wjh2657

BINGO! We don't need a Third party with a little support to mess up an election (current status). We need a Third Party bigger than the other two that can win and over ride the other two. We don't need tea parties to try to beg for something from the existing power strata, we need enough numbers to mess up their day.

Communism is a hard departure from true Socialism. Moot point, because neither one works. National Socialism is a political philosophy , the NAZIs were just a German branch of it, and not a very correct example of it either. This system also hasn't worked. As far as ouside pressure groups changing the existing political parties, I wouldn't hold my breath. "Those people" that you speak of in the political parties that need to change are the political parties. There has to be better way than just joining one gang that is hurting us to avoid the other gang from hurting us.

I think everybody, even convicted felons should be allowed to have as many guns as they want. I think everybody should be able to shoot anybody that ****** them off. Then I think their kinfolk have the right to come over and blow them and their family away. If neighbor kids are around they are fair game for potshots too. That's what the Second Amendment is about! If this sounds crazy you better go back and consolidate all of the thoughts floating around here. We don't need the anti-gunners to lose our gun rights. Decent, sane people will take them away from us if they ever start reading these forums!

I own and carry at different times five S&W J-Frames. I carried .380s for over 30 years, but then started actually shooting them. All of mine were high end guns (Walthers, SIGs and Colts) and all jammed frequently. I switched a decade ago to the revolvers. That said, I have fired and like the smaller 9MMs. They also seem to be much more reliable. I would not feel the least uneasy carrying a small 9MM of any quality make.

Having perused all of the available data from all of the gun experts on the web, I have come the conclusion that the only round available that will guarantee a one shot stop is the Caliber .50, ball, M2 (BMG). Therefore drawing on my vast experience at reading gun forums, surely making my reasoning beyond question, I have come to the conclusion that my .45 brethren are totally out of line. To use their own phrasing, if you are not carrying a .50BMG, you are not sufficiently armed. I have found some difficulty in pocket carrying a Barrett however and actually I carry a S&W 642 in .38 spcl. I quake in fear every time I realize that I am not effectively armed for self defense.

We have started throwing that word Socialism around again, and once again carelessly, without understanding what a socialist really is. First off. I define a party member, of either party, not as a voter claiming affiliation, but as active political individuals who are controlling through political power and money and achieving personal gain from the process. Ruling the people for the purpose of acquiring wealth and power is the purpose of any political party. Both parties in front of us today have socialist characteristics. The only difference being who gets the money. The Democrats, are Democratic Socialists and not Marxists, want to take the money from the middle class and give it to the lower class.The Democrats are following an agenda that has failed in every country where it has been tried . 　 The Republicans , while claiming to be Laissez Faire, are actually dangerously close to being National Socialist, and they want take the money from the middle class and give it to the higher class. 　 I don't think I have to go to much into why the Democrats can be considered Democratic Socialists, but I probably need to tell why I think the Republicans are not who they say they are. True free market, Conservative, Constitutionalist Republicans would not have thrown out the competitive bid system for government contracts and replaced it with patronage of large corporations (Haliburton and others.) They also would not have used government regulations to allow the banks to run amok as they did. They did not stand by their principles (Democrats also contributed strongly in this error). 　 The answer, I believe. is not blindly following either group, but to seek individuals who do represent true Constitutional values. The problem is that , at the present, the two parties hold too much power to run independents in effective numbers. Anybody who believes that some self-serving ultra-wealthy member of either party is going to allow reform within the party is not being realistic. The only way the middle class will survive is to find a way, politically and within the system, to dull the edge already held by both parties. We also have to realize that the defense of all Citizen's rights, including right of speech and right of property, must be defended not just 2d Amendment rights. All rights apply or none apply as they come from the same authority. Gun owners need to focus on the big picture not just one part of it.

Look at my profile block on the left. I have been a member of the NRA for several decades. I just get upset when other people start saying any of us have to belong to any organization. As a Southern Conservative Independent, I am also tired of the arrogance and self righteousness of the Republican Party in believing that it is okay to put down Democrats but somehow sacrilegious to make remarks about Republicans. If you can accept remarks against Obama and Pelosi on these forums then you must learn to accept remarks about Rush and Sarah, if you are to really remain fair about it. None of the above are holy saints. I was a staunch Republican for 4 decades btw. Now, I just lay claim to being an American voter and I am more concerned with being a good American Citizen than I am about any party affiliations. I believe the U.S. Constitution still allows me to do that. However, I do respect and defend your individual right to be upset at remarks about people you respect personally, as long as you allow others to do the same.

I have experienced the same change in attitude. The moment I slip my revolver into my pocket I go to condition yellow. Anytime I am isolated from the crowd or a voice is raised I go to orange. I stay in condition orange around people who are drinking. When somebody appears menacing I tend to "herd" or seek a "safe area." The funny thing is that I find this attitude carries over to my driving also. If I am carrying (which is everyday but Drill day, no guns on base) I am much more aware of other cars and drivers. The gun doesn't give me a "hero" complex. Quite the opposite, it seems to serve as a constant reminder that I can get hurt.

In a trial, two stories are told: the Prosecution and the Defense. The jury is normally going to buy one or the other in its entirety and not parts of them. This happens because jurors are not lawyers and many of them are not even well enough educated to understand all of the evidence, they will try to get it down to an either/or decision. They will color the stories with parts of the cross-examination by the opposing attorney. Story goes something like this: Premise: You were in an altercation involving physical force but no weapons, other than the gun that you brought to the fight. Color: You were not a an LEO and were not required by any laws to have the weapon. Premise: You were legal in having the weapon. Color: But you didn't have to carry the weapon. No law said you had to carry the gun. Premise: He was going for your gun to assault you. Color: He thought you were assaulting him with your gun and was trying to defend himself. Ending conclusions: He is dead because you brought the gun. He had no gun. There is a very strong possibility that his witnesses and your witnesses will cancel each other out with the jury. Therefore, conclusion is that witnesses don't know for sure what happened. The over-riding concern of the jury will be that you were basically in a fist fight and you brought a gun. Because you brought the gun, a man died. They are going to seek some form of punishment for your act. I can only speak from my jury expeience, but my guess would be that they won't find you guilty of aggravated homicide but they will not find for self-defense. They willl find you guilty of Manslaughter and it will mean jail time but maybe not actual prison time. Again, it could depend on the mode intellect of the jury, locale of attack, even time of day or night. This is my nightmare scenario for carrying a gun into a bar or restaurant with a bar. Drunks get physical and they don't always recognize where an insult or threat comes from. I know this for sure because I used to drink heavily and made the mistake myself. More than once. Drunks in bars normally just knock somebody down. I put my gun in a COM safe in my trunk when entering such locales and constantly scout for places and routes to get away from possible trouble from the bar. Beating somebody to death is usually one of three scenarios: Home invasion ( Castle Law covers you here.) Gang Fight ( Don't join gangs, even if they do have cool tats!) Domestic violence (most common, biggest threat can be a member of your own family!) (Don't tick off your big brother-in-law. Calling your wife a bitch can be fatal!)

I live in Lafayette and I agree that we do treat our visitors very well. The remarks were about Arizona, where the law is in effect. I have lived there and I have observed exactly what I stated (about treatment and politics.) I didn't qualify locality because the post was stated to be about Arizona. I have also observed the same cycles in California while stationed there. In Macon County almost everybody, for the most part, are Republicans, including most of my tobacco farming friends. Being mostly Conservative, I vote Republican locally (including state) and split ticket nationally and I am not a rarity.

It won't be the illegals, it will be second and third generation legal Mexican-americans who are profiled and hassled by the LEAs. They don't look any different and they are going to get some massive hassling. Just the nature of the beast.

The movie has been blasted by Rush Limbaugh, Sarah Palin and several churches as blatantly racist and implying that the white man did not treat the Native American fairly. My wife is part Cherokee and her ancestors suffered one of the worst genocide episodes in history so that some white politicians could sieze their land and sell it for profit. So I don't think it is an implication, but history. But actually I enjoyed the movie at the theater for just what it was, fantasy fiction. I also have the DVD and BR in my collection. I actually watched it and stayed a Conservative, but I understand that I can no longer remain a Christian or Republican as GOD's own prophets have condemned me.

I voted no, but I need to qualify my vote. I do believe there are probably other intelligent life forms out there. But they are way, way out there.Our own space explorations have shown that the laws of Physics stillapply out there as well as on Earth. I don't believe that such a race of deep space explorers would waste their resources on trying to stick around and spy on us. The cost and time involved in such exploration would preclude any "fleet" activity so it would be a one time visit by one vessel at best. SO: Do I believe in the possibility of E.T.s? Yes. Do I believe in a long term visit to Earth (such activity is denoted by the term UFO, which includes multiple sightings over a long period of history) by such a group? No.

The police and courts will not go more head-to-head with the latino mob because of this legislation. They could get hurt that way. They'll go after migrant workers two days before payday, based on call from Anglo employer, just as they already do. The flood of Mexican illegal immigration is based on several problems: Living in Mexico sucks if you are an indian Mexican. If I were born as an indian in Mexico, instead of the German-American I am, I would be a strong swimmer and learning English! They are hired here by Anglo farmers and industries (mostly staunch Republicans btw) for profit motive (low labor costs = higher profits, duh!) Law enforcement does not grab the workers at the beginning of the planting season, or just before harvest. they grab them after the harvest is in and usually two days before the workers' payday. Gee, this just has to be coincidence! The Arizona Law is not going to change any of the root problems, and it is going to be very expensive to enforce. The criminal element is still going to grease palms and keep its turf. The farmers and small plants are still going to be allowed to recruit and hire illegals (the owners and farmers are big contributors of campaign funds.) Most of the workers that took American jobs are still in Mexico, working at American plants that moved there after the big tax breaks given them by previous administrations, both Dem and GOP. Is the Governor of Arizona sending her cops down to Mexico to arrest those folks? This was strictly a political move to embarass the federal government. In the end it will just embarass the Arizona state government when the massive civil rights stuff hits the fan. The problem is social-economic-political and too big and complex to be solved just by law enforcement.

My kinda guy! Reminds me of me at 20-30 years Old. I lost three days one time after a party! Hardly ever touch the stuff anymore. Got older and found other useless insane things to do without needing booze.

Okay, I missed the latest Sarah Palin Pearls of Wisdom. Where in the Holy Bible and the U.S. Constitution does it say you have to belong to the NRA?

Hoo boy where do you live? If you shoot somebody and they do not have a weapon on them, the police are most definitely going to arrest you and charge you with homicide. You will have to prove in court that you had "reasonable fear." The mitigation of "reasonable action" rides on the jury's perception of the facts, not on your perception at the time of the shooting. I am not an attorney but I have served bunches of jury duty and based this call on past jury duty experience. If it is a lone assailant and you shoot him before he beats you down, then you have no proof he meant to harm you. If you shoot him after he beats you down, it is after the fact and not justified. I don't agree with this pretty common misconception that an unarmed man is no threat, but I know how juries think and they will in all liklihood crucify you. The only good defense is to run like you know what. If you feel that you have to stand up to him to retain your manhood, I hope you are really good with your fists. Fists are the only legal weapon in a fist fight.

"I will question each law put forth in <ST1:p<?xml:namespace prefix = st1 ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags" /><st1:City w:st="on">Nashville</st1:City></ST1:p, (if the Second is incorporated to the States as I think, and hope, that is where the battle will be waged)." The Second Amendment has been incorporated into the Tennessee Constitution. And 44 other states, including Illinois. The fight is in the laws passed that should be based on that constitution.

DaveTN, Not questioning you, but agreeing with you. The remark about the state of Illinois Constitution was not to say it doesn't contain RTKBA, but to question why the impression has been given in our own pro-gun press that the whole import of this decision was to force RTKBA into the State Constitution, when it was already there. Again the issues involved are not the issues put forward in the media. I question whether the Justices are going to push Inclusion when it is already in the state constitution. What earth shattering changes? None. Just as in Heller. After all the ballyhoo, you still can't buy guns or keep one in most of D.C. much less the sudden freedom from gun laws that was shouted in the streets everywhere else. We are laying precedences, admitted. But there are no quick and dramatic changes here to rejoice about. Your RTKBA are still only as safe as your own state constitution and the willingness of your state administrations to back it up.

According to many decisions of the SCOTUS, only one person is legally responsible for the protection and welfare of you and your family: you. This is the reason this sane , sensible, GOD fearing, law abiding freedom loving old man started carrying a gun!

You have the right to own a weapon and to keep one in your home for defense. That is guaranteed by the Tennessee Constitution. You don't need a state permit for that. The state has the right to regulate public carry of that weapon, again guaranteed by the State Constitution. That makes public carry a privilege and the state can determine how the individual is to pay for the privilege. Your constitutional rights (USC 2dA, as determined by the SCOTUS doesn't address public carry, at least not yet) are therefore covered. Moot point. The only way to make carry a right instead of a privilege is to change the State Constitution. Don't hold your breath. As far as classes are concerned, since they are not mandated for weapon in home (a right), the state does not have give them for free (Although I also would like to see that happen.) It could be worse, you could live in Chicago or NYC!

Why would SCOTUS rule on inclusion of the 2dAmendment if the 2dA is already included in the Illinois Constitution? It would be a moot issue. Again it sure seems like there is more here than meets the eye. BTW this is the first that I have heard that RTKBA was included in the Illinois Constitution. The argument everybody seems to harp is that the SCOTUS was forcing ISC to include the RTKBA. Thus Chicago cannot ban handguns, IAW IL Constitution correct? And if this is the case why is SCOTUS hearing the case? This being the case, it is all a matter for the Illinois SC not SCOTUS. I suspect that it is the old argument of what is meant by "bear arms" or the definition of "police power" that is at issue. If SCOTUS rules that Federal law trumps the state constitution inclusion of RTKBA then the court is ruling that only the federal courts can enforce RTKBA. Does that really sound like a good deal?

It has to do with the use of legal language. Each time federal authority is used to strike down state or local authority the language of the 10th Amendment becomes less clear and the actual authority granted to states becomes less and less strong. The 10th is not specific and depends on court decisions as what the Federal government can do. If they can come in and over ride local authority in any issue, the state's strength and authority has a little less reach. Remember, what the Constitution "says" is determined by the Federal Courts, not a group of forum posters! Any precedence in Federal courts giving the Federal Government the "say" does so by taking away the authority from the state. It is strange: we seem to be adamant that we don't want the Federal government to tell us what to do as individuals but we seem so eager to have the federal government tell the states what they have to do. In either case they (Feds) are operating out of their level of authority.

There is more at stake here than first meets the eye. Tennessee has already incorporated the RTKBA into its state constitution. So, as a Tennesseean, the 2d Amendment isssue is not as critical as it is in Chicago. Tennessee is however, getting ready to sue the federal givernment over the healthcare law, decrying it violates the 10th amendment (which I have a strong "gut feeling" it does.) A pro 2dA ruling in Chicago ( a Federal victory over state law) will most likely weaken the power of the 10thA. Intentionally or not, it would seem that the progun stance of the SCOTUS may not be driven so much by a "love affair" with the NRA as much as by the long term changes it will make in other parts of the Constitution. I personnaly am more worried about draconian Federal laws being forced on us at state level and driving us bankrupt than I am as to whether I can carry a machine gun into a Chicago bar. ( Sarcastc echoing of the recurring theme that this decision is goig to "change everything.") We want to be careful in our glee at this point, we just could be in the process of being hoodwinked into losing more that we gain. As Tennesseeans our state has already proven to be pro gun so we gain nothing by the Chicago decision but we could lose a lot by the weakening of our states rights. Nice trees but there is a forest there.

I am not a lawyer (my mother and father were married when I was born and to each other!) But I do claim a relationship somewhat like friendship with some the poor souls. This weekend at State Guard drill I had some spare time and talked to our JAG. He makes the point (and some reading on the web seems to substantiate) that most of us labor under the illusion that the SCOTUS can overturn laws. He says this is not true. He states that the court simply declares they are unconstitutional but that the legislature still must go back and change or repeal subject law. And, that until they do, the law is still valid and enforceable. Long story short: You still could be arrested and incarcerated under the subject law. You can appeal and possibly get a reversal at SCOTUS level later. But you still go to prison, you are still a convicted felon (if violation is a felony) and you still lose, lose, lose. SCOTUS decisions are not Acts of GOD, they are just another legal mechanism and can work extremely slow if at all. It will still be up to the court you are tried in as to whether the SOTUS ruling has any effect on your case as to the present disposition of your case. In most cases , you will have already have served your time, had name entered on so many data bases that it would be impossible to correct them all, lost your family, home and income before your appeal reaches a level that will even consider constitutional law. (This consequence is based on an actual case involving a close friend) ( Again, I am not a lawyer, but based on what we discussed this weekend, I think I will stick with following the state law until the state changes it.) The JAG is a Conservative, a politician (strike TWO), a member of the NRA and has an HCP, so don't start screaming Obama Commiecrat crap about his remarks. He was just making a legal evaluation of the subject matter.