G27

Wow.

They certainly seem to gravitate towards gun-free zones...

Man, that looks awesome, congrats. I've wanted one forever, need to go ahead and order one...

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/14/us/14explorers.html?_r=0   Nice that whoever wrote the story for the OP had to steal the photos to create it. Nothing like accusing Obama of crossing the line while stealing someone else's property.

An oldie but goodie, though mostly false.   http://www.snopes.com/politics/socialsecurity/changes.asp

Wha???   http://deadspin.com/5976517/manti-teos-dead-girlfriend-the-most-heartbreaking-and-inspirational-story-of-the-college-football-season-is-a-hoax

All seems pretty reasonable to me. Seems like it's primarily what we've wanted for years - enforcement of the current laws.

What? I can't make that make sense.   Regardless, the example you brought up is the perfect example of saber-rattling - had Texas passed the law, the USFG would have shut down flights in and out of Texas and basically crippled their economy. Bluff? Maybe, but it worked, and proved the point.   The USFG can afford to play chicken, the states - essentially - cannot.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/kashmirhill/2011/05/26/texas-fight-against-tsa-groping-is-over-feds-win/

No, simply because it would have to include full firearms registration to work.

Probably. But neither you nor I are psychologists or psychiatrists (unless you lead a double life I'm unaware of) and frankly, JY isn't acting normal here.   How many times do we have to have someone acting a fool before they go off and kill folks before we realize that some folks aren't right in the head?

No, I get it what you're saying, I just disagree with you.   OK, fine - but it IS the law. You want it changed? Go for it. But good luck - most people don't want to live in ultra-libertarian land where you have to  act on your threats or specifically threaten a person for the state to step in and say 'it's not a good idea for you to legally carry firearms in public'. You'll have to ask TDOS that one, but I've zero issue with them pulling his HCP based on what I (and I suspect most would) consider statements that make me question his mental abilities.   Normal people don't make youtube videos threatening to kill people over laws they don't like. Two wrongs don't make a right, but throwing our vast generalities instead of providing specifics won't get you far in conversation. Want to make a point like that? Post some specific examples. I'm not in any way denying they exist, but unless I see some that mirror this one, they're immaterial to the discussion.   Face it, the US isn't the libertarian dream-land you want it to be. I get it. But the world isn't ideal and we have to live amongst people who feel differently about most everything than you or I do (heck, you and I feel differently about this and I'll bet we're generally closer in our ideals than we are to most of the US). If you don't like they way things are, feel free to work to change them, but in this case the state acted - initially, at least - in a manner that I agree with.

Where is this 'what law did he break' stuff coming from? Unless I'm mistaken, the state of TN doesn't have to prove you broke a law in order to revoke your HCP - they just have to feel you pose a threat by carrying. Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but if I'm not, drop the 'what law did he break' crap as it's a straw man.   I don't know Yeager from Adam, don't care to, so there's no bias here - but if someone starts claiming they're going to start killing folks because they don't care for a new law or whatever, I fully support the state of TN suspending their HCP. 

I'm pretty sure he doesn't have to break any laws to be considered a potentially dangerous person.   I know it doesn't fit the ultra-libertarian view many here seem to hold, but I'm fine with a suspension of someone carry permit when they start acting like Yeager. 

So if someone threatens to kill people, we don't do anything until he actually kills people, then act?   That makes sense to you?

You don't think threatening to start killing people over new firearms laws has anything to do with it? 

Play stupid games, win stupid prizes.

http://www.newschannel5.com/story/20566009/dept-of-safety-suspends-handgun-permit-of-local-man-after-gun-control-rage-video

Heck, this year was the 'rebuilding' year as there are only nine seniors on the team. LOTS of experienced starters returning for next year, much like 2010-2011.

Roll Tide!   Not here to talk smack, just proud of my alma mater.

[quote]"I couldn't blow this guy away for something he could change later in life. I'm not going to decide this man's fate."[/quote] Sounds like he needs to rethink whether he should be carrying.

Sorry, it's true: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isinglass

No Guinness for you?

I think we ought to be worried - the spineless repubs in the house are about all we have to stop this. 

AR pistol / PLR16