GlockSpock

Thanks for posting this, I hadn't read the whole thing. Gee, with "2nd Amendment Supporting Friends" such as this, who even needs enemies? To me, the icing on the cake baked mostly with irony, the statement "If even one life is saved, it will have been worth it" regarding gun restrictions has always infuriated me the most. Does that mean that if by allowing "assault rifles sales" saves even one life nationwide, it would be worth it? What if by legalizing machine-guns nationwide it saves one life, would that be worth it? I guarantee you if every state in the nation allowed for concealed carry it would save "At least one life" (not an endorsement for national reciprocity). And then I go down the rabbit hole of thinking about all the things they could ban and it would actually save thousands of lives (cars, swimming pools, hammers, , cell phones, marbles, etc). Would anyone consider banning those to save "even one life" and consider it worth it? No, people would consider that preposterous and a violation of freedom. But careful manipulation and now loads of people jump on board with "even one life" regarding firearms. Bullarky!

You can alternatively do this with the "Gun Owners of America" by selecting "Gun Owners Foundation" instead.

Dick's Sporting Goods claims they will restrict all gun sales to 21 and stop selling "assault rifles". I can honestly say I've only been in one of their stores once maybe twice, ever. Looks like this is a good reason to not go back. I can honestly say, I don't see this ending well for them, it might just push them out of business. But, maybe enough soccer moms and schoolteachers will shop there now because they'll feel like they are saving society by doing so. https://gizmodo.com/dicks-sporting-goods-will-stop-selling-assault-rifles-1823385203

Eh. Maybe. I think most evidence seems to suggest gang related. Chattanooga doesn’t heavily promote this fact but there is decent gang activity around. Not as bad as some area in the state but a bit worse than others. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Haha. True. With that extended magazine you’d think it would by dying to shoot someone. We ate at Boathouse instead. Phenomenal place by the way. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Try this: https://camelcamelcamel.com/ Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Funny story. My Wife called them at least three times before we left. “These people won’t answer their phone” is what she said. The grill is in the mall. Closed of course. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

What is most interesting to me is the fact that dozens of eyewitness posts claim that gunshots were heard. Police double down on no shots fired inside or outside of the mall. Weird. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

My Wife and I were headed to try Rodizio Grill for the first time tonight. As we got closer to the Hamilton Place Mall, I noticed something seemed up. Patrol cars surrounding the mall and an officer diverting traffic away from the mall. Popped my head out the window to ask someone what was going on, they claimed a "gang related shooting" had happened. http://www.timesfreepress.com/news/breakingnews/story/2018/feb/24/police-responding-reports-active-shooter-hamilton-place-mall/464521/ What's interesting is that multiple eyewitnesses all claimed to have heard gunfire, but authorities say that no evidence was found to suggest any shots had been fired. Most notable, in my opinion, is this comment: "We are safe, a fight broke out beside us, they walked off with one of them had a ripped shirt, there was a mall cop that came running in our direction and a guy pointed up the stairs and said 'gun.' And then a citizen that was carrying pulled out his gun and yelled 'drop your weapon'" he wrote in a message to reporters. So it seems possible that an armed citizen engaged the theoretical shooter almost immediately. Good. However, Hamilton Place is mostly a "posted" location so I'm curious whether this person will be in any hot water themselves. This entire story seems odd. Seemingly no victims, apparently no evidence of shots being fired, but a gun (appears to be a Glock and an extended magazine) was found in the parking lot. Thoughts?

I hope so. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I’m not excusing what he did (fail to engage) anymore than anyone else here, but I’ve been questioning the following. Considering that multiple times over the years, the various response from various LE has been to barricade and contain while SWAT later engages. Sometimes LE has been on the scene for quite a long time before actively seeking and engaging an active shooter. I wonder if, via via any training, presentations, etc that the officer honestly thought he was doing “the right thing”? Honest, sincere question. I know what the majority of us would have done (I think most would have done) in his situation, but seeing as I’ve never been in that environment I suppose I couldn’t guarantee what I’d do. I know what the moral thing to do would be: Give all it takes to save the kids. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Define "plenty" I've had in mind, for a computer desk, to do the following. Approximately a 2'x8' top (the length going from one wall to the other in my home office). Then, with angle brackets, fasten the ends to the left and right wall in that room. However, it'd be ~1" set forward from the wall for cable routing, etc. It would be completely flee floating off the floor, tied to the studs on the sides and somehow tied to the back wall studs with some ingenuity (either the "right" bracket, a cheater piece of wood going along the backside wall that is low enough for cables, etc). Do you think these would be good for that, and what would you charge me for that amount? I'm not sure I'd do it, but just thinking about it and that is very pretty wood.

Ok. So if it is up to the law to protect us, what happens after we ban bump stocks and then someone pulls the trigger really really fast? Do those lives in that scenario not count as being “owed”? Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Supposedly metal ammo cans are designed to contain everything in the case of a fire. Can anyone verify this? Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Topic merged with same topic started earlier this week.

And if they do it by promoting legislation to do so, then at least they've done it "the right way". We gun-owners are a very large group, but let us not forget that there is also a very large (very, very vocal) group the opposes anything to do with a firearm. They are contacting their representatives as well. It's the "reinterpretation" that bothers me.

I've been contemplating writing the following post for a while now. I've flip-flopped between considering it appropriate and considering it distasteful in light of current events. However, I decided to write it. To some extent on the topic of mass shootings as a whole, aren't we all (collectively, as America) to blame? I'm not trying to play the blame game but rather, in my opinion, take responsibility to some extent. Now, first, I fully admit and accept that there are truly evil people that set out to do truly evil things. Some people don't like hearing that but I do believe it to be true. However, if we investigated each and every "mass shooting" over the previous 2-3 decades, how many of them could have been prevented had people simply been more caring about those around them? I'm not delusional to think that all of these shootings could be prevented, but I'm thinking about it from this standpoint, particularly in the setting of school (be it high school or college). It wasn't that long ago that I was in high school myself. I made it through ok; I wasn't super popular but I also had enough friends that I enjoyed most of it. Considering that the profile for these shooters is typically someone outcast from the "norm" and generally shunned by most/all of their peers, I wonder how many of these shooters would have turned out differently had they simply been treated better by their peers. I'm not talking about an "everyone wins, there are no losers" environment, but rather one where people, specifically classmates, treat each other with more respect. I think we all can recognize there is usually a certain number people in a school environment that are generally pushed aside by everyone else. These people are mocked, teased, bullied, etc. I am in no way justifying what these shooters have done; Shooting other innocent people because the shooter's life sucked is not ok. It is evil. However, what I am suggesting is that perhaps for a certain number of these shooters, perhaps if only a percentage of classmates were nicer to the shooters themselves, perhaps their outcomes would have been different. I'm simply talking about being nicer to people. People at this latest school shooting supposedly all "joked" that if anyone was going to shoot up the school, it was going to be this guy. Well, what if part of the school had been nicer to, spoken politely to, dedicated even a few moments of their day checking up with said shooter and generally just caring about his life? Sometimes to a person in a dark place mentally the absolute best thing that can be done for that person is just genuinely showing them that someone cares about them. Again, I'm not naive to think this would solve all shootings. For the truly sick/evil ones, which are out there, this would effectively help zero. Some people just want to see the world burn. The best thing to do is to stop them before they burn too much. Yet, instead in our society, everyone wants to put the blame on someone or something else (black rifles, the FBI, the local Sheriff's Department, mental healthcare, background checks, etc). Most people want this problem fixed magically, either by banning black rifles, policing people by thoughts, locking away forever the mentally ill, background checks that are magical and catch people even without criminal records, etc. People generally want a "fast food" answer to a complex problem, so that they can go about their lives and forget that evil and tragedy exist in this world. However, personally I feel a lot could be prevented if people were less infatuated with themselves, cared more for their peers' general well being, were more generous and less prideful, and ultimately just treated people like fellow human beings. And, after all of this is said and done, be prepared to put a few bullets into the truly evil people that act upon their desires.

I agree with a lot of what you say, but I disagree that "most" of the public understands the difference. A lot of them do. A lot of them don't. There is a vast group of people that think any AR-15 is a "machine-gun" because that's what the movies show. Coupled with movie portrayals is media misinformation. Referring to AR-15's but showing pictures of AK-47's while referring to all of them as "automatic weapons", there are a lot of people that simply do not care enough to be correctly educated and are quite wrong. I've heard countless coworkers repeat a long list of incorrect things regarding firearms as a whole. We live in TN, one of the overall better states to live regarding firearms. Consider that ~15% of the US population lives in the states of New York and California alone. Both of these states are overall quite anti-gun. If people in TN can get simple/common facts about firearms wrong in a state that generally is very open to firearms themselves, consider how misinformed the populations of those anti-gun states are. I've had a coworker try and argue with me that quite a few of the shootings (within the last five years) were done with fully automatic weapons, including San Bernidino. Also, I'd like to politely disagree with you over bump stocks. While I agree that admittedly they violate the intent/spirit of the law, the very plainly (and I think you have to admit) do not violate the letter of the law. 1 round fired per pull/function of the trigger = not a machine-gun. Up until at least recently the ATF definitely agreed with that regarding bump-stocks. My hope is that they come forward and uphold that opinion, and then state that it is up to Congress to change the law if they want. If they change law to ban them, I'm ok with that general process, because then at least we have the opportunity to pressure Congress not to. In my opinion it is very underhanded to reinterpret law to ban them. Also, couldn't it be argued that the NFA as a whole violates the intent/spirit of the Constitution?

Life can be/is tough. Society essentially says that everyone deserves to be happy, treated the same (fairly), and have an easy going life. If for any reason you are not happy (depressed), treated different (because of a personality difference, etc), or just don't win at life in general, then society pushes that there is a pill to make you "right". That's my opinion.

Lots of truth to that statement. More true than not I'm afraid. Now nearly anything can be diagnosed as a disorder. Trouble sleeping? Disorder. Trouble staying awake? Disorder. Trouble focusing? Disorder. Staying too focused? Disorder. Unhappy? Disorder. Happy too much? Disorder. I'm not saying that disorders do not exist; They do. I'm obviously just saying that nearly anyone can go to a doctor and complain about nearly anything and there is a magic pill ready to fix things for them, more often than not with more/more severe side effects than the symptoms it is treating.

Wasn’t sure what to expect, but it didn’t fail to amuse. I needed that this morning. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

#alotoftheantigunlegislationhasbeendonebyrepublicansjustsayingsorrybutitstrueeveryone Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I agree. In my opinion better than Hillary, but at least with Hillary people knew and would have known what to expect. The enemy you know and what not. I think Trump realizes that there is a definite line with firearms regarding his supporters. Does/will he care? I suppose that depends on how much longer he has in office and whether he considers it a possibility and seeks re-election. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Yes, poor, poor Trump. Maybe if he wasn’t needlessly pandering to everyone he would not be attacked by everyone. Republican House? Republican Senate? Why not just make a polished statement proclaiming that guns are not the issue at hand, and that he will sign no anti-gun legislation while he is in office? Then he wouldn’t be criticized by us over this particular matter. Instead he just went quite far in alienating a large portion of his base. True colors I suppose. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Funniest story of the day. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk