JAB

Voting for the least bad of two piss-poor candidates is still voting for a piss-poor candidate. Maybe some folks just don't want to further 'legitimize' a piss-poor candidate's win by voting for him. Maybe some folks want to vote for the person they really think would do the best job. Maybe some folks don't want to accept the defeatist idea that we have to vote for one piss-poor candidate or the other piss-poor candidate because no one else could possibly win. Hell, maybe if more folks decided to vote their conscience rather than accepting that a piss-poor Demuplican candidate or a piss-poor Repocrat candidate constitute the only real choices then maybe, just maybe, voting for a candidate outside those two parties would not be so 'futile' after all. Unless, of course, you accept that our votes mean nothing, anyway, and we only vote to make ourselves feel like we have a say when, in reality, the fix is in and the winner of the race is, by and large, a foregone conclusion. If that is the case, why bother to vote, at all? Either a vote - every, single one of them whether cast for a major party candidate or not - means something or none of them mean anything. I don't want McWherter to be governor. Neither do I want Haslam to be governor. The choice is sort of like asking me if I want you to kick me in the 'nads with the steel toed boot on your right foot or the steel toed boot on your left foot. It is a false choice and my 'nads won't know much difference. Forgive me if I would try for a third option even if there weren't much chance of getting it. Much as was the case with the last Presidential election, I think that each has the potential to be just as bad in some areas as the other would be in other areas and both might be equally bad in yet other areas. In other words, I am not convinced that either of them is the better candidate - Haslam just puts up a slightly better facade. Why should I vote for a candidate - any candidate - that I really don't want in the office?

Hmmm...maybe transubstantiation is the word I was looking for. At any rate, I find the idea of eating human flesh and drinking human blood as part of a religious rite to be a lot more disturbing than a carved pumpkin (or a carved turnip, as the case may have been, originally.) I'm not sure all Catholics really believe in the literal transformation, though. I was raised Southern Baptist (although I guess the closest thing that I could identify with, now, would be 'Deist') and, at least once I was old enough to look at such things rationally, thought of baptism as more a symbolic ritual than an event in which one's sins are, literally, washed away. Then, again, I have known more than one practicing Jew who really enjoyed a good pork chop or a bit of ham...

I would want to be careful about wiping them too much. When a hen lays an egg, her body puts a natural coating on the egg which helps to preserve it. Washing the egg or wiping it too 'well' can remove that natural coating. I don't know but wonder if coating a fresh egg with petroleum jelly without wiping it clean might help it 'keep' even longer than with just the natural coating, alone. Here is a link to an article about an experiment with preserving fresh eggs that Mother Earth News did back in the late 1970s. Notice that coating with vaseline is one of the methods they tried: How To Store Fresh Eggs FWIW, while I haven't tried leaving them sitting out, I have eaten refrigerated eggs from my chickens that were a few months old (and they still tasted better/fresher than store bought.) I only have six laying hens and they (like most birds) tend to stop or greatly slow down their egg laying during the late Fall and Winter months. Last year, I found that by 'stockpiling' a few dozen toward the end of their full-on laying season, we could pretty well have enough eggs to last until they started laying full-swing, again. In fact, we only had to get a couple dozen 'store-bought' toward the end of the cold weather because we had eaten all the eggs from my hens, not because they had gone bad. Don't forget, too, that you can pickle eggs. Some people like them, some don't (I usually do) but, speaking from personal experience of some that I pickled then canned in pint jars, they will keep for a really long time.

What I am saying is that, in my (also layman's) opinion, the Founders would have no more thought of Constitutionally protecting the right of a law-abiding citizen to be armed for personal defense than they would have thought of Constitutionally protecting the right of that same citizen to breathe, to see or to hear. I believe that is the same reason they didn't Constitutionally protect the right to hunt or fish for food (or raise crops or keep livestock, etc.) - because such things are natural rights which they probably never envisioned a government infringing upon. In other words, I believe that hunting and fishing licenses, while they might serve a legitimate purpose, violate a person's natural right to take advantage of natural food resources. Restrictions on law-abiding citizens carrying personal weapons (any personal weapon - be it a handgun, cudgel, brass knuckles, Bowie knife, dagger, switchblade or whatever) is also a violation of natural rights. As I said, before, I believe that natural rights are superior even to Constitutional rights. They are human rights, if you will, and are more important and much more fundamental than governments, countries or laws. However, I am not convinced that any of these are directly addressed by the Constitution or the Second Amendment - not because the Founders considered them unimportant but because the Founders considered them to be both common sense and unalienable. In other words, they fall under "Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" - the sovereign rights of man as mentioned in the Declaration of Independence. These are things that no government has the right to grant nor deny and that no Constitution can defend or reject. My fear is that, by allowing the Second Amendment to be blurred into a protection for such a right, we cease to recognize it as a sovereign, inalienable right and begin to see it as a 'legal' right - something that can be taken away if the Constitution were changed and something, therefore, that can be regulated or even denied by human law. To me, it is akin to regulating the right of a law-abiding citizen - even in the positive by 'guaranteeing' it - to have a pulse. Further, I fear that as people begin to see the right to self defense as a legal right (which can, theoretically, be taken away by a change to the Constitution) they will forget the real intent of the 2A - that we have Constitutional protection to have the means for recourse, as a last resort, to resist any of our rights - whether natural or legal - being taken away. To me, by making the 2A about self defense, we both lessen the import of a sovereign right and take the teeth out of the real purpose of the 2A. Will that stop me from referring to the 2A to help support an argument for handgun carry? No, because I am pragmatic enough to realize that the America of our Founders, as well as their noble political philosophies (with which I mostly agree) are long gone and we have to hold on to whatever rights we have left by any means necessary - even if it means blurring what the 2A really means. I am also pragmatic enough to realize that it is much more likely that I will need my handgun to defend myself and my family than that I will ever take up arms against the government. Do my actions vs. my real beliefs about self defense, sovereign rights and the Second Amendment result in a bit of hypocrisy? Well, I had might as well admit it - yes.

I call BS. The group wasn't 'taken over' by the mayors of large cities. Instead, the group was founded by New York mayor Michael Bloomberg and Boston mayor Menino. Chicago mayor Daley is the CEO. I don't know much about Menino but Daley and Bloomberg are the poster children for anti-2A beliefs. These antis did not hi-jack this group, they FOUNDED it. It is their group. It has always been their group and, as such, would have always been an anti group. How could anyone involved in politics and with an ounce of grey matter in their skull ever think otherwise? If Haslam is trying to spin things to sound like it was a legitimate group that was later taken over by these antis, he is lying, plain and simple. As to joining the group, as I said, before, either A. Haslam really didn't know what they were/are about and joined, anyway, because it sounded good. In that case he is an idiot. or B. He knew what they are/were about, is lying about it and is in truth just as anti-gun as the group he joined and whose agenda he signed on to.

Not necessarily. A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed. Notice that it does not say, "Personal arms, being necessary to self defense, the right of the people to carry a handgun shall not be infringed." By reading works such as Madison's Federalist #46, we realize that the 2A was intended to protect the right and ability of the citizenry (no, not the National Guard, etc. but the armed citizenry as a whole - which is what 'militia' meant, to them) to be armed in case they needed to resist government tyranny. This was in response to opposition to the federal government having a standing army. The idea was that, as long as the right to keep and bear arms is protected, the whole of the people need not fear a standing army as the people would have the army outnumbered. As such, this had nothing to do with carrying a pistol for personal protection. Of course, I believe that the Founders probably never thought that such a natural right would need protecting. As common sense and the idea that we are, ultimately, responsible for our persons have gone out the window, something has to be done to legally protect our natural right (which, to me, is even greater than a Constitutional right.) Therefore, we turn to the 2A for help. Yes, I use the 2A argument, myself, sometimes - although I am still not convinced that it really applies to carrying handguns any more than the Founders intended it to mean we could all own muskets as some antis like to say. That people carried personal arms in the days of the Founders is undeniable. Jefferson advised his nephew (iirc) to always take his pistol with him on his walks. I don't think the Founders had a problem with carrying for self defense - they just probably never dreamed of an America where there would be any question about it. Therefore, we make the 2A more and more about personal protection and less about 'the security of a free state'. SCOTUS - as a branch of the federal government - is more than happy to more or less go along with this idea because it takes the focus off of the real intent of the 2A - that our right to own weapons that could be used to resist the government is not to be infringed. By that, I mean that the 2A probably more properly protects fully-automatic rifles, armor piercing ammo and other 'military' weapons much more than it protects my .357 Magnum. Of course, if they can slowly ban the former then it will be no problem for them to eventually take the latter. By allowing the focus to switch to 'personal defense' rather than the defense of liberty, SCOTUS can allow 'reasonable restrictions' such as the federal government restricting ownership or outright banning certain weapons - the very weapons we would most need to carry out the intent of the 2A.

You know what is really evil? Being so damned arrogant that you think you have a special right - given to you by God as His representative on Earth - to tell other people what to do, what to think, how to perceive things (in this case, a holiday) or how to live their lives. The whole 'devil worship' thing is such a bunch of malarkey. The people who started 'Satanism' didn't really worship Satan. For the most part, they didn't even believe in Satan. They were simply atheists who were sick and tired of Christians who behaved the way this Halls pastor is behaving and so called themselves 'Satanists' to piss people like him off and show their opposition to Christianity. Yeah, I imagine that there are some mentally ill people who are screwed up enough to actually worship the Devil but I don't believe that there is any such established 'religion'. It is funny to me, too, how our own traditions become so much a part of our lives that we don't even stop to consider how odd they are or how much they would appall us if we were on the outside looking in. For instance, there is an old belief in the Christian (largely some Catholic) faith called 'transmogrification'. According to this belief, the bread and wine used for the Sacrament are transformed into the flesh and blood of Christ and the participants are, quite literally, eating Christ's flesh and drinking Christ's blood. Holy cannibalism, Batman! To me, that is a whole lot more disturbing than a cardboard ghost stuck on someone's front door.

If he is hiding a firearm (or banjo or hedge clippers) behind his back, that gentleman is well-prepared for the zombie outbreak!

When I traded my P11 for a used P95PR a couple of weeks ago, I wanted to test out the Winchester PDX1 9mm 124 grain +P ammo that some of the local Walmart locations now sell. Mostly, I wanted to check for functionality (although I have another, older P95 that will pretty much eat anything and I was confident the new one would do the same.) I ended up trying it at my mom's (she lives in a rural area and we have some logs piled up for a backstop in a 'shooting area'.) Well, it was nearly dark by the time we stopped by her house but since I was mainly interested in functionality, I thought I'd go ahead, anyway. Besides, I thought, I like to shoot in low-light sometimes (being that would most likely be the conditions in which I'd have to use an SD firearm, anyway) and it would give me a chance to see the muzzle flash. The first target didn't go so well. Standing about ten yards away, there was enough light that I could see the white of the paper and the black circle of the target but that's about it. As far as the sights, I could make out the basic shape of the front and rear sights and just tried to align them as well as I could. As you might expect from 'premium' SD ammo, the muzzle flash was not all that bright. It was a dull orange and not that much of a fireball - to my recollection, it didn't illuminate much of anything but at least it didn't ruin my night vision. I nearly always carry a mini-mag light that I have put the 3 led and tail switch conversion on and I had it with me that evening but didn't use it for shooting (although I have used it for low-light target practice, before.) This was pretty much the first time I had fired this particular P95 (although I have had my other one for years) other than trying it out at the LGS range before buying it. This is the first target. I suspect the three-shot group in the center were the first three shots I fired. It was so dark that I couldn't see the holes in the target. thought I was missing the target so after those first three I started 'adjusting' and ended up all over the place and even missed a few shots, entirely. It wasn't until I went to retrieve the target that I realized I had gotten some pretty good hits. That was my last shoot and see target so I put up one I had printed off of another gun forum and tried, again - same distance, etc. This time, I trusted my 'instincts' that I was getting hits and didn't try adjusting my aim as much. Got more hits that way (the red circle indicates where two rounds went through almost the same hole. As for how dark it was by that point, here is a pic I took with my cellphone - using the mini-mag as a light source - of the exit holes in the board I had the target pinned to:

Of course, if it is somewhere that his wife wants to go and he refuses because they prohibit carry then she will possibly be really mad. My wife is not anti. In fact, she has her HCP and we have a Kel Tec .32 in layaway for her to have a small, light weapon that she will actually carry and can shoot quite well. She simply doesn't take the whole thing as seriously as I do. I recently said something about not caring if I never set foot in a particular restaurant, again, because they are posted. Her response was something along the lines of, "Thanks for making decisions for me, too." I told her that if she wants to go to that or another posted restaurant that badly, fine - I'd go - but she'd never, ever hear me suggest going there and that I'd just as soon not even though I really like their food.

So, either A. he signed his name to join up with a group without even knowing what the group is, what they stand for or what they have done or B. he knew exactly what their agenda is and signed up, anyway. In the case of A, he is an idiot. It isn't like he couldn't 'Google' the group and find out exactly what they are all about in a minute or less. In the case of B, he is a liar and a (closet) anti-gunner. Neither of those possibilities is high on my list of attributes I want to see in the next governor. I personally don't see a guy who has been in the business world as long as he has just signing off on something without even knowing what it is so I think the answer is B. Either way, I believe he is as slimy and crooked as they come - he just puts up a good front. I further believe he will be a piss-poor governor. Unfortunately, of the two choices most likely to win, he is probably the least objectionable.

What is really silly is that we can be trusted (with an HCP) to carry a concealed firearm capable of a ranged attack at some distance. In fact, if we don't mind the extra weight/bulk, etc. we can carry around eight or ten such weapons - but we can't be trusted with a friggin' switchblade, brass knuckles or a knife with a blade longer than four inches. Like a lot of Tennessee's weapons laws, that doesn't make a whole lot of sense. I think this is because (like a lot of laws in a lot of places), TN's weapons laws are 'piece-meal'. Maybe a legislature with less trust in the average citizen passes a law forbidding us from having something as basic as a cudgel (which average citizens carried for years - probably centuries - to use for self defense before carrying a firearm was possible.) Then, a few years later, a legislature with a different make up that has more trust in the average citizen (or recognizes that they need our votes) makes it legal to carry a firearm with a valid permit. SO now you have people who can legally carry handguns - and have loaded long guns in their vehicles as long as there is not a round in the chamber - who could, potentially, be prosecuted for carrying what is, effectively, a stupid stick. What needs to happen is that the legislature needs to quit going after the 'high visibility' issues to get the vote from one side or the other and create a comprehensive suite of weapons laws that make sense, together. IMO, our carry permit should be like some states' 'Weapon Carry Permit' in that it would make it legal (or at least a 'defense' as the current HCP is) to carry other types of weapons such as collapsible batons, knives with blades longer than 4 inches, etc. after having completed a class for each weapon similar to the HCP class. IANAL but in my non-professional opinion, it probably has something to do with the idea of 'legitimate use'. Most people, when they think of automatic knives, probably think of 'stiletto' type switchblades. They would argue that a fixed blade knife can be used for hunting, cutting wire, opening a pack of lunch meat, etc. The same, they might argue, could be said for most folders. A switchblade, however (if one is locked into the image of a stiletto) is not heavy enough nor does it have a blade designed for such work (again, think stiletto) and, instead, is designed to do only one thing well - stab someone. Well, okay - maybe two things - stab someone or give someone a 'Sicilian Neck Tie'. As such, those who gained all they know about automatic knives from the movies would argue, they have no legitimate use and should, therefore, be illegal. Further, much like EBRs, they just look 'evil'. You can kill folks just as dead with a bolt action .308 as with an AK47 but the AK is a lot more likely to freak folks out because it 'looks scary' while the .308 is just a hunting rifle. The stupid part is that the law does seem to indicate a realization that the cops, firemen, paramedics, etc. have legitimate uses for them, presumably (at least in the cases of firemen and paramedics) as something other than a weapon. See, piece meal and poorly thought out. As far as 'assisted opening' knives go, I'd say they simply haven't been enough of an issue for the legislature to get around to making them illegal, yet. IOW, it is an example of technology being ahead of the law.

What is really silly is that we can be trusted (with an HCP) to carry a concealed firearm capable of a ranged attack at some distance. In fact, if we don't mind the extra weight/bulk, etc. we can carry around eight or ten such weapons - but we can't be trusted with a friggin' switchblade, brass knuckles or a knife with a blade longer than four inches. Like a lot of Tennessee's weapons laws, that doesn't make a whole lot of sense. I think this is because (like a lot of laws in a lot of places), TN's weapons laws are 'piece meal'. Maybe a legislature with less trust in the average citizen passes a law forbidding us from having something as basic as a cudgel (which average citizens carried for years - probably centuries - to use for self defense before carrying a firearm was possible.) Then, a few years later, a legislature with a different make up that has more trust in the average citizen (or recognizes that they need our votes) makes it legal to carry a firearm with a valid permit. So now you have people who can legally carry handguns - and have loaded long guns in their vehicles as long as there is not a round in the chamber - who could, potentially, be prosecuted for carrying what is, effectively, a short, thick stick. What needs to happen is that the legislature needs to quit going after the 'high visibility' issues to get the vote from one side or the other and create a comprehensive suite of weapons laws that make sense, together. IMO, our carry permit should be like some states' 'Weapon Carry Permit' in that it would make it legal (or at least a 'defense' as the current HCP is) to carry other types of weapons such as collapsible batons, knives with blades longer than 4 inches, etc. after having completed a class for each weapon similar to the HCP class. I can see such options as especially advantageous for those who may have personal objections to carrying a firearm but might be willing to carry a baton, etc. As good as a gun? No, but at least it would mean more private citizens armed with something.

Now THAT is what I call Southern Hospitality! As far as using 2 liter bottles as an option to store at least part of your water supply, that sounds like it would have several points in its favor: 1. You are 'recycling' the bottle - not paying for other containment options and using the bottle for another purpose 2. You will probably empty enough each month or so to be able to change out part of the on-hand supply pretty frequently and 3. (My personal favorite) When you pull the older bottles from the supply, they become instant 'reactive targets', providing you have somewhere you could shoot them.

I have read that Winchester's Dynapoint ammo is intended to be more like a slightly hotter WRF load using a full-length WMR casing than a true WMR load. It is a heavier bullet with a lower velocity that isn't designed to violently expand and is said to be good for taking small game without extensive meat destruction. The specs on Winchester's website show their WRF load having a muzzle velocity of 1300, the Dynapoint having a muzzle velocity of 1550 and their 'standard' load, the Super X (which is said to be pretty much the original load developed by Winchester when they created the Winchester Rimfire Magnum in the first place) is somewhere in the neighborhood of 1,900. Of course, that wouldn't have much to do with how hard the primer needs to be struck but I wonder if the Dynapoint ammo has the 'oomph' to consistently operate the slide on your AMT. FWIW, Kel Tec is recommending CCI Maxi-mags as the best, all around ammo in their new PMR-30 and KT also says that Winchester's Super X is a good load for it. That is, of course, for feeding, being able to function the slide, etc. I don't know where those would stack up for functioning with light strikes.

Now that at least some Walmart locations in this area have started stocking Winchester PDX1 ammo in some calibers, I'll probably not only be getting my range ammo there but my 9mm SD ammo, too. $18.xx per 20 rounds of PDX1 ain't what I would call cheap but it is better than I have seen it or any other premium SD ammo anywhere else. Strangely, the ammo is $1 more expensive ($19.xx) at the Athens, TN Walmart than at the Lenoir City location. I have also bought one box of .38+P PDX1 at a Walmart but haven't tried it out, yet. Folks on other forums have performed informal tests with the ammo in 9mm and, coupled with the accuracy and smooth functioning I got from it in my P95, I have no hesitation about carrying it in that chambering. That said, I never assume that a particular type of ammo performing well in one chambering means it will perform well in others. For those who are interested, I have also seen PDX1 in .40 and 12 gauge at the L.C. Walmart. I can't recall, for sure, but I think I may have also seen it in .410 and .45acp there. The 9mm loading is 124 grain, bonded +P.

The Lenoir City Walmart also has begun stocking TulAmmo. When I was in there last week, they had some Tula in 9mm, .40S&W and .45acp. They still had some .40 in Federal but no 9mm and I wondered if they were just selling out the remaining Federal .40. The Federal stuff had gone up to $10XX per box some time back, there, so the Tula stuff is about $1 or so cheaper per 50 but the 9mm is steel cased and Berdan primed. Since my P95PR manual specifically says that it can handle any ammo loaded to industry standards in brass, steel or aluminum casings I went ahead and bought a box to try.

So, where the heck are you guys finding 9X18 JHP ammo? I've hit several of the most recent gunshows and all the dealers say, "I'm out of them. I've got some on order." I've checked the local (and some not so local) gun shops and I either get, "I'm sold out but trying to get some more," or "We have the FMJs but don't stock JHPs." I have other firearms that I can carry but I just like my CZ vz.82 so darned much and it is just so darned easy to shoot accurately that I would like to add it to my carry options. I don't like the idea of carrying FMJ ammo, though. I'm not crazy about ordering stuff online - especially when S&H is as expensive as it is with ammo. I won't be buying in bulk so it really isn't worth it unless I just can't find any JHPs anywhere else. Since I have other handguns that carry well, my plan right now is just to wait it out until I can find some in person.

That 'somehow' is actually pretty straightforward, IMO. It happened when Lincoln, et al. decided to fight an unconstitutional war to make folks shut up about the idea of sovereign states once and for all. The states' rights advocates lost, the United States as our Founders envisioned it was destroyed and states were subjugated to the fedgov. Sometimes, in matters that the Fed probably doesn't consider too important, the SCOTUS will throw a bone to one state or another. However, the very fact that the final say is left to SCOTUS - a branch of the federal government whose members are appointed by the head of the federal government, the president - shows where the admirable ideologies of sovereign states and states rights (ideologies which I hold, however futile) meet the reality of a bloated, overblown, overly intricate federal government which has greedily hoarded and continues to hoard all the real power for itself and which will never give up any of its power voluntarily. Of course, let us also not forget that even when the SCOTUS has ruled against the fedgov, it often did no good. Wasn't Lincoln told that his suspension of habeus corpus was illegal? Did that stop him? Remember, even before the Civil War, our 'good ol' Tennessee boy' president Jackson said of a Supreme Court decision, "John Marshall has made his decision, now let him enforce it."

This. Also, the way I see it, you can shoot a DA revolver with a hammer in all the same ways that you can shoot a hammerless but you can't shoot a hammerless in all the ways you can shoot one that has a hammer. That said, the only revolver I pocket carry is my NAA mini which, being SA, has a hammer. In practicing drawing I haven't had any trouble with the hammer snagging. The only way I carry a larger revolver is OWB (or maybe in a shoulder holster) where snagging isn't so much of an issue. There is a third option which you didn't include in the poll - revolvers that have a shrouded hammer which can still be fired single action if you want. If I were looking for a revolver to pocket carry, that is probably the direction I would lean. That way I could have the snagless advantage of a hammerless while not giving up the ability to fire single action if I want.

My favorite may well be Return of the Living Dead. Not because it is very scary or a very well made movie (although I do like the movie) but largely because the scene where Linnea Quigley does a striptease in the graveyard still affects me the same, today, as it did the first time I saw the movie back in the '80s. Fright Night is the first feature film I remember owning. On VHS. When VHS was still cool. I liked the first Nightmare on Elm Street. I met Robert Englund in person at a Dragon Con in Atlanta back in the mid 1980s when he was probably still known as much for playing 'Willie' on the original 'V' series as for being Freddie. Funny thing, he seemed like a heck of a nice guy who didn't have the, "I just wish these people would leave me alone" attitude that some actors seem to have. Made it even more impressive, to me, that he could pull off being so 'evil' as Freddie. Somewhere, although I am not quite sure where, I think I still have an autographed picture of him as Freddie. A new favorite, although more of a comedy, is Zombieland. Probably one of my favorite movies, ever. Even my wife (who usually hates horror/zombie type movies) loved it. We saw it three times in the theater and have it on DVD. In the same vein, I also enjoyed Evil Dead 2, the third Evil Dead film (Army of Darkness) and Bubbahotep. The only horror movie that has 'messed' with me as an adult was The Ring. You know that some dead chick can't come crawling out of your television just because you answer the telephone but something about that movie makes you half expect it will happen for at least a couple of days after watching it. Personally, I am looking forward to "The Walking Dead" miniseries that begins Halloween night on AMC.

Jonathan. These pics were taken to show that, with my build, I can conceal a Ruger P95 with just an untucked shirt as a cover garment: For the obligatory drinking pic, here is one of me enjoying a beer in the oldest operating tavern in America - the White Horse Tavern in Newport, Rhode Island. I made the cane I am holding in that pic (oak shaft with a cherry handle) specifically because I wanted something 'solid' in case I needed it for self defense. I knew I wouldn't be able to take any 'weapons' and I wasn't sure if the cruise line would let me take the cane I made out of twisted dogwood with a brass hame for the handle.

Only ever ate there once and that was a few years back, before I even had my HCP. Haven't been back. It was overpriced for what we got and the steak would have been unimpressive at half the cost. I'm not sure I'd ever eat there, again, even if they put up a "HCP holders welcomed" sign and rolled out the red carpet. Seriously. Here is a page that has a text version of their menu at the bottom (don't know how old this is - prices may be higher, now): Alamo Steakhouse And Saloon Pigeon Forge TN FULL MENU (865) 908-9998 Notice that they call their side dishes 'sidearms'. Lame and ironic all at the same time. The steaks at Ye Olde Steakhouse (not in Gatlinburg but in South Knoxville, not too far away - if you are going to spend that much at a restaurant, what's a little driving?) kick the hell out of Alamo's steaks IMO, prices are about the same (although Ye Olde does have a couple of less expensive options such as the steak on a skewer) and Ye Olde isn't posted (or at least it wasn't when I was there a couple of months ago.)

Or, as I like to say, two sides of the same plug nickel. You aren't the only one. It does make things a bit 'anticlimactic' when you go into the voting booth knowing that there is a better chance of King Arthur returning to save England than of the candidate for whom you are planning to vote actually winning the election, though, doesn't it?

I'm not all that tough but my aim is pretty good. For a while, my dad drove a truck leased to a trucking company but owned by one of dad's buddies. I met the truck owner's son one day. He (the son) lived in Decatur, TN and had stopped by to see his dad after a Karate meet. He was apparently quite accomplished in Karate as he had a trophy with him he'd just won that was nearly as tall as he was. My dad's buddy said, "He can stand flat-footed, jump straight up and kick a man in the head. Tell 'em what that'll do for you in Decatur, son," and the son replied, "It'll give you time to yell, "Help," before somebody blows your ass off with a shotgun.