Wheelgunner

I like the sentiment behind this proposal, but I'm not convinced it would set a good precedent.  I'm already very uncomfortable with the State requiring us to pay a fee before we are allowed to exercise a right.  In fact, when you look at Article I, Section 26 of the Tennessee Constitution it seems clear that it does not allow such fees.  And that's without even touching the federal Constitution's 2A, which probably was intended to prohibit the rise of any kind of statist prerequisites for owning or bearing firearms.   Conceptually, recognizing different rights for different categories of citizens is so deeply flawed and so recently relevant that I'm somewhat astounded this bill was ever written.  The Jim Crow era is well within living memory.  Making veterans or firefighters or police officers or teachers members of a privileged class does not help the dilemma of logic: if we all have the same rights, why don't we all have the same rights?   Shake a veteran's hand.  Mow his yard for him.  Treat him to lunch.  Tell him you're proud of him - and not just on Veterans' Day.  But giving him a lifetime permit to do something he has a right to do in the first place?  To this veteran that smells like an effort to cast illegal restrictions of my rights in a better light.

I love how in the article the police chief states that police "don't encourage" citizens lawfully stopping a brutal attack on a defenseless woman in the middle of the night.   How do you "not encourage" what Blackmore did?  That's the same thing as saying, "The proper thing to do here was let the bastard keep beating that poor woman until it was convenient for a police officer to show up."

I must be confused.  I wasn't aware that the State Attorney General's opinion had the force of law.

Amen.     I love this Nation and our form of government but I don't need a piece of paper or a legislative body to tell me I'm a free man.

Email and letter sent Friday to Senator Stevens.  Thanks nigeltufnel.

  I've heard that you can shoot in the General Services district during daylight hours, with the normal caveats (not across a road, etc.).  Can't remember the source where I heard that, though.

Talk to the neighbors, too.  They have just as much reason to be concerned about that kind of suspicious behavior as you.     Ask them to keep an eye out, and touch base with them once a week or every other week.  In particular, ask them to note the vehicle and the time of the incident.  This will help you figure out if it's the same person snooping around each time.   Cameras are not overkill.  When my uncle's house in rural Georgia was burglarized five years ago, the only reason he got any of his possessions returned was the pictures his CCTV got of the criminals.

She offends me on so many levels that it's tough to even put my disgust into words.  There are very few people whose very citizenship - the ability to call themselves Americans - disappoints me.  But I think she's made the list.   

@ JReedEsq - Another approach would be to change guns.  You could put some regular .38 wadcutters in a heavier .357 gun, like a 4" GP100.  The weight of the gun will eat up a significant amount of felt recoil (which is already pretty tame with .38 rounds).  Most ranges have a .357 like that to rent out, or maybe you could borrow one from a buddy.     Or you have a great excuse to buy a big new .357.   :)    Edit:  Guess my suggestions were a little late.

Actually, you could be expelled, right?  Just not arrested?   I mean, the school could set its own policy or regulation that is stricter than the law, right?

Nope. It's the assault rifle's fault. Only solution: increased deficit spending.

Guys in the country pack camo gear. I do the same thing but for a different environment. If I have to use my get home bag, I've got to pass through some urban and suburban areas. Thus, my kit includes a pair of jeans, shirt, and ball cap instead of surplus gear. Same reason I chose my bag - a rinky dink backpack from Office Max. There's even a textbook next to it in my trunk. When I walk by a stranger, he sees some kid walking home from class with a backpack full of books. He's forgotten me before I'm even out of shouting distance. I'm not saying there's anything wrong with military style stuff, because there's not. It just makes you stand out in my daily environment.

Do a Google search for MyTopo.  Their website is a great way to get exactly the map you want, and it's really inexpensive.  I got a military-style grid map of my area from them with all the special markings I wanted and at my desired scale for less than $20.

@ tennessee - nice kit.  I especially like the signal flare.  Here are some more things you might consider adding:   List of phone numbers of friends, relatives, police, etc. Cash Sunscreen A comfy pair of boots, unless you always wear boots Several maps in zip lock or other waterproof container Extra TN HCP Map of bus routes running in and around Oak Ridge and money/bus pass   I actually keep an extra OWB holster in my Get Home Bag.  I can still cover it easily with an untucked shirt, but it's more comfortable to walk around in than the IWB I usually wear.  Just ideas, though.  Your kit will certainly get the job done - and then some - as it is now.

The whole damn system is broken.     The military branches shouldn't have put dirtbags in important advisory positions.  As things stand, every single service member who separates has to sit through a briefing about how to dupe the system and fraudulently obtain disability benefits.     Additionally, the individuals going through the separation process should have enough moral strength to refuse to compromise their integrity for a monthly disability check.     Finally, we need to thoroughly revamp the evaluation process that results in a PTSD diagnosis.  It makes my blood boil to think how many veterans we have now who simply claim PTSD because it's so easy to do.  I'm not saying we should deny treatment to guys who are truly suffering.  But if it took years of psychiatric treatment, counseling, and documented bureaucracy before being formally, permanently diagnosed with PTSD, I have to assume that very few dirtbags would go to all that trouble just to fake a disability and get paid.

@ jilly - Very cool.  Thanks.

He makes a good point when he says that the only realistic way for the federal government to track person to person firearms sales is through requiring all firearms to be logged in a federal registry. In that way, universal background checks are dangerous to everyone who owns or ever will own a gun. But this "universal background check" (UBC) that's being discussed has even more dire implications. We have been willing to surrender the rights guaranteed by the Second Amendment a little at a time, when the reasoning behind doing so made some degree of sense. But now we're faced with a proposed measure that bears no logical relationship whatever to a reasonable purpose. And according to some recent polls, the majority of this Union is willing and eager to tread down the incredibly dangerous road of uniformly requiring citizens to pass a government investigation of their personal lives before those citizens are permitted to exercise a right that is expressly reserved to each citizen by the U.S. Constitution. If the American people agree to this proposed UBC nonsense, then we will have set a precedent. Which other freedom will be next? It might be equally legitimate to allow police officers to search a house with no warrant - unless the homeowner has passed a background check. The exact same logic tells us that our government might require a man to pass a background check prior to writing a political opinion column for the local newspaper. If you took the time to read all this and don't understand what I mean or disagree, please post and say so. I think it's important that we think about the issue in these terms- not merely "I don't want more gun laws." I may be wrong, but I think "U-B-C" is just a new way to spell " tyranny."

The American Redoubt is looking increasingly appealing.

Myth: the Second Amendment is a danger to public safety. Fact: the Chicago political machine is a danger to American liberty.

He probably also thinks cancer patients should use positive thinking to save their lives instead of chemo.

Having five PhDs sign their names on an article does not cure absurdity in the article's findings. I really hope when I get a graduate degree I don't experience the seemingly automatic loss of I.Q. points that so many doctors of philosophy seem to suffer upon being awarded the degree.

This is deeply troubling.   The supporters of the Missouri bill and others like it are somehow oblivious to the dire consequences of such a measure being enacted.  In the United States, no small number of people are willing to literally fight to defend fundamental rights.

Come on, now y'all. This is a good thing. The way it works is, if enough people break the law then they get amnesty. Once the liberals in Congress get their way and outlaw all firearms, then we'll just all break the law by keeping ours ... and get amnesty too!

What goes in the bag?  I prefer the alternative approach - hear the bogeyman, move from bed to a predetermined defensive position with weapon and light, dial 9-1-1, and wait.  By choosing a defensive position beforehand, you give yourself the benefit of good, hard cover and you can stage your equipment (flashlight, ammo, etc.) where you will need it to be.

OK, I heard on the news today about President Obama restarting funding for CDC research into "gun violence" and thought the story would be a good topic for discussion.  First, I'll give you an opportunity to read the story that I'm referring to:  http://www.npr.org/blogs/health/2013/02/06/170844926/debate-rages-on-even-as-research-ban-on-gun-violence-ends   Now, the last time the CDC had funding to do this kind of research, they found that the safety risks of keeping a firearm in the home outweigh the safety benefits.     In a separate NBC article (found here: http://vitals.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/01/16/16532333-obama-plan-eases-freeze-on-cdc-gun-violence-research?lite) a Dr. Frederick Rivera, editor of the Archives of Pediatrics and Adolescent Medicine, referred to "gun violence" as a "public health problem."  The Health and Human Services Secretary said, "We are committed to re-engaging gun violence research at the [CDC]."   From the outset, I don't understand how the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has any business researching so-called "gun violence."  It seems to me that they already have their hands full with, oh, I don't know... AIDS?  Cancer?  Ebola?  Does it really seem right that they would spend their valuable resources (OUR resources) on "gun violence" instead of focusing on curing and controlling blood borne pathogens or something?   Second, what the hell is "gun violence"?  Violence is violence; the aggressor's instrument of choice is merely incidental.  Does it make sense that the CDC would officially investigate firearms related attacks but not suicide bomb attacks, or domestic violence, etc.?  I happen to think that the popular practice of referring to firearms related crimes as "gun violence" subtly numbs us to the reality that behind every crime there is a morally culpable person who chose to do something reprehensible.    I am astounded by the degree to which we as a society refuse to accept responsibility for our own faults.  I'll concede, there are real problems that have come to light recently.  One is the fact that we abide a media that glamorizes and sensationalizes mass murder.  Another is that we are too lazy to take steps to ensure our own personal safety.  Rather than personally defending ourselves, we would rather rely on the state to do so -- even when it has been firmly established that the state cannot do so.  Finally, we blame our problems on an inanimate object.   What do you guys think?