Tag Archives: responsibility

Gun Free Zone Responsibility

Tennessee recently had a very, very good idea. Until politicians ruined it. Originally they had a great gun free zone responsibility bill. Originally it said if you disarmed a licensed concealed carry holder on your premises, you take responsibility for their safety since your policy prevented them from doing so. As well as the time they are traveling to you “Armed Criminals Welcome” zone. Your firearm is left in your car? They are responsible for your safety till you get back to your car. I love this idea. I’ve been told by businesses that their insurance company demands they post those signs. Ok, fine. Then when I am injured because I was defenseless, your insurance company can pay for my hospital stay and rehab.

Then politicians did what politicians do. They messed it up.

AMEND

Senate Bill No. 1736*

House Bill No. 2033

1 by deleting all language after the enacting clause and substituting instead the following:

SECTION 1.

Tennessee Code Annotated, Title 39, Chapter 17, Part 13, is amended by adding the following as a new section:

(a) A person, business, or other entity that owns, controls, or manages property and has the authority to prohibit weapons on that property by posting,pursuant to §39-17-1359, shall be immune from civil liability with respect to any claim based on such person’s, business’s, or other entity’s failure to adopt a policy that prohibits weapons on the property by posting pursuant to §39-17-1359.

(b) Immunity under this subsection (a) does not apply to a person, business, or other entity whose conduct or failure to act is the result of gross negligence or willful or wanton misconduct.

So now if you can post your business and you don’t you are immune from liability. Ok, well, that’s better. Not the goal, but better.

But all these mass shootings have happened in gun free zones, including Wounded Knee which actually was the largest mass shooting in U.S. history, not Orlando.

The time has come for states to begin to pass actual, real, meaningful “Gun Free Zone” responsibility laws. You post a GFZ sign, you need to know what it means. People want to go home at night. Generally I try to stay out of businesses that have such signs, and I’d prefer to work in a place that doesn’t have one. But there are times one must. But the days of cavalierly posting a GFZ sign need to come to an end. You want responsibility for the safety of all these people? You’ve got it.

Facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinteresttumblrmail

Dear Aharon

I suppose during this time of year I am more given to introspection. But I’m seeing all these things that just don’t add up and make any sense to me. ֪ Conundrums if you will.

For example, why does it seem like “J Street” doesn’t really like Jews, or at least those Jews in Israel very much?

J Street
J Street

 

Another one, I have been thinking about the column Nicki wrote on Soccer Mom’s and the view I often hear expressed “If it saves just ONE life” in regards to why law abiding gun owners who have done nothing wrong should give up their rights. But then I read a story like the fourteen year old who used his .22 rifle to protect himself and his six year old sibling from home invaders who came in broad daylight.

Then I read this story about children even younger! This time it was an eleven year old who shot and killed at sixteen year old home intruder, the other intruder escaped but was later captured. He was protecting himself and his four year old little sister. I don’t think an eleven year old could have prevailed against two older teenagers without an defensive tool.

There are children alive today because they had access and training to defensive tools to help them. I then compare it to a story out of California several years ago. It’s so sad, it has always stuck with me.

Just a little over fifteen years ago, in Merced California a madman broke into the Carpenter farm house. The father was at work, the mom had taken the car to have the brakes looked at. She left fourteen year old Jessica in charge.

I was babysitting at twelve, I do not find this shocking.

For some reason we will never know a insane man broke into the farm house after cutting the phone lines. When Jessica heard a noise she came out of her room and found a naked man standing in the living room wielding a pitchfork. She fled to her room and tried to do what liberals say, she called the police. With the phone not working (the older version of no signal available) she had no success. So she crawled out the window to go get help.

The madman began stabbing little thirteen year old Anna first. Her younger sister Ashley was apparently born a sheepdog. And as such, she died. She yelled at the man not to hurt her sister. He left off stabbing Anna and killed Ashley aged nine years old.

Jessica had ran next door to neighbor Juan Fuentes and begged him to get a gun and “take care of this guy”. Juan was not inclined to save the children being murdered, though he did graciously allow Jessica to use the phone. She called police.

When they arrived he rushed them with the pitchfork, whereupon they shot him. Since they had guns, they could do that.

Jessica, Vanessa and Anna survived. The valiant little sheepdog Ashley, did not. Nor did her younger brother John who was stabbed in his sleep.

If this was not heinous enough, I will make it more so. It was most likely, preventable. Jessica KNEW how to shoot, she had earned a safety certificate when she was twelve. There WERE guns available, her father had at least a .357 and Jessica not only knew where it was, she knew well how to shoot it. So why didn’t she? Because California has MANDATORY safe storage. The gun was locked up, high on a shelf where Jessica couldn’t reach it. Even if she could, she would have needed to retrieve ammo from another spot and load it. I can only pity the poor Father, who had done everything else right, but was more afraid of the state, than a pitchfork wielding maniac. So doesn’t it seem like the soccer mom crowd and people like that silly Watts woman are partly responsible for their death?

I also do not understand how women that claim to be feminists can say that women shouldn’t have guns because they are “too weak”. After all these years of telling me “I can bring home the bacon, fry it up in a pan and never let you forget you’re a man”, you now tell me I’m too weak to handle a tool that could protect me, my family and my animals? Listen broad, what’s mine? I protect. As very best I can. I can get a 1,300 lb animal to go the direction I want him (most of the time) by pointing a finger, I can protect mine with a effective defensive tool. Sorry Aharon, I’ll stuff the cowgirl back down. But doesn’t this seem a bit hypocritical? Especially if it’s a politician that has taxpayer funded security? I can’t afford that!

So, I don’t know. I just don’t understand why some people say that citizens who have done nothing wrong will make us all safer if we give up rights and ability to protect ourselves. And why do the people that say that sometimes have the very tools they want to deny us? Although the NRA says he wasn’t that bad, I’m not sure what to think since they did endorse Harry Reid.

So, I’m just trying to make sense of some of this, and to reflect on my behavior and am I being consistent. Can you help with some advice?

Sincerely,

נצ

Dear נצ

Give it up, you are dealing with a mindset you should hope to NEVER understand. You’ll make yourself crazy with this stuff. Give it up and go have a nice cup of Israeli coffee. You’ll feel better.

Regards,

אַהֲרֹן

Facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinteresttumblrmail