JAB

I don't know, he did say something to the effect that he would "immune" us "from state laws for life". Hell, with that platform I think most of the politicians - maybe even Floppy and Nedson - would vote for him.

I voted, "Yes," even though I am among those who think that it is a 'feel good' amendment to make us feel like our rights are 'protected' when it really doesn't do anything. Like others, I think the 'reasonable restrictions' clause makes the amendment useless. I can see where 'reasonable restrictions' could eventually come to mean that you have to wear bright orange from head to toe with a belt of bells around your waist, have to sound an airhorn and call out that you are a hunter every three minutes, can only hunt with single-shot shotguns which must be carried unloaded with shells kept in a locked container until a deer is sighted and within range. All of this would, of course be 'reasonable' as it would be in the interest of hunter safety and preventing accidental shootings in the woods. Compound bows, of course, are too dangerous as they have too great of a lethal range. Therefore, it would be reasonable to restrict bow hunting to small, light recurve bows of no more than, say, 20 pounds of peak draw weight. The bell belt, airhorne, orange jumpsuit and calling out requirements would pertain to bow hunters, too. Oh, and elevated stands are a fall hazard so those would have to go, too. All in the interest of safety, of course. I mean, we already have to pay the same fees to hunt an animal the TWRA considers a nuisance, invading pest (feral hogs) as are required to hunt any 'big game'. How much more evidence do we need that the powers that be consider bassackwards, unreasonable regulations to be perfectly 'reasonable'? It would have been much more effective had the amendment specified that people hunting on their own property are immune to any and all regulations, required the state to maintain a certain amount of public hunting and fishing land, as a minimum (say, at least as much as they currently maintain) and maybe a few, other things.

But that is only a 'given' because so many voters accept the false idea that it is a given. If this is truly a government by representation and the outcome of elections truly counts, then nothing is a 'given' until the votes are counted - unless everyone accepts that they 'have' to vote for one of two sides of the same plug nickel because it is a 'given' that one of them will win. What I am saying is that, if there is a clearly better alternative (which I could not find in this, particular election) then I would rather vote for the person I really want in office. If it is just a matter of choosing between a feces sandwich or an excrement salad, the other ingredients in the salad might be a little better for you but either way you are still choosing to eat sh*t. If a chicken dinner is an option - even a very remote option - then I'll try for that, instead. If it doesn't work out then I'd just as soon go hungry as sit there and try to pretend I scored some kind of victory because I get to eat an excrement salad.

I voted for Clinton, so that isn't really a good example of 'a tale of woe', to me. Would I vote for him, now? Depends on who he was running against. I am older now and my politics have changed a good bit so I wouldn't be as quick to vote for him as I once would have, but maybe. I certainly wouldn't vote for the Hildebeast, whose politics I believe are much further to the left, but Bill? Over, say, McCain or Obama? Over W? Yes. Yes I would. And I wouldn't give a hoot how many interns he kept under his desk. Honestly, though, if faced with the same choice today, I'd probably vote for Perot, too. I would then not ever regret voting my conscience, no matter what the outcome. I'm just that much of a stubborn bastard.

I think what you are still not getting is that there are many of us who remain unconvinced that Haslam really is any better than McWherter. The crux of your argument lies in the idea that he is. That is your belief. Not everyone shares that belief. In the last Presidential election, I was unconvinced that McCain was any better than Obama. I remain unconvinced that he would have been any better, to this day. I voted Libertarian because I thought that their candidate was clearly better than either the Dempublican or the Repocrat. I would do so, again. I do not and will not belong to either side of the Dempublican/Repocrat party and a candidate will not get my vote simply by winning one of their primaries. I will admit that, this time, I voted for Floppy Haslam but only because none of the independent candidates were clearly any better than him. In other words, I came to the conclusion that (to me) he was the best of a very bad group - and that was only because, as someone else stated earlier, the 'peer pressure' he will likely receive from others of his party might help keep him in line, not because I think that he, individually, is clearly superior to McWherter. Had their been an independent who was clearly better, then as the best candidate he or she would have gotten my vote.

Well, I went and voted yesterday. Pretty anticlimactic. No real 'good' choice for governor, even with all the independents running, so it was just a matter of choosing the 'best' of the bad and the one who I think will do the least amount of damage. I am in the County where I live so I don't vote in the City elections that were also being held. That left the governor, an uncontested State Senate ballot, and uncontested State Representative ballot and a vote for an amendment change that doesn't really do much of anything because it still leaves room for the very thing it is supposed to protect (hunting and fishing) to be 'reasonably' regulated out of existence.

Sidebar: My fiction writing professor at UT, Jon Manchip White, did some work for Hammer (he was the writer for The Camp on Blood Island, which I have never seen.) He was an interesting guy and had also worked for the BBC, Disney's European Productions branch and even wrote one episode of one of the greatest television series of all time (IMO), The Avengers. He had been in the Royal Navy and then the Welsh Guard during WWII, was a graduate of Cambridge and a heck of a nice guy. There is even a Wiki and an IMDB entry for him: Jon Manchip White - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Jon Manchip White - IMDb Tim Lucas Video WatchBlog: Fear and Loathing on Blood Island

And that was when I dropped and broke my brand new camera.

Tennessee Code Annotated, via Michie's: Coyote are listed under 'small game' on the TWRA website.

So, since Haslam seems to have the election sewn up, the folks who are going to vote for McWherter are just wasting their vote, too? If that is the case, why even have an election? Just pick a winner based on an equation and forget all this useless voting nonsense. It would save a lot of money. I don't believe it is our civic duty to vote for a candidate based on who is most likely to win. I believe it is our duty to vote for the candidate most likely to be the best choice of all candidates, not just the least objectionable of the two front runners. If I do less than that, regardless of who everyone else is voting for, then I have failed in my civic duty. If more people would vote their true choice rather than choosing the lesser of the top two evils then someone else just might have a chance. As long as the blinders are on and folks think they have to choose a candidate they don't really want or 'waste their vote' then the voters get what they deserve - a candidate that they don't really want in office, even if he might be ever so slightly better than 'the other guy'. That is the way I see it. Now, if I could just convince myself that there is a 'best choice' in the 2010 TN Governor's race.

The problem is that, in this case, I am having trouble deciding that either of the main 2 is any less ugly than the other. With Nedson, we know he doesn't really stand with us because he has at least been honest enough to more or less say so. With Bill 'Flip-Flop' Haslam, we know he has lied (or at least stretched the truth to breaking) in trying to convince us, mostly unsuccessfully, that he does. Considering the OP, the real kicker is that (supposedly) McWherter - who we 'know' does not stand for us - does not forbid his employees from having firearms in their vehicles on company property while Haslam - who would have us believe that he does stand for us - comes from a family whose company - a company of which he used to be President - does forbid same. Even worse is that I can't identify an independent candidate that is, overall, any more appealing than the Big 2. I will vote but it is easy to see why some folks figure, "Screw it, waste of time."

Probably the funniest deer sighting in our yard was a couple of years ago - a doe (momma deer) with two young 'uns who kept jumping, cavorting and chasing each other around. I haven't seen any deer in our yard in a couple of months, though. A few Sundays ago, I did see some of the local wild turkeys pecking around for food while a pair of squirrels, also apparently looking for food, scampered between and among them. The turkeys were ignoring the squirrels, the squirrels were ignoring the turkeys and I was chuckling at all of them.

We lived out in the outskirts of town, not really in a 'neighborhood', when I was young enough to trick or treat. We also had good, solid reasons why we didn't really get along with or trust most of our immediate neighbors any time of the year. My mom did let us go up the road to one neighbor's house to trick or treat. There was an old couple who lived there and with whom we liked to visit (sometimes with our parents and sometimes just myself or my sister and I.) The lady would usually give us little bags of popcorn she had popped and we never worried about eating that. There was a neighborhood where we would go to trick or treat every year but mom had to drive us there so she would walk around with us. She did usually send us up to the doors while she waited on the sidewalk, though. My mom feared the 'razor blade in the apple' and 'the needle in the piece of candy.' She (sometimes with dad's 'help') always checked our candy before we were allowed to eat any of it. Of course, that might have just been an excuse to grab one or two of her favorites out and eat them too, "Make sure they are okay." Keep in mind, though, that this was in the mid-'70s to the early 80's. It was before we all became so aware of the existence of urban legends. Combine that with the facts that such legends sometimes become 'legitimized' enough to be reported in the news as 'fact' (which may have been more common in the '70s) and that there was no Internet - much less a Snopes.com - to help research/debunk such 'incidents' and such vague fears begin to sound more rational. This was also around the time that some people really did die from Tylenol that someone had poisoned and managed to get on a store shelf. That sort of random poisoning had to add weight to a parent's fears. It was during the time that John Waye Gacy was caught and charged with murdering more than thirty teenage boys and burying some of their bodies in his crawlspace. Add in that the teachers and principals were at that time warning students and parents that there were people attempting to expose kids to drugs by lacing those lick-and-rub-on "tattoos" (in our area, they were supposedly using images of Mickey Mouse) with PCP and it becomes easier to understand the fears. I don't have kids so I don't know how I would handle 'trick or treating' in the modern era. I do have to say, though, that I find it kind of ironic that folks on a firearms board - most of whom carry a firearm because, however unlikely, bad things can happen anytime, anywhere, and when you least expect them - would criticize people for worrying that, however unlikely, bad things might happen to their kids anytime, anywhere and when they are least expected.

Personally, for the last few elections I have tried not voting for the lesser of two evils and have, instead, voted for the candidate I would most like to see in office. That doesn't always mean voting for the candidate - or one of the two candidates - most likely to win. That just means voting for the candidate I think is the best choice. The idea that people shouldn't vote for a candidate because he or she 'can't' win - even if he or she is the best candidate - becomes nothing more than a self-fulfilling prophecy perpetuated by the interests of the Dempublican and Repocrat parties. In my case, though, I don't extend that to the idea of writing in myself or some other 'non-candidate' because I at least want to vote for someone who is actively running. My problem here is that none of the independents stand out (to me) - taking their platforms as a whole - as being any better than the Big 2. Unable to find another candidate better than these two, I have just about come around to that line of thinking, myself. How sad is it that we are down to choosing not the candidate who we think will best support our rights but, instead, the candidate who is least likely to attack them?

Not according to his answers to the Project Vote Smart questionairre: Project Vote Smart - Bayron E. Binkley, Jr. - Issue Positions (Political Courage Test) He apparently answered, "No," to a question specifically asking about support for carry where alcohol is served. He also answered, "Yes," to the question, "Do you support restrictions on the purchase and possession of guns?" Of course, that could simply mean that he doesn't think that felons should be able to legally purchase them and I would not object to that. My problem is that he didn't explain his stance on such 'restrictions' in more detail in the place provided (as he did with some other issues.) I also disagree with his stated stance on other issues. For instance, he answered, "Yes," to the following question, "Do you support enacting environmental regulations aimed at reducing the effects of climate change?" I am all for protecting the environment and would support sensible laws that help do that. However, the whole idea that people are the cause of "climate change" when such has been a cyclic part of the planet's climate for eons, is asinine and I would prefer not voting for a candidate who would support more useless government regulations aimed supposedly at controlling something we can't control (and which would probably really only have the result of increased prices.) There are other issues where I disagree with him, but those are just a couple of examples. Part of the problem, though, is that neither McWherter nor Haslam responded to the questionairre so I can't directly compare their answers to the answers of those candidates who did respond. For the record, not all of the independents ocurred, either.

I once saw an SUV (can't remember what kind - maybe a Dodge Durango?) flip on it's side at about 5 mph. It was several years ago and my buddies and I were on Ray Mears (Blvd?) going to a movie at the old Downtown West (AMC) theater in Knoxville. We were about to turn right into the theater parking lot when we saw the SUV, coming from the other direction, run the driver's side tires up onto the concrete 'curb' that surrounded the median (this 'curb was only like an inch or so high, maybe a little more or maybe a little less - I've seen speedbumps that are higher.) There were several people in the SUV and I guess the weight just wasn't distributed very well because the SUV started tipping toward the passenger side, really slowly. It was weird how slowly it tipped - as in I'm guessing it took three seconds or so for it to tip fully over onto the passenger side doors. As in the pics above, it didn't even look like there was very much damage. That was one of the strangest (traffic related) things I have ever witnessed.

I don't want to vote for Haslam or McWherter, either. Problem is, I can't seen to find anything better among the other (independent) candidates. I plan to early vote today so I have been doing a little research into the positions held by the independents who are running. My problem is that there aren't many who seem to fully support firearms and carry rights. Even the ones who mostly support us, except for one or two, are opposed to legal carry where alchohol is served. Not having to stash my gun to legally eat a meal where someone else might happen to be having a beer is a right that was too hard fought for me to vote for someone who openly opposes that right. Another problem is that many of the independent candidates come across as either loose cannons or just plain, old, bat-sh*t crazy. The ones who don't - and with whom I agree on gun rights - I disagree with on other, important issues. At first blush, I thought that Carl "TwoFeathers" Whitaker might be a good alternative but the more I tried to research his stance on issues, the more I found vague 'sound-byte' type statements and no specifics. Plus something about him started to 'feel' a bit shady, although I can't identify exactly why. Thing is, I guess that Haslam (like Bredesen) will at least try to 'keep his nose clean' with regards to firearms rights for his first term because he will want to be re-elected. As bad as I hate to say it, he just might get my vote by default. I know I could just write in my dog or something but I want to at least vote for an actual candidate. Besides, I like my dog too much to do want to see her in political office.

I don't see what advantage it offers over a 'belly band' that would have a lower profile. I wonder how well the fairly thin 'belt' would hold the rig in place for all day use without having to be uncomfortably tight. I did get a chuckle out of watching Mr. Hardhat present from the holster. He does some kind of weird maneuver with his hips/legs that looks like a Disco dance step - for a minute, I wasn't sure if that was a holster ad or an old Village People performance. That is a problem I share. In fact, my 'belly band' gets worn low so that the pistol grip rides just above my waist band. I only wear it to carry my P3AT around the house when I am wearing shorts with an elastic waistband.

Great story and congratulations! How far was the shot? I have heard coyotes howling/calling in the woods both at my mom's and at our house. We've seen one cross the road in front of us less than 100 yards from our driveway. I haven't really hunted them, yet, but I picked up a little Marlin 925M with a Simmons ".22 Mag" scope for that purpose with part of last year's tax return and would like to try my hand this fall/winter. I've read that a .22 WMR with the right ammo should be able to take a coyote out to 100 or maybe even 150 yards. In the last year or so, at different times, we have seen at least two or three of them dead on Interstate 75 between Loudon and Lenoir City where they had obviously been struck and killed. Last winter, while on my way to work one morning, I saw one trotting across a frozen pond (on a small farm that has cattle) within easy sight of the Interstate (where I was driving.) My wife and I saw one walking along in the grass beside Parkside drive in Knoxville which is a pretty busy road. It's kind of funny that they seem to be so plentiful as to see them in such settings yet I never even catch a glimpse of one while in the woods where you'd expect to see them.

I have a single-action Heritage convertible .22 revolver with a 6.5 inch barrel that I use for when I am just bumming around the yard in case I come across a varmint that needs killing. I went with that barrel length because supposedly a handgun with a barrel of 6 inches or more in length gives ballistics with WMR rounds that are comparable to LR ballistics from a rifle. It carries fairly well in a western-style holster I made for it but I wouldn't want to try to carry something with a barrel that long for SD. I think it wouldn't be very comfortable and, from anything other than a western-style or duty-style holster, would probably be a bit unwieldy to bring to bear. I think a four-inch barrel is about as long as I would want to go for a revolver to carry for SD in a public setting, with a two or three inch barrel being preferable for me in most situations. For hunting or in the woods - maybe even in a shoulder holster (although I am not crazy about shoulder holsters) it could be a different story.

I have an older, six-shot Taurus 66 (more of a medium frame) with a four inch barrel that I bought earlier this year for hunting backup and to carry when I am in Tellico trout fishing, etc. It looked so new when I got it that I thought it couldn't be more than a couple of years old but a serial number search at the Taurus website revealed that it was built in 1987. It must have spent much of its previous life in a drawer or safe. I have heard that some of the late 80's Taurus revolvers are better than what they are making, now, but I can't speak to that one way or another. I haven't shot it a whole lot but I have put a few Buffalo Bore 180 grain hard cast, flat-nosed lead rounds through it just to see how it handled them. It did just fine, as far as I could tell. I have also fired some PMC 158 grain soft points, some Remington 125 grain SJHPs and some WWB 110 grain JHPs (which also look more like SJHPs, to me) through it, all in full .357 Magnum. Other than a slight change in POI for some weights, it seems to like them all just fine. It did have one, minor problem when I first got it. Unfired rounds would eject with no problem. In fact, unfired rounds would fall out on their own under their own weight when I turned it butt-down with the cylinder open but there was often a good bit of difficulty ejecting spent casings. Paying close attention, I realized that one chamber was the problem. At first I thought the chamber was too tight but upon closer observation I saw that the spent casings from that chamber had a hairline scratch running lengthwise along them. I ended up finding a tiny burr at the mouth of the chamber - smaller than a grain of sand and so small that I had overlooked it several times. Assuming that burr had been there since the gun left the factory - and I have no reason to believe it hadn't - I guess that and the resulting difficulty in extracting casings might explain why it seems to have not been fired very much. Funny thing, the burr was so small that I was able to polish it out with fine sandpaper without even hurting the finish. The empties now eject easily.

I have a Kel Tec P3AT. I bought it as a first-gen (before there was a second-gen) several years ago to use for carry then didn't get my HCP for a couple of years after that. When I started shooting it more, I realized it had a lot of problems. Tried to fix them, myself, but kept running into more. Finally sent it back to Kel Tec earlier this year (or maybe late last year) and they built me a brand new second-gen pistol on my first-gen frame, free of charge. Since it came back, it has had zero issues. I am not crazy about pocket carry of a primary unless it is the only choice so in t-shirt and shorts weather, when my larger carry weapons would not hide very well - I often carry it in a Fobus at about 3 - 3:30. It disappears under just an untucked t-shirt and I don't have to wear an undershirt to keep it away from my skin. I also have a leather pocket holster I made for those occasions when pocket carry is the best option. I made the pocket holster in such a way that I can carry a spare mag in it, too. Yeah, I know carrying the spare mag on the same side as the pistol is not ideal but it is a compromise. Unless my strong-side pocket is occupied by the P3AT, I generally carry my NAA mini with a 1 5/8 inch barrel, chambered for .22WMR, in my weak-side pocket in a cheap, nylon pocket holster regardless of what I am carrying as primary. It disappears completely and I could sometimes literally forget it is there, even with the oversized grips I recently put on it (those grips make all the difference in shooting it, to me.) I wouldn't want to carry it as a one and only or a primary very much (although it is sometimes the only one I have on me when I am sitting around at home) but I like it for a weak-side BUG with minimal recoil that doesn't take up much space.

The problem I have with that is that I don't believe it to be a valid analogy. Instead, I believe a better analogy would be that you are faced with a choice of dying from cancer in your right lung or dying from cancer in your left lung. It is still cancer and, either way, you will be just as dead - regardless of whether you are a smoker or not. The choice isn't really a choice, at all.

That was a good one. Reminds me of an oldie but a goodie: An old fellah' noticed that his grandson, who was staying with him and his wife for the week, was being awfully quiet while playing in the front yard. When he went to check on the boy, he noticed that his grandson was dipping earthworms into his sandpail then pulling them out, stiff as a board, and driving them into the ground like nails. The old man said, "What are you dipping those worms in? Crazy glue? That's cruel and you shouldn't do that." "No, grandpa," answered the boy, "this is something I mixed up with my chemistry set. The effects wear off after about an hour and the worms are fine. Come back in an hour and you'll see." Well, sure enough, after an hour's time the worms were fine and crawled away. This got the old fellah thinking and he said to his grandson, "Say, you've been wanting a new bicycle, right?" "Yeah, grandpa, more than anything," answered the boy. "Well, tell you what," the grandpa said, "you mix me up a batch of that stuff for my very own and I'll buy you any bicycle you want." The boy did as he was asked and the grandpa, true to his word, bought the boy a nice, ten-speed bicycle. The boy had the time of his life riding it around the yard - and, that night, his grandparents had a pretty good time, themselves. The next day, the old man had to be away from home for most of the day running errands. When he came home, he saw that the bicycle he had bought for his grandson was leaning against the front porch steps and his grandson was riding up and down the road on a brand new motor scooter. Perplexed, he called out, "Hey, where'd you get that scooter?" The boy, shrugging as young boys sometimes do, replied, "Grandma bought it for me."