JAB

I have eaten them off and on all my life, when I find them.  Ripe ones are good - not so ripe ones can pucker your lips.   A couple of years back I had gotten ahold of several from a tree that was loaded.  I talked about them at work and my supervisor said something about her grandmother or aunt, etc. having made something called 'persimmon pudding' when my supervisor was a kid.  She even had the recipe so I made some.  It wasn't exactly a 'pudding' as we might think of it - more like a loose, sweet bread.  Pretty good stuff.

I don't necessarily think that we need to support an idea that allows the state to make yet more money off of those of us who wish to carry where we should be able to legally carry, anyhow.  In other words, I don't think we need to have an 'enhanced permit'.  What is the justification for such a permit, anyhow?  Instead, as long as TN continues to have a permit, then all carry permits should be 'enhanced' - especially since obtaining an HCP, at all, requires attending a training course (one major distinction between the basic carry permit and 'enhanced' permit in MS seems to be that the 'enhanced' permit requires attending a training course while the basic one requires no, formal class.)  After all, if I am 'safe' to carry my firearm in Walmart - where a cross section of my fellow citizens go to shop - then why would walking into a public school, a government building or a 'posted' business suddenly turn me into a mass murderer?  It honestly makes no sense, whatsoever.  Either I can be trusted to carry a gun or I cannot - and if I am trusted to carry my firearm around families with children in Walmart or at McDonald's then why would I not be trusted to carry around those same children in a school, around public employees in a government building, inside a 'posted' business or in the parks of one city or another?   Until/unless Constitutional carry becomes the law in this state and as long as a permit is going to be required to carry and as long as background checks, etc. are required those of us who have an HCP should be legal to carry pretty much anywhere.  The permit should also cover tactical batons, etc. as well as knives with blades over four inches and other, similar tools that could otherwise bring about an 'intent to go armed' charge.  If we are going to have to pay for the privilege of exercising a 'right' then we should at least be getting our damned money's worth.

  That is weird.  Like I said, though, I haven't bought any since the current craziness went into full swing.  It sounds like maybe they are trying to churn the stuff out so fast that quality control has gone right out the window.  That is too bad as I was all set to stop hating on Golden Bullets since the stuff in the 225 round boxes I bought right at the beginning of the 'shortage' seemed much improved over the older stuff.  Thanks for the heads up.

  I do think that many people are going that route.  My problem is that:   1.  The good air rifles with decent power cost over $100 and I can't bring myself to pay as much for a 'bb gun' as a .22 rifle costs, or nearly as much.   2.  I shoot handguns more than rifles.  If I shoot a rifle, more often than not it is a .22LR or .22WMR but I still shoot handguns more.  Partly that is due to the ranges at which I can shoot in my back yard and partly it is to get trigger time that is relevant to carrying a handgun for SD.  The air pistols I have seen that are comparable in size and feel to a carry type handgun are pretty weak and, to my mind, aren't all that comparable to shooting a 'real' gun.  22LR handguns, on the other hand - while still not exactly the same - are a much better approximation, IMO.   3.  BANG! - even the .22 version of it - is simply a whole lot more entertaining, to me, than Pfffffttt.  I get bored with air guns a whole lot more quickly than with gunpowder powered ones.   That is just me, though, and I am truly glad that some folks have found that they can get their small caliber fix from a pellet gun.

  Just in case you weren't aware, right before the current nonsense began Remington was claiming to have improved their Golden Bullet ammo.  A couple of their 225 round boxes were the last .22LR ammo I bought - and the last LR ammo I found in stock at Walmart - several months (almost a year) ago.  I tried some of it out in a couple of my handguns and rifles and found that it did, indeed, seem more accurate.  I also didn't have any failures to ignite in the (admittedly small) sample that I fired, which to that point was a bit unusual for Golden Bullet ammo.

    As 6.8AR stated, human beings have biases.  I believe that such has been the case ever since the development of self awareness.  For that matter, it isn't even just a human phenomena.  Chimpanzees are known to form war parties to fight other groups of chimps.  Heck, even little critters such as meerkats will fight other meerkats - animals that have no, noticeable physical differences from themselves and are only 'different' because they belong to a different group.  Yes, their prejudices are based on very basic, fundamental things such as territory and resource availability but the fact remains that they do not treat all members of their species equally.   I would argue that such prejudices and biases are often the impetus for advancement and development of the human race.  Think of space exploration as one example.  The U.S. wanted to put a man on the moon not only for pure, scientific curiosity but also because we wanted to get there before those damned commies beat us to it - and my impression was that it wasn't an entirely friendly competition.  Now think of all the results that came about either directly or indirectly due to the original impetus of the 'space race' - things ranging from a possible better understanding of the universe and ourplace in it right down to such humble, everyday items like Tang and Velcro.  Of course, the desire to explore outer space and the advancements that came about as a result were not entirely due to these prejudices but I do believe that those prejudices added quite a bit of fuel to the fire, especially in the infancy of space exploration.   There were a couple of nineteenth century gentlemen who looked at the issue in far more eloquent a manner than I can.  Some might say that these gentlemen were a product of a society that is now outdated.  I, instead, would say that these gentlemen were able to put aside ethereal, philosophical niceties (such niceties as would be called 'political correctness' in our day and age), look at the truth of human nature and admit that prejudices are natural, will likely always exist and, while they do not have to rule our actions will always at least influence our attitudes.   Charles Lamb was one of these gentlemen:   http://www.ourcivilisation.com/smartboard/shop/lamb/sympathy.htm   William Hazlitt was a contemporary of Charles Lamb.  He published an essay on, basically, the same subject roughly five years after Lamb's.  Hazlitt was a bit more direct with his choice of title, however.   http://www.blupete.com/Literature/Essays/Hazlitt/Hating.htm

I always liked this old Eddie Murphy skit from Saturday Night Live (back when SNL and Eddie Murphy were both still funny.)  It makes fun of the notion that whites are treated so much better or have life easier simply by virtue of being white.  That it was a Black comedian who was making fun of that notion is my favorite part.  I couldn't find the whole skit as a YouTube video which is why there is a link rather than an embedded video.   http://www.snotr.com/video/422/Eddie_Murphy_goes_undercoverI

  If you hadn't already posted this, I was going to post something very similar.

  Ah, but 'minorities' are called 'minorities' for a reason.  Supposedly, it is because there are 'more' white people (majority) than any other, single 'race' (minorities.)  If, then, there are more white people it would simply stand to reason that a larger number of CEOs, etc. would be white because the 'pool' from which such individuals are chosen would be weighted simply by the percentage of overall society that they make up.  So, what you are saying is that unless such positions were somehow skewed to hire more people of a group who make up a smaller percentage of society as a whole then the group that happens to be the largest has an unfair advantage?  Unless, of course, 'minorities' aren't really 'minorities', at all.   Early in the last decade there was a study that found that, at the time, there were more black males in prison than in college.  Some people saw that as an indictment of our society and as evidence of how we had 'failed' that segment of society.  I have to wonder, though, if it is indicative of a societal problem or if it just might be that the particular black males in question would rather commit crimes than do the work necessary to attend and graduate college.  To me, it would seem that the onus to change the pattern would fall on the black males who are committing crimes and ending up in prison rather than those of us who aren't committing crimes and aren't going to prison.  That is not to say that there aren't plenty of lazy, white criminals or that there aren't plenty of hard-working, law abiding minorities.  However, it is often said that the simplest answer is usually the correct one and in this case the simplest answer is that if an individual is more likely to go to prison than college then that is probably because the individual in question is more likely to commit the type of crime that would land that individual in prison than to do the work needed to be a college student/graduate.  I refuse to shoulder any blame because someone would rather be a thug than go to class nor will I fall victim to 'white guilt'.   I came from a background of a family that was definitely not affluent.  My father's parents made him drop out of high school his junior year to help support his brothers and sisters.  He didn't want to drop out but his parents forced him to do so.  Even at that point, he had already been working for several years as he started working pulp wood with his father somewhere around the age of twelve.  My mom completed high school and that was as far as she went.  I am the first person in my immediate family to have graduated college.  I worked while attending college - sometimes a full 40 hours a week while carrying a full class load.  I have cousins who did not attend college but who are honest, hard working individuals who do not attempt to make a living through crime and then blame others for it.  I also have cousins who are in to drugs, some of whom have been to jail for theft and other crimes.  All of them are white males who lived in rural areas.  There were no bleeding heart programs to keep them out of trouble or tax-dollar backed initiatives to help steer them to an academic path.  Still, they chose their paths and they are to blame for the outcome, not society.  I could have fallen into that pattern and used my background of coming from , basically, poor white trash as an excuse I suppose but I instead chose to go a different route.  Partly this was because of my own personality and largely this was because my parents wanted something different, for me and because of the support and guidance I received from my parents and maternal grandmother.  Even now, with two Bachelors degrees and a Masters degree I am not exactly making piles of cash or receiving societal accolades but I am also not knocking over liquor stores or making meth.    Statistics can be presented in such a manner to support just about any argument.  As the saying goes, there are lies, damned lies and statistics.  For me, I'll take the reality I have lived over a bunch of meaningless statistics.  The whole idea that I was or am somehow 'privileged' because of my skin color or my gender is utter B.S. and honestly it makes me angry every time I hear someone trying to claim such nonsense.

    Yeah, because there are so many college scholarships that are proudly given only to whites, not to mention all of those that are specifically for men, only.  Goodness knows there are no, such scholarships for minorities or women.  Oh, wait...   Oh, and then there is so-called 'affirmative action' that requires a certain amount of a work force be white males.  Can't forget that one.  Oh, wait...   Of course, we can't forget all of those government backed, tax dollar funded social programs intended to help the poor, white kids in rural areas get better schools, all the programs to keep those poor, rural white kids off of drugs and make sure they succeed.  Too bad there aren't programs for inner city minorities.  Oh, wait...   Finally, we must not forget the NAACP - National Association for the Advancment of Caucasian People.  Oh, no, that's right - it's the Advancement of Colored People.  To have an association for the advancement of Caucasian people would obviously be racist.  I suppose a mind wasted is only a terrible thing if that mind belongs to a 'Colored' person.   Personally, I am so sick of all this crap I could puke.  Quite possibly the greatest number of 'priveledged' people in this country are white but that in no way means that all white males are 'privileged'.  Personally, I am too busy trying to make a living and get by from day to day to have any time to oppress anyone and I am sick and damned tired of being blamed for something I haven't done or told that I receive 'advantages' that I do not receive.

About five years ago when I first got my carry permit and went looking for 'premium' carry ammo for my P3AT, the only such ammo I could find locally at a decent price and in enough abundance to be able to test them out in the gun was Federal Hydrashok.  They run just fine in my gun and as the gel test results I have seen for them indicate that they penetrate well.  Also, while they may not expand as much as some others, they do give fairly consistent expansion.  I realize that the HS are 'last generation' tech for SD ammo but I figure that if it works, it works.  The only other 'premium' defense ammo I have really tested through it was some Winchester PDX1.  I decided to try it out a little over a year or so back because it was readily available (even Walmart sold it - this was before the current ammo scarcity nonsense) and I thought it might be a good idea to have such an alternative in case I have trouble finding the Hydrashok at some point.  The PDX1 also ran well through my P3AT.   In addition to the P3AT, I also have a FEG SMC-380.  Not the most 'refined' pistol, I guess, but it is a good, little gun.  It runs FMJ like a scalded dog but didn't want to run the Hydrashoks, at all.  I tried out some Monarch brass cased .380 JHP from Academy in it and they ran through it like corn through a goose.  The Monarch .380 JHP isn't the 'prettiest' ammo - honestly just looks like they sliced the nose off of an FMJ then made a little cavity in the center of the exposed lead but the FEG likes it so that is good enough in that gun, for me.  The FEG doesn't really get carried much, anyhow.

  And keep swinging until you mostly see a bloody pulp.  Don't pop the guy upside the head once and then stand there like, "That's right - I just smacked your as..."  BLAM!

All the above aside, I live so far out that there is just about zero chance of me getting any trick or treaters.  The only kids that young who live near me are my sister's kids.  I am happy about that because it means I don't have to worry about buying candy and so on but sometimes it would be kind of nice to live in an area where if I decorated for Halloween there would be people to see it.  I like Halloween but as it is I haven't even bothered making a jack-o-lantern this year.

  The way I read the article, she plans on only giving the letter 'instead of candy' to the kids that she deems to be 'obese'.  From the article, although not 100% clear:  

  My uncle told me about doing something like that, once, except he said that he uses a rope (instead of a cable) and a tennis ball (instead of a rock.)  He said that the skin would just come right off.   Honestly, I have not skinned and processed enough to be fast at it.  I can do it but it would take me probably half an hour or so to do what that guy did in two minutes.  For me, though, gutting without piercing or busting anything I don't want pierced or busted (bladder, etc.) is a big part of what slows me down.  That and I have decided that I like eating the heart so I don't want to just dump everything out onto the ground before I cut the heart out.

  Better yet would be for every, single kid who receives one of those letters to return them to her - scattered all over her yard.  Maybe with something like the following written at the bottom or on the back:  

While I can, on a philosophical level, agree that there should be no restrictions on firearms carry by a non-felon adult who does not intend to use said firearm in a crime, I can also see that such might not be entirely practical.   As such, I think the solution that would find the best middle ground between 'liberty' and 'practicality' might be to change state law so that open carry of a long gun is not illegal per state law in Tennessee but allow for city ordinances against doing so.  Of course, that might get confusing so another solution might be to change state law so that open carry of a long gun is legal except inside city limits (so that such carry would be against the law inside the limits of any and all Tennessee cities, thereby avoiding a patchwork of confusing laws.)  Open carry of long guns in an urban setting could be problematic but, as gregintenn so aptly pointed out, Tennessee is not entirely an urban environment.  There are plenty of places in this state where open carry of a long gun would be appropriate.  Just because it might not be the best idea in downtown Knoxville, Nashville, Memphis or Chattanooga doesn't mean it wouldn't be appropriate on walking/hiking trails in state parks or in other rural or remote locations.

Heck, even in California the open carry of long guns was apparently legal until last year.  Guess what apparently got the law changed?  Yep - 'activist' bozos carrying their long guns into places like Starbucks.  So, yet again, the 'heyeverybodylookatme' morons ruined things for everyone else.   http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/california-politics/2012/09/gov-brown-on-banning-open-carrying-of-long-guns-in-california-.html

  I can think of plenty of places where open carrying a long gun (and, again, not all long guns are AR15s - I don't even own an AR15 and really don't have much of a desire for one) would be perfectly reasonable.  Starbucks is not one of those places but that does not mean such places do not exist.  Clod Stomper gave a good example.  Personally, I like carrying a single shot 410 or 20 gauge around on my property because the last, two summers we and others who live on our road have seen an abundance of copperheads.  I also carry it when walking to my mom's house or my sister's house.  In fact, having the 20 gauge with me at my mom's house allowed me to be equipped to shoot a 'coon that was killing my chickens out of a tree (it had the carcass of my last, remaining chicken in the tree with it - I plan to get more next spring) as I walked from her place back to mine (past my chicken coop.)  Luckily, for me, our properties are all adjacent so I can walk from my place to either of theirs without leaving private property.  Simply stepping onto the public road while doing so should not make me a lawbreaker, however.   In fact, I would say that I think open carry of a long gun would be appropriate in many of the situations in which I think open carry of a handgun would be appropriate.  People should be able to carry their shotgun, pistol caliber carbine or even AR while hiking secluded trails, camping, fishing in remote areas and so on without such carry having to be incident to lawful hunting, the weapon being legal for whatever hunting season is open or even requiring a hunting license if the person is not actually hunting (yeah, I know that portions of the TWRA would probably whine that this would make it too hard to determine who actually was hunting illegally but curbing the rights of the law abiding to make their job of catching criminals easier does not fly, with me.).  So, perhaps common sense should dictate that carrying a loaded long gun in an urban, public setting - and especially doing so just to be an 'activist' - is, well, stupid.  That doesn't mean that there aren't any situations in which open carry of a long gun would be reasonable nor does it mean that doing so should be illegal.

From the linked article:         I, for one, think that these brave officers are to be commended for risking their lives  getting their clothes wet in order to protect the rest of us from naked, teenage boys.  I mean, that kid could have had an unregistered soap on a rope or a military style loufa.  Hell, for all they knew he might even have a towel rolled up, waiting to pop them on the ass when they broke down the door.  Besides, he was probably wasting water by not keeping his shower short.  Such offenses cannot be overlooked and these stalwart defenders of society must deal with such desperate and dangerous individuals on a daily basis.  They have to do whatever is necessary to make sure they go home to their families at the end of the day safe and alive having not been struck by an assault shower brush.  We should stand together in defending these fine public servants because none of us would want to do their job (well, unless the offender were a 25 year old woman, anyhow), right?   Right?

  There is a difference between going about one's business while carrying a long gun down the street, etc. or even into a truly gun friendly business and being an activist who insists on carrying them into a place of business that doesn't really want to be part of the debate and is trying to remain neutral - thereby causing a resultant curbing of the ability to carry in that place of business by those who recognize that the place of business in question just wants to sell friggin' coffee and does NOT want to be a battleground for the issue.  For that matter, the same is true regarding open vs. concealed carry of a handgun.  What is so difficult to understand about that?  Having the 'right' to do something doesn't mean that one shouldn't still exercise enough common sense to decide when actually doing so is appropriate or not.  I have the 'right' to free speech but getting up and talking about how Obama is destroying the country in the middle of a wedding, halting the service and interrupting the couple's wedding vows still isn't an appropriate thing to do.  What is so confusing - or conflicted - about that?  Seems pretty simple and, again, a matter of basic, common sense, to me.

  I think another type of long gun - the shotgun - is being overlooked in this discussion.  The 12 gauge pump by my bed, loaded with buckshot, is not that long a range weapon.  It is more of a defensive/close quarters weapon.  Not all 'long guns' are AR-15s or scoped, high powered rifles.   For that matter, there are things like pistol-caliber carbines that should also be considered.  Such carbines are 'long guns' but that doesn't mean they are long range weapons nor does it automatically make them 'offensive' weapons.

  I see your point and even have to admit that it might make me a little nervous to be walking around on a crowded sidewalk with a bunch of folks with ARs slung on their backs.  However, the law isn't there to prevent me from feeling uncomfortable around people who are doing no harm by their actions.  Attempts to prevent discomfort via laws is also the sort of thing that generally leads to stupid laws that ban or limit ownership or importation of certain weapons just because they 'look' scary to the sheep.    As for this being a different time and a different country, I'd also say that is part of the problem, not a justification for limiting rights.  Instead, maybe we should be looking to support things that might help us return to those times and being that country rather than going along with attempts to move us further away from them.  Just a thought.

  :)  I'm generally too broke to have anything so nice as steel targets.  They sure do a number on paper ones, though.  As for trashing the gun, that is one of my favorite things about my P95s.  While some, other companies warn against using steel cased ammo, etc. as if such ammo will cause their pistols to crumble to dust upon the first shot, the Ruger P95 manual has this to say:  

  About a week ago, I decided that it had been too long since I practiced with my Ruger P95 so I grabbed a partial box of Blazer, a box of Tula (steel cased), a couple of paper targets and hit the back yard.  Both functioned fine.  This was the first Tula 9mm Luger I have shot so I was interested to see how it would do.  It had that 'odd' smell that Russian and similar ammo often has but it also seemed a little 'stouter' and I shot it a little more accurately.  I saw some of it at a local Wally the other day and it was priced at about what the Federal/Blazer stuff was priced last year (around $10 per 50.)  I imagine that as long as Tula is available at that price it will henceforth be my 'on hand supply' 9mm practice ammo of choice.