btq96r

I get a lot more annoyed and infinitely more insulted when it's the government, the same government that made me jump through said hoops to pay for vetting, tells me I still can't carry a weapon into property paid for and maintained by tax dollars. At least with a private business they have some inherent property rights that enter into the equation. It's annoying, but the hypocrisy of the same entity declaring me safe to carry a weapon then barring me from doing so in their footprint isn't in play. I'm of the mind that as law abiding carriers, that's very much what we're supposed to do at each and every place we find ourselves entering. I find the concept that we're too dumb to notice a posting, not situationally aware enough to spot one at a decent enough glance insulting to our intelligence as a demographic, and worry that doing so intentionally opens us up to a line of political attack from those who are already against our carrying in the first place.

Or put it into the proper area for such. I saw something in the introduction thread that was easily the topic for a specific sub-forum.

On their websites Nashville page it specifically states "No OPEN CARRY of firearms permitted except by sworn law enforcement personnel." Now, that may be superseded by a sign on the door or Opry Mills policy, so it's still on you to be situationally aware enough to look at the entrance you use for a posting.

The article is in the opinion section, not within some news category...so be on the lookout for such and if seen take that as your first clue when reading. That said, it one lines up with how the local news is reporting the important details. Oklahoma's Justifiable Homicide law is quite covering for how this is laid out. If the story holds to be true I'm sure it will be, but that's the DA's call. As mentioned, every time someone kills someone there is an investigation. It's only proper for comment to be withheld by those investigating or those with direct influence or oversight on the process.

Ehh, at least they were outside getting some fresh air and exercise instead of being glued to videos online. My friends and I used to mimick pro wrestlers in the local parks, and once in a while we got into some friendly matches to see who was actually stronger when we weren't acting around. So maybe they were just messing around.

At my place of work in the West End, I've already brought up asking our building manager if we can get onto the roof of our 12 floor building. Hoping to make that happen.

I think a big part of the equation is how the reworked classifieds looks and works much differently than the rest of TGO, whereas the old system was TGO as normal, just for selling things. I've had far less interest in pursing the new classifieds to window shop and even less inclination to post anything for sale under the new system.

Apparently I'm the only one who's got anything new since the end of January. And I thought I was slacking. Picked up a Vortex Strike Eagle 1-6x24 with two mounting rings (not a fan of the QD mounts). Got it through their MIL/LEO discount program that lets you complete an order form and email it straight to your rep. Been working on this 16" AR in bits and pieces over the few years I've had it. Next step, once I set some duckets aside, it a Geissele SD-E trigger.

I remember scanning this thread a bit ago, so seeing this article made me want to post it for others to read and think about. I think it's quite well done, and goes into appropriate depth considering that Politico's audience isn't as attuned to gun issues as we are. "The NRA Would Like to Insure You Now" http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2017/05/27/the-nra-would-like-to-insure-you-now-215196 I can't escape the line of thought that Carry Guard is the NRA diversifying revenue streams for their own financial well being. Membership pushes and cash drives will be lackluster with President Trump and a Republican Congress in power. So, with that, I'd look at Carry Guard as I would any other insurance product...designed to collect money and pay out as little as possible if/when claims are submitted. YMMV.

I was an active duty Private First Class stationed at Fort Campbell. Still remember getting ready to go to breakfast with my barracks roommate after morning PT when my platoon sergeant came barreling into our room to tell us to put on CNN. Things got very real, very fast, and a little over four months later, I was in Afghanistan. That day changed the trajectory of my life in so many ways.

Folks...the idea that there was no concept of limiting who could be in possession of arms is just not panned out by history. I'll enter into this debate an excerpt from when Massachusetts was debating on ratifying the Constitution. Page 111 in the .pdf: https://archive.org/stream/debatesandproce00peirgoog#page/n109/mode/2up Now, up front, I'll recognize that this was voted down by the state convention on ratification as something for inclusion to their final report...but reading the rest of it, we recognize that our interpretation of the Constitution is in line with how we view those topics, so we can infer that how they viewed the 2nd in this statement is valid by association. The specificity of "peaceable citizens" allows for denial of 2nd Amendment rights to those who do not meet its qualifications (which I would assume requires a conviction), and in my mind, it coincides with well-regulated as a measure of discipline needed in a militia, and those not meeting that standard would not be fit for service in a militia. Unless someone thinks that the criminals of the day were considered "the right stuff" for militia service if needed.

Not sure if I'd call it biased...we tend to look at anything that isn't pro-gun as biased. I do think it might be used as a survey to gauge of the impact from the articles (AP and Politifact) moreso than a gun rights/restrictions survey.

I may have made a post similar to this in years past, but I think TGO will indulge me in reminiscing about some lost comrades... SSG Jeremy Brown- Killed in a vehicle rollover during his 2nd Iraq tour on 3 Jul 2005 (very somber 4th of July that year as we all got the news). Not too long after the 101st came home from OIF 1, he came down on PCS orders to 3rd ACR because they needed to fill the unit for their deployment. He was in the gunners hatch when the vehicle rolled over, and we found that he had put himself up there to give one of his Soldier's a break on a long convoy mission. SFC Clarance McSwain- Killed in an IED explosion while on a dismounted patrol 8 Jun 2006. "Sergeant Mac" was as generous in spirit a man as I've ever met. I was OPCON to the company he was a PSG in, and even though I was just an attached MI guy, he treated me and the guy I had with me as if we were in his platoon the whole time he had been in charge of it. I remember thinking how lucky I was to be with a guy so great and funny while stuck in a place so austere it's name was Patrol Base Swamp. CPL Jessica Ellis- Killed in an IED explosion while assigned as the medic for a route clearance team. Jess was the "kid sister" type you'll have in a unit with females, but she busted her ass in contributing to the effort. She was a great medic and you could see how dedicated she was each and every time she treated someone, as well as when she would be involved in training folks in our battalion run combat lifesaver classes. Her death was on Mother's Day in 2008, and I hate that her family has to associate it with her passing. Every year around this time, the thoughts of them are vivid in my mind. I'm thankful to have known them and thankful our country had such fine individuals willing to serve it.

Soft targets made up of large crowds, an area with more than can be secured with too little security resources (mostly because security is expensive), and we have the initiative given to the bad guys just by living our lives. While it's statistically insignificant, you have to acknowledge the risk for the age we live in when it comes to terrorism. But I've said it before, and I'll say it again...I'll accept with the risk that comes with the freedoms we have. The alternative is much less pleasant.

I'll add another harbinger of doom by signing onto this sentiment. The lot of us would probably argue about what to get on a free pizza we'd be splitting if the chance came about, but we agree on this. It might have to be a phase in type of deal, but I think these steps could be a good start to keep it from becoming akin to Reddit... 1) Establish politics as a benefactor only sub-forum. 2) Moderators given power to keep debates on topic (fully admitting I'm as bad at this as anyone else) and lock a thread if it gets too heated for a cooling down period. Eg: if the topic is a random aspect about healthcare, Hillary's emails aren't being discussed as an aside. 3) Find a way to remove any politics from popping up in the dashboards or areas that let people know about new content. 4) Refine as needed, and don't be afraid to give vacations to those who blow off the rules after a warning or two and bans for when that isn't enough. I'm sure others might have more/better ideas.

This is the important point, and one I agree with as it's written (hopefully I'm reading it correctly). Limiting arms is something I'm not in concurrence with at all. Determining the suitability of character for militia service should be the only determiner...once someone is good to go, they should be able to equip themselves with any weapon(s) on the market they can acquire. As to the rest, I can agree to disagree, but I think we've fallen quite far from the concept of the militia as the instrument of citizenry and service it was envisioned as.

I think if we can't discuss politics here, I ask where would be left that makes it feel like a real discussion? Coming here to debate these issues was always enjoyable for me because the collective intellect of TGO is much higher than the population at large, and we certainly care more about the results of elections. I hope politics can come back, even if only a benefactors only sub-forum. Hell, that may be the best way to put an initial layer of QC on it. For my money, a place to have real debates is worth the price of admission, even if it does go off the rails from time to time. No kidding. In my recent move, I had to self-haul my ammo along with my guns separate from the rest of normal household goods that movers took care of. I got quite a decent workout in, and the word shortage never entered my mind.

How did Madison's Federalist 46 titled "The Influence of the State and Federal Governments Compared" describe it better than Hamilton did when he wrote Federalist 29 "Concerning the Militia"? I'll direct your attention to what I consider the important part to our discussion from 29... The terms "select corps" and "principles as will really fit them for service in case of need" permitting a permitting process with background checks to determine feasibility for service in the militia (in whatever form we recognize it today...admittedly this is something we've fallen far from intent on). Each state has their own version, but they're valid as long as they're checking a standard, not intending to prohibit or hinder lawful ownership. That's how I see it anyway.

Where she's going to be living is a big part of this conversation. Dorms, student oriented housing, greater Clarksville area...all will have slightly different considerations to factor in.

It's that whole "well regulated" part people like to ignore. Now, I know that makes me the odd duck around here, but I'm all in favor of permits and background checks to determine the character of those carrying....where I come back to the TGO train of thought is once someone is determined to be in compliance with the law, the government shouldn't have any business telling them what arms they're allowed to keep and bear.

Those states also have income taxes and other sources of revenue collecting high enough to where they don't have to nickel and dime residents on public services. Pluses and minuses to either way of operating.

I think the state ceasing to use the HCP as a revenue generator and only charging a reasonable apportionment of admin cost would lessen some of that opposition...though some people would never be happy but oh well. Sent from my Nexus 5 using Tapatalk. OhShoot very much likes to know when we're using Tapatalk.

The five years methodology is sound. For anyone who has a Top Secret Clearance, five years is how long it lasts for unless circumstances pop up to necessitate the suspension or termination of a clearance. When that five year window is coming up, the clearance holder has to submit all the paperwork over again for a background investigation to get it renewed for another five years. So, for your Facebook arguing or whatever, if someone mentions that five years isn't good enough for background checks, remind people that's how we handle TS information on an administrative basis, so it should be good enough for gun purchasing and ownership. TICS, nor the federal background check for that matter are unconstitutional. TICS was set up as a routing method to satisfy the federal background check, so it's aiding our state residents in with a national regulation. The federal check has been held up in court as constitutional. Only the attempt to try and force local law enforcement to action it was struck down.

I'm a fan of everything the recent upgrades have brought...except the classifieds layout. For my take, it's just not as much of a breeze to scroll through anymore, and I even wonder if anything I'm thinking of selling might get as much visibility as it would have before the changes. Granted I've had some less time on the site now that I'm out of school and a working cog, but it just isn't as attractive an area for me to scroll through these days. Going back to the old way would get my vote in a straw poll.

I think "privilege" may be the wrong term to apply, though it's taken root for repetition if nothing else, so we're stuck with it.. But if all things (education, opportunity, personal drive, connections, ect.) are relatively equal, I find it quite easy to believe that a black individual will have a disadvantage in comparison to a white individual in pursuing the same objectives. Kind of like starting a race at different starting points along the track, but not adjusting the finish line to compensate. If nothing else, they have to overcome all the latent and not so latent prejudices and misconceptions that forces them to prove they're not "that kind" of black person.