it deals with an entirely different topic (driving while texting) and is irrelevant to the copious amounts of hoplophobia and bigotry that Otis Sanford takes it upon himself to express.

Let’s hear it for some of our state lawmakers.

They are finally getting around to discussing sensible legislation that just might help improve public safety in Tennessee.

No, I’m not referring to the goofy bill that somehow cleared a House committee last week allowing Tennesseans with a handgun carry permit to drive around with loaded shotguns and rifles in their vehicles.

“Goofy”, huh? Well, thank God this article is listed as a “Column”, and not actual news reporting, otherwise any semblance of credibility on your part would have gone right out the window, Otis.
Furthermore, what is so “goofy” about wanting to allow people to load up their firearms before they head to the range, and thus not waste time at the range doing the loading? After all, some ranges actually charge by the hour, and loading magazines can actually take a fair bit of time if you do not have equipment to help you out. Something tells me, however, that “goofy” will just be the first bit of invective you manage to throw about in this article…
As mentioned, most of the rest of the article will be skipped due to its content only being relevant to Otis’ primary topic. Kind of makes you wonder why he included the part about firearms… oh, wait, no it does not – it is just in line with the standard operating procedure of the Commercial Appeal: generate publicity, and there is no such thing as “bad publicity”. After all, the Commercial Appeal’s privacy-invading database of handgun carry permit holders has probably been the single biggest boon to the newspaper’s publicity, so every reporter, journalist, opinionist, and columnist should go ahead and jump on that bandwagon while it is still rolling, right?
How sad. But moving on…

So yes, this bill has promise. I can’t say the same for the loaded long gun bill that cleared the House Judiciary Committee on Wednesday. A better name for it would be the Sniper Assistance Act of 2009.

Of all the outlandish gun bills floating around Nashville this session, this one gets the gold medal for silliness.

Ho. Ly. Crap. You have got to be kidding me. (Again.) A law-abiding citizen wanting to be able to load up his shotguns and rifles at home, and then drive to the range to get some practice in, suddenly makes him a “sniper”? Are there any more emotionally-laden phrases you want to go ahead and toss out, Otis – “assault rifle”, “high capacity magazines”, “spraying bullets”? Strike what I said earlier – you apparently had no credibility to lose in the first place. I mean, hell, we already drive around with loaded handguns in the car with us, and would be more than capable of picking off random people along the road if we really wanted to… and, yet, somehow, that just never seems to happen, does it? Could that be because handgun carry permit holders are actually more law-abiding than their non-permitted bretheren? Of course not, that would be too logical, and too factual, and would completely perforate any argument you might have, Otis.
No doubt you are trying to follow in the footsteps of previous Commercial Appeal writers, and conflate law-abiding handgun carry permit holders with the murderer down in Alabama. Sorry, but as I pointed out previously, that gos-se just does not fly, for the simple fact that CRIMINALS BREAK LAWS. If someone is hell-bent on murdering one or more people, do you really think he will reconsider tossing a fully-loaded rifle in his car just because driving down the road with it would be illegal? Honestly?
What is silly is your complete and absolute inability to keep your bigotry out of your writing, and that inability ruins any point you might have been able to make.

As does this gem of an explanation by state Rep. Henry Fincher, D-Cookeville, the bill’s sponsor, for why permit holders should be allowed to pack loaded shotguns.

“If they have gone through the training and been cleared by the state to have the permits, they ought to be able to carry loaded long guns in their cars just as they can handguns,” he said.

Problem is, the required training given to qualify someone for a handgun carry permit does not include a session on how to properly handle rifles and shotguns.

I will grant that handgun carry permit holders do not receive any training specifically concerning the proper handling of rifles and shotguns.
But you want to know something crazy, Otis? The proper handling or rifles and shotguns is amazingly like the proper handling of handguns:

RULE I: ALL GUNS ARE ALWAYS LOADED
RULE II: NEVER LET THE MUZZLE COVER ANYTHING YOU ARE NOT WILLING TO DESTROY
RULE III: KEEP YOUR FINGER OFF THE TRIGGER UNTIL YOUR SIGHTS ARE ON THE TARGET
RULE IV: BE SURE OF YOUR TARGET

And since all firearms should be rightfully treated as if they are loaded, it would not really matter if law-abiding handgun carry permit holders were able to carry loaded rifles or shotguns in their cars, or not, eh? Whether loaded or not, those of us conscious about safety and responsibility would go out of our way to handle the equipment safely and properly, and nothing untowards could come of this transportation.

But let’s be clear. My beef with this bill is so not about getting rid of handgun carry permits. I support the right of any responsible, law-abiding adult to have one. This is about legislative overkill.

Bullshit. This new bill would only allow handgun carry permit holders to carry other loaded firearms in their car with them. Your “beef” may not be with getting rid of handgun carry permits, but it is certainly with the permit holders themselves.
Face the facts, Otis – handgun carry permit holders are actually more law-abiding than our fellow citizens. Yes, there are always exceptions, just as there are for every rule, but those exceptions do not disprove the simple truth that we had to be law-abiding for 21 years of our lives already, we have to stay law-abiding to keep our permits, and we have no reason to just throw away our permits (and thus the legal protection for our right to self defense) over a whim or folly.
What is legislative overkill is a law barring me from carrying a certain firearm, loaded, in the car with me, just because its barrel is about a foot longer than another firearm that I can already (and do) legally carry in the car with me. What is legislative overkill is burdening law-abiding citizens with pointless restrictions that serve no public purpose, would guarantee no public safety, and would not discourage a criminal from doing what criminals already do – break the law.
Well, it is becoming increasingly obvious that you certainly belong at the Commercial Appeal, Otis – with the unmitigated bigotry shown by your editor, Chris Peck, and the outright stupidity demonstrated by one of your fellow authors, Richard Locker, you should fit right in.