« Microsoft's big-ass table | Main | Governor Bloomberg »

Jim Crow in Tennessee

I know this is probably redundant since Instapundit posted it a few days ago, but I still think it's worth a mention that this guy had to eat concrete merely for exercising his Constitutional (not to mention Tennessee-approved) right to bear arms.

I've had a concealed carry permit for most of my adult life, and I almost never exercised my right to carry. Why? Because I don't want to end up like this guy from Utah, who ended up cooling his heels for five days in a New Jersey jail for the crime of... obeying the law.

Let's face it, folks. We're living in the Jim Crow era of gun rights. Regardless of what our rights are on paper, we're still subject to the capricious whim of local officials, who won't hesitate to abrogate that right without regard to what the written law has to say. And sadly, they often do so with the tacit (or even explicit) encouragement of those whom they pretend to serve.


The police do misapply the law. They have unlawfully thrown protesters in jail for excercising their first amendment rights. When they do, you can sue which I guess the NRA is doing in this case.

As far as it being Jim Crow in Tennesee, I didn't know that there are now separate hotels, drinking fountains, and the like for gunowners in Tennesee. That does sound bad.

That was an ill-suiting analogy, wasn't it?

Actually in protesting, like carrying a gun or even driving a car, a cop can usually find a perfectly legal way to stop...and often arrest you.

Protesters stepping over a barrier or barricades subjects that person to arrest, as does any act of vandalism.

The problem most cops seem to have with legal gun owners isn't that they feel guns = crime, quite the reverse.

IN NYC in the 1980s PUBLIC ENEMY #1 in the minds of most cops was Curtis Sliwa, for daring to "get in the way and do their jobs."

Just as the UFA (the uniformed firefighter's association) fought agains the "fireproof cigarette ("bad for business"), the cops and their represntatives in the PBA don't much like things like citizen's patrols, right to carry laws, etc., NOT because they think these things will "lead to more crime," but that they might lead to various Municipalities needing fewer cops.

It's not the best of reasons, but it's human nature to try and "protect your turf."

The reason why most police don't like citizens with guns, no matter how responsible, is because like you JMK, in their hearts they are Fascists.

They will give a vigilante far more prison time than any common murderer, precisely because the vigilante has tried to behave like a real American with rights.

The ultimate Nanny State devotees are the police.

Once again, you've made a statement that is filled with a number of factual errors.

(1) Fascism, like socialism is a type of economy. It is NOT a type of government or a political theory.

Under Fascism/Corporatism private ownership of property (including businesses) is maintained but ALL commerce is highly regulated by the government. Under socialism, private property is eradicated and the government controls ALL means of production.

Totalitarianism, Constitutional Republics (which we have), democracies, and monarchies are ALL types of government.

So, extreme "Law & Order types" are NOT actually "fascists," that's a misnomer...you probably mean "Totalitarians," though even that is not quite accurate, at least not in most cases.

"The reason why most police don't like citizens with guns...is because like you JMK, in their hearts they are Fascists.
They will give a vigilante far more prison time than any common murderer, precisely because the vigilante has tried to behave like a real American with rights."

OK, the police DO NOT give anyone any prison time. That's done by the courts, of course, judges and juries, etc.

And actually, most police object to citizen's groups over "turf" issues and the idea that more such anti-crime measures (including armed civilians) can mean less crime and fewer police needed, which can ultimately mean layoffs for cops.

It's personal interest above all else.

The ultimate Nanny State devotees are the police." (BH)

I don't mean to nitpick, but again, the "Nanny State" refers to the government as caretaker, forcing all manner of social restrictions on us (from anti-smoking and trans fat restrictions, to mandating seat-belt, bike helmets, etc., etc.), while the "Daddy State" refers to the government as protector - stressing military and police build-ups.

In that regard, most police are actually devotees of the "Daddy State."

Libertarians refer to these as "the Welfare/Warfare State," and they tend to vehemently oppose both, with few exceptions - one being some "Paleo-Libertarians" (Conservative Libertarians, like the late Murray Rothbard, etc.) who oppose the welfare/"Nanny State," but support a streamlined and efficient, cost-effective military and police presence, or a limited and efficient "Daddy State."


"Fascism is an authoritarian political ideology ..."

You should run and correct Wiki, JMK, they seem to agree with me. Maybe you should have your own Wiki -- TardWiki.


Nanny state is a derogatory term that refers to state protectionism, economic interventionism, or regulatory policies, and the perception that these policies are becoming institutionalized as common practice. This term is primarily in use in the United States, Canada, Australia, and the UK.

So, you see, the term is much broader than just the way Rush Limbaugh uses it.

But you might have a point, I should have just stuck with my initial "Fascist" classification.

What I was trying to convey be invoking "Nanny State" was that the police derive all of their power by the utterly endless laws they can enforce. They LIKE laws that restrict our freedoms, since that enhances their power and importance.

Any time of the day or night, a police officer could arrest you for something, guaranteed.

They love it.

Fascism, as an economic model, rules the day TODAY, as every Western nation today has a Corporatist economic model.

Fascism as an political ideolgy has always been poorly defined and is now really non-existant.

The view that "Fascsim = the belief that the individual is subordinate to the state," was NEVER and is NOT a "Right-wing viewpoint," as Stalin, Mao, Hitler and Pol Pot, to name but a far Left few, ALL endorsed that totalitarian view.

YOU seem to mistake "the rule of Law" for "fascism."

I was and remain a big supporter of what Bill Bratton/Rudy Giuliani did in NY.

They expanded the scope of the law and enforced it with a passionate fervor.

I call that "Greater freedom, through more law," and that's fairly accurate as in NYC MORE police on the streets gave regular, law-abiding citizens MORE freedom of movement, etc.

Now there are some people who'd like to see the law expanded to such an extend that it proscribes how people dress, when they eat, etc., but those folks are few and far between...and though their views are, I'd agree, weird and disagreeable, even they're not "fascists."

And there certainly IS a difference between the "Nanny State" which the likes of Bloomberg, Edwards, Obama and HRC all support (a large social services bureaucracy) and the "Daddy State" (a large law enforcement, courts and military bureaucracy)that the likes of Giuliani, Thompson, etc., all support.

Libertarians (like Barry, and I don't know all of Barry's beliefs) tend to oppose BOTH the "Nanny" & "Daddy" or the "Welfare-Warfare States."

Many Conservatives, like myself, tend to revile the "Nanny State," but support the "Daddy State," with stricter laws and more money for vigorous enforcement of those laws.

You may disagree with that viewpoint, but you have no grounds on which to disparage it.

Thanks for making my point: you are all for a Daddy state.

Fascism = Ultimate Daddy State

Thanks again, you make my job easy.

I've always SAID that I support increased police powers and a stronger, more ubiquitous Military and Intelligence sectors.

I rightfully took issue with your confusing the nurturing "Mommy State" with the security "Daddy State" - two completely different animals. You've come to accept the difference now...as you used the right term. Please don't confuse or use them interchangably again. It creates a lot of confusion.

In my defense, of course the things I support are enshrined in the Constitution, as the government is directly charged with, "providing for the common defense" (Military & Intelligence) and "ensuring domestic tranquility" (police powers).

The reason the "general welfare" clause CANNOT be used as giving the government the right/power to equalize people or take from those "who have too much." to give to those "who have too little," is that THAT view is in comnflict with one of the few absolutely SACROSANCT ideals of the Constitution - private property rights.

So long as a system is rooted in private ownership - private ownership of land, commercial enterprises and industries, there will be wide and ultimately increasing amounts of economic disaprity between people.

It would seem that so long as we're to abide by the Constitution, we just have to accept those disparities and the disparities in power that go along with that.

It's not perfect, but since there is no perfect system, I think it can be said that it's "as perfect as humans are going to get."

What job, Bailey? Your illustrious career in nonsense? Have you interviewed each and every cop in the states, so that you can claim, without a doubt, that the only reason they arrest people is because they love trampling rights? If so, I commend your polling abilities.

Iba goingta tellba youba sommit! Dem policeba officerbas nevah doos nuttin wrong, 'cept fo' mebbe dem black ones, cause dey isn't honest like white folks (fer 'zample George Chimpliar Boosh!).

Id ain' like noboddy eber caught dem seven million times stealin', beatin', killin', takin' bribes, lyin', sellin' drugs, an everthin' else, 'cept dem darkie cops! Youba can't giveba me no 'zamples!

WoW, That Guy! You've really seemed to channel Barely Hanging in those posts.

I wouldn't do that too often, and I'd be sure to always shower after doing so.

Post a comment