TMF

If that happens, with no other aggravating factor, such as trespassing, I'll gladly pay the person's fine for them.

I never thought about it that way before. I guess it makes sense, and we could only expect that they would immediately become productive members of society when met with such an opportunity, as they would be so grateful and appreciative to the tax paying members of the community who provided them with this housing. I get it now.

What's more, that I didn't mention, would be the increased cost of interest and financing if you didn't pay for it outright, along with sales tax. All in all, even if fuel was $5 a gallon, it would still be cheaper than driving a hybrid. A person is better off getting a rice burner for the time being if they want to save of fuel costs. The notion that hybrid cars would have any significant impact on air pollution is silly. Power doesn't come from unicorn farts. It has to come from somewhere.

Was thinking the same thing. My dad always drove like an old lady, whether in the family van or his trooper car.

It's all hypotheticals, but the state would somehow have to prove that you gave your stuff away after you were not legally allowed to have it. Then there is the issue that they would need proof that you ever illegally possessed it in the first place. Owning a firearm at some point and possessing a FOID card is not sufficient proof that you committed a crime, sorry. If I was a civilian of The People's Republic of Illinois, there is still nothing stopping me from securing my firearms out of state with a relative. What if I leave town? What if I want to keep them in another state so I don't have to travel with them or have them shipped? FOID card or not, it would still be my property. Hell, if I lived in that God forsaken state I would make it a point to keep my good firearms out of state as much as I could. That isn't breaking the law at all.

The trick is to determine whether it is economical when you run the number against the increased cost of the vehicle, replacing the super expensive battery later down the road and the increased cost of your home electric bill from charging your car each day. Consumer report came out with the numbers a few years ago and it didn't add up to savings for the average life of ownership.

You can lend guns all day long without going through an FFL. I have several firearms on loan to family members in other states and have a few at my house on loan from then. Loans between family members tend to be indefinite, but it doesn't mean I don't own it.

But the midget would be the only person who can reasonably fit in one of these golf carts.

This is such a great idea. Have someone move in next door who did nothing to earn their house and don't have any interest in taking care of it themselves, and likely do not work other than breeding welfare puppies. That will surely raise the value of my property.

I'm sure that it happens, but keep in mind, just because you see an officer turn on his lights in order to blow through an intersection doesn't mean he's not on the way to an emergency. There are reasons an officer might not be going lights and sirens the whole way.

So if you apply for one of these cards and then that card is later revoked, the government wants to be able to have an automatic warrant issued on your residence? Do whaaaaaaa??? That is the most insane thing I've heard in a while. All in the name of "preventing tragedies". There is the tragedy of losing your basic constitutional rights simply because you have a government issued piece of paper.

My wife has a full sized spare on her Hyundai I bought for her a few years ago.

Hope, change and unicorn farts, of course.

Haha, the same reason hunting should be banned. People could just go to the store where the meat is made instead of killing an innocent animal.

And then the hippies plug their car into a wall which gets its electricity from burning coal.

Well I wouldn't chance it. Especially carrying a firearm. My wife was pulled over in Clarksville a long while back. She had an out of state license but had been living here for a while. I was in the military and she was a dependent, so she was not required to obtain a resident drivers license. This did not stop the cop from threatening her and giving her a hard time. I suppose if that situation involved a handgun she'd be getting arrested. Kinda dangerous to roll the dice on what some cops do or don't know.

How long have you been a resident of Tennessee?

Yeah, that sounds like a "don't ask don't tell" policy. I like the way our mall in Clarksville posts; it leaves nothing to the imagination for the HCPer. Paraphrase: "Carrying of firearms and other weapons is prohibited unless authorized by state law." Something to that effect.

At first, I was like "the law has changed", then I got it, went right over my head. :) You go to drink right? I won't be drinking, going to be a family get together. Ha, yeah. I've probably been there a dozen or more times. My wife took me there for my birthday about 10 years ago, and ever since we go there for adult playtime. Usually when we're staying at Opryland. Adult time means we get to drink like grown ups so I haven't carried in there, nor have I looked. I went down there when the mall reopened and didn't see any gunbusters for the mall portion.

I've been going there since it was Gillian's and have never once carried.... they got booze!

I don't fault the officers for making the assumption that she was drunk. Whether she was drunk or not, she shouldn't have been handled like that. There is no reason for it and several reasons why they shouldn't. As it turns out she was suffering from a medical condition; how horrible for her and her family. She may have no injuries related to that issue, but that isn't entirely the point. No harm, no foul doesn't apply, especially when there is video evidence. If there are no injuries she may not have grounds for a hefty lawsuit, but at a minimum those officers need to be disciplined. Whoever was in charge there needs to have his pee-pee spanked, and a sincere apology needs to be given to her and her family. Like I said before, I would be seeing red if this was my wife; to the point I would not trust myself with firearms for a little while.

Ha, my driving habits changed a lot after I got married and had kids, but when I was younger I'd get pulled over all the time. Most of the time I didn't get a ticket, and the ones that I did get were greatly reduced. I referred to getting ticketed as a "speeding tax". Nothing for me to get upset about; if I was caught I was caught. I'd treat the officer respectful and be honest, and they'd treat me the same way. Seems it would usually work out in my favor, and if it didn't then no sweat.

Police should get paid considerably more than what they are for several reasons. There are the obvious reasons, of course, but in addition to that, higher pay would attract more applicants thereby allowing departments to be more selective. Law of averages; the bigger the pool you pull from the more access to better quality. There are plenty of folks that would otherwise be in law enforcement who choose not to because they can't support their family on the pay. There are plenty of great cops that go into law enforcement for the best reasons and suffer the pay, and there are also the bad kind that go in for very, very wrong reasons. I don't think sense of duty and wanting to earn better wages are mutually exclusive.

Night time raids are standard no matter the environment. I've done a whole lotta them in Iraq. I'd say less than 5% were done in daylight, and there was a reason for it; either mission dictated or time sensitive. People sleep at night. It's the best time to get bad people. Less chance of early warning, less chance of collateral damage and less chance the bad guys are awake and ready for ya. Of course, as things changed so did tactics. By the end of the war it wasn't the norm to go kicking in doors of very bad people, since they might have bombs strapped to them or booby trapped the points of entry. So we did the stuff the Popo used to do. Get on the bullhorn and tell everyone to get out. Once the occupants were out you let them know anyone left inside is getting killed. Too easy. Why can't cops in the states do that? It would greatly reduce the chances of innocent casualties. They might destroy evidence? Well, if I was a cop I'd rather have them destroy evidence than risk shooting an innocent person because I got the wrong house. I guess my problem with all this is not just the cases where SWAT gets the wrong house, it's the attitude afterward where the department acts as if the homeowner is either at fault, or they were justified in their actions because they were going after bad guys; mistakes me damned. The most recent being the Fed Marshal down in Sarasota who acted like he did some innocent woman a favor by not shooting her! What f***ing halfway decent cop has that attitude???