JAB

I have seen many posts which state the same thing that jughead stated. Thing is, what I find in the law does not clearly jibe with that statement. To avoid hijacking this thread, I started a new one on the subject here: http://www.tngunowners.com/forums/hunting/51631-killing-snakes.html#post668470 I do not intend this to 'call anyone out' in any way - I simply want a clearer understanding of the law on the matter (and not just what the Tennessee Herpetologicall Society would have us believe is the law.)

This isn't specifically about hunting but I put it in this forum because the thread was started in order to avoid hi-jacking the thread regarding what TGOers would change about Tennessee hunting regs. If the mods feel this would be better elsewhere then I will defer to their decision. I have said, before, and I will say, again that I wish someone would point me to the reg or law that specifically makes it illegal to harm snakes. I do not believe such a reg or law exists, although the website for the Tennessee Herpetological Society would lead one to believe that it does. There are laws prohibiting the harm, killing or possession of non-game wildlife, in general (which would include snakes) but I can find nothing that mentions snakes, specifically. Also, there are laws that allow one to kill non-endangered or non-protected wildlife if said wildlife is destroying your property (which, by my layman's interpretation, sounds like it would include the damned chicken snakes in my coop eating the eggs.) The only time a special permit is needed for such is when the offending animal falls under 'big game' (deer eating crops, etc.) From the Tennessee Code Annotated via Michie's: Also by my layman's reading, the law says that even protected animals can be legally killed with no permits or prior authorization if they are presenting an immediate threat to human life. I know some folks say that a healthy adult can survive a copperhead bite but I have been diagnosed with cardiomyopathy - a weak heart muscle - as well as a couple of other health related issues that would likely put me in a higher risk category. Personally, I will not take the chance that I can 'possibly' or even 'probably' survive simply to spare a poisonous snake. That doesn't mean I will go looking for snakes to kill them just that I'm not taking any chances. From the TCA, again via Michie's with the relevant part 'bolded' by me:

Nice little shooter. I have a 995 with the old style stock and am trying to decide whether or not to fool with changing it out. Mostly I am considering it because I'd like to put a cheap red dot on mine but the only way to do that with the old style stock is to remove the rear iron sights which I don't want to do. I hope that Hi-Point does release a higher cap mag for these. ProMag makes some, I think, but they are hit or miss from what I have heard. BTW, unless they have changed something from the older ones, the mag that came with it should be a 10 rounder not a 9 rounder.

A big game stamp should not be required to hunt hogs. In fact, as they are a 'pest' animal, simply having a hunter's safety certification is all that should be required - shouldn't even need the general hunting/fishing license. Hunting hogs over bait should be allowed, at least on private property. Also, feral hogs should not magically transform into 'wild boars' simply by crossing the boundary of a WMA. TWRA says that they want hunters' help in getting rid of hogs yet require hunters to purchase nearly $60 worth of licenses to help them get rid of the 'pests'. I've never hunted hogs but would like to and such changes would make it a heck of a lot easier to get started. Night hunting coyotes should also be legal. I have also not really hunted coyotes but I have mostly only ever heard/seen them in my area at night. That is part of the reason I really haven't hunted them - day hunting an animal that seems to be mostly nocturnal sounds like an excercise in futility. This isn't entirely TWRA regs - I believe that there are other laws involved - but I would also like to see at least some studies done to determine the viability of a season where raptors could be legally taken in limited numbers. I think I may have seen more red-tailed hawks in the past couple of months than I had seen in all my previous 39 years combined. In fact, two of them (obviously different birds - one was a little larger than the other) were in trees at the side of the road within a quarter of a mile of each other. That can't be good for the hawks and other raptors nor for local populations of prey animals such as rabbits, squirrels, etc.

That's kind of what I figured - until I read a report (from 2006) that the FBI did about felonious assaults on police officers. The report was entitled 'Violent Encounters' and links to all chapters can be found here: Xavier Thoughts: Violent Encounters with the section that is pertinent to this discussion being found in Chapter 4 : Weapons under the heading Firearm Practice which begins on page 46 of the report (page 4 of 18 in that particular section of the PDF.) http://calgunlaws.com/Docs/CGL%20NEWS/Chapter_Four_of%20_Violent_Encounters_%20FBI_Report.PDF This study concluded that many of the offenders in the included cases actually practiced shooting firearms - especially handguns - more than the officers they shot. The offenders really didn't go to the range but practiced in wooded areas, trash dumps and even, "on street corners in known drug-trafficking areas where gunfire was commonplace." One of the offenders even specifically talked about putting up targets in the woods behind his house and practicing shooting from the draw, while moving, while on the ground and in other positions. I wouldn't want anyone holding a gun on me but I would really hate my chances if the criminal in question was like that guy. There have also been recent reports about gang members joining the military, getting training (firearm and otherwise) and then returning home to train their fellow gang members. Thankfully, there isn't that much overt gang activity where I live but parts of Knoxville - including the neighborhood where I used to live - has such activity. For the most part, I still tend to believe that your evaluation is more or less correct. However, it seems that the need to train is not totally lost on all criminals and I wouldn't be surprised if that is a trend which increases in the coming years.

I have had beef tongue prepared two, different ways. The first is a 'Mexican' treatment (lingua) - in tacos, etc. at various taquerias around here. I usually get at least one taco so filled any time I eat at one of those taquerias. In that form, it is chopped up and you probably wouldn't even know what it was if you didn't already know. The other was at a Columbian restaurant that used to be in Cleveland, TN. They cooked it using some kind of stewing method and served pretty much just a chunk of tongue (pretty easily recognizable as such) covered in what they called a Creole sauce (different from Louisiana creole - I think this had mango in it along with onions and spices.) That was one of the best damned things I have eaten in a long time and we went back a few times so I could have it, again, even when we had no other reason to go that direction from Loudon. My wife, who wasn't interested in the beef tongue, got a steak that had the same sauce, etc. and I swear the tongue was better, more tender and had more flavor. Throw in a little yucca and some plantains and get out of my way! Unfortunately, the place is closed now. If I thought there was a snowball's chance in hell of me getting it right, I'd buy a beef tongue (they sell them in some of the meat departments around here) and cook one up, myself. Oh, and that actually reminds me of another joke: Guy goes into a diner and asks the waitress what the special of the day is. "Oh, honey," she answers, "the cook has something special today. He has beef tongue and it might sound a little weird but I promise it is delicious." The customer, however, wasn't convinced and said, "No, thanks. I ain't eating anything that came out of some animal's mouth. Just bring me a couple of eggs."

I know the P90 is a bit longer, etc. than it's 9mm cousin, the P95. That said, I carry my P95 'in public' pretty often and find that it both carries and hides pretty well in a leather, belt slide type holster. The belt slide I have is an inexpensive one from Ross Leather that I bought at Frontier Firearms. It was originally molded for a revolver but I didn't like the way the revolver carried in it so I wet it with warm water and remolded it to fit the P95. It wears quite comfortably and holds my P95 kind of high on the beltline and tight to my side enough that I can hide it with just an unbuttoned, untucked shirt as long as the shirt is made of a heavy enough material (for instance, I usually use a denim shirt to cover it.) Also, because the P95 goes in pretty much right up to the grip and holds it with a bit of a cant, retention is quite good but drawing the pistol is still really easy. You might want to consider that style of holster - especially if you change your mind about not carrying the P90 in public. Other than that, I have to say that if you are not worried about concealment, Lumber_Jack's idea about a FOBUS is a good one. It isn't a direct comparison, obviously, but I sometimes carry my P3AT in a FOBUS when I have to have a really small primary (I only pocket carry when it is the only thing that will work for a particular situation) and I like the way it works. I also carried the P11 I used to have in a FOBUS and it always worked well.

I've had Kangaroo in some of those Buffalo Bob meat sticks but what with the spices and the fact that (iirc) the Buffalo Bob meat sticks often blend the game meat in question with beef or pork I couldn't really tell much difference between it and a regular, ol' Slim Jim. I've also tried the other varieties, including the alligator. Come to think of it, I've had fried gator tail, too - which I guess really isn't all that weird. This thread makes me think of a joke - I think it was from Justin Wilson (this is my retelling of it): A city fellah, on a trip to the country, comes across a backwoods boy carrying a dead chicken hawk. "Where di you get that hawk?", asked the city slicker. "I shot 'im," came the reply. "I see," said the city boy, getting curious, "well, what are you going to do with it, now?" The country boy, surprised by the question, said, "Why, I'm gonna eat 'im." The city slicker had never heard of eating a chicken hawk so he just had to ask, "Really? What does a chicken hawk taste like?" The country boy, in a matter of fact voice, answered, "Oh, 'bout like an owl."

I guess that depends on your body type, etc. I took these pics to demonstrate to a member on another forum that a medium framed revolver with a four inch barrel (in this case, my Taurus 66 - which I must admit I don't carry very often, this was just for demonstration purposes) could be concealed OWB even in a cheap FOBUS and even in warm weather clothing (denim shorts and tank top with untucked/unbuttoned Hawaiian shirt as a cover garment): Here is what I had on me/in my pockets in that picture:

I can see your point. However, I believe that the right to defend one's life - and to be equipped for such defense - is more important, more basic and much more transcendent than any human construct such as the idea of 'property' or the rights to manage such property. Further, I am also beginning to agree that there is a difference between the 'property rights' of an individual's home and those of a business that is open to the public. I am beginning to see the sense in the argument that one gives up some control when one opens one's property to the public as a business. In this case, laws of our society (property rights) regarding a man-made construct (the idea of individuals 'owning' a piece of the planet) - rights and a construct in which I, as a member of our society, do believe - are being used to confound and erode a natural right of the type the writers of the Declaration of Independence spoke of as being unalienable rights which are, as such, outside the purview of human laws or legislatures. As such, the right to defend one's life, IMO, trumps 'legal' rights such as property rights and such continued erosion of the right to self preservation must be stopped. I have come to the conclusion that if we have to 'play' that same set of laws to stop it then so be it.

You are undoubtedly right. Even eating dog doesn't seem odd when one considers that some places raise them for food - they aren't eating Fi Fi or Spike because he or she peed in the floor one too many times. That I can understand. Still, killing a dog that actually is the family pet to feed anyone - honored guest or not - just seems wrong. Then, again, I've had my dog (yeah, a chihuahua) for nearly sixteen years. More than once when living in the bad part of Knoxville she woke me up with warning barks letting me know someone was trying to break in (the mere presence of Mr. Colt seems to have changed their minds once they saw that he was 'home') - which means that she has quite possibly literally saved my life. I'd be about as likely to feed the honored guest to her as I would be to feed her to the guest.

I see where you are coming from. I have a couple of .50 caliber muzzleloaders. They are the 'musket' type, not more modern inline rifles. When I got the first one, I had to replace the nipple. Thing is, it had a type of two-part nipple on it that a gunsmith told me is no longer made because too many people lost ears and eyes when that type of nipple blew due to the bad design. I replaced it with a standard type nipple from Dixie Gun Works but had to modify it a little to make it work. I wasn't getting a good seal with the caps because they were too big to fit tightly enough over the top of the nipple (although I was using the appropriate size) and wasn't getting enough spark down the nipple to ignite the powder so I filed a bit off of the top of it so there would be a larger surface area for the cap to seal against. The problem there was that I now had to 'fire' it twice to actually get it to shoot - the cap consistently pops and the shot fires on the second try. I shot it a few times like that and then did what I thought was a thorough cleaning. Still, the next time I went to shoot it, the opening in the nipple was virtually sealed shut with what looked to be corrosion and rust. I'd have to pull the nipple off and clean it out with a paperclip, etc. if I wanted to shoot it - and even that might not work. As for the second one, it had the same type of nipple as the first had when I first got it. Problem with it is that I can't even get the old one out to replace it because it is so rusted/corroded or maybe swelled in place. I like both the rifles and have no plan or desire to sell them but I also really don't shoot them. I'd use such a rifle for survival if I had to but wouldn't be real confident that it would be reliably functional if needed. I also have a compound bow. I bought it used and had a local (now defunct) archery shop go over it and replace what needed replacing. I haven't used it much and am not very good with it but I know the basics and could get better with it if necessary. Past experience has shown me that I am much better with a recurve but those darned things are just too expensive for something I'd rarely use. At any rate, I could walk in right now, pick that compound bow and the quiver of arrows for it up, walk outside and shoot it with no doubts about whether or not it would work, no concerns about damp arrows not firing and no concerns about putting too much string behind the arrow and blowing it up in my face.

The problem is that the antis will use whatever tactic they can, try to play the system and so on while we continue to hamstring ourselves by trying to play fair and taking the high road. That is great in concept but may not work too well in reality. Iin the end, the morally superior loser is still the loser. Should they (government) be able to force business owners to do anything? No. Can they? Yes. Do they? Yes. So, while perhaps things should be different, they aren't and it isn't very likely that they will be any time soon if ever, again. Maybe it is time we accept that reality and use it before our refusal to do so gets us left behind. For instance, we shouldn't have to hide our legally carried firearms and only be allowed to keep and bear arms by the government's leave. Public opinion and concerns about frightening the masses should not be a major factor in our decisions regarding how, where and when to carry. Strictly from the perspective of our rights, we shouldn't have to think twice if we want to carry a revolver with a six inch barrel in a Mexican double loop holster on a cartridge belt right in the middle of town - and legally, we can do so. However, reality is that such actions can turn public opinion against us and the court of public opinion - right or wrong - can take away our rights (which, as some have pointed out, have already been largely downgraded to 'privileges') so we have to play that game. Why, then, should we fight with one arm tied behind our backs by refusing to play the games that could benefit our rights? Honestly, this is not the way I felt when I first started carrying or even when the last legislative session ended (some of my previously posted opinions on the subject indicated as much.) Truthfully, there aren't many places where I normally and regularly go that have posted and I can easily find alternatives to most of the places that have. Fact is, I may not still feel this way next week. However, at least at present, I can't help but to think that it is perhaps time for us to stop being so idealistic and start being a little more pragmatic. Heck, maybe Malcolm X was right, "By any means necessary." Honestly, I really would be satisfied if the signs meant nothing, the law said that business owners must assume that I am not carrying unless they actually see my firearm, themselves, and as long as the firearm is concealed no one other than a LEO who has approached me for some other reason (traffic stop, etc.) is legally allowed to ask if I have a firearm on me or not. Heck, I guess you could call it, "Don't ask, don't tell."

They don't need a sign that says, "No illegal weapons," because illegal weapons are already, well, illegal and those carrying illegally will not suffer any additional consequences because of a sign. This means that, not only in a practical sense (i.e. someone carrying illegally, anyway, isn't going to give two hoots about a sign that is basically unenforceable unless there are metal detectors and security guards at every entrance) but also in a legal sense, whether they realize it or not, when a business owner hangs a 'no firearms' sign, they are specifically targeting legal HCP holders and only legal HCP holders. In other words, that business owner is saying, "We don't trust you damn HCP holders to carry your firearms here." Well, the state, the TBI and local authorities obviously trust me to carry so it really shouldn't make any difference if a store owner does or not. By extension, though, whether they intend it or not, I take those signs to further mean, "so we don't want you or your money coming in here."

Many of you guys have me beat. I've had curried goat from a corner stand at a bazaar on the French side of St. Martin. I've had frog's legs, squirrel (didn't care for it - tasted bitter, to me), rabbit, a little bit of turtle and a damn coon that ate some of my chickens (figured I'd return the favor - put it on the smoker, pulled the meat and made a home-made barbecue sauce and on a bun it tasted a lot like barbecue beef, to me, though the texture was different.) I like sushi (but not that California roll crap) and really like octopus sushi, although I must admit that the eel (unagi) is probably my favorite. Heck, I even like me some escargots and will eat the heck out of those snails if they are prepared right. I'd think I'd have to be downright starving before I'd put a male reproductive organ in my mouth, regardless of the species and I'd rather try cooking my boot than eat a possum. Hell, I think I'd eat a buzzard before I'd eat something that will crawl into the mouth of a dead cow, eat its way through and come out the other end. I have heard that groundhog is some of the best eating around and wouldn't mind trying some of that.

From my understanding of history, this is EXACTLY why the old, slow to load firearms replaced the longbow. It took time to train a good archer and not just anyone could successfully use a longbow in combat. Training, maintaining and equipping archers required committing resources to the task. On the flip side, any stupid peasant could be taught to stuff some powder and a ball down a metal tube, point it in the general direction of the enemy and light a fuse (or have a second peasant with whom they were partnered do so) or pull a trigger, etc. The use of firearms in such warfare wasn't like hunting, target shooting or even personal combat between individuals. They weren't interested in striking specific targets or precision shooting even in the case of the archers most of the time. Instead, in such a situation, they were simply trying to hurle as many potentially deadly projectiles as possible in the enemy's general direction - shooting into the crowd, as it were. The use of firearms meant they could have a much bigger fighting force for a much smaller investment and if the firearm blew up and killed the guy using it, so what? Commoners who could be taught to perform such a task were a dime a dozen, so to speak. With a little development, those firearms reached a point where they could even penetrate plate armor - meaning that a basically untrained peasant with a relatively cheap weapon could now kill - or at least eliminate from battle - an enemy knight/warrior who had expensive equipment and years of training.

To this point, I have disagreed with this opinion: and, although I didn't like it, more or less agreed with this opinion: However, upon reading in this morning's News-Sentinel that Farrugut is considering making it mandatory that developers include bicycle racks in all new developments, I think my mind is changing. Whether it should be this way or not, this is the way it is and if a government can require businesses to have friggin' bike racks (which involves a monetary component) then they can damn well require those same business owners to allow citizens with legal carry permits to be armed in their places of business or, at the very least, make the signs not worth the paper they are printed on from a legal standpoint. Farragut mulls mandatory bike racks » Knoxville News Sentinel

Heh, there have been so many models of pistols made in the Mak style I don't see how anyone could keep them straight. You certainly seem to do a pretty good job of it, though.

My mom has an SMC .380 and iirc, the mag release isn't on the heel of the grip and it is a single stack mag. The SMC was the smallest model .380 made by FEG and I most often see them compared to a Walther PPK. They did make one or two larger models. I have never seen any of those in person. However, unless I am mistaken, at least one of them (the PMK-380, I think) used a single stack mag, too because the mag will supposedly fit/work with the SMC-380 but, being longer/higher in capacity by one round, will protrude from the bottom of the mag well of the SMC-380. Did they make some SMC-380 models with a double stack mag and heel release? The forerunner of the SMC models was, apparently, the RK-59 but I don't know if it was made in .380 or only in 9X18. Either way, from what I can find, it used a single stack mag, too and it's mag release wasn't on the heel, either. From what I am finding, I agree that the KBI, etc. refers to the company in Pennsylvania that imported the pistol.

I can't help but think of the Coyote and Roadrunner cartoon where ol' Wile E. baited a trap with a big pile of birdseed. Of course, the trap didn't spring on the roadrunner but it did spring on the coyote.

In New Guinea, Kuru is a disease that is normally transmitted by eating human brain tissue. The 'cannabilism', however, usually takes place during funerary rites and is most commonly seen in women. This is because women are mainly responsible for funerary practices although that doesn't mean that men might not be involved, too. In their belief, eating the brains and, possibly, other parts of the dead helps keep the deceased with them - it is a way of honoring the dead and it is my understanding that relatives of the deceased are the ones who ingest the brains, etc. - as in a woman would eat her deceased mother's, father's, sister's or brother's brains, etc. That is the cultural explanation but there is also, likely, a nutritional component in that the men - who do the hunting for the tribe - usually eat most of the meat. From a strictly nutritional standpoint, then, these rituals supply the women of these tribal groups with a source of meat, i.e. protein. As someone else said, I wouldn't think of killing someone for dinner. Otherwise, all the diseases that can be transmitted between humans would be the main hesitation I would have in eating long pork. If I were hungry enough, however, I'd probably be firing up the grill and hoping for the best.

Next year? Nah. They'll wait at least another three or four years before releasing that particular, [sarcasm] totally new and completely innovative design [/sarcasm]. Don't get me wrong. I love my P95s and might consider buying more used Rugers. I just think that such an industry powerhouse should be leading not copying the innovations of a small company like Kel Tec then bribing the gun media to act as if they had never seen anything like those copies, before. Heck, I think that even Browning himself would agree with that if he were still around. In fact, unless I am mistaken he called his own Hi-Power design an improvement over the 1911.

Hiding a large gun isn't the problem, IMO, so much as being able to quickly and easily access a large gun that is also well hidden. I'm not saying that it can or can't be done - although it is probably more difficult for those of us who cannot carry IWB - I'm simply saying that, IMO, the larger the gun the harder it would be to keep it well hidden while also making it easy and quick to draw in the event that it is needed.

Yeah, but if I remember my History lessons, the side that fought for states' rights lost.

Not a bad idea. I carry spray at work where I am not allowed to carry a firearm. I don't always carry it when I can carry a firearm - just too much crap to carry around - but it would be a good idea. On one hand, you make a valid point. Heck, going to college back in the '90s I lived in the 'bad' part of Knoxville and didn't carry. On the other hand, when I was 18 - or even 21 - this part of East Tennessee, especially the less urban areas, seemed (maybe it wasn't but it seemed) a lot safer than now. Things have changed a lot in the last twenty years or so.