same gos-se, different day

Given the non-stop, unending stream of the same baseless hoplophobia, the same anti-rights stance, and the same specious arguments spewing forth from the Commercial Appeal, I honestly got out of the habit of addressing their idiotic editorials, fun though a good fisking can be. However, what with HB3125 moving forward in the Tennessee Legislature, hit would appear as though the Commercial Appeal is doing its damnest to out-hysterical its editorials from last time around:

This session Todd and other promoters of the measure are back with a clarification. They want guns to be carried into bars, after all. And restaurateurs who took the state to court over the matter will be punished with a provision in the new bill that requires any restaurants or “bars” where guns are banned to post large signs at every entrance bearing a handgun with a red circle and slash over it.

Punished? Frakking punished?! You have to be kidding me. It is now considered “punishment” for a restaurant to have to post a “No firearms allowed” sign if they actually do not want to permit firearms on their property? Is it also a “punishment” to have to put up a “No shirt, no shoes, no service” sign if you do not want to have to deal with hairy-chested, hobbit-toed customers showing off their goodies?

For that matter, what about the restaurant owners (and there are more than a few) who have absolutely no problems serving people who are legally carrying firearms? They are currently being barred, by governmental edict, from allowing those law-abiding citizens to come onto their property with their legal sidearms – what about their predicament?

And why am I not surprised that the Commercial Appeal comes down in support of the government dictating the will of anti-rights advocates, but also against individual organizations and corporations doing as they please? Those poor, poor, anti-gun restauranteurs… they will have to wear their anti-rights bigotry on their restaurants’ sleeves, rather than inducing the government to force their desires onto everyone, regardless of everyone else’s wishes. I almost feel sorry for them.

Or not.

Message to restaurateurs: Oppose us on this issue, and you will pay a price.

Jesus Christ on a pogostick – this is not some kind of dick-waving contest between the politicians and the restaurant owners, this is we, the people, demanding that the government get out of the way of our natural, inalienable right to self-defense. And if it ends up that a restaurant owner exercising his property rights to refuse service to whomever he wants suffers from a decrease in revenues, perhaps he should reconsider which he holds to be more important – his own personal bigotry or his profits.

The point is that the choice will be up to him, as it always should have been. Of course, the Commercial Appeal has a history of opposing choice.

All of the energy and time expended on guns in bars might make political sense, at least, if this was something most Tennesseans want.

Proponents are vocal, to be sure, but a Middle Tennessee State University statewide telephone poll of 716 randomly selected adults, with an error margin of plus or minus four percentage points, found 60 percent of us opposed to guns in restaurants and 80 percent against allowing them in bars.

*giggle* So, an un-linked-to (you would think that the editorial staff of the Commercial Appeal would be intelligent enough to figure out hyperlinks) telephone poll of 0.0114% of the population of Tennessee should be taken as an accurate indicator of the desires of that population as a whole?

To begin with, the findings of the above-referenced poll are available here, though absolutely no mention is given towards the specific questions, and how they were worded, and none of the actual polling data is available for public view. Likewise, unsurprisingly, the demographic information recorded from those polled differed from the statistical census information of Tennessee – unsurprisingly, because people are going increasingly wireless (12.8% of households in 2006 had no landline, ours included), and cellphones are not and cannot legally be included in telephone polls. Of course, the pollsters tried to “weight” their recorded demographics to make it come out looking correct, but once you start doing that, the potential for bias and error increases significantly.

And I will bet a dollar to anyone willing to take it that the question regarding the “guns in bars” made no mention of the fact that drinking while carrying would still be 100% illegal.

Of course, this is all without even touching the even-less-scientific polls conducted by the Commercial Appeal: will you look for restaurants that do not allow guns (only 26% of the respondents said “yes”); would you feel more or less safe in a restaurant where fellow patrons could carry their handguns (as if “feelings” matter, but only 14% said “less safe”); and, more-recently, should state legislators override the ruling that blocked handgun carry permit holders from going armed in places serving alcohol (88% said “yes”). On average, those polls had twice the number of responses as the MTSU’s telephone count.

Funny how the anonymous writer of this particular editorial neglected to mention the polls at the Commercial Appeal itself… who wants to bet he would have, if only they had gone they way he wanted?

The measure has also encountered opposition from those who understand the issue perhaps better than anyone — top brass in law enforcement agencies across the state.

Strange how the anonymous author of this editorial neglected to mention the fact that the original sponsor of the original bill, Representative Curry Todd, is a retired police officer himself.

It is additionally strange how this nameless author neglected to mention that the police chiefs standing behind Governor Bredesen during his veto of the original bill were used for a publicity opportunity, and might or might not actually support the bill.

And, finally, perhaps this nameless author can explain to me why my rights, and the choices of restauranteurs, should be limited on the opinions of elected politicians (which is all Sheriffs are here in Tennessee), especially in light of the 41 other states that allow law-abiding citizens to carry firearms into restaurants that serve alcohol – 41 other states that have hardly had any problems at all.

Restaurant owners, represented by the Tennessee Hospitality Association, have serious problems with the legislation.

They have no way to police a provision of the bill that prohibits armed patrons from consuming alcohol. What are they supposed to do? Frisk everyone who orders a drink?

NEWSFLASH: They have no way to police the provisions of the current law that ban people carrying handguns from entering restaurants that serve alcohol. None. If I were to strap on my IWB holster, and drop a shirt over it, I could go into any restaurant in this state, sit down, have a meal, get up, and leave, and no one would know that I was armed except me. Even worse, I could have an alcoholic drink with that meal, and still no one would know.

Speaking of not knowing things, I never knew someone could be such an idiot and still manage to run a business like a restaurant – and those restaurant owners are unquestionable idiots if they consider the above rationale a good one for keeping the status quo.

They also strenuously object to being forced — if they don’t want guns in their establishments — to post signs that will make potential customers think twice about wandering into a place where an ominous “no guns” declaration is necessary.

Fine. So do not put up the sign. How hard is that?

Aww, but like so many petty would-be totalitarians before them, these restaurant owners want to have their cake and eat it too, by convincing the public that it is the big mean government that is keeping them from bringing their firearms into restaurants… at those restaurant owners’ request, of course. Well, I am not at all sorry to say that it is coming up on time to grow the frak up, develop a backbone, and take responsibility for your actions – put up a sign or not, but now the choice will be yours, not some faceless government weenie’s.

And speaking of choices, what about those who want to be able to open their doors to handgun carry permit holders and their firearms. Why are the property rights of the anti-firearm restaurant owners somehow suddenly more important than the property rights of the pro-firearm, or even neutral, restaurant owners? Do we really need to point out how incongruous that is?

*sigh* Now I remember why I stopped fisking these worthless editorials – every last one of them is the same hysteria, wrapped up in the same “it is good for the government to control everything” claptrap, decorated with the same “we do not care about your rights” bow, only the entire package gets spraypainted a slightly different shade of cat-barf green each time around. I got tired of the repackage and repost nonsense a while ago, and it does not look as though the Commercial Appeal has improved their writing style any… at least, at this point, it is patently obvious that they are adamantly and absolutely against firearms, individual rights, and the protection/preservation of either, especially with the “we are defeated but this still sucks” ending of their most-recent editorial. I guess I should congratulate the editorial staff of the Commercial Appeal for finally moving past denial, and into the realm of acceptance – of course, if this new bill is at all successful, something tells me to expect additional nonsensical propaganda pieces “editorials” from their presses.

Oh, and as if there was any doubt, this fulmination was most likely the product of Chris Peck, and if not him, someone else on the editorial staff of the Commercial Appeal, though it would appear as though the author of this particular editorial lacks the backbone necessary to put his name to it. I will try to act surprised.