The last few months have been very eventful. The state government has passed laws that allow anyone, who obtains a Handgun Carry Permit either from the state of Tennessee or from a state which the State of Tennessee honors, to carry in establishments where alcohol is served for consumption so long as that person is not consuming alcohol, to carry in state parks within Tennessee, and also to carry in local parks. Aside from Governor Bredesen's veto and the subsequent veto override, this is when much of the action began.
The "gun in parks" legislation provided for the rights of the people to carry in local government parks beginning September 1st provided the following requirements were met. First, no local law existing before April 8, 1986 prevented individuals from going armed within a local park; and second, the local government did not vote to opt out of the state law. This set off a scramble of local politicians to limit the rights of the people to carry a firearm to protect themselves, and the Knoxville area was no exception.
After rescheduling the vote on opting out, scheduling a public forum, canceling the public forum due to a grandfathered anti-gun ordinance, scheduling an "opt in" ordinance, rescheduling the vote on the ordinance to repeal gun limitations in parks to entertain a public forum, holding the public forum, and then discussing the ordinance at a City Council meeting, the ordinance was voted down on the first reading by a vote of 6-3 on Tuesday, September 22. Voting "no" on the ordinance were Bob Becker, Rob Frost, Bob Booker, Marilyn Roddy, Chris Woodhull, and Barbra Pelot. Mr. Joe Hultquist voted for the measure; however, he made it clear that he was only voting for it to possibly lengthen debate on the issue and would likely vote against it at the second reading if the ordinance passed. The two votes for the ordinance were Council members Steve Hall, who had requested the ordinance, and Joe Bailey.
This, personally, was not unexpected as it was easy to see what the intentions of the City Council members were as they commented on this issue over the past couple months. What was surprising were the comments of Mayor Haslam. I had been in contact with his office regarding this issue in particular over the weeks leading up to this vote. I was forwarded several e-mails from his office regarding updates on this issue. In each or nearly each message, Mayor Haslam made comments to affirm his support of the right to keep and bear arms. At the end of the Council meeting, he made the statement that although he saw the ability of people bearing arms in defense of themselves and others as a "right," due to the difficulty of implementing a repeal of the prohibition of guns on greenways and other areas including areas where park boundaries and school property meet, he would not be supporting the repeal. These statements lead me to question his definition of rights of people in that it would seem that Mr. Haslam would believe that a governmental body could legislate something which could not be, by definition, found within the bounds of its jurisdiction.
The new state law, by this time, had been in effect for three weeks meaning the bearing of weapons by permit holders within any local government parks within the jurisdiction of municipalities and counties which had not opted out of the state law and which did not have a grandfathered ordinance was now legal. The following Monday afternoon, the Knox County Commission took up the issue. This time the vote went the opposite direction. By a vote of 13-5, the County Commission voted to affirm the state law. Those voting against the right of self preservation were Amy Broyles, Mark Harmon, Sam McKenzie, Finbar Saunders, and Thomas "Tank" Strickland. Commissioners voting for the measure were Brad Anders, Bud Armstrong, Richard Briggs, Mike Brown, Michele Carringer, Mike Hammond, Ivan Harmon, Greg "Lumpy" Lambert, Craig Leuthold, Tony Norman, Paul Pinkston, R. Larry Smith, and Dave Wright.
If you live within the City of Knoxville, live in Knox County, or visit either, please contact the City Council or Knox County Commission members and voice your disapproval of votes limiting your right of self preservation. Even more so, contact those representatives who have voted to uphold your rights. They rightly deserve to be supported for actions which preserve our liberties and emboldened to do more in the future.
Of the places in the Knoxville Area, the following lists are the places where it has been reported in the media that either the bearing of arms has been banned or upheld. These are not by any means exhaustive lists.
Where People Retain the right of self preservation:
Anderson County
Knox County
Dandridge
Kingston
Where the People do not retain the right of self preservation:
City of Knoxville
Maryville
Oak Ridge
Clinton
Gatlinburg
I will end this post with a few statements which I replied to someone commenting on my likely enjoyment of the Knox County Commission's vote: I am glad the Knox County Commission has respected the right of self defense especially on the heals of the affirmation of the ban in the City of Knoxville. All in all, most places in the State do not inhibit self defense. And thus over the last several months, Tennesseans have taken back some of their lost liberties. It is always a good and enjoyable thing when the powers that be are prevented from disrupting the peaceful existence of free peoples and the natural rights which define their status as free people.
Really agree with what you read? Really disagree? Somewhere in the middle?....Let yourself be heard in the comments!
_
Saturday, October 3, 2009
Tuesday, August 25, 2009
Knoxville City Council Votes to Delay on Gun Ordinance
This evening the Knoxville City Council was to hear speakers and vote on repealing the ban on guns in city parks. In support of this repeal, many people took time to travel downtown to support by attendance or speak out in support; but as was the case for the previous debate on "opting out" of the new state law, the citizens' time was yet again wasted in favor of delay.
A workshop is scheduled for September 3 at 5:00 PM. To allow for this workshop on the gun issue, the measure is delayed for four weeks and will be taken back up on September 22. I would like to take a moment to point out that the Knoxville City Government had a chance to listen to its citizens at a workshop on the 20th of this month, but sought it more appropriate to CANCEL THE WORKSHOP!! Now we must have yet another workshop. I don't think you care what the people think. I think you will try to get away with anything you can, and I don't think a workshop will have any effect on how you will vote. If you really cared how we felt on the issue, you would have not canceled the previous workshop. I know I love my liberty in an APPROPRIATELY extreme way, but how bout you people on the Knoxville City Council take a frekin' hint! YOU DO NOT HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO NEGATE ANY PART OF THE CONSTITUTION EVEN IF YOU THINK IT IS FOR OUR OWN GOOD! WE WANT TO HAVE THE ABILITY TO PROTECT OURSELVES! GET OUT OF OUR WAY! I hope that wasn't in any way unclear.
It was apparent to me as I spoke to Marylin Roddy, a city council member, that she had a (politically correct) indifference to opting out of the state law and would like to hear more from her constituents before voting. Ms. Roddy, in what universe must you live in to not know how you stand on the 2nd Amendment? It is a core issue which is debated often! That was her position last month with the previous resolution. Today, she floated the idea of a "compromise" ordinance which would exclude all parks which have playgrounds or ball fields which are frequented by children. Clearly, she is at best hostile to the 2nd amendment. I also find it hard, with an exception of one or two, to picture clearly any parks which her "compromise" would not encompass. So as I see it, her "compromise" is not a compromise at all; it is in effect a ban in the essentially same effect as the ban exists today.
Here is her contact information:
Marilyn Roddy - at large
920 Iskagna Drive
Knoxville, TN 37919
Phone: (865) 637-0333
Email: mroddy@cityofknoxville.org
If you support the 2nd Amendment, make her phone ring off the hook and overflow her in box with e-mail telling her how the 2nd Amendment is not hers to deny in any way. Her power is not superior to the constitution, but inferior. Would she propose that we deny the public their 1st (or any other) Amendment rights because it in some way is harmful to any certain group in any certain area? If she and the other council members have the authority to deny the 2nd Amendment, by what rational are they prohibited from denying any other Amendment?
Set your calendars; call your council member(s); speak out, speak loud, & speak often! We can force them to obey the Constitution even if it is against their idea of how they would shape our lives. They are our servants, and their first priority as our elected servants is to protect our rights. Only after that is complete may they observe any other act of governance. Make it clear to them whom they serve!
In case you don't know how to contact Knoxville City Government, here are Ms. Roddy's and important county officials along with the other city council members' contact info:
Knoxville City Officials' contact information:
Mayor Bill Haslam
City County Building
Phone: (865) 215-2040
Fax: (865) 215-2085
Email: mayor@cityofknoxville.org
Mayor's Office
William Lyons, Senior Director
Department of Policy & Communications
Phone: (865) 215-2029
Email: wlyons@cityofknoxville.org
Larry B. Martin, Deputy to the Mayor
Phone: (865) 215-2086
Fax: 865-215-2277
Email: lmartin@cityofknoxville.org
Thomas Strickland, Jr., Director
Community Relations
Special Assistant to the Mayor
Phone: (865) 215-2048
Fax: (865) 215-2085
Email: tstrickland@cityofknoxville.org
Council members can be reached by contacting the City Recorder's Office
Phone: (865) 215-2075
Fax: (865) 215-4269
City Council Members
Vice Mayor Bob Becker - Fifth District
125 E. Columbia Avenue
Knoxville, TN 37917
Phone: 865-387-0752
Email: bob@bobbecker.org
Joe Bailey - at large
424 Hillvale Turn, West
Knoxville, TN 37919
Phone: (865) 637-4477
Email: jdbailey@cityofknoxville.org
Chris Woodhull - at large
223 Deadrick Avenue
Knoxville, TN 37921
Phone: (865) 661-4131
Email: chriswoodhull@bellsouth.net
Marilyn Roddy - at large
920 Iskagna Drive
Knoxville, TN 37919
Phone: (865) 637-0333
Email: mroddy@cityofknoxville.org
Joseph Hultquist- First District
2240 Fisher Place
Knoxville, TN 37920
Phone: (865) 579-1250
Email: joseph49@bellsouth.net
Barbara Pelot - Second District
8437 Corteland Drive
Knoxville, TN 37909
Home: (865) 693-0454 OR (865) 671-1544
Fax: (865) 693-0525
Email: rpelot3@aol.com
Steve Hall - Third District
5748 Acapulco Avenue
Knoxville, TN 37921
Phone: (865) 584-9567 OR (865) 522-1195
Email: InteriorFinishes@MSN.com
Rob Frost - Fourth District
P.O. Box 300
Knoxville, TN 37901-0300
Phone: (865) 525-1303 OR (865) 546-7000
Fax: 865-546-0423
Email: RobFrostCityCouncil@comcast.net
Robert J. Booker - Sixth District
2621 Parkview Avenue
Knoxville, TN 37914
Phone: (865) 546-1576
Really agree with what you read? Really disagree? Somewhere in the middle?....Let yourself be heard in the comments!
_
A workshop is scheduled for September 3 at 5:00 PM. To allow for this workshop on the gun issue, the measure is delayed for four weeks and will be taken back up on September 22. I would like to take a moment to point out that the Knoxville City Government had a chance to listen to its citizens at a workshop on the 20th of this month, but sought it more appropriate to CANCEL THE WORKSHOP!! Now we must have yet another workshop. I don't think you care what the people think. I think you will try to get away with anything you can, and I don't think a workshop will have any effect on how you will vote. If you really cared how we felt on the issue, you would have not canceled the previous workshop. I know I love my liberty in an APPROPRIATELY extreme way, but how bout you people on the Knoxville City Council take a frekin' hint! YOU DO NOT HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO NEGATE ANY PART OF THE CONSTITUTION EVEN IF YOU THINK IT IS FOR OUR OWN GOOD! WE WANT TO HAVE THE ABILITY TO PROTECT OURSELVES! GET OUT OF OUR WAY! I hope that wasn't in any way unclear.
It was apparent to me as I spoke to Marylin Roddy, a city council member, that she had a (politically correct) indifference to opting out of the state law and would like to hear more from her constituents before voting. Ms. Roddy, in what universe must you live in to not know how you stand on the 2nd Amendment? It is a core issue which is debated often! That was her position last month with the previous resolution. Today, she floated the idea of a "compromise" ordinance which would exclude all parks which have playgrounds or ball fields which are frequented by children. Clearly, she is at best hostile to the 2nd amendment. I also find it hard, with an exception of one or two, to picture clearly any parks which her "compromise" would not encompass. So as I see it, her "compromise" is not a compromise at all; it is in effect a ban in the essentially same effect as the ban exists today.
Here is her contact information:
Marilyn Roddy - at large
920 Iskagna Drive
Knoxville, TN 37919
Phone: (865) 637-0333
Email: mroddy@cityofknoxville.org
If you support the 2nd Amendment, make her phone ring off the hook and overflow her in box with e-mail telling her how the 2nd Amendment is not hers to deny in any way. Her power is not superior to the constitution, but inferior. Would she propose that we deny the public their 1st (or any other) Amendment rights because it in some way is harmful to any certain group in any certain area? If she and the other council members have the authority to deny the 2nd Amendment, by what rational are they prohibited from denying any other Amendment?
Set your calendars; call your council member(s); speak out, speak loud, & speak often! We can force them to obey the Constitution even if it is against their idea of how they would shape our lives. They are our servants, and their first priority as our elected servants is to protect our rights. Only after that is complete may they observe any other act of governance. Make it clear to them whom they serve!
In case you don't know how to contact Knoxville City Government, here are Ms. Roddy's and important county officials along with the other city council members' contact info:
Knoxville City Officials' contact information:
Mayor Bill Haslam
City County Building
Phone: (865) 215-2040
Fax: (865) 215-2085
Email: mayor@cityofknoxville.org
Mayor's Office
William Lyons, Senior Director
Department of Policy & Communications
Phone: (865) 215-2029
Email: wlyons@cityofknoxville.org
Larry B. Martin, Deputy to the Mayor
Phone: (865) 215-2086
Fax: 865-215-2277
Email: lmartin@cityofknoxville.org
Thomas Strickland, Jr., Director
Community Relations
Special Assistant to the Mayor
Phone: (865) 215-2048
Fax: (865) 215-2085
Email: tstrickland@cityofknoxville.org
Council members can be reached by contacting the City Recorder's Office
Phone: (865) 215-2075
Fax: (865) 215-4269
City Council Members
Vice Mayor Bob Becker - Fifth District
125 E. Columbia Avenue
Knoxville, TN 37917
Phone: 865-387-0752
Email: bob@bobbecker.org
Joe Bailey - at large
424 Hillvale Turn, West
Knoxville, TN 37919
Phone: (865) 637-4477
Email: jdbailey@cityofknoxville.org
Chris Woodhull - at large
223 Deadrick Avenue
Knoxville, TN 37921
Phone: (865) 661-4131
Email: chriswoodhull@bellsouth.net
Marilyn Roddy - at large
920 Iskagna Drive
Knoxville, TN 37919
Phone: (865) 637-0333
Email: mroddy@cityofknoxville.org
Joseph Hultquist- First District
2240 Fisher Place
Knoxville, TN 37920
Phone: (865) 579-1250
Email: joseph49@bellsouth.net
Barbara Pelot - Second District
8437 Corteland Drive
Knoxville, TN 37909
Home: (865) 693-0454 OR (865) 671-1544
Fax: (865) 693-0525
Email: rpelot3@aol.com
Steve Hall - Third District
5748 Acapulco Avenue
Knoxville, TN 37921
Phone: (865) 584-9567 OR (865) 522-1195
Email: InteriorFinishes@MSN.com
Rob Frost - Fourth District
P.O. Box 300
Knoxville, TN 37901-0300
Phone: (865) 525-1303 OR (865) 546-7000
Fax: 865-546-0423
Email: RobFrostCityCouncil@comcast.net
Robert J. Booker - Sixth District
2621 Parkview Avenue
Knoxville, TN 37914
Phone: (865) 546-1576
Really agree with what you read? Really disagree? Somewhere in the middle?....Let yourself be heard in the comments!
_
Sunday, August 23, 2009
Knoxville To Consider Opting In To State Gun In Parks Law
The Knoxville City Council will be addressing item 12-a on the current agenda (http://www.ci.knoxville.tn.us/citycouncil/agenda.pdf). This is an ordinance to amend Section 20-60 of the Knoxville City Code to allow citizens possession of firearms or weapons within City parks. The City Council meeting will be held Tuesday, August 25 at 7:00 P.M. at the City County Building (400 Main St. Knoxville, TN 37902). Whether you live, work, or visit Knoxville, calling and e-mailing all council members with your concerns of support for item 12-a will help regain some of our liberty and equip ourselves to better protect ourselves, our families, and our friends; however, It is critical that if you support the Second Amendment that you attend the meeting. A head count will likely be taken of attendees who are supportive of the proposed ordinance as was done at previous meetings concerning this subject. If this measure is passed, it is quite likely that to ban guns again in Knoxville will require an alteration of Tennessee State Law which will prevent the City of Knoxville from disregarding the Second Amendment by merely voting so. Supporting this ordinance will also be witnessed by Knox County officials. Many times the County and City amend their laws to match each other, and if Knoxville repeals its ban on weapons in parks, it will give support to the preservation of the Second Amendment in the county as well.
Knoxville City Officials' contact information:
Mayor Bill Haslam
City County Building
Phone: (865) 215-2040
Fax: (865) 215-2085
Email: mayor@cityofknoxville.org
Mayor’s Office
William Lyons, Senior Director
Department of Policy & Communications
Phone: (865) 215-2029
Email: wlyons@cityofknoxville.org
Larry B. Martin, Deputy to the Mayor
Phone: (865) 215-2086
Fax: 865-215-2277
Email: lmartin@cityofknoxville.org
Thomas Strickland, Jr., Director
Community Relations
Special Assistant to the Mayor
Phone: (865) 215-2048
Fax: (865) 215-2085
Email: tstrickland@cityofknoxville.org
Council members can be reached by contacting the City Recorder's Office
Phone: (865) 215-2075
Fax: (865) 215-4269
City Council Members
Vice Mayor Bob Becker - Fifth District
125 E. Columbia Avenue
Knoxville, TN 37917
Phone: 865-387-0752
Email: bob@bobbecker.org
Joe Bailey - at large
424 Hillvale Turn, West
Knoxville, TN 37919
Phone: (865) 637-4477
Email: jdbailey@cityofknoxville.org
Chris Woodhull - at large
223 Deadrick Avenue
Knoxville, TN 37921
Phone: (865) 661-4131
Email: chriswoodhull@bellsouth.net
Marilyn Roddy - at large
920 Iskagna Drive
Knoxville, TN 37919
Phone: (865) 637-0333
Email: mroddy@cityofknoxville.org
Joseph Hultquist- First District
2240 Fisher Place
Knoxville, TN 37920
Phone: (865) 579-1250
Email: joseph49@bellsouth.net
Barbara Pelot - Second District
8437 Corteland Drive
Knoxville, TN 37909
Home: (865) 693-0454 OR (865) 671-1544
Fax: (865) 693-0525
Email: rpelot3@aol.com
Steve Hall - Third District
5748 Acapulco Avenue
Knoxville, TN 37921
Phone: (865) 584-9567 OR (865) 522-1195
Email: InteriorFinishes@MSN.com
Rob Frost - Fourth District
P.O. Box 300
Knoxville, TN 37901-0300
Phone: (865) 525-1303 OR (865) 546-7000
Fax: 865-546-0423
Email: RobFrostCityCouncil@comcast.net
Robert J. Booker - Sixth District
2621 Parkview Avenue
Knoxville, TN 37914
Phone: (865) 546-1576
Really agree with what you read? Really disagree? Somewhere in the middle?....Let yourself be heard in the comments!
_
Knoxville City Officials' contact information:
Mayor Bill Haslam
City County Building
Phone: (865) 215-2040
Fax: (865) 215-2085
Email: mayor@cityofknoxville.org
Mayor’s Office
William Lyons, Senior Director
Department of Policy & Communications
Phone: (865) 215-2029
Email: wlyons@cityofknoxville.org
Larry B. Martin, Deputy to the Mayor
Phone: (865) 215-2086
Fax: 865-215-2277
Email: lmartin@cityofknoxville.org
Thomas Strickland, Jr., Director
Community Relations
Special Assistant to the Mayor
Phone: (865) 215-2048
Fax: (865) 215-2085
Email: tstrickland@cityofknoxville.org
Council members can be reached by contacting the City Recorder's Office
Phone: (865) 215-2075
Fax: (865) 215-4269
City Council Members
Vice Mayor Bob Becker - Fifth District
125 E. Columbia Avenue
Knoxville, TN 37917
Phone: 865-387-0752
Email: bob@bobbecker.org
Joe Bailey - at large
424 Hillvale Turn, West
Knoxville, TN 37919
Phone: (865) 637-4477
Email: jdbailey@cityofknoxville.org
Chris Woodhull - at large
223 Deadrick Avenue
Knoxville, TN 37921
Phone: (865) 661-4131
Email: chriswoodhull@bellsouth.net
Marilyn Roddy - at large
920 Iskagna Drive
Knoxville, TN 37919
Phone: (865) 637-0333
Email: mroddy@cityofknoxville.org
Joseph Hultquist- First District
2240 Fisher Place
Knoxville, TN 37920
Phone: (865) 579-1250
Email: joseph49@bellsouth.net
Barbara Pelot - Second District
8437 Corteland Drive
Knoxville, TN 37909
Home: (865) 693-0454 OR (865) 671-1544
Fax: (865) 693-0525
Email: rpelot3@aol.com
Steve Hall - Third District
5748 Acapulco Avenue
Knoxville, TN 37921
Phone: (865) 584-9567 OR (865) 522-1195
Email: InteriorFinishes@MSN.com
Rob Frost - Fourth District
P.O. Box 300
Knoxville, TN 37901-0300
Phone: (865) 525-1303 OR (865) 546-7000
Fax: 865-546-0423
Email: RobFrostCityCouncil@comcast.net
Robert J. Booker - Sixth District
2621 Parkview Avenue
Knoxville, TN 37914
Phone: (865) 546-1576
Really agree with what you read? Really disagree? Somewhere in the middle?....Let yourself be heard in the comments!
_
Wednesday, July 29, 2009
Gun Ban Debate In Knoxville
For those of you who don't know, the State of Tennessee enacted a law which allows persons with a handgun permit to carry their weapon(s) in state and local parks beginning September 1 provided that local governments do not "opt out" of the legislation by that time.
Yesterday evening, July 29, the Knoxville City Council voted to postpone the "opt out (gun ban)" vote until the 25th of August in order to entertain a public forum on August 20th at 5:00 PM at the City/County Building. Here is a local story on yesterday's events. The story is pretty accurate, but there is one thing missing from the article. During the meeting, the council asked for a show of support first for the measure to ban guns in local parks, then, against. From my vantage point, which I believe I was able to see all attendees, there were no persons showing support for the measure. Conversely, there were approximately 30 people showing support against the measure.
Here is an image of the resolution. The most important text of the resolution is this:
Section 1:Any person authorized to carry a handgun under Tennessee Code Annotated § 39-17-1351, is prohibited from possessing any handgun while within a public park, natural area, historic park, nature trail, campground, forest, greenway, waterway, or other similar public place that is owned or operated by the City of Knoxville or any of its instrumentalities. This prohibition of handguns within any municipal park applies to the entire park, notwithstanding the provisions of T.C.A. § 39-17-1311(b)(1)(I). However, this Resolution does not prohibit lawful possession of any handgun in accordance with T.C.A. § 39-17-1311(b)(1)(A)-(H).
The definition of places which this law applies seems very expansive. What is a "similar public place?" Does "waterway" mean that I may not be in possession of a firearm and travel by boat through the City of Knoxville? If so, a "waterway" seems to be a similar public place to a roadway. The language of this resolution seems to suggest that it will apply to any publicly owned or operated space. What exactly is an instrumentality? Could this mean that in addition to any public place directly operated or owned by the City of Knoxville, any place indirectly owned or operated by the City of Knoxville will be affected by this? If these concerns are credible, this resolution will outlaw the exercise of the Second Amendment in all places except your home, the homes of your friends and family, any private businesses including the area in which you must travel between them.
Most of us by now have heard (or argued) the typical arguments against guns; and usually, they fall into a genre of safety. If there weren't guns, there wouldn't be as many violent crimes, etc., etc. These arguments make no logical sense are simply not true. If someone is willing to harm you by an illegal activity, I see no rational train of thought which to suggest that the criminal would be concerned with doing it in a lawful manner. It is my opinion that the people who are supporters of gun control dislike guns and attack them politically due to the emotion they feel about the subject. Therefore this and other logical arguments surely will have little effect on such people; but when you boil down their emotional argument, you find a very different one.
This country if founded upon one very basic principal above all others which is self-governance. So long as you are not interfering with the rights of another, you are allowed to make your own decisions. The gun control debate falls square in the lap of the principal. Not only that, but it is an argument for or against self-governance. Proponents of gun control make the decision for themselves that they do not want to own or use firearms. I have no issue with the personal decisions of anyone who chooses not to use guns. The problem is that proponents of gun control do not stop there. They believe that their decision making is superior to others' ability to make decisions, and through the force of government, make the decisions for everyone else through an ultimatum of confiscation of property or imprisonment to defy these decisions. These political activities are are directly contrary to the idea of self-governance and incompatible with it.
This of course is not the only problem with gun control.
Second AmendmentA well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
Isn't it interesting that the framers of the constitution chose the word "infringed" and not another word like "denied." "Infringed" to me seems to mean a slight injury. Therefore, we could rewrite the Amendment to read, "...the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not even slightly be injured." I believe that certain exceptional areas in the gun control debate have their own unique discussion such as weapons of mass destruction and bearing arms during proceedings which may result in the confiscation of liberty or property (court rooms), but we are not talking about these types of situations. We are talking about the average citizen who has a handgun permit in average everyday places and situations. To deny someone their 2nd Amendment in these parameters as defined in this resolution is an irresponsible and irrational act. It is incompatible with self-governance, liberty, the Constitution, and logic.
_
Saturday, July 4, 2009
Happy Dependence Day
The 4th of July had come around again; and this may sound a little pessimistic, but I'd like to wish everyone a happy Dependence Day.
The holiday may be called Independence Day, but I theorize that due to the transfer of power from the people to state and local governments and from state and local governments to the federal government, the Declaration of Independence effectively was, instead of a termination of the authority of the British government over the colonies, a shift of dependence. We talk a big deal about "the land of the free," but we are not free. Sure, we can choose what town to live in, what TV shoes and movies to watch, choose to have children, & choose what to say & read; but what else are we free from government intrusion to do? Not a whole lot. It isn't permissible to grow food on your own land without governmental permission. That seems a pretty basic thing to do: grow your own food. You would think that would be something you would be free to do without governmental regulation, but you'd be wrong. We can't earn a living, give someone a gift, be self-employed, being unemployed, or even die without being punished through taxation. How could anyone say that freedom no longer rings in the U.S.? So go ahead and celebrate the 4th, wave your flags, and celebrate freedom, but don't forget to say how there "should be a law" whenever you see something you don't agree with or see decisions and authority that should be taken from the citizens that can't be trusted with the responsibility of having the authority to make decisions in a way contrary to the way you think the government would. In the face of our overreaching government, the 4th celebrations of freedom seem rather hollow.
Happy Dependence Day Everybody!
Really agree with what you read? Really disagree? Somewhere in the middle?....Let yourself be heard in the comments!
_
The holiday may be called Independence Day, but I theorize that due to the transfer of power from the people to state and local governments and from state and local governments to the federal government, the Declaration of Independence effectively was, instead of a termination of the authority of the British government over the colonies, a shift of dependence. We talk a big deal about "the land of the free," but we are not free. Sure, we can choose what town to live in, what TV shoes and movies to watch, choose to have children, & choose what to say & read; but what else are we free from government intrusion to do? Not a whole lot. It isn't permissible to grow food on your own land without governmental permission. That seems a pretty basic thing to do: grow your own food. You would think that would be something you would be free to do without governmental regulation, but you'd be wrong. We can't earn a living, give someone a gift, be self-employed, being unemployed, or even die without being punished through taxation. How could anyone say that freedom no longer rings in the U.S.? So go ahead and celebrate the 4th, wave your flags, and celebrate freedom, but don't forget to say how there "should be a law" whenever you see something you don't agree with or see decisions and authority that should be taken from the citizens that can't be trusted with the responsibility of having the authority to make decisions in a way contrary to the way you think the government would. In the face of our overreaching government, the 4th celebrations of freedom seem rather hollow.
Happy Dependence Day Everybody!
Really agree with what you read? Really disagree? Somewhere in the middle?....Let yourself be heard in the comments!
_
Friday, June 5, 2009
The VAT Balloon
Over the last week or so, there has been talk of a VAT. For those of you who don't know what a VAT is, VAT stands for Value Added Tax. What a VAT does is taxes the value of a product increases through the manufacturing process. I'll Give an example.
You want to buy a widget. This widget has 3 parts supplied to the widget manufacturer (WM) which it uses to construct the final product. Each part supplier purchases raw materials and makes a part A, B, & C. During the process of manufacturing each part the value of each part increases in value by $50. So, lets say each part manufacturer (PM) pays $50 in materials making the price sold to the WM is $100. At this point, the PM is taxed 25% (one of the floated rates). This means the PM will pay $12.50 when selling each part. The WM takes each part and makes a widget which it sells at a price of $500. The value increase will be $200 ($500-3($100)). So at the same 25% VAT, the tax paid by WM will be $50. So the VAT taxes paid on the purchase of a $500 widget will be $87.50 ($50 + 3(12.50)).
What is good about this?
Well, the first thing is that a VAT will be partially an elective tax. If you don't want to pay the VAT, don't buy anything. The ability of paying taxes electively gives power to the people. Don't like a military engagement? Don't buy anything. Don't like a entitlement program? Don't buy anything. Having a tax system based upon a "sales tax" model (Note that a VAT is not a sales tax) gives the public the ability to control the purse strings of the nation through voting with their pocketbook.
So, what's the down side to this?
The VAT balloon floated by the Obama administration is not a tax system in opposition to the current system. In other words the VAT will not replace, but be added to, all the other taxes. There is some talk about possibly augmenting the income tax to make the tax more palatable to tax payers; however, the income tax is not being proposed to being repealed. This will mean just another layer of taxation added to the already multiple-tax tax policy of the governments in the U.S.
The $500 widget will rapidly assume a $587.50 price. The VAT, just as other corporate taxes, will be passed on to the consumer. The VAT will not just be applied to our $500 widgets. The VAT will be applied to basic necessities. It will be more expensive to survive; or in other words, it will be more difficult to rise above the poverty line. $5 gallons of milk and $2 bread will be a thing of the past. A $50 grocery trip will now be about $60. Sound like a winner to you?
In addition to the higher prices at the check out, the increase in prices will not be in any way transparent. "VAT" will not be a line on your receipt. You won't know how much you are paying in taxes; you'll just know that you're paying more. Through this type of cloaked tax, politicians will be able to talk about how the corporate fat cats aren't paying their "fair share" and you won't have the foggiest idea of how much the fat cats aren't paying because you can't see, and by these types of hidden taxes prevented from seeing, how much of these taxes you are actually paying.
What should we do?
Well certainly, the VAT should be opposed. It is a tool by which politicians will use to hide how much they are actually spending so they can confiscate your wealth without you getting wise to their scam. There is, however, a tax policy that can retain the benefits of the VAT and eliminate the disadvantages. This is the FairTax. The FairTax will be an actual sales tax. You will know how much you are being taxed. There will be a line on your receipt which tells you how much you spent on your taxes. Not only that, but it will not be a tax added to all the other taxes you already pay. Personal & corporate income taxes, Medicare & Medicaid withholdings, Social Security withholdings, self-employment taxes, the alternative minimum tax (AMT), estate taxes, every federal tax; ALL GONE! Your "take home pay" will become your "gross pay!" Not only that, but the additional resources your company allocates to your employment in taxes and government paperwork will be eliminated. Your company will be more efficient and would have the choice to reallocate that money to its employees. So in addition to getting your whole pay check, you could get an additional raise on top of it.
It is less stressful. You don't have to worry about filing your taxes. You don't have to worry about getting audited. April 15th will no longer be a day you have to your government paper work done, submitted, & paid for; but might be an excellent day to find a nice place in the park for a picnic. That sounds pretty stress free to me (depending on your company of course), but how many of you have been told by your health care provider to reduce your stress? It just another additional benefit. And since we're on the topic of not having to file your taxes, how much of you spend on having someone prepare your taxes? How many hours do you spend doing them yourself? You don't have to pay for or spend your time doing any of that stuff again! I do want to suggest to you that the onerous tax laws require you to pay a de-facto tax by paying to have your taxes prepared by a professional, or a tax of your personal time (either at your job, with your family, or other) so that you can become competent in knowledge of tax law and actually filling out your tax return. The cost of compliance is a tax with a different name.
Let's return to the fact that the FairTax is an actual sales tax. Now the VAT has the element of elective taxation that is shared by the FairTax. The FairTax is different from the regressiveness of the VAT is not shared by the FairTax. The FairTax is progressive and not applied to the basic necessities. So, if you don't like what the government is doing; no matter what the percentage of tax is, you can control the purse stings by choosing not to buy anything but the basic necessities. The FairTax will also be limited to the retail market. Although it makes sense to me that the VAT would be collected at the point of retail sales, what about sales of used products at the retail level? Although I am sure there are other examples, the used car market seems the most obvious question. Would the VAT apply to the average elevated value of used vehicles sold at retail dealerships? I don't know, but what I do know is that the FairTax would not. The FairTax only applies to new products at the retail level. If you want to go buy a previously purchased vehicle (or anything else for that matter), you don't pay tax. You pay tax once, that it! Simple.
Although there are a couple good things about the VAT, the disadvantages outweigh the benefits. If we were to enact the FairTax, we would have all of the benefits of the VAT without any of the disadvantages. If you want a more in depth discussion of the FairTax, the link above will take you to FairTax.org, but I severely recommend getting "The FairTax Book" and "The FairTax Book: Answering the Critics." I have read both of them and they are very informative. There are even more benefits to enacting the FairTax which you will read about in those books, but I believe I've covered the basics.
Really agree with what you read? Really disagree? Somewhere in the middle?....Let yourself be heard in the comments!
_
You want to buy a widget. This widget has 3 parts supplied to the widget manufacturer (WM) which it uses to construct the final product. Each part supplier purchases raw materials and makes a part A, B, & C. During the process of manufacturing each part the value of each part increases in value by $50. So, lets say each part manufacturer (PM) pays $50 in materials making the price sold to the WM is $100. At this point, the PM is taxed 25% (one of the floated rates). This means the PM will pay $12.50 when selling each part. The WM takes each part and makes a widget which it sells at a price of $500. The value increase will be $200 ($500-3($100)). So at the same 25% VAT, the tax paid by WM will be $50. So the VAT taxes paid on the purchase of a $500 widget will be $87.50 ($50 + 3(12.50)).
What is good about this?
Well, the first thing is that a VAT will be partially an elective tax. If you don't want to pay the VAT, don't buy anything. The ability of paying taxes electively gives power to the people. Don't like a military engagement? Don't buy anything. Don't like a entitlement program? Don't buy anything. Having a tax system based upon a "sales tax" model (Note that a VAT is not a sales tax) gives the public the ability to control the purse strings of the nation through voting with their pocketbook.
So, what's the down side to this?
The VAT balloon floated by the Obama administration is not a tax system in opposition to the current system. In other words the VAT will not replace, but be added to, all the other taxes. There is some talk about possibly augmenting the income tax to make the tax more palatable to tax payers; however, the income tax is not being proposed to being repealed. This will mean just another layer of taxation added to the already multiple-tax tax policy of the governments in the U.S.
The $500 widget will rapidly assume a $587.50 price. The VAT, just as other corporate taxes, will be passed on to the consumer. The VAT will not just be applied to our $500 widgets. The VAT will be applied to basic necessities. It will be more expensive to survive; or in other words, it will be more difficult to rise above the poverty line. $5 gallons of milk and $2 bread will be a thing of the past. A $50 grocery trip will now be about $60. Sound like a winner to you?
In addition to the higher prices at the check out, the increase in prices will not be in any way transparent. "VAT" will not be a line on your receipt. You won't know how much you are paying in taxes; you'll just know that you're paying more. Through this type of cloaked tax, politicians will be able to talk about how the corporate fat cats aren't paying their "fair share" and you won't have the foggiest idea of how much the fat cats aren't paying because you can't see, and by these types of hidden taxes prevented from seeing, how much of these taxes you are actually paying.
What should we do?
Well certainly, the VAT should be opposed. It is a tool by which politicians will use to hide how much they are actually spending so they can confiscate your wealth without you getting wise to their scam. There is, however, a tax policy that can retain the benefits of the VAT and eliminate the disadvantages. This is the FairTax. The FairTax will be an actual sales tax. You will know how much you are being taxed. There will be a line on your receipt which tells you how much you spent on your taxes. Not only that, but it will not be a tax added to all the other taxes you already pay. Personal & corporate income taxes, Medicare & Medicaid withholdings, Social Security withholdings, self-employment taxes, the alternative minimum tax (AMT), estate taxes, every federal tax; ALL GONE! Your "take home pay" will become your "gross pay!" Not only that, but the additional resources your company allocates to your employment in taxes and government paperwork will be eliminated. Your company will be more efficient and would have the choice to reallocate that money to its employees. So in addition to getting your whole pay check, you could get an additional raise on top of it.
It is less stressful. You don't have to worry about filing your taxes. You don't have to worry about getting audited. April 15th will no longer be a day you have to your government paper work done, submitted, & paid for; but might be an excellent day to find a nice place in the park for a picnic. That sounds pretty stress free to me (depending on your company of course), but how many of you have been told by your health care provider to reduce your stress? It just another additional benefit. And since we're on the topic of not having to file your taxes, how much of you spend on having someone prepare your taxes? How many hours do you spend doing them yourself? You don't have to pay for or spend your time doing any of that stuff again! I do want to suggest to you that the onerous tax laws require you to pay a de-facto tax by paying to have your taxes prepared by a professional, or a tax of your personal time (either at your job, with your family, or other) so that you can become competent in knowledge of tax law and actually filling out your tax return. The cost of compliance is a tax with a different name.
Let's return to the fact that the FairTax is an actual sales tax. Now the VAT has the element of elective taxation that is shared by the FairTax. The FairTax is different from the regressiveness of the VAT is not shared by the FairTax. The FairTax is progressive and not applied to the basic necessities. So, if you don't like what the government is doing; no matter what the percentage of tax is, you can control the purse stings by choosing not to buy anything but the basic necessities. The FairTax will also be limited to the retail market. Although it makes sense to me that the VAT would be collected at the point of retail sales, what about sales of used products at the retail level? Although I am sure there are other examples, the used car market seems the most obvious question. Would the VAT apply to the average elevated value of used vehicles sold at retail dealerships? I don't know, but what I do know is that the FairTax would not. The FairTax only applies to new products at the retail level. If you want to go buy a previously purchased vehicle (or anything else for that matter), you don't pay tax. You pay tax once, that it! Simple.
Although there are a couple good things about the VAT, the disadvantages outweigh the benefits. If we were to enact the FairTax, we would have all of the benefits of the VAT without any of the disadvantages. If you want a more in depth discussion of the FairTax, the link above will take you to FairTax.org, but I severely recommend getting "The FairTax Book" and "The FairTax Book: Answering the Critics." I have read both of them and they are very informative. There are even more benefits to enacting the FairTax which you will read about in those books, but I believe I've covered the basics.
Really agree with what you read? Really disagree? Somewhere in the middle?....Let yourself be heard in the comments!
_
Thursday, June 4, 2009
Tennessee Legislature Overides Anti-Gun Veto
This week the Tennessee State Legislature overrode the veto by Governor Phil Bredesen of the gun - alcohol bill. Here are some articles: WATE; CCRKBA.
It is about time. First, I want to say that the law that this veto override will eliminate plus all other legislation and regulations restricting guns are unconstitutional.
The 2nd Amendment is for the purpose of keeping an armed population as to discourage the formation of a tyrannic government through the citizen's access to the tools of war. Anyone who objectively looks and studies the 2nd Amendment will come to the same conclusion. Now after saying that, I do concede that the actions one takes with the weapon can be a subject of legislative authority. If anyone injures the rights of someone else through any means, there should be repercussions. The problem with the Tennessee law that was just repealed is that you can cause injury to no one's rights and be charged with a crime. When governments legislate topics outside of areas regarding the infringement of one's rights, they legislate personal decisions. Analogous to the soon to be repealed law would be laws requiring individuals to go armed or to refrain from wearing clothing of certain colors. These decisions are personal decisions which aught to and must be, in a free society, left to the individual.
Really agree with what you read? Really disagree? Somewhere in the middle?....Let yourself be heard in the comments!
_
It is about time. First, I want to say that the law that this veto override will eliminate plus all other legislation and regulations restricting guns are unconstitutional.
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
The 2nd Amendment is for the purpose of keeping an armed population as to discourage the formation of a tyrannic government through the citizen's access to the tools of war. Anyone who objectively looks and studies the 2nd Amendment will come to the same conclusion. Now after saying that, I do concede that the actions one takes with the weapon can be a subject of legislative authority. If anyone injures the rights of someone else through any means, there should be repercussions. The problem with the Tennessee law that was just repealed is that you can cause injury to no one's rights and be charged with a crime. When governments legislate topics outside of areas regarding the infringement of one's rights, they legislate personal decisions. Analogous to the soon to be repealed law would be laws requiring individuals to go armed or to refrain from wearing clothing of certain colors. These decisions are personal decisions which aught to and must be, in a free society, left to the individual.
Really agree with what you read? Really disagree? Somewhere in the middle?....Let yourself be heard in the comments!
_
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
