JAB

I only have one Colt - a Police Positive from near the end of the run, 1976 manufacture iirc based on the serial number. It was my first 'serious' handgun that some friends sold me at 'buddy price' because I lived in tha' hood at the time and my only handgun was a Titan .25acp. (I didn't ask them to sell it - they found out what my HD handgun was and offered it to me.) It has probably the smoothest trigger of almost any revolver I have ever fired. Smoother than most semiautos, too. In fact, the only trigger I have pulled that felt better was on a S&W 'Performance Center' model that my favorite LGS owner handed me one day (he had gotten it used on a trade) and said, "You have got to feel the trigger pull on this thing." That said, with my 642 I'm 'good' on snubnosed .38 Special revolvers. Still, it is kind of nice that Colt is tossing their hat back in the ring although I think they might have a bit of a reality check if the price mentioned in an earlier post is anywhere near the actual street price.

Or call it an 'SBR' - Smokes, Battle Ready with the tagline "The smoke to call once you've smoked 'em all." Gjohnsoniv, the 'baseball stitch' looks amazing. I'm going to have to look that technique up. I have always liked that look but wasn't sure of the actual name for the stitch.

Well, howdy! I'm not sure I know exactly where Paint Rock Ferry Road is but I believe I have seen it. Maybe somewhere around Tennessee Chapel? I certainly know where Paint Rock is. ETA: Just looked up directions from where I live to Paint Rock Ferry Road, using a random address, on Rand-McNally's driving directions. It looks like Paint Rock Ferry Road isn't actually in Paint Rock or anywhere near Tennessee Chapel Road where I thought it would be. In fact, according to the directions Paint Rock Ferry road is about 22 miles from me. I am not sure but wouldn't be surprised if you have some decent options for high speed internet over there. I live so close to the Loudon/Roane county line that I actually have a Loudon address and zip code. Land lines there, however, use the 376 prefix which is Kingston. Loudon Utilities stops a mile or so from me but when folks originally moved out there they had to get the Volunteer Energy Cooperative - the closest 'base' of which is in Decatur - to run power lines because Loudon Utilities wouln't come that one more mile, give or take, to the top of the bluff. Because the lines have to run from so away far the power used to go off and stay off every time a squirrel farted on the lines but things have gotten better over the years - now the squirrel actually has to take a whizz on the line before it goes out. Squirrel farts just cause power surges these days.

To quote Monty Python, "You lucky b..." well, you probably know the rest . I say that because I am in a similar situation as you - I only live about fifteen minutes or so outside of the town of Loudon (although I am actually in Roane County, right at the line) and about half that from the Loudon Interstate exit but you would think I lived in the most remote mountains of Montana or something. I say you are 'lucky', though, because I can't even get DSL! We had Hughesnet where I used to work. Sucked - and their rates are very expensive based on the fliers that occasionally get left in my mailbox. As you say, satellite is too expensive, as well and the 'pay per gig' rates are ridiculous. That means the only Internet I have at home is on my phone and tablet (through Verizon) and I only have 15 gigs to play with, there. I went with a fairly high data package because I don't have Internet at home and it was cheaper to add data to that package than to try to get a 'home' connection with only 5 gigs or so. I don't really have any desire for cable/satellite television but if I could get high speed Internet with plenty of data I'd join Netflix or a similar service so I could stream shows and movies. I would also be able to significantly cut my cellphone bill as I would greatly reduce my data package if I had reliable home Internet. As it is, just using my tablet to catch up on a couple of episodes I might miss of regular, network television shows (typically free from the network sites) will burn through a major portion of my monthly data allotment.

I have made it like beef bourguignon except substitution cubed up venison for the beef. That is really good but I can't resist playing around with recipes so I have 'evolved' it a little. The last time I made it I did it like this: First, the cooking method - I have dug a fire pit in my yard and set up a 'cross beam' pot and grill hanger (made out of saplings) as part of an outdoor, pseudo-pioneer kitchen. For this one, I hung a cast iron pot with a lid over the fire. It should work on the stove top or starting on the stove top and then transferring to the oven, as well. I started out by sauteing some thinly sliced onion (about one, whole medium to large onion depending on how well you like onion) and about three cloves of garlic, finely minced, in vegetable oil. I then added the cubed up venison - just cut it into about the same size as you would for stew, not too small - and browned it. Then I added a can of tomato paste. A lot of folks may not realize that continuing to saute in order to allow the tomato paste to caramelize (it will darken in color) a little really adds flavor and helps the flavors blend so you don't get that 'raw tomato' taste standing apart from everything else (that applies to soups, stews or anything you might use tomato paste in) and really helps to give what Emeril Lagasse calls 'structure' to the whole thing. Now for the best part. Instead of burgundy wine or something similar at this point I added a couple of beers. Ales, lagers or pilsners probably work best although adding a stout would make it a little more like Irish stew, I suppose. If you have a couple of beers that have been around a while and/or that might have gone a little flat - say, maybe you had your growler filled a week and a half ago and haven't drank all of it - this is a good way to use them. Now just let it simmer, stirring occasionally, until the meat is fall-apart tender.

As I pointed out in the post, above, even very early on - when people who might even have known the Founders were still very much alive and active - the courts ruled that the right of the People to bear arms applies to such bearing of arms as is necessary for the common defense, just like the document says. Further, TN courts ruled that 'bearing' arms is not a personal, individual right but is, instead, a political right of the People as a whole - i.e. the People or the citizenry as a whole when acting in the common defense of the People as a whole not individuals acting in personal defense. This means that, while the antis' argument that the right is somehow tied to being in the National Guard, etc. is obviously complete B.S. as it is a right of the People (as a whole, not individually) the argument that there is somehow a right to carry for individual, personal protection also does not hold up to scrutiny. Now, I'm not saying I like it - I don't - but it is there in black and white from courts of the time. Further, as exemplified above, those courts found that owning weapons - especially military style arms - is a personal, individual right that cannot be regulated by the government. So, in short - as much as I don't like it - even the precedents from the time when state and federal constitutions were being written state that there is no constitutionally protected right to edc a firearm for personal protection, presumably from the government or anyone else and that state regulations on the carry or 'wearing' of arms do not violate the Constitution. However, those same courts set a precedent that there is a constitutionally protected right to own, say, a fully automatic rifle without any government interference. This means that the state government and (based on the writings of Madison who actually wrote most of the Bill of Rights) the federal government have no right to restrict, limit or ban the ownership of any type of personal arm and that applies especially to 'military style arms' - the very types of arms that the antis specifically say they want to ban, the very type of arms that the antis argue no one 'needs' and the very types of arms which often currently require an unconstitutional tax stamp before one can 'legally' own them. The reason I think we as gun rights advocates should vehemently point out those rulings and precedents, even though it would mean admitting that there really isn't any such thing as Constitutional carry when it comes to personal defense, is that they do not allow the government to restrict ownership of the very types of arms we would need if we ever did have to act upon the real reason 'the right to bear arms' is protected in order to curtail a tyrannical government. By allowing the Second Amendment to be changed by the courts into something that simply applies to carrying a handgun for personal protection or owning a shotgun for home defense we are also allowing, as an unintended consequence, Constitutional protection for the ownership of military style arms to be swept under the rug. I'd rather have a system where states can regulate the carrying of arms for personal protection and, in Tennessee, I can get an HCP to carry - even if I have to pay for it - and the government cannot regulate the ownership of personal arms, period than a system where the Second Amendment means I can carry my J-frame but the government can tell us what firearms we can or can't own. I am certainly not a lawyer but I can read pretty well and the way the law is written and was ruled upon during or near the time it was written it appears that it really is either one or the other.

Man, I really have to get to that place. As for 'where Indian people eat Indian food' the most Indian people I have ever seen in a restaurant at one time was at The Curry Pot - a semi-dive/hole in the wall in a small strip mall on Lee Highway in Chattanooga, close to where you turn off of Lee to go toward Hamilton Place (I believe that is Shallowford Road.) I think we were the only Anglos in the place - and most of the folks there were having the buffet! The best thing is that they have Northern and Southern Indian dishes. The owners must be from Northern India, though, because that is the only restaurant I have ever been in that served beef Indian dishes (yeah, they exist just apparently mostly in Northern India where Christianity and Islam are more prevalent than in Southern India.) My (now ex) wife ordered one of those beef dishes and it wasn't like anything else I have ever had before or since - even at other Indian restaurants. There is an Indian-Pakistani grocery in the same strip mall (or maybe it was an Indian grocery and a Pakastani grocery - can't really remember.) It isn't really the kind of place that robtattoo is looking for but I want to go back and would recommend it to others (assuming it is still there and is still as good - this was a few years ago when we went.)

Oh, I don't know. If more so-called 'social justice warriors' would wear one (or two or six) this way - albeit maybe a little shorter pin(s) - the world might be a better place.

Excellent idea! Believe it or not I didn't even own a .22 firearm until I was in my 30s. I owned a .25acp, a .38 Special and a 9mm before I ever got a .22 handgun, which was my first .22 (my first .22 rifle came even later than that - and I owned centerfire rifles well before that.) That handgun was (is) a 22A with a 5.5 inch barrel. Since that was my first .22 and since S&W has discontinued them I will probably keep it. Would still like to know how it stacks up against a Victory, though, and since I don't really have the free cash to buy one right now it sounds like kieefer has the perfect solution.

A couple of years ago I came across information about an interesting case, waaaaayyy back in 1840, where a man had been charged with carrying a Bowie knife. He tried to avoid the charges by citing the clause in the TN state constitution which protected the 'bearing of arms'. His attempt failed because, the court stated, the right to bear arms refers only to such arms that would be necessary for the common defense, i.e. weapons of war/military. As, according to the finding, a Bowie knife is not a common weapon of war 'bearing' a Bowie knife is not a protected right. So, less that 60 years after the U.S. Constitution was written and 30 years before the current Tennessee State Constitution was written and ratified (this is the third TN constitution - in 1840 the second - which had just gone into effect five years before in 1835 would have been in effect) courts in Tennessee were already finding that only military type weapons or weapons normally used for the 'common defense' were protected. Of course, the state is under a different constitution now but from what I can tell the wording protecting the bearing of arms didn't change much except that it removed a phrase that seems to have been in the earlier version which secured the right only for 'free white citizens'. Further, and perhaps even more importantly, the court opined that the legislature has the right to regulate the 'manner in which these arms may be employed.' My point is that, although by 1840 all of the Founding Fathers were almost certainly deceased, the people involved in this case were likely alive during the latter part of the Founders' lives. Therefore, these folks likely shared many of the same sentiments and, possibly, understood the intend of the Second Amendment as well as state constitutional protections of the right to keep and bear arms in a manner much more closely aligned with the original intent than we may have, today. Here are a couple of links to information about the case: http://www.guncite.com/court/state/21tn154.html http://www.constitution.org/2ll/bardwell/aymette_v_state.txt and here is a link to the .pdf where I got the info about the different versions of the Tennessee Constitution: https://www.tn.gov/sos/bluebook/11-12/TS5_TNFoundingDocs.pdf Here are a couple of links to information about a different case from 1871 in which a court found that, under the TN Constitution, while the bearing of arms can be 'regulated' as a political right (pretty much in line with the finding in the above case) the ownership or 'keeping' of arms is a personal, individual right. This case would have taken place one year after the adoption of the current Tennessee Constitution: http://tennesseeencyclopedia.net/entry.php?rec=25 http://www.constitution.org/2ll/bardwell/andrews_v_state.txt Interesting stuff, I think.

I haven't been to Woodlands since it became Woodlands. If it still has the same decor as when it was Taj, however, then it is nice inside even though the building was a Steak Escape (fast food type cheese steak joint) in a previous life. I like Bombay Palace at Turkey Creek but it does pretty prominently feature a lunch buffet. No buffet at dinner, though, and their off menu stuff is really good. I don't know if it is quite as 'fancy' as you are looking for, though. To be truthful, I can't think of an Indian restaurant in Knoxville that DOESN'T have a lunch buffet. I am an avowed carnivore but if forced at gunpoint to convert to vegetarianism I'd have to eat a LOT of Indian food. In fact, even as it is I actually like some of their vegetarian dishes.

As much as I hate to say it and as much as we (and that 'we' certainly includes me) may not like it if we give an honest reading of the 2nd Amendment we have to admit it has nothing to do with carrying (or even owning) handguns for self defense. Whenever the Supreme Court or any other government entity 'finds' that it does it is only because they don't want to admit that the real reason for the 2nd Amendment is to protect us from them - the government - and to guarantee our rights to be able to bear arms in order to do so, if necessary. If they admit that, however, then they would have to admit that fully automatic and other 'military style' arms are what the Amendment should be protecting and that federal regulation of such arms is unconstitutional.

I have said , before - exactly as Cruel Hand Luke said - a federal government that says all states must allow carry can also say that no states can allow carry. Further, as I read the description of the bill, it would only compel those states that allow carry to observe other states' permits. Well, with the reciprocity agreements that many states already have this bill wouldn't do much beyond having the feds stick their finger in the pie with little to no benefit to us. Even if this did allow us to carry in, say, New York - because they technically have handgun carry - I wouldn't because their laws would be more than I'd want to deal with. That is if I ever go back to New York which is something I hope not to do.

I have said in this thread that I don't have a problem with some sort of vetting for people who want to carry in public such as our HCP system although I don't think it should cost roughly $200 or more for the initial fees (including cost if the class) nor should there be recurring fees. The other side of 'being vetted' however should be that once you are vetted as being reasonably responsible then that should mean being considered responsible enough to carry anywhere not just responsible enough to carry in Walmart - as long as they don't post. If I am 'safe' enough to carry while while walking down the sidewalk in Loudon or 'safe' enough to carry at Kroger, to carry near the play area at McDonald's or in a park around other people then I am 'safe' enough to carry at the courthouse or the state capitol building.

Heck, I think that doing away with the weight of law for signs that only really impact the people who are responsible enough to get a permit to legally carry plus legally recognizing individual property rights in that the confines of a person's vehicle are that person's private property just like the confines of their home (no matter on what slab of concrete the vehicle happens to be parked at the time) would be bigger 'wins' for handgun carry than so-called Constitutional carry, anyhow.

This is awful and ridiculous. I won't be surprised if the two guys had never laid eyes on each other, before. It sounds to me more like Nasca (the shooter) wanted to die for some reason, anyhow, and simply seized the opportunity to take someone else with him. Strange was probably just the unlucky person who happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time to light Nasca's overly short fuse. On another note, this incident took place at a Weigel's but surprisingly not at THE Weigel's. Anyone who has ever lived in East Knoxville will know which Weigel's I am talking about - heck, I think most cops in Knoxville call that location - the one around the Summit Hill/Fort Hill area - THE Weigel's because so much crap goes down there or at least used to.

I fear I have been unclear in expressing my thoughts. While this thread has gone a bit far afield from the original post and while I, myself, must accept some of the responsibility for that I do need to state that the thoughts I have expressed have, in the main, pertained to the original thread topic of carry of a firearm in public. Although I know it places me in the minority here I see the carry of a firearm as an separate - although somewhat associated - issue from firearm ownership. Further, I recognize the somewhat inconvenient fact (not based on my opinion but on the writings of Madison - the guy who was mostly responsible for writing the Bill of Rights) that the Second Amendment specifically enumerates the right of the People to keep and bear arms against the possibility of government tyranny. In my view, it has nothing to do with hunting or with carrying my J-frame to stop some thug from carjacking me and so, therefore, does not enumerate a specifically protected right to carry a handgun on a daily basis. Now, that does not mean that I do not believe that we have those rights as natural rights. To be truthful, I believe that hunting laws are some of the most unnecessarily onerous and abused laws in our country but we aren't discussing hunting, here. As I said, I do believe that those are natural rights. I simply believe those rights are not specifically enumerated in the Constitution of the United States. I further recognize that one reason those things were not enumerated is probably because, at the time, a person's right to defend himself or to hunt a deer to feed his family was common sense and it likely never crossed anyone's mind that we would end up in a Bizarro world where an honest, sane and law abiding citizen would be seen as a criminal simply because he wants to be equipped to defend himself and his loved ones if necessary. On the flip side, I believe that the Second Amendment absolutely, positively prohibits the Federal government from enacting any laws related to the ownership of personal arms, whatsoever, and in fact, because of the original intent of the Amendment, protects things like fully automatic rifles and so on even above all others. In other words, there should be absolutely, positively no federal laws pertaining to firearms, ammo types, magazine capacities, suppressors or 'shoulder things that go up'. For that matter, if a sane and law abiding citizen wants to own a case of grenades, a shoulder fired rocket launcher, a howitzer or a fully operational tank there should be no federal law against it. So I am saying there should be absolutely zero federal regulation of personal arms. Period. Ever. It should be 100% left to the states. Now, as to ownership of firearms, again, I believe that there should be no state laws in any state that prohibit an otherwise law abiding, sane and honest individual from owning whatever firearm or firearms he or she wants in whatever quantities he or she wants and can afford. I do think that there should be some limits in place - at the state level - to prevent mentally disturbed or deficient individuals from legally obtaining firearms. However, a single doctor - whether a doctor of gastrology or of psychiatry - should not have the legal ability to make that determination. Similarly, no social worker should have that legal ability. Instead, before any action can take place to even begin to terminate an individual's firearm rights there should be a requirement that the individual be adjudicated as not only mentally deficient or defective but deficient or defective enough and in such a manner to pose a real threat to others (notice I didn't necessarily say 'self') through a courtroom proceeding with a panel of randomly selected (not appointed or handpicked by the government), credentialed and practicing mental health professionals acting in the role of jury as well as a panel of at least three judges who must all agree, unanimously - and by 'all' I mean all of the judges and all of the mental health professionals - that suspension of ownership rights is warranted. Also, I do not believe that the person whose ownership rights are in question should be responsible for paying a lawyer to defend those rights. Yes, I am talking about using taxpayer monies but I think that would not only the right and fair way to handle it but hopefully it would make the state hesitate before bringing likely weak cases to court in the first place. Heck, if we can blow our tax monies on 'winning hearts and minds' in piss ant, sandbox countries then I think that using monies to defend a citizen who stands to lose Constitutional rights is a more than legitimate use. Further, I believe that the need to pass a TICS check (or similar in other states) when purchasing a firearm from an FFL should be a once a year thing at most. Private sales and purchases should not require any reporting and should not be monitored in any way, whatsoever. So, as I see ownership and carry as two, separate issues and as I would like to see the requirements for ownership relaxed and Federal requirements abolished altogether I do think that there need to be at least some requirements and regulations and some kind of vetting process before one carries a firearm legally in public. However, I also believe that the current Tennessee HCP system and requirements are overly burdensome and should be lessened, especially for those who only plan to carry in TN and who will not be carrying in places like schools, etc. There should be no fee for the basic HCP class and the certificate one receives for passing the class should be the HCP with no further fees, etc. required. I further believe that the 'no guns', 'no weapons', or circle and slash signs should have no weight of law, whatsoever. Instead, as in many states, if a business owner asks me to leave for any reason then I need to comply or possibly face trespassing charges. Finally, in addition to the minimal requirements for general carry, I believe there should be an advanced carry permit. Such a permit would make it legal for the holder to carry in schools, courtrooms, any and all state and local government buildings and so on. The feds would probably still want to keep their buildings off limits but I don't necessarily agree with that.

Again, your entire argument is predicated on the acceptance that God exists. Your statement that it is 'true' whether I like it or not, again, simply exerts that it is true because you believe it to be so. Thing is, you just might be wrong - whether you believe it or not, whether you like it or not and whether I argue eloquently or not.

Again, there is a flaw in your argument as you are saying that society should be structured in such a manner that everyone is subject to God's law, God's commands and so on. However, some people may not even believe in God while others may believe in a different God with a different set of rules, commands and etc. So, if every individual has the right to decide for himself or herself then who are you to decide that everyone should be subject to the commands, etc. not only of a deity but specifically the deity in which you believe? Simply because you believe that said deity is the deity and, therefore, that those commands, etc. are valid does not make it so nor does it make your belief 'true'. Therefore, yes, when you are discussing a 'free' people who have the freedom to believe what they believe, even if it does not agree with the Christian belief, then 'God's' commands - and even the very existence or non-existence of God - are, very much, subjective. Further, your appeal to a 'standard' presupposes that said standard not only exists but exists in exactly the form and manner you have accepted. As such a standard may not, in fact, exist or may exist in an entirely different form from that in which you believe then basically what we have is you saying, "I believe this and because I believe it this is the real law as opposed to what all of you self-centered people believe should be the law simply based on what you believe." My right to believe that there is no, such thing as 'God's plan' or 'God's law' is every bit as valid as anyone's right to believe that there is. My right to that belief is every bit as valid as the right to self defense, for that matter - and no one has the right to demand that my life be governed by a plan in which I have no more belief than I hold in the gods of Olympus, Valhalla or so on. This is the entire reason that people should not be governed by religious ideologies. That is, therefore, why there must be a system of laws which are not grounded in religion - including whatever laws society agrees on for the carry of a firearm.

I don't necessarily disagree that anyone who can legally own a firearm should be allowed to carry it. As for the first statement in your above quote, unless I am reading f308gtb's multiple statements all wrong that is exactly what he is saying - that there should be no restrictions on anyone owning or carrying a firearm regardless of mental state, level of mental development or anything else until or unless that person does harm with the firearm. As to 'legally own a gun' remember that people who may not necessarily be 'legally' able to purchase a gun at a gun store can easily obtain a gun through a private sale, borrowing one, etc. As I do not advocate stricter tracking, etc. of private gun sales the only way I see to prevent someone who has severe mental illness, etc. or some, other 'disqualifying' factor from 'legally' carrying a gun would be by requiring some type of vetting in order to legally carry a firearm. I do not believe that the state should charge a fee for such vetting, however, and certainly do not believe that there should be a recurring fee in order to 'renew' anything. Of course there is no guarantee that the person would not carry without such vetting but at least in such cases they are carrying illegally. Also, this obviously would not stop someone from loading up a few rifles, etc. and walking into a mall and shooting up the place. Insofar as that goes, however, this is a point upon which I agree, at least after a fashion, with f308gtb - I would rather live in a country where I might get shot by a random terrorist, etc. than in a country with government control as tight as it would have to be to even begin to prevent such things. However, the likelihood of getting shot by that terrorist is, in my estimation, much lower than the likelihood of getting shot by some random, mentally disabled or unstable person if simply getting one's hands on a gun meant that one could legally carry said gun anywhere and everywhere. I don't claim to have all the solutions but I do believe that the concerns are valid. Heck, maybe I am wrong and everything would be just fine - or maybe I am right, who knows?

I would like to point out just one, more thing that stands out to me from your side of the debate. You argue for an 'ultimate authority', a deity that sets the laws for all. So, which deity? Who decides which deity's laws to follow? You? Me? In such a case, then, you are right back to an individual or a few individuals deciding which laws apply. So, let's go to the next step. Let's say that the deity whose laws we will agree to follow is the Christian God. So, how do we know what those laws are? It isn't like God is here, in our presence, telling us in no uncertain terms what we are supposed to do. "Well, the Bible tells us." Oh, you mean that document that was written thousands of years ago by people entirely different from us living in a society that was completely different from ours? Oh, okay. So, which translation of a translation of a translation of that document do we use? Which version of the Bible gives us the ultimate law? Who decides that? Me? You? So we are, again, right back to one individual or a small group deciding. Okay, then, just for the sake of argument let us assume that we all agree that we should follow not only the Christian God's laws but that we all also agree upon which translation of a translation (and so on) to follow. In my experience you can have five, different people read a particular scripture and sometimes get six, different interpretations. So, who decides which interpretation is right? You? Me? A preacher? The pope? Maybe the Westboro Baptist Church? So, once more you have an individual or group of individuals deciding what the law is and you have now created a theocracy which - as we can see from existing and past theocracies - not only opens the door to tyranny but invites it in and brings its slippers. Or maybe we don't use that document but simply 'know' what the laws should be via, for lack of a better term, 'divine inspiration'. The problem there is that it often seem no, two individuals get the same 'inspiration' when God 'lays something on their heart' so who decides which heart and inspiration we should follow? You? Me? See, no matter how it goes I see no way in which your approach doesn't result in one individual or a very small group of individuals claiming the authority to provide or interpret the law for everyone far worse than my suggested approach. Further, while my approach at least has the benefit of being based on something observable and measurable - such as a person's sanity or mental development - yours is based on ultimately having to accept one or another person or group's claim that 'because God told us so.'

But not everyone can obtain firearms even when carry laws are relaxed. Those states still have either state or federal measures in place to try and help keep firearms out of the hands of people who are so mentally incompetent as to not be capable of being responsible - imperfect measures, true, and I don't know how to make them more effective without doing things that I would not be able to support. I earlier mentioned that, for a short time (about a year) I worked with adults with mental disabilities and the mental illness that often goes along with it. My job title wasn't 'case manager' but that is more or less what I did, plus some additional supervisory and administrative duties. That meant I dealt with several, different individuals and knew their situations, cognitive levels and so on first hand. Some of these 'adults' are functioning on the mental development level of about a three to five year old child yet they are 'adults'. In fact, that causes a lot of difficulty when providing services because many of the laws and regulations specifically dealing with such individuals state that they are adults and must be treated as adults when it comes to many choices and decisions even though they are, in fact, mentally incapable of behaving or making informed decisions like an adult. Now, many of them have conservators who are legally empowered to make decisions for them but some do not. Some are 'high functioning' enough not to need conservators but are still not really capable of making good decisions on everything and often still have severe mental illnesses or emotional problems. Some of them would have violent outbursts and were capable of doing pretty serious damage with their bare hands. The people who worked with them were often instructed not to call police when this happened, however - even if it happened in public where other members of the public could be in danger of harm - because the police have no training or experience in dealing with such individuals. Allowing those individuals to carry a firearm would be a disaster waiting to happen but under a 'no holds barred, every adult has the right to carry' ideology that is exactly what would happen. Therefore, there have to be at least some laws, rules and regulations in place. Currently, there are rules in place to prevent these individuals from owning or carrying a gun. Trust me, those rules are a good thing. In fact - and this is something with which I do not agree - people who act as paid, live-in companions to these individuals are prohibited from having firearms in the home, as well (or at least that was the case when I worked in the field.)

Nowhere did I say that 'I' would be the one and only standard by which to decide who carries and who does not. Instead, I suggested a fairly and equally applied system - a system that would not be overly onerous to the majority of those who wish to carry nor overly lax as to allow obviously dangerous individuals - those who need not commit a crime for anyone with any measure of reason to see that allowing them to carry a firearm in public would be dangerous and irresponsible - to walk around in public with a loaded weapon. Such a system needs input from many people, not just me. Let me try to explain my point of view with a couple of examples. I will admit beforehand the the examples are not perfect but they do at least get at my point: 1. If you knew there was a large, powerful dog on your block and you knew that said dog was rabid would you advocate for leaving the dog alone until it bit someone or would you advocate taking steps to try and lessen the possibility that the dog would bite someone in the first place? Conversely, would you say that the large, rabid dog should be allowed to roam around until and unless it bites someone and only then should something be done about it? Trust me, there are people out there who are just as dangerous and unbalanced as a rabid dog. 2.Or, to use a human example, if you knew there was a man living two doors down from you who was sexually attracted to six and seven year old girls - even though he had never done anything illegal to any little girl - would you advocate for him to be a Kindergarten teacher at your local school or would you maybe, just maybe, think that he should be prevented from being in such a position? I mean, you are violating his rights by assuming that he would do something illegal and harmful even before he does so but does protecting others (in this case children but the idea applies to every citizen) justify curbing his, individual rights? What I am suggesting, then, is that - to directly rip off Wrath of Kahn - although I am in most points strongly in favor of the right of the individual to make his or her own decisions sometimes the needs of the many really do outweigh the needs of the one.

No, actually, it is the fact that I realize we have to live with reality and not in some philosophical ideal of how things 'should' be that causes me to realize that not everyone is capable of safely and responsibly carrying a firearm. Further, the fastest way for everyone to lose the ability to legally do so is to not recognize that some people can't. Would things be better without governments? Maybe. But it ain't gonna happen. Even if we 'abolish' the current one (and I am not certain that doing so would be a bad idea) another will take its place. As long as there is a group of people lumped together in one place there will always be a 'government' of one type or another and there will always be a give and take between government authority, society and the rights of the individual. That is just the practical reality. Deny it all you want - don't believe in it all you want - but that won't change the reality. The truth is, you might be surprised to find that, from a purely philosophical standpoint, our views may be more alike than you know although there are definitely some fine points where our views differ. Thing is, philosophical discussions are all well and good and our philosophies can inform our realities but reality also must encompass other individuals' philosophies - philosophies which differ vastly from anyone on TGO - as well. Insisting that only our philosophy be followed results in A. tyranny if we have the power to enforce our philosophy absolutely or B. complete subjugation of our philosophy if we try to push it on everyone else and find that 'everyone else' overwhelmingly pushes back. BTW, I was raised Southern Baptist. My 'Deism' - which may not even be the best way to describe my beliefs - is not due to a lack of knowledge of the Christian faith but, actually, an informed and intentional rejection of it. I am not what I would call a 'Bible scholar' but I am well aware of and fairly well versed in what it is that I am rejecting. Probably more so than a significant portion of people who purport to 'believe' (not aiming that comment at you, just in general.)

Aren't Blazer, CCI and Federal all the same company? I know Blazer is often the 'value line' of ammo but (and this is a real question) is there really all that much difference in their .22LR offerings? I have to wonder if they run a different line of Blazer .22LR or if it is just the same stuff as they put in the bulk packs of Federal. Also, are these actual, loose round bulk packs or are they in 50 round boxes? I ask because the only time I ever remember seeing Blazer in a 'bulk pack' it was boxes of 50 inside a larger box. It was kind of nice, actually. That has been quite some time ago but I seem to remember liking the Blazer stuff, especially for the price. Personally, I don't remember ever seeing the Blazer .22LR in bulk packs at Walmart even when .22LR was at fully supply. I remember seeing 50 rounders sometimes but not bulk packs. For that matter, I don't remember seeing any CCI bulk packs at a Wally, either. Of course I know that some Walmart locations stock things that others don't so I'm thinking my local Walmart locations just didn't stock them. Bulk packs of Winchester, Federal (both 'regular' and Auto Match), a couple types of Remington were common, though.