JAB

"Well, obviously we will have to have a national database to keep track of all this. Now, before anyone gets too concerned, don't worry. This isn't intended to track law abiding citizens. This is simply a measure to catch law breakers who are trying to avoid paying the proper taxes." And they will fund it all with part of the $$$ from the new tax. Yep, build a database and make us pay for it. The new tax will also provide money for jackbooted thugs...er...agents to investigate violations, enforce the regulations and, of course, seize all firearms from anyone who so much as pays $1 too little. Will it happen? Who knows, maybe it is just a scare tactic to get more money in dues so 'gun rights' groups can give their administrators a raise. Could it happen? I think so.

"What? No, I didn't sell him a shotgun. We exchanged Christmas presents. I gave him a shotgun I had that I knew he liked. He didn't know what to get me so he gave me a card with $400 in it. Yes, in fact, we DO sometimes celebrate Christmas in March." Of course that might not work too many times. Remember, with everything he did they used taxes to put Capone in prison.

  I think you would like this YouTube video from The Yankee Marshal.  It is a few years old so you might have seen it, before, but just in case:   https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=suO8NSvXT2k   This one is pretty good, too, although I think his points apply to other revolvers in the same class and not just to the one, specific revolver he talks about:   https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FRnXOWBnCa4

  I blasted some water filled milk jugs with the Speer Gold Dot .22 WMR ammo as well as the Hornady Critical Defense .22 WMR ammo out of both my NAA mini (1 5/8 inch barrel) and my Heritage Rough Rider (6.5 inch barrel.)  The Hornady was kind of disappointing out of the mini (didn't really 'expand' much - had some deformation on one side and that was about all - made it into the third jug) but did well out of the Rough Rider (fully expanded.)  I was very impressed with how the Gold Dot did out of the mini (fully expanded - in fact, looked just like the picture on the label - and was found stuck partway through the rear face of the third jug) and it did fine out of the Rough Rider (I remember that the Hornady did slightly better from the RR although I can't remember exactly how at this point.)  I now keep the mini loaded with Gold Dots and the Rough Rider loaded with the Hornady.    The Rough Rider mostly does 'possum in the chicken coop' duty and will render even a big possum DRT with either a head shot or a behind-the-shoulder heart/lung shot - and possums are not easy to kill.  For comparison, I once shot a possum which was in the coop three times in the brain pan with .22 LR Stingers out of a 5 inch S&W .22A (trying to get it to die quickly and not suffer) and it still took it a while to finally die a much uglier death than I would prefer (which is actually the reason I bought the Rough Rider to begin with.)  I have never tried it but I imagine the NAA with the Gold Dots would do just as well as the Heritage with the Hornady.    It isn't currently my first pick for a primary to carry for 'social situations' (although I do sometimes carry just the mini when nothing larger will do) but the .22 WMR - especially with ammo such as the Gold Dot - is IMO certainly more than 'just a slightly more powerful .22LR' as some people believe.  Throw in that many of the 'full sized' snubbies hold eight or nine rounds and there ain't a thing wrong with it, to my mind.

My most often carried gun is a 642 in a pocket holster, usually with a speed strip for a reload.  Current carry ammo for it is Winchester PDX1 .38+P.  At first, I found that I was trying to convince myself I liked it despite how it slapped my palm with +P and despite how I really couldn't shoot it with that much consistent accuracy.  Then I realized that it wasn't the gun that was the problem but, instead, it was those vestigial, sorry excuses for grips that came on it from the factory.  Swapped those out for a set of Pachmayrs that are only slightly longer and slightly beefier (still fits in my pocket just fine but fits my hands much better) and it made a whole world of difference.  Best thing was I got the Pachmayrs from an Amazon Warehouse Deal for eleven bucks.  The package was open - in fact, it wasn't even the right package - but everything was there and in good shape.   I still carry semi-autos sometimes but have always liked revolvers better and am still a bit more comfortable with them.  I also feel more comfortable reloading ammo for revolvers.  I honestly haven't done that much reloading but what I have done has been .38 Special.  I have the stuff to reload for .44 Magnum, as well, and probably will get around to it, eventually.  I have a set of dies for 9mm that I bought used for a good price (and maybe a set of .380) but don't know that I will ever even fool with reloading for anything but revolvers.

  Yea, I saw that when I went recently.  I don't make decisions for others nor do I give legal advice so don't blame me if you (the collective 'you', not referring specifically to click23) run into problems but I don't consider that to be a legal posting that applies to HCP holders - especially in light of the state law allowing HCP holders to carry in parks.  I have spent time, effort and money on carrying legally and it pisses me off when places like this try to 'post', even when it isn't legal, just because someone on the board or whatever happens to be a hoplophobe.  The 'rule' also isn't 'posted prominently' at the entrances.  In fact, I only saw it because someone who was with me noticed it otherwise I would never even have seen it, at all.  I will just say that the giraffes didn't wand me nor did the river otters frisk me and that concealed means concealed.

  I thought, "Looks more like it should be called, 'Riding the brown stain' to me."

  Good point but you are forgetting one thing - the way the minds of many members of the general public work in modern times.  I mean, sure they might not get too worked up about who is making all the legal and political decisions for the country but that stuff is too complex for an ordinary person to understand.  That is why we have professional politicians tho handle those things.  This, on the other hand, is a beloved character on a popular television show.  This is important!   (I hope the note of sarcasm came through.)

Man, I'm glad you are okay and that the damage wasn't any worse.  Still, damage to the smoker has gotta hurt!

  Not really a comic book spoiler:   Speaking about the comic (iirc, it was before there even was a TWD television show) Kirkman indicated that this is a story about a zombie 'apocalypse'.  In the beginning, he said that no character is truly 'safe' (at least in the comic) and that he wasn't sure which characters might die before it was over with.  He even specifically said even though the story is largely told from Rick's point of view or with Rick as the central character (especially in the earlier issues) that he wasn't sure that even Rick wouldn't die at some point, perhaps with the story shifting to a different 'focal character.'  Personally, I have always had a feeling that the comic will ultimately turn out to be Carl's story, not Rick's, and that Rick will either die or just sort of fade to the background at some point along the way.  I don't think it is Rick's time to die on the show yet, however.   POSSIBLE SPOILER:   In the comics, Negan appears in issue 100.  By that point, Rick has already lost a hand (the Governor cut off Rick's hand the very first time they met before there were even any hostilities between the two groups.)  Rick has also been shot twice by the time Negan shows up.  In the course of the war with the Saviors, Rick gets shot at least one more time (with a crossbow - you can guess by who.)  He also gets his leg broken and it heals so badly that he needs a cane to walk and will pretty much be walking with a cane for the rest of his life.  Running from walkers?  Yeah, not so much.  In fact, there is even a point where he comes out and says that when it comes to actively attacking and fighting groups of walkers he (Rick) is a liability.  In the comics he is having to accept that his role is now much more that of a 'political' leader and no longer that of one of the main fighters of the group.

  I don't remember Glenn being in the kill room in Terminus.  I remember it being Rick and Daryl on their knees in front of the trough with a couple of 'no name' dudes who were 'ahead' of them in line and bought it before Rick and Daryl made their move.  IIRC, the others in Rick's group were still in the 'holding pen' train car at the time.  Can't say that for sure, though.

It could well be Daryl.  That said, I think that the biggest thing going against that has nothing to do with the storyline or character motivations and everything to do with the powers that be on the show, etc. wanting the show to continue.  I honestly believe that their ratings would take a big plunge immediately after an episode in which Daryl dies.  Then - as I believe the show would become a whole lot less interesting without him (the comic is fine without him but things are different in the comic) I think there would follow a steady decline in the ratings in the weeks following that episode as people who are not, necessarily, in the 'if Daryl dies we riot' camp simply begin to realize the negative impact that character's loss has on the show as a whole.  I still like the show but feel that it has lost a lot of its momentum as it goes into its seventh season.  Negan and the Saviors - and how Rick's group and others deal with them - is potentially the perfect opportunity to regain that momentum as Negan has the potential to be one of the best, most interesting (and most hated while still, secretly, kinda liking him) characters in the show's history.  Killing Daryl, IMO, would render the potential re-kindling of interest in the show by viewers who may be thinking of giving up on it null and void.  Daryl dying on his knees with no chance to fight back would be the most unsatisfying decision the show runners and writers could make or have made to this point.  If Daryl dies, the only way to make it palatable to viewers - and especially superfans of the character - would be if he did so saving the rest of the group from overwhelming odds when they had no, other possible chance of survival without him sacrificing himself to save his 'family'.  In other words, I think that killing Daryl - especially in this manner - would be the definitive moment when The Walking Dead television show jumped the shark.   I think that killing Glenn would accomplish a lot.  First, Negan obviously knows that Maggie is pregnant and now knows that Glenn is the father.  Beating Glenn to death shows that Negan isn't giving anyone a pass for any reason.  Further, while Abraham did give Negan the 'stink eye', Glenn is the only one who moved from his position in line (when Maggie was threatened.)  This gives Negan a chance to show that he won't stand for anyone getting out of line - literally or figuratively - for any reason.  Negan is looking to physically, emotionally and psychologically devastate these people.  He has no way of knowing just how much any individual there means to Rick or the rest of the group but he does now know that Glenn is the father of Maggie's baby.  Regardless of what the other interpersonal relationships are in the group, Negan would also have to know that killing a soon-to-be father in front of his wife would have a huge psychological impact on the rest of the group.  One of the things that, I think, solidified Daryl as a fan favorite was the way he wouldn't give up looking for Sophia and all the physical damage he survived trying to find her.  Seeing Glenn - one of his best friends and a person he likely considers to be a 'brother' - beaten to death right beside him and the desire to make Negan and the Saviors pay for Glenn's death would send Daryl to that place in a way we haven't seen since then.  His desire for vengeance after Glenn's death would make his reaction to Denise's death look like a tea party.  In other words, it would be a chance to see a return to the 'real' Daryl.   As far as a show/plot decision, I also think that killing Glenn would be an effective decision.  I think that most viewers would feel Glenn's loss, making it possible to feel at least some amount of the devastation the rest of Rick's group would feel.  That said, I think that killing Glenn could well have the opposite effect on viewership that killing Daryl would have.  Instead of deciding to give up on the show, I think that many viewers would want to tune in to see how the group - especially Maggie - would handle the loss as well as to see how they were going to make Negan pay for killing him.     COMIC BOOK STUFF:   There is, of course, a Daryl-like character in the comics.  A guy who, at first, isn't very likeable but who turns out to have a certain nobility about him and eventually ends up contributing a lot to the group.  A guy, in fact, who for a long time uses a crossbow as his main weapon.  I am talking, of course, about Dwight.  In the comics, Dwight got that burn on his face from Negan who disfigured him to punish him for a 'transgression'.  He ends up betraying Negan and is instrumental in Negan's defeat.  In the past on the television version when a character has died there has been a 'replacement' waiting in the wings (this has not necessarily been true in the comics - which to my mind makes each character's loss in the comics have more of an impact because there isn't the sense that 'we'll just throw another character into that spot.".  For instance, Shane died but Daryl replaced him as Rick's best friend and right hand man.  Dale died and Herschel replaced him as the 'Jiminy Cricket' of the group.  Herschel died and Tyreese sort of took on that role and then after he died, Morgan came along.  I don't think it would be a good idea, though, to try and replace Daryl with Dwight.  This is partly because Daryl is such a unique character and partly because the actor playing Dwight on the show doesn't have even one tenth of the 'presence' that Norman Reedus has on screen.

  Interesting.  I somehow got that Negan's victim was to the left from Rick, towards Daryl and Glenn.  The camera jumped around a lot while Negan was doing 'eenie, meenie', though so it is hard to be sure and I haven't rewatched it.  You are correct that Aaron would be an easy way out and I could see (from the show runners' and writers' points of view) that he would be an 'attractive' option.  To me, though, building such suspense with a cliffhanger and then putting Aaron on the receiving end of the head bashing would be something of a cop-out.  Further, I think there might be a backlash from certain 'special interest' groups if Negan's first, real act on the show is to engage in - quite literally - gay bashing.

  I was going to bring up his impersonations.  I recently watched on YouTube a clip from an old 'country music talk show' type thing where Marty Robbins (one of my other, favorite singers of any genre, ever, period) and Merle Haggard were both on there and the Hag did his Marty Robbins impersonation.  Robbins was so good natured about it that he let Haggard wear his jacket for the impersonation.  It seems that, before doing his impersonation of Marty Robbins during concerts, Haggard often said something to the effect of 'this is one of my favorite singers so I really hope I don't screw this up.'   In another YouTube clip from another show, Haggard talked about being in a hotel room and getting a call from his then wife who called to tell him that Johnny Cash had just called their house hoping to talk to Merle.  As he was expecting the call from Cash, when the phone range Haggard answered in a dead-on impression of Cash (which he demonstrated) and said one of Cash's signature lines, "Hello.  I'm Johnny Cash."  Haggard said that Cash's response was, "That's pretty good, Haggard."    I think those sorts of things - the off-stage camaraderie and joking that went on between a lot of those guys - is part of what made Country music of that era so enjoyable, especially the so-called 'Outlaw' Country.  Apparently, George Jones and Merle Haggard were really good friends.  To me, it was all those behind the scenes, real life interactions that made 'celebrities' like Merle Haggard, Johnny Cash and others seem more relateable, more like you and me.  For the most part, they came across as just people who liked having a good time, made their living with music and happened to be very famous for it.  They definitely had their faults - and often sang about them - but they just seemed so much more 'real' than the cookie cutter, bubble-gum country crap that, IMO, really took hold because of Garth Brooks ( :puke:) and has only gotten worse since then (although there are at least some contemporary folks trying to buck that trend - people like Jamey Johnson and so on.)

I just read that and was actually coming on here to post about it.  I am thoroughly bummed.  I think he was my favorite of his group/genre of Country music - even edging out the great Johnny Cash.  In fact, he was one of my favorite singers of any genre, period.  Loved his voice.  I got to see him in concert a few years back along with Willie Nelson and Ray Price on their 'Last of the Breed' tour.

  More than one person in the thread has said that they don't think it was Glenn who got the bat because Maggie would have screamed.  The same probably would have been true of Sasha if Abraham were the one killed - after all, they were just talking about having babies a few hours earlier.  I swear, though, that I thought I DID hear a woman cry out right after the first hit with Lucille.  If it was Glenn then - given the physical condition Maggie was in - Maggie may well have let out a short cry and passed out.  Further, remember that we saw the whole thing from the point of view of the person who was getting their head bashed in.  Having one's grey matter turned into pate by a barbed-wire wrapped Louisville Slugger would probably play havoc with one's perceptions.  In other words, Maggie (or anyone else) might have been screaming her guts out and the person being beaten to death might not have even noticed.   I like Glenn's character.  I really do.  That said, of the options available at the time I actually hope it was Glenn who was killed because...well, I'll just say that I think that would be the death that would move the story forward in the best/most interesting manner.  Killing Abraham would not have the same gut-punch effect on the viewer (or probably even the majority of the group) that killing Glenn (or Darryl) would have - and I still think Darryl is one of the two best/most interesting characters on the show (Carl being the other - yeah, I meant 'Carl', not 'Carol', although I know a lot of folks will disagree.)  Aaron would be the obvious choice for killing a 'main' cast member without really killing a 'main' cast member but, again, would anyone really care all that much?  I guess it would be 'symbolic' in a way as he is the only long-term Alexandrian who is with the members of the group who are being threatened and as he was previously the guy who went out looking for other survivors and brought them back to Alexandria, including Rick's group but there wouldn't be much of a visceral/emotional reaction (on the part of the audience) to him buying it.  No spoiler here but I will say that the show has been sticking closer to the comic storyline, lately (not completely but more so) and if that trend continues Eugene has too much to contribute and his character has too much 'growing' left to do to cut his story line short.   I think that one of the clues as to who got the bat was the 'first person' view and the fact that we kept seeing from the first person view of one of the folks who were being held inside the train car - meaning I think it was one of that group who died.  That would mean it was Daryl, Glenn, Michonne, Sasha or Rosita.  I don't think Darryl got the bat because he had already been shot and was looking pretty bad.  Why 'make an example' of someone who looks like he just might not survive his wounds/infection, etc. anyhow?  I could be wrong, though.    Michonne could be 'the one', I guess.  The scene is reminiscent of when The Governor had her and Herschel on their knees outside the prison.  The Governor killed Herschel (with Michonne's sword) but she managed to get away.  It would kind of be a 'full circle' kind of thing if she were killed while in the same position - on her knees - by another psycho leader of an enemy group.  Of course, that might not be such a good choice for the storyline because it might be the straw that breaks Rick's sanity for good, even worse than when Lori died.   Rosita could be 'the one' but I don't think so.  As with Aaron, would her death really have that great an impact on the audience (well, it would for those of us who think she is mega-hot in that tied-up shirt and pigtails looking like a post-apocalyptic stripper whose gimmick is the militaristic version of a naughty schoolgirl but...)   Sasha could be 'it' and I do think there are some, possible clues that lean toward her.  For one, when Tyreese (her brother) was bitten and died they kept showing things from his 'first person' point of view.  It would make sense, then, to reflect that if Sasha - his sister - were killed.  Further, we had Abraham at the end of the previous episode talking about how it was scary letting anyone that close considering the world in which they lived.  That could have been a bit of fore-shadowing.  Of course, unless Abraham completely blacked out, I can't imagine him kneeling there and letting Sasha get her head bashed in without doing something regardless of the threats made by Negan.   So, that brings us back to Glenn.  His death would have a huge impact on the group as well as the audience.  Here is a guy whose main skill set at the first of the series was escaping - getting in and out of infested areas without getting bitten, etc.  He has dodged 'certain' death at least twice this season, alone.  He never killed a living human being until this season - and didn't he and Heath have a discussion about that very thing and something about there being a price to pay for doing so before they went to raid the Savior outpost?  Then the recurring theme leading up to the head bashing - and even Negan, himself said it - was all about paying a price for one's actions.  His death would be not only the ultimate example of paying that 'price' but would have a huge impact on Rick and Daryl as well as Maggie.  After all, Rick made the decision to raid the Saviors and start planned killing of them in the first place - which is what put Glenn on his knees in front of Negan.  Glenn also saved Rick's life when Rick first came to Atlanta.  Not only saved his life but was instrumental with re-uniting him with his family and really starting his entire post-apocalyptic journey.  That is pretty huge, then, if Glenn buys it and it is largely Rick's fault.  Further, despite their early clashes because of Darryl's rascism-by-osmosis because of Merle, pretty early on Darryl was willing to risk his life to chase the folks who kidnapped Glenn and get Glenn back.  Now, Glenn is in this predicament largely because Darryl went running off on his own and Glenn (along with Michonne, Sasha and Rosita) came out to try and talk some sense into him.  Darryl also drew (unplanned) first blood from the Saviors with that rocket launcher.  Further, if Negan knows that it was Maggie and Carol who killed his people at the meat packing plant (and why wouldn't he as the whole thing was discussed by the Saviors - his people - on their walkie-talkies?) he might see killing Glenn as a way to punish Maggie since he knows (due to Glenn's outburst when he threatened to kill Maggie) that the two of them are together.  Along with all of those 'negative' impacts, there would also be a chance to throw in a 'hope for the future' theme in that part of Glenn would live on in the baby he and Maggie have conceived (if Maggie and the baby survive.)   As far as Carol and Morgan swooping in and saving the day, I don't think that will happen.  I don't think the day is going to be saved.  I think Negan is going to do exactly what he said - kill one of them and force the rest of them to work for him.  I think he is going to be the 'big bad' for a long time to come, probably for the next, two seasons or so if not longer (assuming the show lasts that long.)

  I think we can be 100% sure it wasn't Rick or Carl as, just before he started swinging Lucille, Negan said something like, "If anyone moves cut out the kid's other eye and feed it to his father."  That means it wasn't either of them who were getting the bat.   I think Rick has to live, anyhow, because this will be another, major shift in his character.  As the T.V. show version of events has played out, Rick has to take a good bit of the blame for how things have turned out.  Not necessarily because he chose to hit the Saviors first - that might not have been a bad idea if done right - but because he got cocky and assumed that his group of asskickers were the ultimate group of asskickers left alive on the planet.  He didn't take time to have his group find out more about the Saviors or anything else before rushing in headlong to make them aware of his group and the rest of Alexandria.  In the end, hopefully these events will 'bring him down a peg' and make him realize that an effective leader knows when to lie low and when to attack.   As far as his character having become 'obnoxious' lately, I think that is intended to show that people like The Governor (or, perhaps, even Negan) don't necessarily start out as megalomaniacs and heartless killers.  Even someone as basically 'good' as Rick was/is can become a Governor type leader given the right circumstances.  I think it also shows that the 'hope' offered by Alexandria has gone to his head a bit too much.  When they first came there many in the group worried that being in Alexandria would make them 'weak'.  I would argue that it has, although not necessarily in the way they feared.  I think it has made them 'weak' in that it makes them feel safe and because of that they have forgotten to be cautious.   As for Morgan, I was hoping that if the show didn't follow the comics then it would be him who would have his head bashed in.  He is the character I am sick of - although shooting that Savior multiple times in the season finale might be the beginning of his road to redemption.  Speaking of which, did anyone else think that the Savior he shot - the one who was going to kill Carol - thereby basically ending his period of refusing to kill looked a bit like Eastman - the guy who taught Morgan to swing a stick and started him on his period of refusing to kill to begin with?

There was a brown one like the one in the pic posted earlier in this thread in my sister's bath tub last summer.  Also, when we were kids we used to see some tiny - I mean itty bitty - black scorpions around the front porch steps at my great grandmother's house in a rural area of Sevier County.  There would usually be a few of them seen at once.  Not sure if they were babies or just a very small species.   I don't recall seeing scorpions on any other occasions or locations in East Tennessee but they are definitely here.

When Morgan was carrying on about how if he hadn't let the Wolf live then the Wolf wouldn't have been there to save Denise and Denise wouldn't have been there to save Carl my thought was, "If you had killed the Wolf he wouldn't have taken Denise hostage. In fact, she only left the infirmary to go to the jail because you (Morgan) asked her to because the Wolf was injured. So. Morgan, if you had killed that Wolf then Denise wouldn't have been in that position to need saving in the first place, dumbass."

Double post. Dangit.

Theoretically. In fact, I think that is why some 'experts' (Ayoob, maybe?) recommend that folks find out what ammo is issued to local law enforcement and carry that. I think the idea is that it might be harder to paint someone as a bloodthirsty maniac carrying extreme ammo that only a crazed killer would carry if it is the same stuff that the local police, Sheriff's Dept., etc. is issued for duty ammo. I'm not sure how much stock I put in that but folks have obviously thought of the possibility, at least.

  You used the example that just because a person has a flame job on their car doesn't mean they are a 'speed demon'.  True.  Keep in mind, however, that insurance companies do sometimes charge higher premiums for cars that are 'fast' colors such as yellow, red, etc. over cars that are painted white and so on.  At least that used to be the case and I am pretty sure it still is.  So, same car, same engine, same driver, same torque and horsepower driving the same distances on the same roads/streets/highways with the same speed limits and the same traffic situations but higher premiums for one over the other simply because of the paint job - and because they probably have statistics saying that people who drive cars of certain colors are more likely to speed than those who drive cars of other colors.  Right or wrong, perceptions matter - and when those perceptions might be the perceptions of a jury deciding whether an individual shot another person because he/she had to or because he/she wanted to then perceptions matter a whole lot.

  Actually, the fact that we are the minority and there are loud voices opposing us - while the majority of the public doesn't think too much about these issues, either way - are the reasons we're not farther along in repealing these bad laws today.  There is incremental progress, there is making great strides in progress and then there is jousting at windmills.   I believe that the permit system provides, to the majority of voters in TN who probably don't have strong opinions on the subject either way, an assurance that the people who are carrying loaded guns behind them in Walmart or sitting next to them at Applebee's have undergone some sort of 'vetting' process and have proven themselves to be competent enough with a firearm to carry one in public.  Do we know the 'range qualification' in TN is a joke?  Sure - but most people don't and that likely helps keep those who don't have an opinion either way from becoming part of the opposition.  As a minority group we can't afford to have the currently mostly uninformed public turned against us.  It is my belief that we have made the strides that we have made in the last, few years because some politicians want to court our vote and doing so won't hurt their chances with the majority of voters who, again, just don't care.  While I do believe it is possible to get enough of those individuals 'on our side' or at least not in opposition to, possibly, get general carry without a permit passed.  Let it be announced, however, that 'anyone' can now carry a loaded gun where these folks' children attend kindergarten - and you can bet the worst, possible spin would be put on that by the media when it is reported on the news or by the school administrators (whose statements most uninitiated parents are going to trust) - and I believe those folks would suddenly care.  They would care a whole lot - and they wouldn't be on our side.  As it would get the majority riled up and help the opposition rally them against us, carry in schools, etc. without a permit - if passed or even if it looked like it had a strong chance of passing - would likely hurt us more and set us back more than any failure to remove bad laws has to date.  Further, I believe that carry without a permit will never become reality in TN if our side doesn't recognize that we are going to have to give in on K-12 schools at the very least.  By refusing to do so we would only be shooting ourselves in the foot, figuratively speaking.   Do I like that this is the state of our society?  Of course not.  But it is.  As a mostly pragmatic person, I believe in picking the battles that we can win rather than knowingly achieving Pyrrhic victories.  Now, if folks want to fight for carry everywhere with no permit required as part of a strategy to get other things accomplished - for example, our side pushes for no permit carry everywhere simply as a negotiation tactic.  That way, we can 'compromise' by 'giving in' on no permit carry in K-12 schools, etc. but only on the condition that we get no permit carry in most, other places with an enhanced permit option for those who want to be able to carry everywhere, period - just like law enforcement - where not prohibited by federal law. 

  Yeah, that is the sort of thing I was thinking of.     Because this is the real world.  I don't intend that to sound condescending - please don't take it that way - I'm just saying that no matter how much we might wish we lived in a society where self defense would get the overwhelming support needed in order to bring such a system into being the fact is that it is very unlikely.  Reality is that those of us who like to be prepared to defend ourselves and our loved ones by carrying a firearm are the minority.  We might see legal carry without a permit within our lifetimes but I don't think we'll see carry in schools, etc. without a permit - especially if carry without a permit comes to be and suddenly nearly everyone who can legally own a gun can carry one without the type of background checks that a permit currently requires.  So, rather than having no avenue for carry in such places at least an enhanced permit would give those who want to be able to carry in such locations an option for being able to legally do so.  Many of us would still want to have such a permit in order to be able to carry in other states, anyhow, so - as carrying in schools, etc. without a permit isn't likely to ever happen - adding the ability to carry in such locations with a permit would just mean added value for the permit.

  My viewpoint is that it is her house and property and she had every right - legal and otherwise - to be there.  Claiming that she is somehow 'culpable' because she had the audacity to go into her own property is ludicrous, to me.  The person who was illegally there is the one who is culpable and, thankfully, the one who got dead.   Should she have waited for the police to arrive and make sure all was clear?  Would that have been the smarter thing to do?  Maybe.  Should she be considered somehow 'culpable' for entering her own property?  Absolutely not.  To my mind that is one of the major problems in this country - we no longer seem to recognize that the person who is committing the crime and illegally entering another person's residence, in this case Trevon, is 100% responsible for the outcome when they get killed as a result of their crime.