GlockSpock

  Basically "We will let this slide because of who you are, but we cannot let others use this as an example to do the same,".

  http://www.tngunowners.com/forums/topic/58165-very-important-rep-joe-carr-is-looking-to-file-a-bill-to-protect-our-rights/#entry881816   Let him know if you haven't already.

  Interesting. I did not know that.         Well, something in the form of what Wyoming has proposed recently would probably be a step in the (more) right direction.

  I sent him an email stating support for such a bill and have yet to hear back from him. I hope he does submit such a bill. But until a few pro gun bills pass into law into Tennessee, I will still be skeptical whether or not Haslam will sign any of them. I also have no idea whether congress has the support to override such a veto.    I would like to discuss with a representative about how likely some of this stuff is to be passed. Haslam has opposed a few things that would seem common sense to many people on the forum here.

I actually think it would be quite cool if we reduced the number of likes to five per day. Then, like mikegideon suggested, we can create a market for "likes". Out for the day? Find someone to loan you some! Then you are indebted to that person, and must repay in the form of a comment in one of their threads supporting their position on something.   /This post is useless

HB0010 (to me) isn't as much about protecting the 2nd Amendment, but more about protecting the budget against something the feds would be requiring. In essence, it is saying that we (TN) aren't going to do this unless you pay for it.   HB0010 isn't all bad though. Imagine if every state in the union passed a similar bill, stating that they will only cooperate if the Feds pay for it. That would in of itself be a blow against certain gun control measures.

HB0010 was introduced by Faison in the House and and the equivalent bill in the Senate is SB0040 introduced by Niceley. The origination of this thread is supposedly Rep. Carr is interested in introducing more legislature (hopefully even better than HB0010).

It is my understanding that the Federal Government currently makes no money off of background checks. TN Government does, but that is besides the point here. I agree that part of the "battle" is that there is possibly money to be made. For example Walmart would benefit greatly if private sales were banned. If the Federal Government sticks a $5, $10, $100 fee for a background check, yes that will add up quickly as long as they don't restrict ownership so much that legal sales drop drastically. If/when registration finally arrives, fully expect taxation to arrive at the same time or shortly after. Registration...Taxation...Confiscation.

Pity but I completely understand. Great feature but I also understand how plugins tax a server. Thanks!

I still have the sidebar on the right of the home page that shows "Recent Blog Entries". However, I no longer have the section that lists "New Posts". I don't know if this is a setting on my end of the board, or on the administration side of the board, but I do miss it. I *think it disappeared around the time of the upgrade and stuff. Are these sidebar sections the equivalent to plugins in Wordpress? If that is the case, I guess it has been disabled for a while due to server load. Information anyone?

To the original theme of the thread, I wrote Kevin Brooks (Rep. for 24th District) a letter asking him to support HB0006, the bill introduced by Eric Watson to allow teachers, principals, and school personal to possess firearms on school property as long as they meet certain requirements.

    http://www.countycomm.com/hydralock.html

Equilibrium.   Equilibrium is where the supply meets the demand. The point in which these two meet is the market price. Anything below the market price and you have a shortage. If, magically speaking, right now 7.62x39mm rounds were going for 25 cents a round, there would be a huge shortage. You wouldn't be able to find it anywhere, at all. That's assuming that 25 cents was as high as they could possibly sale.    Personally, I like knowing that I can buy something (even at a higher rate) due to the market adjusting, vs not being able to buy something because I literally cannot find it. I don't know what people are actually paying for 7.62x39mm ammo, but if they are paying for it at $1 per round, all that would happen if it were currently going for 25 cents a round is people would buy four times as much. It would disappear 400% quicker. If they are paying $1 per round, it is based upon the fact that the supply cannot keep up with the demand. The demand for II Amendment related stuff over the last month has skyrocketed. The only things that can bring price back down are two possible things:   Supply catches up with demand. Demand falls.   Both of those are based upon what the speculation of legislation is.   If the suppliers feel a ban is coming, do you think they wish to invest capital in expanding production lines? If demand feels a ban is coming, that means they have to purchase everything they want now.    If the suppliers don't feel a ban is coming, do you think they will invest capital in expanding production lines in order to meet the current demand? Perhaps. It depends on how much capital they need to invest vs expected return. If demand feels a ban isn't coming, do you think they will pay inflated prices?   Also, I offer this bid of supposed wisdom. People keep complaining about inflated prices. Well, I've also heard the following logic promoted around here, "Don't sale anything that you would regret selling if a ban were to pass". In other words, even if you could sale your AR-15 for $3000 that you only paid $1000 for, is it really worth it if a ban comes within this year? Over the next decade, would you rather have your AR-15 or an extra $3000?    I take that logic and ask the other side of the same coin. If you do not have an AR-15, and you know you want one, is $3000 worth the security in knowing that you have one that you can own today? What if legislative talks this week go haywire and not in our favor? Then AR-15 prices will jump even more. $5000? $10,000? It all depends on demand and supply. If you do not have an AR-15, and want one, and you knew 100% that a ban would pass within a few months, what would you pay? Would you rather have that AR-15 over the next 10 years, or the $3,000, $5,000, or $10,000 that it costs to purchase it. That is called opportunity cost.    There are those that say a ban won't pass. Many people said that in '94. Hell. Remember, supposedly the Hughes Amendment didn't pass. Try paying the taxes on a newly manufactured machine gun as a citizen and see how that goes for you. Look at healthcare. How much of the country was and is against it? Guess what we have now. Tell me the ban won't pass. I hope you are right. But what if you are wrong? One, five, ten years from now, are you going to be spiteful at how much "price gouging" went on in 2013, or are you going to be spiteful that you didn't buy a few more magazines and possibly a gun or two and some ammo? If a ban passes, I doubt it will be the first.    I don't agree with the accepted concept of "price gouging". In order to believe in price gouging, I claim that you must first believe that the seller has an obligation to sell you something. If you own a gas station and a national crisis such as 9/11 happens, who says you have to sale your gas in the first place? What if you wish to keep the tanks full so that you know you have a steady supply for yourself for a while? You might say to yourself, "I am keeping this gas, but if someone wants to pay me $100 a gallon, I'll sell them how ever much they want". A few people might take you up on that, and you might make a huge return on a percentage of your initial investment. But if the price is capped (price ceiling), look what happens. People buy a lot of it and then it is all gone!    Some will disagree with me. I know. Some will agree. I have a very strong belief in the free market system.    Equilibrium  (It's also a really great movie)

:poop:

  The author of the page thinks it is a great idea to create huge oversize .jpg images and then downscale them to fit on the page. Clicking on the image will bring up the larger part of the page.   On one hand, it is very thought provoking stuff. On the other hand, it would be very easy to take any modern event (tragedy), find who the victim/s were, look into their personal life, find a photo of them and claim that they are someone else and the photo is from after the tragedy.    There are a few things that seem undeniably off, such as the Robbie Parker interview. At "best" it is the fact that in certain "tragedies" the media/government hires actors to influence the story. At "worst" it's a full blown conspiracy on the level of a James Bond novel or the like. I feel the truth probably falls between the two of those somewhere.

http://wellaware1.com/fairfield.htm   That pretty much sums up the conspiracy. Note some of their other conspiracies. 

  That may be the case. I don't know what you saw, but it is also very likely that a lot of people are purchasing these splurge "insurance" purchases on credit.

http://www.tngunowners.com/forums/topic/57868-lordie-alex-jonespiers-morgan-on-guns/   :up:

http://whoismyrepresentative.com/   Shows you Senators and Representatives

There it is @KCambell. He got the same letter as me. There are either a few variations sent out, or different lists based upon what you specified in your letter to him. 

Well I suppose that it is possible that some politicians still personally reply (or have an intern do so), but I also suspect that perhaps you and I just got put on two different lists? I may have gotten put on the 2nd Amendment/Sandy Hook list, and you may have just gotten put on the 2nd Amendment list? I don't know what your initial message requested, but it is just a thought. Anyone else receive one tonight?

I finally received this from Alexander         At least he admits that CT has strong gun laws and the problem is not with the gun but with the person pulling the trigger, but I am not really sure that I consider this a comforting reply.

Directly following the Sandy Hook Massacre, there immediately began a calling for the banning of guns. Mental health care was also brought up into the debate. I too feel that the mental health care program in this country isn't perfect. It is, after all, part of the bigger healthcare system that could use a lot of work. However, I wish to bring one point to everyone here today.   Be careful about generalizations. Should we allow unstable people to purchase firearms? That is a tough question. Do they not have just as much a right to protect themselves and their family as anyone else? Also, much like when considering violent crime in general, if an unstable person is not able to acquire a firearm, will they not just find another means to their madness? A mentally unstable person could ram their car into a large group of people, does that mean that mentally unstable people should not be allowed to drive? I don't know. My first reaction is that if we can trust these people in society (instead of in an institution), then they should enjoy the same rights as anyone else. There is obviously a lot that needs to be debated, but that is not necessarily why I created this thread.   I simply see the following scenario as a possibility:   Obama and Co. attempt to ban guns, but it either does not work or they back out due to political ramifications. We consider it a battle won. However, Obama and Co. have the war in mind. So they continue on and really jump on the mental healthcare bandwagon. They take the path of "acceptable" gun control measures in the form of tighter and mandatory background checks (I heard a news anchor on Fox yesterday ask "And who wouldn't agree with that?" in regard to "tighter" background checks). All of this to keep firearms out of the hands of criminals and the mentally unstable. Now, after all of this has faded from everyone's mind, they change the rules a bit. At this point all they have to do to essentially enact a gun ban would be to declare anyone they wish to declare "mentally unstable". Perhaps the leading new research suggests that Viagra has been found to increase violent behaviors. Perhaps the leading new research suggests that anyone with a degree in Physics isn't quire all there. Perhaps the leading new research suggests that anyone that has went through a divorce is ten times more likely to develop bipolar tendencies. Then all of these groups of people can be put on the "unstable" lists. On a list and apply for a HCP? Denied! On a list and try to purchase a new Ruger? Denied!      All I am saying is that I believe that we should fight all regulations regarding firearms.

  They also expire from what I understand. http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/2009/04/22/when-banknotes-expire/

  Shown where?