JAB

I actually kinda like it - and I don't like Glocks.

I don't know - I read it that he is saying the problem can't be summed up on a bumper sticker. Instead, it isn't a clear cut issue. When the working man keeps getting less and less (including not getting raises because the company 'can't afford it') but the CEOs keep getting their golden parachutes, get their bonuses even when the government has to bail the company out and can still take advantage of loopholes and not-technically-illegal tax breaks that none of those working stiffs would ever have access to because they will never make enough money to use them then there IS a problem and it isn't 'liberal', 'communist' or 'socialist' to say so. After all, who is really earning the money - as in every dime the company makes, basically - the guy in the head office or the guy who is actually in the field providing the service or on the assembly line producing the goods? I'd say it is a little of both, actually, but the company could probably continue without the CEO and a couple of the other high-level administrators as long as there were still enough people in positions to run the daily business. How long could the company operate without the aforementioned people who are actually providing the service or producing the goods? I'd say not very long. Even if they are replaced by other people it would then be those other people who are doing the work that keeps the company in business. So, then, why are CEOs and so on deemed as being so much more 'valuable' - as reflected by yearly salaries that may equal more than the people who are actually doing the work that drives the company will see in a lifetime? That is a problem. In a perfect world the company, itself, would see this imbalance and take at least some steps to rectify it. However, as long as people - greedy people who are greedy because they are people and who can indulge their greed because of their positions of power - are running those companies that will not happen. So, what is the answer? Government regulations forcing more equity? Possibly - but that would open the door to other problems. It is kind of funny that the whole reason allowing corporations to 'self-regulate' with regards to these issues doesn't work is the same as the reason communism and socialism will never work - because you have to have people in charge and the people in charge will almost always use those positions to make sure that they are 'more equal' than everyone else.

I have to at least give my senator (Ken Yager) credit for responding to my email. It wasn't a form letter, either, as he actually referenced the bill and said that it will probably be Thursday or Monday before the Senate votes on it. He further said that he had not yet made up his mind which way he would vote and needed to review the bill before deciding but that he would keep my concerns in mind and speak to the bill's sponsor about those issues. Unless it is significantly (un)amended back to its original form or closer I hope he votes 'nay' but if he votes 'yea' I know that he at least considered my thoughts on the bill.

Emails sent - for whatever good it will do.

Yeah, my 642 has a lock on it. Don't ask me where the key is - I have never used it and never plan to. If the lock had been optional when I bought it I would have gone with 'no'. I think that the key is probably in the plastic case that came with the gun - I usually try to keep such things around somewhere in case the lock somehow, accidentally engages.

Was my first thought upon seeing the interview with him - that he had been smoking the 'lettuce'. I think his mom has probably burned down a few heads of the ol' Boston leaf, herself. I actually think that you and Chucktshoes might both be correct - he was stoned and didn't give a crap. I also suspect that maybe he did realize that the pistol was out of battery and could not be fired but thought, "Screw it. Not my money and I'm not throwing down with this dude, gun or not, to protect a few bucks from the cash register - especially not for what they pay me." Years ago when I worked at a grocery store there had been a few incidents in the area where someone had robbed employees from other businesses of the deposit when they got it out of their vehicle to drop it off in the deposit box at the bank during closed hours. The manager, assistant manager or whoever was making the deposit always had someone ride with them - mostly as a witness that the manager, etc. didn't hide the cash somewhere and claim that it was stolen, I think. Anyhow, one time when I was riding with the manager to drop off a deposit on a Saturday afternoon when the bank was closed. He showed me where he had a revolver stashed in his car and said (paraphrasing - this was more than twenty five years ago), "If they just ask for the deposit we'll let them take it. The store has insurance on it and it isn't worth one of us getting hurt over, anyway. If they tell us to hand over our wallets, though, one of us needs to get that gun and shoot their asses."

I have come to believe that a certain well known gun rights organization operates kind of like the firefighters we hear about every once in a while who start fires so that they can be 'heroes' by putting them out. If things swing too far in gun owners' direction it might put them out of business so they have to periodically create a problem so that they will have something to lobby against a few years down the road.

SCCY was started by a former employee or former employees of Kel Tec who ripped off the design for the P11 and started SCCY right down the road from Kel Tec based on that stolen design which was the only firearm they offered when they first opened. One of the SCCY company executives started an account on KTOG (the Kel Tec Owner's Group forum) several years ago and apparently did some pretty unethical and dishonest things while hiding his affiliation with SCCY. My understanding is that the company president 'didn't know' and later came on KTOG to apologize. With business practices like that I don't think I want to trust one of their handguns even if they have redesigned some things and are offering some new designs. That is just my , though.

Is it clear that the deceased and injured parties were, actually, the three gunmen who originally opened fire? The way the article was written, I honestly couldn't tell. It almost sounded like the three gunmen killed one teen and injured two others before the witness wrestled a gun away from one of the gunmen, returned fire and all three gunmen fled (unharmed.) EDIT: Okay, never mind. I just read the second article linked in the OP and it is much more clear except it simply says that the defender 'armed himself' and makes no mention of him having wrestled a gun from one of the assailants. The first article linked was not very clear as to whether or not the deceased/injured parties were assailants or bystanders, IMO.

Well, see, that was just a woman illegally buying guns, falsifying police reports and selling the guns to gangs. If this had been a case of a woman using a firearm to defend her life from one of those, same gang members I imagine they would have thrown the book at her.

My step grandfather (well, actually my late, ex step grandfather but even after he and my grandmother divorced I was closer to him than to my biological grandfathers) used to keep bees. He had land (inherited from his parents) in Heiskell, close to Norris. When he and my grandmother were still married they lived in East Knoxville but he kept his bees on his other property. My memory could be faulty but I seem to remember him having somewhere around four to six hives, maybe a couple more. I never got the impression that his required all that much work. He'd usually go out to that property every couple of weeks or so, I think. He got rid of them when he was tending them one day and for some, unknown reason he got stung multiple times. He had never had any kind of reaction, before, but said he had to quickly drive himself to the hospital that day and was worried he would pass out before he got there (this was long before cell phones and he was there by himself.) I do remember asking him one time how to get a hive of bees started. I remember him saying that he would just order a queen and put her in a hive and the bees would come to her. I am not sure if he was talking about starting from scratch, though, or if he was talking about starting a new hive and having the new queen draw some bees from his already existing hive(s). I'm sure someone here could explain better. I remember the honey he got being really good. He would put the comb in at least some of it and that was my mom's favorite part - she liked to take out a piece and chew it like gum. I have thought about getting started in bee keeping, myself, but honestly I don't use much honey so it is much more economical and practical for me to just buy it. I agree with runco that sourwood is the best honey. Some of my favorite came from some folks who sell (or used to sell, not sure if they still set up there or not) honey at the Saturday flea market in Crossville - although there is a place called Seven Sisters in Coker Creek that had some sourwood and other varieties which are/were really good, too (I am not really sure if they are still operating or not - has been a few years since I had their honey.)

I don't really push non like-minded people to 'prepare'. Not even friends or family. If I know that my words are going to fall on deaf ears then there is no sense wasting my breath. That said, depending on the mindset and situation of the person you are talking to I think that some things can be done right in the open with no 'tin foil hat' comments necessary. Rather than, "You should put back some food supplies in case the Chinese (or some teenage kids in North Korea) hack our power grid and shut the whole thing down," maybe you could approach it as, "Damn, the economy is crazy, isn't it. Every time I think things are recovering something else happens to make me wonder, again. So many people getting laid off or losing their jobs altogether. Then I look at how things are in Venezuela. Then there's Greece - that's not some second or third world nation I never heard of but Greece, for Pete's sake. Not that things would get that bad here but I guess things did get pretty bad in this country during the Great Depression. I tell ya', I think I am going to start buying a few, extra cans of food every week and try to build up a pretty good supply of canned food at home. I'll have to eat it and replace it so it won't go past the 'use by' date but I still think I want to keep a pretty good surplus in my cabinet. That way if the economy tanks or if I lose my job I will at least have food to eat, at least for a little while." I think it would be less likely that someone would drag out the old, tired 'tin foil hat' nonsense when you are talking about preparing not for things that maybe, could happen but for things that have happened and are happening. Then there is an approach that doesn't have to have anything to do with hard times, instability or anything else. Rather than, "I'm going to start canning and dehydrating food at home so I will have supplies when the government crumbles and society falls apart," maybe one could go with, "I think I am going to start buying fresh fruits and vegetables from the farmers market [or even growing a garden if it is feasible] and preserving them, myself. I hear dehydrating is a great way to store some fruits and veggies and, of course, people have been canning that kind of stuff at home for years. Maybe I'll make some home made jelly or something, too. That way I will know what is in my food and I will be able to help support the local farmers. Besides, in the middle of the winter some good, home canned green beans will taste really good." Heck, even the most mainstream, left-leaning type could probably get behind that! If they seem interested then maybe you could move on to, "Hey, you know, maybe we could both get into home canning and so on together. It could work out really well. I mean, I could do, say, a big batch of green beans and maybe you could can some tomatoes [tomatoes are easier to can - because tomatoes are high in acid you don't necessarily have to pressure can them and a water bath canner will work] and we could swap out a few jars of each." Just some ideas. Not that I am likely to try any of them because, like I said, I don't usually try to convince people, even in a round-a-bout way.

I think Dolomite made a lot of very good points. I have often said that all the people who think they are going to just 'head to the country' are going to be surprised to find people like me already there, (figuratively) sitting on my front porch with a shotgun and telling them to get the hell off of my lawn. The only type of event I can think of where I would want to 'bug out' would be if there were a weather related/natural disaster type event that made staying home impossible. Otherwise, all of my food supplies are at home. All of my guns and ammo are at home. My medications are at home. My bed is at home (and if I am going to die in a SHTF situation I'd rather do so in my bed than wallowing in the mud and wondering why I didn't just stay my a** at the house.) Also, as Dolomite pointed out, I know the area around my home. I have well water and there are two wells on the property - the old, insufficient one that has been disused and a newer one that is used. Thing is, the older one is now just a covered shaft - which means I can pop the cover, drop in a tubular well 'bucket' and haul up water out of the ground. I have done it, before. Long term food supplies would be my only, real issue. I have plenty of acreage for a garden but for the most part the soil sucks so that growing large scale crops would be difficult. The land isn't really suited for cattle, either but I could raise a few hogs (am considering doing that soon, anyhow), I have a few chickens (more for egg laying but am also considering adding more for meat) and the land could likely sustain a few goats for meat and milk. I have home canned food in the past so if I had a supply of fresh meat/vegetables/fruits I could preserve them - probably even if I had to use the canner over a fire instead of an electric heat source. There is some game available in my area but I think wild game supplies would 'dry up' pretty quickly. There are places within walking distance where I could catch a few fish, however, and that would probably be more sensible than planning on doing a lot of hunting (although I am not that big a fan of eating fish very often - I eat fish but not on an every day basis - if I am really hungry protein would be protein.) Fishing would make more sense from an energy expenditure standpoint, too - especially if there are places to sit up trot lines, limb lines and so on that won't be scavenged by others. Mostly, though, I would need to have a lot of food stored beforehand if I were going to be facing a long term SHTF event. That said, I think that a much more likely scenario would be one where food/supplies/the grid are interrupted for a matter of weeks or months, not years. Either way, currently I am thinking a lot more about long term or semi-long term food storage than about where I would run away to or what all I would have to take with me. Dolomite also hit the nail on the head about losing one's conscience. We all know what we would do if 'marauders' came to our door looking to take our food. Consider, however, if the people who came to your door were, for instance, a 65 year old grandmother and her two grandchildren - ages 6 and 8 - who had gotten separated from their group and had not eaten in three days. None of the three would likely be bringing any, real skills or needed knowledge to the table and if allowed to hang around they would be nothing more than a drain on already limited resources. Giving them a day or two worth of food and sending them on their way might make you feel a little better but, honestly, that would just be wasting a day or two of food you might need later as it likely won't make much difference in the long run where their survival is concerned, anyhow. Besides, if you give in and give them a few day's worth will you do the same the next time someone comes asking - and the next, and the next? How long could you do that without seriously depleting the supplies you had already decided you needed for the survival of you and yours? On the other hand, is looking into their faces and saying, "Nope, sorry. Wish I could help but I can't. Best you move along, now," something you are prepared to do? Because if you really intend to survive you will probably have to.

Yeah, even the guy who got his butt kicked was more worried about the possibility that there might have been a gun - which was never used as part of the assault - than the fact that he received a beat down. Further, just because he is 'disgusted' by firearms doesn't mean that everyone else's right to legally carry should be revoked. You know what, I am personally not real keen on the idea of two men engaging in physical relations but that doesn't mean I think there should be a policy of searching for and prohibiting gay guys from attending the zoo. To be truthful, who knows if there even really was a gun. Someone could have seen something that, in all the confusion, they thought was a gun. Heck, someone could have simply yelled, "Gun," and this anti-gun dude just went with it. After all, the assailants were not apprehended so I see no evidence that there was a gun present, at all, other than his claim and the fact that someone else in the crowd thought they might have seen something that may have been a gun. It sounds to me more like this guy is trying to leverage sympathy and outrage over his butt whoopin' to further what is likely a personal, pre-existing crusade against guns. Finally, we have only his word and the word of his friends for why the altercation started in the first place. That is, basically, only one side of the story and frankly, because of the way he focuses on the gun and not on the beating, I don't necessarily put that much faith in his account of the events as a whole.

I agree that people aren't very observant. These days, when I can legally carry, it is mostly my 642 in a pocket holster. I have a couple of belt holsters (a FOBUS and a home-made, leather pancake holster) for it just because and for times when I still want to go small and light but when pocket carry might not be the best option but I rarely use them. On a couple of occasions I have used them and, as an experiment, went in to a couple of places with no cover garment. While open carrying the little revolver I have had conversations with people who I could tell were totally oblivious to the presence of the gun. I also think part of that comes with experience and familiarity with carrying. When I first started carrying I was constantly 'checking' whatever gun I had on me - whether a small gun in a pocket holster or a larger gun in a belt holster (I do not carry IWB so belt holster means OWB, generally with a season-appropriate cover garment.) If I was carrying OWB and wearing a t-shirt with, say, a thin shirt unbuttoned over it as a cover garment I would constantly catch myself holding my right arm to my side. Now, after having had my HCP for almost nine years - especially since I mostly pocket carry the aforementioned 642 - I don't even think about it most of the time when I am carrying. I am aware that it is there in much the same way that I am aware my keys, cell phone, etc. are on me but I don't dwell on it and think, at least, that I have overcome most of the 'dead giveaway' habits. That personal comfort and familiarity when carrying, along with the small size of the gun, itself probably translated into not drawing undue attention to the fact that I was carrying even when conducting that experiment of open carrying OWB. Of course, the 'chart' in the OP was apparently developed by the NYPD. With the extreme anti-gun and anti-carry climate there I would imagine that if one were carrying it would be difficult for all but the coolest of customers or the most hardened of criminals to remain nonchalant about the fact that they had a firearm concealed upon their person when having any sort of contact with an officer, even just passing him or her on the street.

Well, going with my argument that 9mm is the 'best' as long as we consider that .357Mag/.38 Special are 9mm, got ya' covered!

I recently had to go to the Roane County Courthouse. I was going to the Register of Deeds office and the County Clerk, not setting foot in a courtroom. The guards at the door, manning the metal detector, asked where I was going. When I told them, they said to just come on through. I wasn't sure what the deal was going to be so I wasn't carrying but if I had been - as long as I wasn't going to a courtroom - I would have been good to go. Based on 300winmag's post, it sounds like this bill would make it illegal to carry there, at all. That is a step backward, not forward. Sounds like this bill has turned into good intentions paving the way to hell, to me. Leave it to our current 'oh, you gun owners have to elect us because we are sooooooooo pro gun' Republican controlled congress to turn a pro carry rights bill into an anti carry rights bill. Screw 'em, I'm sick of them all.

Aaaaaand can anyone tell the class what caliber handgun was used by a super tough F.B.I. agent to end the Miami shootout and finally take the (admittedly already wounded) bad guys down? A 9mm Luger? Nope. A .45acp? Nope. A 10mm? Nope. It was a .357 Magnum revolver loaded with .38 Special +P ammunition (ftw).

Well, .380 is also a 9mm (called 9mm Short, 9mm Kurz or 9mm Corto in some places) so apparently even Bond eventually came around to agree. Unfortunately, like Mr. Vickers, he just got confused and went with the wrong 9mm. See, just one more example proving that the Metric System is too confusing. Had he been using standard caliber measurements he would have known to go with the correct '9mm' - the .357 Magnum/.38 Special - and all that confusion could have been avoided.

I absolutely, whole heartedly agree that 9mm is the best handgun caliber ever. Period. I mean, after all, .357 Magnum/.38 Special is, technically, 9mm, right? Heck, there are even Ruger single action revolvers chambered in .357 Magnum/.38 Special that are capable of also firing 9mm Parabellum. We all know that .357 Magnum/.38 Special is the best, all around handgun caliber ever invented, right? So, even though Mr. Vickers may have gotten a little confused as to which 9mm is the greatest of all time, the basic premise as described in the thread title is 100% correct as well as being indisputable fact. Period and exclamation point, no semicolon required.

You might look around for a used Heritage revolver. No, I don't mean a .22. Although Heritage is best known for the Rough Rider .22 they also have (or, at least, had) single action, 'big bore' revolvers in .357 as well as 44-40 and .45 Colt. My understanding is that (at least before Taurus bought Heritage) the .22 revolvers (as well as the .32 H&R Magnum Rough Riders, I believe - although I think those were discontinued pre-Taurus) were made pretty much in house at Heritage while the parts for the larger bore revolvers were manufactured by Pietta in Italy and only assembled at Heritage (Heritage also briefly offered a single action .45/.410 revolver but I am not sure where it was made and I think Taurus killed it pretty quickly after they bought Heritage - probably too much competition with the Judge.) I don't know if that is still the case or if Heritage is even still offering centerfire revolvers under Taurus. Looking online, I am seeing that many places have the Heritage .357 now listed as 'no longer available' or 'currently out of stock' but they are still listed on the Heritage website. Again, I don't know what the deal is with single action, centerfire Heritage revolvers under Taurus. The MSRP on the Heritage website is $467. For comparison, I paid a little less than that for my .44 Magnum Super Blackhawk (I purchased it used) a few years ago. I would think that if you could find a used Heritage then the price should be much closer to what you want. I have never fired a Heritage or Pietta centerfire revolver, myself, but I belong to a Heritage fan site and a few of the guys there have Heritage centerfire revolvers and seem to like them pretty well. http://heritagemfg.com/product_detail.cfm?prod_id=44

No way it could be.

I think we do not need the federal government getting their foot in the door on an issue that is and should remain a state's rights issue no matter how much we (mistakenly) think it will benefit us. A fedgov that can say you can carry everywhere can turn around and say you can't carry anywhere. It would also open the door to states like TN possibly having to accept California and New York style (federal) carry regulations (just like many of the emissions laws for cars started in California.) All to do what? This would only allow carry by permit holders in any state that allows concealed carry. It would not allow carry in states that do not allow carry, at all (and you can bet that states like California and New York would find loopholes to not allow anyone except for the 'elite' who hold permits to carry in their state - maybe by making all of their state's permit holders 'special deputies' or something.) Further, the laws of each state would still be in effect so carrying in, say, New York would probably be more trouble than it is worth and would likely constitute little more than a legal trap for carriers from outside that state. As TN already has reciprocity with most states that currently allow carry in practice and not just in theory - which I imagine is the case with most states - this bill would really accomplish nothing but making things more complicated, opening a door for more restrictive regulations and allowing the fedgov access to an issue where they have no business being involved. No, thanks.

I saw Dog Wick a couple of weeks ago. Liked it, too. I really liked the line, "Do you have any idea who it was you killed? Idiot! You killed John Wick's dog's human!" "No law in here says dog's can't shoot people." I think I liked the Nerf Wick better, though, because of how well - and how close to the style of the real thing - the 'gun fu' was choreographed.

In high school we didn't have pencil sharpeners in every room so I mostly used my pocket knife to sharpen pencils in the rooms that didn't have them. I would just walk right up to the trash can during class, pull out my knife and sharpen my pencil just as if I were walking up and using a pencil sharpener. Sometimes a female teacher would ask to borrow my knife to use for the same purpose or ask me to sharpen a pencil for her while I was at it. The male teachers usually had a knife of their own in their pocket. Back then I mostly carried either a Case Sodbuster, Jr., a mid-sized (as in not one of the big ones but not a Cadet or other, small one) Victorinox Swiss Army or a little no-name lock back of about the same size. I graduated in 1989 so it isn't like this was all that long ago, relatively speaking. There were maybe two or three fights at our school each year and I don't recall anyone ever going for a knife, etc. even though I am quite certain that everyone involved in said fights had one on their person.