JAB

Hah! Thanks. I'm just glad someone got that reference.

So, if the universe is expanding (and I believe that it is) then what is it expanding into? Nothingness? Is there any physical nature to said nothingness? If not, then would the laws of physics apply within that void? Further, if all of the matter in the universe were compacted into a tiny, tiny space (as at least one version of the big bang theory holds) would not the laws of space/time and all physics be warped or even broken by all of the energy contained there? I guess I am saying that it might just be a mistake to try and apply the laws of physics as they exist within our universe to a time and place where no universe existed. Couldn't it be that the creation of the universe did not have to play by those rules? Just some ideas that are tumbling around in my head. I'm certainly no astrophysicist - or any kind of physicist, though. If humans could build a ship that would allow a human being to travel beyond the edge of the universe - into the void - would the laws of physics apply? Could the laws of physics as we know them be manipulated? One more question, just for kicks - what would happen if that human, beyond the realm of the physical universe, floating alone as the only being in the void, were to utter the words, "Let there be light,"?

Do I believe that there is other life in the universe? Yes. Do I believe in unidentified flying objects? Yes. I've seen one - as in a flying object that could not be readily identified and did not behave like any aircraft I have ever seen (posted the story in the 'Weird Road Stories' thread.) Are these Unidentified Flying Objects being piloted by extra-terrestrial beings? I have no clue. Have I, personally, ever been visited, abducted, probed or given a cool red suit that gave me super powers (but unfortunately lost the instruction manual)? Nope. Well, at least not that I am aware.

So, accepting that those who intend to commit crime don't give a crap about carry laws and the only people who will follow those laws are no more likely to commit a crime without a permit than with one, then how do such laws 'prevent crime'? I can just seen Mr. Lowlife now, saying, "Man, I'd really like to rob that liquor store that old dude runs. Unfortunately, to get my gat in there to shove it in that old dude's face, I'd have to carry it in public illegally. I might be willing to knock over the place and even kill old dude if he don't do what I say but risk the kind of heat that comes with carrying illegally? No way!" Further, I can see how passing laws to restrict carry of firearms by those with a criminal record might be justified under the intention of preventing crime - and doing away with carry permit requirements would not negate those laws. The current law, however, seems to assume that anyone who wants to carry a legally owned firearm is looking to commit a crime and that only by receiving a permit can they be trusted. Can the state legislature prove that requiring otherwise law-abiding citizens to obtain a permit before carrying a handgun has a real, significant impact on preventing crime? If not, does doing so really fall within their expressed authority? The problem here, IMO, is that they have been given license to more or less decide what their authority is. It may not be technically constitutional but that doesn't stop them from arresting and charging you for violating laws which they have no authority to pass - the fact that they have the power to arrest and jail you, constitutional or not, gives them authority and until and unless enough people say, "No, we won't allow that," it will continue to be that way. That applies to all levels of government and to many more areas than handgun carry regulation. I don't want to go to jail which is why I have a permit to carry. What would I do, however, if I felt that my life were truly in danger on a daily basis and I could not afford the time or expense required to obtain a legal carry permit? No comment.

On the contrary, I would argue that every, single shooting of any human or animal with any firearm is 'an isolated incident' in that there are always going to be numerous variables. No two firearms (even of the same make and model) are exactly the same, there is no guarantee that any two rounds of ammo (even of the same brand and type) are going to perform exactly the same and there is always a bit of chance involved in how the bullet performs, how the individual reacts after being shot, how the individual's body reacts, how much damage one individual can withstand and survive relative to another individual, etc. Therefore, there is no such thing as 'cherry picking' when discussing such matters. There are only individual examples and their outcomes and such examples should be taken as such. Notice that I did not say that this example shows the probable effectiveness of a mini revolver or that it shows the mini revolvers will probably be effective as a fight stopper, only that this incident exemplifies possible effectiveness with regards to both. Do I feel better armed carrying my NAA .22 WMR mini revolver as a one and only firearm than carrying my .357, one of my 9mm handguns, my .38 etc.? Of course not. Did I say that the incident mentioned shows that a .22 mini revolver is universally more effective than a .357 Magnum? Certainly not - although this real world incident shows that, without a doubt and in that case, it was.

You know, I have heard that it is illegal to kill snakes in TN. I'd like to know exactly what law applies, however, and what exceptions exist. I have searched Michie's online version of the Tennessee Code Annotated on more than one occasion and have found nothing that directly addresses wild snakes in TN. In fact, I can find nothing on the TWRA official website that makes such a statement, either. The only thing I find is at a link on the TWRA website that leads to a page entitled 'Snakes of Tennessee' that is not a .gov site and is, apparently, maintained by the Tennessee Herpetological Society, not by TWRA. So, is the 'illegal to kill snakes' law really a myth, like the 'illegal to carry in a bank' myth? Is it perhaps a law but not quite as clearly defined as some (such as the Tennessee Herpetological Society) would like us to believe? Could it be that this was once a law but is no longer a law? Further, can anyone point to any real case of someone having been arrested, fined or otherwise penalized in the state of TN for having killed a snake - particularly a snake which that person believed to be posing an immediate danger to that person or others? While I can find no specific mention of killing wild snakes in this state, I do find the following while searching Michie's online version of the Tennessee Code Annotated: So, as snakes aren't classified as big game, if a snake is on private property and destroying property, it appears as though it can be legally killed. To me, this translates to mean if I find a snake in my chicken coop, eating eggs (and it has happened, before) then the snake is toast - legally. I also found this: So, even endangered or threatened wildlife can be killed - without a permit - if said wildlife poses an immediate threat to human life. I would consider getting snake-bit by a potentially poisonous snake to be an immediate threat that could result in death (yes, I know, most healthy adults survive snake bites as long as they receive treatment but that doesn't mean I'm taking any chances with my life - or, at the very least, severe pain and permanent physical damage.) Tennessee state law allows for the killing of a person if there is a reasonable belief that said person presents a reasonable threat of death or serious bodily injury. Surely killing a snake under similar circumstances would not be prohibited when killing a human would be legal.

Two or three years ago, my wife and I were headed back to Loudon from the Cleveland area, driving along on Highway 11. There were a few other vehicles around, including my sister in law who was driving behind us. Suddenly, just after dusk had faded to full dark, I saw what I thought was the biggest, brightest shooting star I had ever seen in my life. It came streaking through the sky and was the classic 'ball with a tail', comet-like shape and was bright white and intensely bright, like images I have seen of burning phosphorus. Then things got weird. Just as it got across the road and about level with the tops of the trees - so close that I expected to actually see it hit the ground - it stopped. And hovered. Then took off just as fast as it had been moving before, if not faster. My wife asked me if I saw it, I described what I saw and she had seen the same. My wife then called my sister in law on her cell phone. She, too, had seen the same thing. Judging by the fact that the few other cars in front of us had hit their brakes and slowed down, I can only assume that they saw it as well. When we got home, my wife and I both checked the Internet to see if we could find anything about it. There were a few news stories, including one on AOL - along with comments following the stories from people who had seen the same or a similar object. These stories were from all over the Southeast and even a few from just outside the region. All had happened within a short span of time. Now for the weirdest part of all. My wife and I both bookmarked some of those news stories so that we could come back and check for updates the next day. However, when we followed those bookmarks the next day - nothing. Every, single one of them led to variations of the 'page not found' message, as if those articles never existed. From time to time, my wife and I will talk about what we saw - just to make sure we both saw it and one of us didn't simply dream it.

There is nothing in the Bill of Rights of the United States Constitution nor in the Tennessee State Constitution that guarantees the right to keep and drive cars. The right to keep and bear arms, however, is covered. Further, there is no natural right to hit the freeway in your automobile. The right to self defense, however, is a different story, IMO. In other words, self defense (and being equipped for same) is a right. Driving a car is a priviledge. By charging a fee to be able to legally carry, at all, the state is basically telling us that the ability to defend our very lives is a priviledge, not a right. That is why I believe that open carry - the basic ability to be equipped for self defense - should be legal with no fees, etc. while (I believe) the ability to legally conceal could be considered a regulated priviledge.

Sounds like VA is doing some good things. Personally, I'd take being able to carry openly in a restaurant where alchohol is served over having to leave my handgun in my vehicle just to eat dinner and drink iced tea.

I believe that a state fee to obtain a permit to be legal to carry, at all, along with fees to take the required classes do constitute paying a fee to excercise a right. This state and many others regulate the right to self defense as if it were a priviledge. However, regardless of what a bunch of politicians might want us to believe, self defense remains a natural right whether you are in your living room or at Walmart (or just walking out of a restaurant that serves alchohol, for that matter) - and a handgun is one of the best compromises between having a self defense tool and being able to go about your daily business available to people at the current time. How can one have 'life, liberty' and continue to 'pursue happiness' if one cannot defend oneself against deadly intent if the need arises, wherever the need arises? Paying for our fingerprints to be done via a private firm contracting with the state is one thing. Paying the remainder of the fee to the state for a permit - and paying to renew the permit every four years - is quite another. Personally, I believe a good 'compromise' would be to legalize open carry without any permit required. Perhaps a free (like the Hunter's Safety Course) handgun carry class could be a requirement, just to make sure that folks carrying in public have at least some knowledge/skill/ability with a handgun. In other words, you would get a card upon completion of the free course that would be the only documentation required to legally carry openly. The element of concealment (while my preferred method most of the time) is not necessary to the basic excercise of the fundamental right. Therefore, I do think it could be said that there is a right to carry for self defense but that concealed carry could be considered a priviledge for which a fee, etc. could be assessed. That said, people who go the extra step (and pay the extra money) to obtain such a permit should then have the right to carry anywhere a LEO can legally carry.

Thanks for the review and for the idea. There is a Greene's in Knoxville, too - I think they are actually the same company. I'll have to check and see if they have anything like that. My nephew was diagnosed as diabetic when he was three and, at fifteen, is still kind of self-concious about it, especially when he is around his friends. However, he and his buddies are into Airsoft (they go to large Airsoft battles, etc.) and he likes military-type clothes, gear, etc. so something like this might help him feel better about it. I'm glad to hear that your son has adjusted so well.

+2 The 'possibility' of being attacked by a male silverback gorilla on crack aside, I figure that if an assailant keeps coming after being hit a couple of times with a 9mm then he probably won't be stopped by a .40, .45 or anything else short of a long gun. Heck, for most instances I'd say that an assailant that will keep coming instead of altering his behavior after being hit a couple times with a .38 Special or even the 'lowly' .380 probably has enough adrenaline/drugs/both in his system to still have time do damage no matter what handgun round he is shot with.

I sometimes carry my .22 WMR NAA mini in my weak side pocket as a BUG. My belief of the most likely use for a BUG, for me, would be as a contact weapon - a 'get off me' gun - to use when the assailant is so close as to make drawing and orienting my primary difficult or, even more likely, when the assailant may be trying to wrestle the primary away. A guy on one of the other forums to which I belong calls the minis 'ear, nose and throat' guns because he thinks the best use would be to stick the barrel in the assailant's ear, up a nostril or to their neck/throat and fire. That said, there have been a few instances in which the mini has been my only gun. It's even easier to conceal than my P3AT. For those who would discount the possible effectiveness of the little guys - or even the possibility that they could be a fight stopper - here is a sad story that might change your mind: Trooper Mark Hunter Coates, South Carolina Highway Patrol The trooper shot the suspect five times with a .357 Magnum. The suspect lived and went to prison. Trooper Coates was killed by a single shot from a .22 that struck him in an area that wasn't protected by his body armor (have read several other accounts which stated that his murderer was using a .22 mini-revolver.) Apparently, Trooper Coates was killed almost instantly.

I've never found any dead people in the woods - unless you count when Dr. Bass let us all go to the 'Body Farm' when I had one of his classes.

And yet some folks think they will be afraid enough of an intended victim saying, "I'm calling the cops!" to leave said intended victim alone. Honestly, though, do we really believe this is a new phenomenon? The 'rough parts of town' have always had a reputation that includes violence, bloodshed and a lack of concern for self or others. That is true whether you are talking about inner cities in 2010, Chicago in the 1920s and 1930s or train and bank robberies on the American Frontier. Were the soldiers for the Chicago mob, people like Bonnie and Clyde or even Billy the Kid all that different from these gang-bangers? We may romanticize historical figures such as Jean Lafitte or Blackbeard but they were no less brutal or unconcerned about causing pain and death - and apparently not all that worried about dying. Think of what history tells us of the time before most of the nations we now know even existed when hoards of marauders would rape, plunder, pillage and destroy everything in their path. Heck, many of the gangs, themselves, got their start thirty, fourty or even fifty years ago - they aren't a brand new thing. These people are willing to die for whatever has their allegiance - be that money, street cred or their various gangs. How is that any different from suicice bombers being willing to die for Allah? How is that any different from people who, for hundreds or even thousands of years, have been willing to die for their religion, their country or anything else they hold important or believe in? How many entrepreneurs have risked everything in a bid to become wealthy and respected? Sure, it may be a warped, twisted version of those things - and their loyalty or the way they want to go about making their money and/or reputation is certainly dispicable but the impetus - the need - is the same. Truthfully, I also see a strong correlation as being between these folks and young people willing to blow themselves up in the name of their religion (well, that and to get those 72 virgins they've been promised.) They have people they trust and respect (be they clerics or gang leaders) who are telling them that these things are good - that this is how life should be. This gives them a sense of purpose, of belonging and that they just might be able to get something 'better'. Why not take such risks? After all, what the hell have they got to lose? It seems that prison isn't hard labor - more like a gang reunion. They get to hang with their homies on the inside, still get to sell and/or do drugs, watch TV, hit the weight room, etc. They are no more likely to die in a prison 'hit' than in a drive-by shooting while walking down the street in their neighborhood and they can get 'training' from the more experienced thugs so that they can hone their 'craft' and be better able to ply their 'trade' when they hit the streets - with the increase in reputation that comes from having been in prison. After all, it isn't like most of them will be serving their full sentence, anyhow. In the end, I believe that God has nothing to do with it. Religion has nothing to do with it. Television, music and video games have nothing to do with it. It is simply a reflection of one of the darker aspects of human nature which has been the same since humans began writing their histories - and probably long before. Maybe we are seeing more of this type of attitude, now (possibly because the media has focused on it more than because there is actually more of it) but it isn't anything new.

Man, this really burns me. I am in my late thirties. I have a B.A. in English and a B.A. in Anthropology from UTK. Yeah, I was young at the time, was the first person from my family to ever go to college and wanted to do something I enjoyed. Well, you might imagine that there aren't a lot of jobs in those specific fields in the Knoxville area. So, have I said, "Well, there are no jobs in my field so I guess I'll just have to go on food stamps?" No. I found jobs in other fields. My wife and I both recently got Masters Degrees in Human Resource Development (also known as Human Performance Improvement) which was a pretty strong field until the economy tanked - training and development is among the first departments that most companies cut. So, have we both just thrown our hands up and gone on the dole because there are no jobs in our field, locally, that pay enough? No, we kept the jobs we had. I am a bit of a 'foodie', myself. I don't shop at Earth Fare or Fresh Market all that often, though - especially since the downturn in the economy and the seeming rise in everything but my paycheck. These people are supposedly 'creative'. If they were really that creative they could make 'interesting' meals out of ingredients from the regular grocery, not spend their foodstamps on ingredients that many of us can't regularly afford despite working full-time jobs. Of course, if they were really all that damned creative then they'd find ways to apply their knowledge, skills and creativity to jobs in other fields. Heck, even if it sounded like they were trying to find jobs in other fields but had been unsuccessful and so were getting food stamps it wouldn't bother me - but it sounds like they just decided that anything other than what they want to do is out of the question. People who truly need assistance should be able to get it. People who apparently aren't even looking for work are a different story. Way back in High School and the first couple years of college, when I worked at a grocery store, they were still issuing paper food stamps (I always thought they looked like Monopoly money.) I remember one woman, in particular, who had five or six kids. She'd come in once or twice a week and she'd give every one of those kids a $1 food stamp and let them buy one piece of candy, each. As $1 was the lowest denomination for food stamps, they each got back coins (real money) as change. Their mother would then collect up all the change from them and use it to pay for her cigarettes and/or beer.

The house we moved to when I was in seventh grade was in a pretty rural area near the Loudon County/Roane County line close to (but not exactly in) the area known as Paint Rock. The house (where my mom still lives) is on a ridge that sits on a bluff. At the base of the bluff is part of the Watts Bar impoundment. There are apparently several caves in the side of the bluff. Back then, there weren't many houses on our road (dirt road at the time - has since been paved) and the guy who lived up the road from us owned several different tracts of the land. He had given me permission (pretty much free reign) to include his property in my wanderings. When I was about fourteen, I got a break-action .410 single shot for Christmas and started taking it with me on my walks. We had a few dogs and they would walk with me, too. Well, one day I was on some of the property that belonged to our neighbor, where there was no house, and walked down a trail right to the edge of the woods. The dogs went on into the woods but something told me not to go in there. A few minutes later there was an awful commotion. The dogs were barking like crazy and I could hear something chasing them. This something was obviously big and heavy as I could hear the 'thuds' of its feet hitting the ground. It was also making a loud, kind of snorting sound. My first thought was that it must be a big buck whitetail but it sounded too heavy - and bucks wouldn't have been in the rut at the time and that seemed a little agressive for a deer - so I thought it might be a bull that had gotten loose from somewhere. Whatever it was, I never saw it but could tell from the sound that it was fast and it stopped just inside the tree line. The dogs came tearing out of the woods like the Devil, himself, was after them - including our old Yellow Lab/German Shepherd mix named Red which I had seen single-handedly whip two aggressive St. Bernards that had attacked her simultaneously. That dog had never been afraid of anything and, although she stopped and wouldn't leave me, I could tell she wanted us both to get the heck out of Dodge. I considered investigating (after all, I had my shotgun - although it was only loaded with #6 shot and the shells in my pocket were also #6) but decided that maybe the dogs knew more than I did so I followed old Red's lead and went home. A day or two later, we heard that a mother black bear and her cub had been spotted in the area. The story (don't know where the person who told us heard this) was that the bears had been 'relocated' from one area to another and had decided to un-relocate so were passing through our area on the way back home. The topography, wooded area and low number of people living there at the time must have made them feel comfortable because there were spotted by several different people over the course of about two weeks. A few days after that, our beagle turned up badly injured on one hip. When the vet cleaned the wound up and shaved the area, it turned out that there were four distinct claw marks. These marks were as far apart as a grown man's fingers if he spread his fingers as wide apart as he could. Mom told the vet of the bear sightings and asked if it could have been a bear that swiped the dog. The vet's reply was that it either had to be a bear or a world-record bobcat - bigger than he had ever heard of (no cougars in our area.) He also said that it had likely just swatted her in passing because had it intended to kill the beagle, it could have done it in that one swipe. As it was, the wounds were bad enough that she had to have them closed up, had to have a drain and had to be kept in the house for a few weeks until she recovered. I have no doubt that what I heard was that the dogs had stumbled on that mama bear with her cub and she chased them out of the woods. I guess it was what they call a 'bluff charge' because I can't think of any other reason she would have stopped. Whatever the case, I was one lucky kid that day - lucky the bear stopped charging and lucky to have had a good dog like old Red to convince me not to investigate. I have no doubt that Red would have stayed with me and even fought the bear to try and protect me if it came to that. She was just about the best and most protective dog we ever had but she was in her teens and past her prime by then and probably wouldn't have been able to even slow it down much. My .410 certainly wouldn't have been any more effective.

Just FYI, these are some of the pros/cons I have seen expressed for box vs. tube mags by those who have preferences. As mentioned, they both work: Pros for box mag: 1. If the tube mag gets bent or heavily dented that pretty well puts the gun out of commission. If a box mag gets messed up, just swap mags. 2. If you want to unload a rifle with a tube mag without firing all the rounds in the mag, you have to either hand-eject one at a time or open the tube and try to dump all the rounds out then eject the round that is in the chamber (if there is a round chambered.) With a box mag, you remove the mag, eject the round from the chamber (if there is one in the chamber) and that's it. 3. You can load up multiple box mags ahead of time so when the rifle runs empty you just have to swap mags. Tube mags you have to reload every time. Pros for tube mags: 1. Tube mags don't get dropped, lost or misplaced. They are always with the rifle. 2. Some people just like the look of a tube mag better.

The Maverick is assembled (made) in America with some parts being outsourced to Mexico. It is still a Mossberg product and any buttstock that will fit a Mossy 500 will fit the Maverick 88. Most Mossy 500 barrels will fit the Maverick. The Security models look good (IMO) and launch the same pellets/slugs downrange with the same effectiveness as a Mossberg 500. IMO, your brother would be just as well off - probably better off - buying the Maverick and then using the extra cash to buy shotgun shells so he can pattern various brands/loads and become familiar with the tool. My Security 88 has the 20 inch barrel which means the factory extended tube can hold one more round than the 18 1/2 inch barrel. I added a simple sling (just so I don't have to put the shotgun down if I need to use both hands for something) and an inexpensive weapon light w/ remote switch and consider it good to go.

Some folks hold that bolt actions are more inherently accurate than comparable semiautos. In fact, some would say that bolt actions are the most inherently accurate rifle platform. Unfortunately, I've never had the 'problem' of being more accurate than the rifle I'm shooting so I couldn't really say.

Remember when that nutjob murdered those little Amish girls at their school back in 2006? This same group of scum was all set to show up and protest at the funerals of those little girls, calling them 'wh*res' and so on. The only reason they didn't was that a radio host (Mike Gallagher) made a deal with them to give them an hour of air time if they would cancel the protest. FOXNews.com - Anti-Gay Kansas Church Cancels Protests at Funerals for Slain Amish Girls - Local News | News Articles | National News | US News

Have you thought about going the used gun route? At the gun show in Maryville (from the same dealer but on two different occasions), I bought this Winchester 190 for $79: and, more recently, these two 20 gauge shotguns - one single and one bolt action - for $69 each (may have paid too much for the single but I don't think so - I already had other shotguns for hunting and HD - the single is a short 'youth model' type for my wife to use as a learning shotgun and the bolt was 'just because' I didn't have anything in 20 gauge, didn't have a bolt shotgun and didn't have a shotgun with the ability to change chokes - it has an adjustable choke): The 190 worked but needed a new inner mag tube assembly. The shotguns work just fine. The bolt action Sears model holds only three rounds (one in the chamber and two in the internal mag) and wouldn't be as good for HD as my 12 gauge pump that I have set up for that but would be a heck of a lot better than no shotgun, at all. The shotguns are only 2 3/4 inch but I'm not all that interested in 3 inch shells, anyway. The gist of what I am saying is that if you look around at the local gun stores (some might suggest pawn shops but I have never really found good firearm prices at pawn shops) and gun shows you might be able to have both a .22 rifle and a shotgun for less or at least not much more than you might pay for a new .22 rifle at Walmart and begin shooting both while you save up for the 870 (in this example, the 190 and the bolt 20 gauge combined would come in at $148 plus tax and background check.) The inner tube assembly was around thirty bucks.

You might want to consider looking for an 'ex-sniper' version and put it back in sniper trim. Mosins still in sniper trim can get costly but ex-snipers run about the same as any others. My 91/30 is an ex-sniper - you can tell because the filled-in screwholes for the scope mount are still visible if you look inside the receiver. If I decide to scope it, I'll get ahold of an original scope mount and have those holes re-tapped. You also have to have the straight bolt bent (they changed the bent bolt out for a straight one when the ex-snipers were refitted.) I've heard from those who have done this that total cost of the project runs around $400, including the price of the rifle, mount and original style scope plus having the bolt bent. I figure that if I go that route, by starting with an ex-sniper, I'll just be returning it to its previous condition, not altering an existing non-sniper version. The sniper versions looked like this: http://www.monkeydepot.com/v/vspfiles/photos/LT0003-S059-2T.jpg

But then he wouldn't be able to legally purchase handguns in TN, correct?

Very odd, indeed. I was testing for flash and accuracy at dusk in the woods behind our house. From my gun, the standard pressure 125 grain Hornady XTP had a muzzle flash roughly equal with the 125 grain +P Remington Golden Sabers (which was the third of the three rounds I was checking out) while the muzzle flash from the Critical Defense was minimal and not very bright - almost unnoticeable, in fact. It was the only one of the three from which the muzzle blast didn't effect my vision in the fading light. I'm certainly not doubting your results - just really find that strange. Makes me wonder if there is a big difference between lots of the Critical Defense or something. As with the rounds you tested, accuracy was pretty much equal.