Leaderboard

In the past, I have been quite critical of LEOs in general. Being in a position of authority, I hold them to a higher standard than the general population.   I will give credit where credit is due, however. A few weeks back on hwy 109, I saw a trooper helping an older lady change a flat tire. I admire this gentleman, and wish I knew who he was so I could contact his superior and commend him. I hope his spirit catches on within the LEO community. :up:

Actually ownership means just that. If I own 10k acres and wanna plant it all in posion ivy and kudzu then its my right. Thats why I will never live anywhere with an HOA or anyone else who tells me what I can and ca 't do with my land. I guess having the desire to tell those people to go do an impossible act to themselves comes from growing up way out in the country were we were the onlynones wh9 had a say on our land. sent from the backwoods

  I'm not fond of the attacks either. The hyper-sensitivity to "racism" has been sticking in my craw more every day. Now the federal government is suing corporations for making criminal background checks part of the hiring process because it discriminates against blacks. I could have sworn that it discriminates against criminals.   This case is just one example where race had little or nothing to do with the actual event, and everything to do with how it was handled. I'm sick of it.

It is their property and they can do whatever they want with it providing it is safe, tall grass is not unsafe. If a persona wants to put 1,000 pink flamingos in their yard it is their right as property owners. If they don't want to cut the grass that is their right.   If you don't like it you have every right to move.

It's called responsibility and pride in ownership. It's what happens when people lack it and are too lazy to get off their asses. A lot of what goes on with government involvement in our lives is because too many people refuse to do the right thing.

  Careful. That's a good way to get your cookin' show cancelled :)

  I can't find one flaw in this. It's the way I've looked at it all along. ANY other conclusion requires a lot more speculation than I can dream up.

I don’t understand why they would want to go the warrant route (or even what the warrant is for). The city I worked for sent you a couple of notices and if you didn’t clean it up a city crew came out and did it and you got the bill.

As long as you are from the government it is. As has been alluded to and stated fairly clearly in multiple threads here, at this point in time the government in this country and those that populate it from top to bottom have become enemies of the people and of the Constitution. The state and local houses of government are filled with petty tyrants and some of them have aspirations of joining the real tyrants in Washington.

i see and hear alot of people talk about carrying a blade for self defense. Those who carry a pistol for self defense will spend hours practicing their draw and shooting, as well as taking classes to better their chances in just such an encounter. Can you say the same for a blade? Blade skills need to be developed just like firearm and unarmed skills do. So no matter what style or method use choose, make sure to mentally and physically prepare yourself for the encounter we all hope never comes. that said, i found this article on another website, and thought I would share as its really well written   KNIFE DEFENSE MYTH By Carl Cestari     Instead of talking about alot of bull#### concerning so-called unarmed "knife" defenses, let's reverse roles for a moment.   Let us assume the "role" of the attacker, instead of the "defender".   First, let's consider the "choice" of weapon.   A knife or any edged weapon is an "up close and personal" tool of ferocious and brutal mayhem. You have to close with your mark and physically, violently and with extreme prejudice stab, slash, and hack him to bits. It's not like a gun, which could have an element of detachment. No, a knife is about as personal, brutal and ruthless as it gets.   So what kind of "mind-set" does this entail? You are going close with your target hard and fast, using deception, surprise or simply a committed and brutal pouncing. You are going to be determined, ruthless, brutal, ferocious, vicious, and most probably filled with hate and rage.   You are going to seize the target with abject brutality and stab, slash, hack and eviscerate with totally committed rage, ferocity and hate. OVER and OVER and OVER.   NOTHING is going to stand in your way. NOTHING! You are going to DESTROY whatever DOES attempt to thwart your murderous assault. You will attack repeatedly with ALL the strength, speed, and brutality you are capable of. And THAT will be heightened even MORE by rage and adrenalin.   You KNOW that you MUST get this over with QUICKLY. Your attack will be a frenzy of hate, rage and murderous INTENT.   You WON'T "feint" with your blade, you WON'T "spar" with your blade, you WON'T "half-step" with your blade.   You WILL attack with brutal and ruthless rage. You WILL punch, kick, bite, gouge, butt, and do ANY and EVERYTHING that will accomplish you GOAL in as ferocious a manner as Inhumanly possible.   Unless YOU are killed outright, NO injury will dissuade you from KILLING your mark. In FACT, anything LESS than your death, will ONLY add MORE FUEL to YOUR FIRE. NOTHING, short of your immediate demise CAN stop you. Rage, hate, murderous intent and adrenalin are fueling you to an almost superhuman state of FRENZY and FEROCITY!   Even when your man goes down, and DOWN you are determined to put him, YOU still continue the assault. You stab and stab and stab. You kick and stomp OVER and OVER and OVER again.   You DON'T even begin to "disengage" until your "blood" lust has been quenched, and your mark taken off the count.   THAT is what REALLY happens when one human being uses a knife on another.   Face that FACT squarely. Too many are "playing" knife gymnastics without EVER even realizing what the street has in store for them. It ain't going to be pretty!   Are you REALLY preparing to DEAL with THAT?   Or are you kidding yourself and others?   REALITY sucks, as they say. But it is what it is!   Carl Cestari

The constitution (state and federal) limits the laws that can be written to a small list of enumerated powers...  The scope of laws is limited by those restrictions...  So my peers can't make up laws and punishments for those laws out of thin air, without being granted those powers in the constitution. It's the entire reasoning behind our form of government....   "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."   No government can morally or legally take away those rights without the consent of the governed...  We did just that by passing both a state and federal constitution, which granted the federal government, and the state governments very limited powers...  now an argument can be made that we haven't held those governments (or subdivisions of those governments) in the proper check...  but it doesn't change the fact that we have natural rights that stand above any form of government, and among those rights is the right to own property - referenced in the Declaration of Independence as 'pursuit of Happiness' because some were concerned that saying property would have recognized the right to own slaves as a natural right.   You're right, run afoul of little petty despots "laws" and they'll send an armed gang to your house to take you by force, but that doesn't give them the moral or ethical authority to violate your rights, just because 9 men in black robes says it's ok.   And finally, you're not incorrect all levels of government can take property via eminent domain, but they must provide just compensation.  Where is the compensation for the landowners when the government passes new zoning laws that prohibit land owners from exercising their property rights.   BTW, this taking clause was meant to keep the government in check...  by limiting the amount of control that a government could have over private property only if they would provide just compensation for that 'taking' or control they attempted to exert over that property.   I know, it's only a little radical to suggest we force the federal government to operate within the confines of the constitution...  people have grown so accustomed to them violating those limits...  but we should also hold the state and the subdivisions of the state to that same standard as well...  which I understand is a lot more radical thought process for most people to grasp, but the real tyranny in our day to day lives is from petty despots who live next door and want to force their view of a perfect society on others.     And trust me I try and keep my my radical views off the forums so I don't have to watch statism "conservative'" heads explode...  but the real radical notion is how can I be held to a contractual agreement reached by men who haven't been alive for over a 150 years, where they agreed to give up some of our natural rights in perpetuity without ever giving me a choice?  Wrap your statist conservative head around that one :)   And no I haven't lost touch with reality...  I know full well how our current 'system' works today...  and it's working so well that we shouldn't strive to change it back to one of liberty and natural rights  :)  

  Your neighbor runs his mower all the time? Drive some rebar in the yard at the right height and it'll destroy his mower. See how that works. How about we leave each other alone one their own property. HOA's do a lot. They make stupid rules, charge ridiculous fees, and generally are run by power tripping little jerkoffs who are way more interested in your grass being 1/2" to high than actually helping the neighborhood. You can come drive through my non-HOA controlled neighborhood anytime Robetnashville. All the lawns are cut, the fields are growing in fresh hay, and not one single fuck is given about what your neighbor is doing. We all mind our own business, and do as we please.

Boy.. I am so glad I live in the county   I rather live in my horse trailer  than in a HOA ruled  area.

See Article 1 Section 8 of the Tennessee Constitution, then move somewhere that does not require conformance to what one's peers may require.  You peers may be the County, the City or the State.  What if your neighbor wanted to raise pigs on his property in the middle of town, with the flies and the smell, or put in a slaughterhouse?  Would your personal liberty beliefs protect him in such a situation?   I now live in the County, with a gun range in my back yard.  I understand the rules, and live accordingly.  If I lived in the City limits they would put me in jail for fire-forming 100 pc.s of brass on a Sunday afternoon, as it is, the choices I have made and the location I choose to live allow that activity.

I have one of the CMMG stainless kits. It's been reliable and I do like being able to keep my upper and red-dot on the rifle. It used to be a lot cheaper to shoot when you could actually buy ..22.

It doesn't matter if he was up to something or not...  I'd argue that a reasonable person in that situation could believe he might be up to something, but even that doesn't matter...   It's not a crime to think somebody *might* be up to no good, it's not a crime to call the police because you think a person is acting suspicious, it's not a crime to follow in your vehicle a person you think my be up to no good while on the phone with E911, and it's also not illegal to follow somebody on foot who you believe is acting suspicious in your neighborhood.   We know for a fact that before hanging up with E911, Zimmerman had not committed a crime, and was legally in the commons area of his neighborhood.  We know this because of the E911 call that has been released in it's entirety to the public, and it's clear no criminal act on the part of Zimmerman had taken place up until that point in time.   I've listened to that call a number of time, and it appears to me that Zimmerman exited his vehicle to keep TM in sight so that the police who were being dispatched to his neighborhood could question the teen.  I never get the impression that at anytime was Zimmerman attempting to 'arrest' or physically come in contact with TM.  Also, it's clear that whatever his motive, he had stopped 'following' the teen before the E911 call had ended, and was focused on getting an address to help the police meet up with him.   So, the 'hand picked DA' would like us to believe that after doing nothing illegally up until the point the E911 call ended, that sudden Zimmerman went into 'criminal' mode and somehow started a physical altercation with TM, then when overwhelmed by TM's physical force needlessly shot the teen?   That 'line of thinking' doesn't match the fair solid interview that Zimmerman gave the police (without an attorney present) the next day on video at the scene.  Nor does it match any eye witness statements the police collected.   Don't get me wrong, Zimmerman made a ton of mistakes, and was a piss poor neighborhood watch captain...  He should have had a map of the neighborhood with street names and addresses listed so he could give a clear address to E911...  he should have stayed in his car, nothing that teen was going to do that night was worth placing himself in physical danger over.   But, none of that is criminal behavior...  at the end of the day, it appears as if Zimmerman was assaulted by TM, and during that assault he (and I believe any of us) felt threatened with serious injury or death by having their head smacked into the ground/concrete...  At the point TM had him on the ground, on top of Zimmerman, and was beating his head against the ground, TM had lost any self defense status he might have had under any crazy theories anybody can come up with...  So on the face of it, it appears to be a justified shooting.   BTW, lets all be honest here...  Zimmerman isn't the sharpest knife in the draw...  how does he bumble into a fight with a teen and ends up on the ground getting his head bashed it...  yet somehow is smart enough to come up with a story that completely matches the physical evidence and all other eyewitness accounts...  You can't have it both ways, he can't be an idiot who got himself in over his head, yet a genius who in less than 24 hours with no help from an attorney came up with a perfectly fitting 'story'.    

Kudos to him. Hopefully karma will be kind.

  I don't hate Obama because he's black. I hate him because he's an incompetent, divisive, anti-american, commie asshole.

I don't care what slang or poor spelling "young people" are using as a means of communication; stupid is still stupid. I have a niece (by marriage) who is painfully finding that out right now; she is 22 acting like she is 16; talks like her IQ is about 12 (when she is actually quite intelligent as far as IQ goes); has three kids from two bio-dads (as in not married to either) and wonders why she can't get work/doesn't have any money.  Why am I not stunned about her present situation??? :shrug:   I also don't care whether those who embrace gang/thug culture do so because they are really thugs or just want to be cool.   I don't care if Trayvon was a real thug, a want-a-be-thug or was just playing the part or even if he was just this sweet little innocent "kid" his parents tried to make him out to be; if Zimmerman's actions were truly illegal then he can't use SD as a defense to the charges whether he was in fear for his life or not. If, on the other hand, Zimmerman didn't do anything illegal/did not do anything to justify Martin's attack then he has every right to defend himself against an attack that could have resulted in his death/serious injury; what Trayvon was thinking or not thinking is absolutely immaterial.

Yeah, you are right.  That's what we did, performed renditions and sent them to other countries for interrogations.  I believe we have some CIA Agents that can no longer travel abroad because there are are warrants for their arrest in Italy.  So imagine that China could do the same thing.  The thing is, if we hadn't been spying and gathering intelligence on our own people, the Government wouldn't be worrying about all this in the first place.    BTW, interesting article in the Washington Post about the FISA courts, today.   http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/for-secretive-surveillance-court-rare-scrutiny-in-wake-of-nsa-leaks/2013/06/22/df9eaae6-d9fa-11e2-a016-92547bf094cc_story.html   Seems like this is some sort of Secret Tribunal working in our country, one that's not transparent to the citizens of this country

On graycrait's recommendation, I lightly sanded the damaged area and got it to where I think it's pretty smooth: [URL=http://s551.photobucket.com/user/gd2bntn/media/Firearms/IMAG0870.jpg.html][/URL] I don't feel any bumps or burrs when I run my finger over it and can't see any rough places. I'm going by Academy or Walmart this afternoon to see if I can find some Aluminum Black.

If it were mine I would smooth up the marred section a little bit then use Aluma Black.   Don't take any more anodizing off than necessary.

Seems to me that the point he was trying to make, was citizens should be scared of their Government, here in the U.S. of A., just like the Citizens in China, Iran, North Korea, Russia, Syria, etc, etc, etc...

Politicians and gubmit officials are the real terrorists.

Welp, whistle-blowers aren't traitors & traitors aren't whistle-blowers. Had the NSA been spying on the Chinese or Soviet militaries (real tangible threats) like they are supposed to be doing, instead of spying on the American people than yea his disclosing of that information would had been treason. However, since the information on the Prism program he disclosed was that of the NSA monitoring & collecting data on every single American citizen, without warrants & without our consent or knowledge, in violation of the 4th Amendment, well that makes him more of a "whistle-blower" than a "traitor" IMHO. The Constitution wasn't written in some super-secret code that only folks wearing black robes or shiney stamped metal badges can understand, the American people are starting to wake up to that fact. Many are also waking up to realize that the biggest, most dangerous threat to the American People is the one that which our own government seemingly poses to both our safety & our liberties. Our safety because they are squandering our national intel resources on domestic big brother bullshit, our liberties because they seem to think that their power over us lowly peasants is no longer limited by our Constitution. Couple that with today's technology ease of abuse & it might be time for the American people to start having some semi-regular "tar & feathering" parties for some of their fellow Americans, just to remind those in posistions of power who works for who.

I can't say for sure what I would do, but if that bear reached for my Nutter Butters, the fight would be ON!!! :)

I would have bear fragments all over me and my tree stand

If you like the Glock why not the 19. Small enough to carry but enough barrel length to be accurate. And a high round count.

Defending yourself from an intruder is "taking matters into your own hands"??? You're dang right it is. Who else's hands are going to do it? I wish these liberal fruitcakes who write this dribble would find themselves hopelessly at the mercy of a violent sociopath so they can understand that there is no such thing as the cavalry; just you, the bad guy and the rest of your life to make a decision on how to handle it.

I have never done a pinned handle....until today.

Just my two cents, but if I end up needing to use a knife for self defense, I don't think it's going to take much mental preparation to get the "ferocity" needed to try and protect myself.  If it's down to using my knife, things have gotten really really really really bad and it's literally a very dire life or death situation.  I think that this article over-estimates the knife fighting skills of your typical street thug.  In the real world the chances of being engaged in a "knife fight" are essentially zero.  In 10 years of policing, I don't recall ever arresting a single person that had a blade on them that was going to be used for knife fighting.  If a thug did approach me with a knife, I'd be very confident that they have no more knife fighting skill than I do, so even minimal thought and effort put into learning how to fight with a blade will give you the edge in just about any situation you may find yourself in.  All that said, I'm not really sure what the author's point is.

        Being in the room when someone is in possession on their box is strictly forbidden. Knowing the contents of any persons box raises a question of liability were anything to happen and the box be compromised during any "unpleasant" issues the bank may have to endure. If this is happening where your wife banks, I would change banks. The purpose of these boxes is a private place to keep valuables. The box is FDIC insured for an amount agreed upon when the box is rented, not for the contents. For any bank to be doing this is unscrupulous and brings other activities of the bank into question.

They do not all do this, ours leaves you in the room alone, or did last time I went which was some time ago.

For those who cannot accept the results of a jury trial:   To those so predisposed -- go ahead in your rage and burn down your neighborhood.   Don't, for a second, THINK about burning mine -- for I will resist you with appropriate, even deadly, force.

After watching/listening to Zimmerman's defense attorney I believe that he'll get a fair trial; at least unless the judge let's the prosecution walk all over the rules of evidence and/or loses control of the courtroom.   Six women or six men or three and three of any color, sex, etc....our system of justice and the courtroom, far from perfect, seem to have a way of getting to the truth and making the right decision.   Many cite the O.J. trial as an example where that didn't happen but I think it was an example of the system working correctly...O.J. was acquitted because the prosecution was incompetent and the judge more worried about being on TV than running the court room; under those circumstances any defendant should have been acquitted. ;)

Ok, I'll bite...  First lets watch the RAW video from the police interview of George Zimmerman with the Police Department at the site of the shooting:   http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=55l2Dj6AeFY   At 3:00 minutes into this video, Zimmerman references a person, coming out of their home and him yelling help me help me to that person.   That person is witness #6 "John", and this is from his sworn statement to the police shortly after the shooting:     So you have a statement from an eyewitness who Zimmerman didn't know, nor did Zimmerman know about the contents of witness #6's statement, yet his video statements to the police match the eye witness's statement almost exactly.    Combine that will the "help 911 call" which we've all heard...  Witness #6 and Zimmerman both separately claim that it was Zimmerman yelling for help... and in my opinion those screams are of somebody who is clearly in fear...  they seem desperate to me... and just the possibility that those screams come from Zimmerman gives me reasonable doubt as to the murder charges.    

Thanks. I didn't sleep much the night before the match and it took me until about 0300 last night before I was relaxed enough to sleep. I've been testing a tuning the brakes on 2001 Blazer most of the day. Get that Glock and you can spend your free time working on other stuff too. lol

Looks good to me! I'm too lazy to stitch around the belt loops.

Mike, you all are a great bunch of guys. There a lots of hard working and intelligent men here and I truly enjoy reading what all of you have to say. You also know that I'm not going to agree with something because it is the popular opinion. I've been around here long enough to know who likes to joke, who the real TEA Party guys are and who takes every opportunity to be tacky at the expense of others. I'm constantly attempting to be more civil in my debates. I'm a work in progress and I'll always take exception with those who take exception with me. I could be wrong about every opinion that I've had, but when as we've both seen on several occasions in these threads when a person doesn't fall in line with the majority opinion ( CIRCLE JERK) the attacks start. I wasn't built to back down from anything. Eye for an eye.

Living in the city and being a property owner I see it both ways, though I don't see this as a police matter. I believe LE has better things to do, than to service warrants like this.  Especially, when that is Codes Enforcement's job.   I agree with DaveTn's  post regarding the city sending a couple of notices and then doing the work themselves and sending the property owner the bill afterwards.  If the property owner doesn't want to pay that bill, then the city has the right to sell the property on the courthouse steps.   As a property owner, you have a responsibility to your neighbors to maintain your property, because that affects the value of their property as well as yours. It's not like living out in the country, where a pasture field may separate you and your neighbor.  My  neighbor's houses are 30' from mine on either side of me.    And while you do have the choice to move away from such people, are you willing to take a loss on your investment, because your neighbor is a lazy SOB and refuses to mow his yard or keep his property cleaned up?  When it comes to dollars lost, I think most of us would come down on the city's side in this.

Whether someone drinks a 32ox cola or not isn't likely to impact me in any way...a neighbor who doesn't take care of his yard/property can most certainly impact MY property value (and he's breaking the laws HE has voluntarily agreed to live under).  His individual freedom STOPS when it starts to impact me negatively.   If someone isn't cutting their grass/keeping up with their yard because they are ill/old, etc...then that person's family (first) or that community (second) should step in and help. If they aren't cutting their grass because they are lazy/just don't want to then they deserve whatever the law (they agreed to  live under) says they deserve.

So does anyone else see the point that this clown was trying to make?  Granted, he made it as awkwardly as humanly possible and all people heard was the word "terrorism" but it seems that what he was trying to say is that if you incite panic by spreading false claims of danger with the public water supply, you are in essence terrorizing the public. And he'd be right.   But the hubub it caused sure does make good press.

Well, Richard, You and I don't know what else he has or hasn't got. I'm basing my opinion on the fact that if you will disclose one bit of info, you probably will disclose most anything else.

That is amazing. I'm not sure I could have prevent myself from shooting the bear out of fear. That dude has some balls of steel.

If the BJs are free, I guess the least that I could do is pay for the first round.:)

Wow, so based on some of y'all's logic, having an opinion such as mine is somehow condemning a man to jail or something. I had no idea my opinion held so much power. Guess I'll head on down to The Tilted Kilt and let them know my opinion is that the waitresses should start giving free BJs. By some folks logic it is wrong to think a man committed a crime until he is found guilty. I'm curious how many folks thought OJ was innocent because he hadn't been proven guilty. Or how about Casey Anthony, or perhaps Michael Jackson? We have opinions, and sometimes they're different. I have some pretty good reasons for why I formed my opinions. At a minimum I would not count anything Zimmerman says as trustworthy based on his past, so even if I thought he was telling the truth I'd be skeptical. I'm not on a jury nor am I a judge. My opinion holds no weight of the law, so calm your rhetoric about the guilty til proven innocent stuff. I ain't the law.

I'm amazed at all the child molesters who've posted in these Martin/Zimmerman threads. Don't ask me for proof, because a feeling is all that's needed to throw such accusations around. If I think it, it must be true.  

What I have DAVES, is your usual attempt to avoiding serious discussion (that you keep claiming you want) by denigrating anyone who dares to question your unsupported assertions and questionable statements just as you have in other threads to other posters.   You; a self-proclaimed LEO, wishes for a man to get "sued for millions for "wrongful death" and the dude (cowboy) cop wanna be, will never get to live a normal life. There are "hits' on him and he will always be looking over his shoulder and watching the shadows for the rest of his life. The jury can render a verdict of "innocent" and he'll pay for his stupidity for the rest of his life (how ever long that will last)" stoping just short of opening calling for Zimmerman's murder.   I would hope that most of us here, regardless of whether we think Zimmerman is guilty or not, want to see him receive a fair trial. You, on the other hand, seem to just want him acquitted so that he can be miserable and eventually be murdered. How can anyone have a serious discussion with a man who want's that for another human being who may well have don't absolutely nothing wrong?

  Until the sumbitch has been executed :)

Too bad he's not a better shot.