JAB

I have actually been to one of the D&B locations in Atlanta more than I have been to the one in Nashville. Actually wasn't impressed by the Nashville one, at all but that is another story. I know that the one in Atlanta - which is a stand-alone building full of awesome, or at least it was full of awesome the last time I was there, several years ago - has or used to have a sign up that there had to be an adult for every so many minors that entered. I don't know if the Nashville one has such a sign or not and I know you meant the mall as a whole. Just saying that someone else obviously thinks that is a good idea. As for signs, I like to be compliant with the law but I also get pretty annoyed when, after jumping through hoops, paying fees, being vetted by the authorities and so on some business still wants to treat me like an armed thug. To that end I try to avoid posted places but if I choose to enter one or have to enter one I may or may not have adopted the policy that concealed means concealed and if they ain't got metal detectors then they ain't posted. Hypothetically speaking, of course. I mean, a huge sign in plain sight is one thing but I just might miss a smaller, less obvious sign and probably wouldn't look too hard to find one.

I think the thing about Woodstock isn't necessarily that it was the 'biggest', the 'best' or whatever else. I think that, maybe because of the time it happened, maybe because there was nothing exactly like it, before and probably because of a host of other reasons - like it was a big 'hippie' event that probably marked a time when the 'hippie' movement and the whole peace/love thing in general was beginning to wind down, it is seen as such a special thing. Just think that it wasn't too many years after Woodstock that the 'big' movement in music was Disco for Pete's sake. There may have been and will be music events, festivals and gatherings that are 'bigger' and even arguably 'better' - and I wouldn't be able to say because I wasn't even born when Woodstock happened. However, even as someone who wasn't even born at the time I think I can say that no, other such event will ever leave such an indelible mark on the American mythos or resonate in American cultural history as Woodstock did, has done and will continue to do. You hear people talk about Bonaroo as a fun time, sure, and you hear people talk about Lollapalooza as a great time but you never hear of people talk of either of those in such an historically significant and almost mythical manner as you hear with Woodstock. That may well be because there are so many great festivals, etc. today that none of them really stand out from the others. Heck, to be entirely truthful I think if I had the chance I would rather go to SXSW or the Austin City Limits Festival or one of the other festivals in and around Austin than Woodstock even if I had a chance to go to Woodstock. Further, many and perhaps nearly every organizer of every, such event will often try to tout their event as 'the next Woodstock'. So, in that way, Woodstock set the bar. Think of it in other terms. There may be boxers today who could wax Mohammed Ali's behind but those boxers will always be compared to and measured by boxers like Ali and others. There may be baseball players today who could put the past greats to shame but there will only ever be one Babe Ruth, Hank Aaron and so on. Likewise, there may be bigger and even better festivals but there will only ever be one Woodstock and it will be the standard by which all other such events are judged.

From time to time Boker has some really good deals on sale, clearance or discontinued items on their website. I think this is one of those deals. It is the Real Steel Bushcraft knife. As you may or may not know, Real Steel makes some knives for Boker with the Boker brand and, obviously, Boker also sells some knives with the Real Steel name. In fact, I think that at one time this knife may have also been sold as the 'Boker Bushcraft' knife. The current version of the Boker Bushcraft, called the Bushcraft Next Generation knife looks a little different but still similar enough to lead me to believe that it is also made by Real Steel. It is listed on Amazon for around $79 and on the Boker site at $99.95. I think Real Steel may also, now, have a Bushcraft II and the ones I have seen on the 'Tube have more of a tan/coyote color to the scales and sheath rather than black so this might be a 'last generation' knife for the Real Steel brand, too. Honestly on this knife I prefer the black, anyway. Real Steel is a Chinese company so if that bothers you then this may not be a deal for you. I couldn't care less as long as I get a quality knife. I have actually been considering this knife for some time and have almost pulled the trigger on ordering one at the regular price on more than one occasion but never quite followed through - and now I am glad I waited. I was considering it even at normal price based on YouTube reviews on channels I trust where the knife generally received very high marks. I also think it is a nice looking knife. I like carrying a fixed blade on my belt when not at work or another location that might prevent doing so and I have been wanting to get a 'non-tactical' looking knife with a kydex sheath so that I can carry it horizontal in a cross draw setup or scout carry as I already have things I prefer to carry on my right side. This thing is made with D2 steel - which, from my recent purchase of a D2 version of a RAT 1 folder I have learned that I really like. The Boker Buschcraft Next Generation - the one listed on the Boker site for $99.95 is 440C. I would much rather have D2, personally. It also has G10 scales and red liners (the Next Generation has micarta scales so comparable materials there.) Now for the kicker - the original price of the Real Steel Bushcraft was $69.95 which probably isn't bad, at all, considering the materials used and so on. Right now, though, Boker has them on their website for $24.99. It can be difficult to find a decent, 8CR13MOV folder for that price! I ordered two and with shipping and all the final tally came to $56.93 which is still $13 less than the original list price on one! I am pretty psyched to get these and try them out. The link: https://www.bokerusa.com/fixed-blade-knives/real-steel/bushcraft-02re002?_dbl=%2Fsearch%3FfilterArticleLabel%3DSaleUSA%3BsSearch%3D* Pics from the website:

Pretty much what I was talking about. Doesn't look exactly like my memory of it but the differences are purely cosmetic and minor - and may only be due to it having probably been nearly 30 years since I saw the thing. I was trying to remember whether or not it had a number to indicate the track it was on and couldn't say for sure that it did but it looks like I was remembering that correctly, too. I remember using it, myself, in high school to listen to some of the (pretty well phased out even by then - talking mid to late 1980s) 8 tracks that mom had or some that we would find cheap at yard sales, etc. that I liked. I also remember mom listening to the heck out of a Dr. Hook album she had on 8 track back in the '70s and early '80s that she loved although she usually played it on the Curtis Mathis. While on this trip down memory lane, what is the first record/album/single you remember buying/picking out? The first I remember was a 45 of Queen's 'Another One Bites the Dust'. The B side was 'Don't Try Suicide'. IIRC it came from the Sears on Central in Knoxville - a store that no longer exists and there is some kind of government/municipal office in the building, now. The second I remember was Styx 'Mr. Roboto', also on 45. Couldn't begin to tell you what the B side was on that one (EDIT: Wikipedia says it was 'Snowblind' and come to think of it that is right - although I still couldn't tell you what the song sounded like.) The first full 'album' I remember picking out was The Cars Greatest Hits on cassette. Mom joined one of those record clubs and let my sister and I pick out an album a piece when she chose her introductory bonus and then let us choose one or two more along the way until she cancelled. I remember that I also got The Police: Every Breath You Take, The Singles and Dire Straits: Brothers in Arms out of that deal, eventually, also on cassette.

We had a portable 8 track player that my mom got with S&H green stamps. Yeah, it was that long ago. I used it, some, even into early high school. It was probably, oh, 10 inches to a foot square - best I remember - and was yellow. It had one speaker built in to the front of the player and a 'plunger' made in to the top to change the track (track had to be changed manually.) Mom and dad also bought a huge Curtis Mathis television/all in one entertainment center kind of thing back in the late 70s. It was long, about like a dresser. The television screen was in the middle and was flanked by a speaker on each side. There was a 'lid' that could be raised on either side of where the screen was. Under one 'lid' was a record player and under the other 'lid' was an AM/FM radio tuner and an 8 track player. That 8 track player would change the tracks on its own.

Born in June of 1971 I was just about negative two when Woodstock happened. I have to say, though, this thread made me think of this commercial - especially the first 29 seconds or so. Heck, just the fact that I have been around long enough to remember this commercial probably makes me old :

I do want to slowly build up at least a small supply of freeze-dried, mylar pouch meals just because they are so stable, light, easy to store and it would be easy to keep them in a plastic bin or bucket with a lid and toss the bins or buckets in my truck if for some, strange reason I did have to leave my home (aka bug-in location) in a hurry. Honestly, my prepping is more in consideration of a natural disaster or possibly a foreign or domestic terrorist hacker screwing up the grid than in preparation for a government invasion, etc. In the case of a natural disaster if it were to make the area where I live uninhabitable then I would have no choice but to leave, at least for a little while, and having food I could quickly and easily load up to take with me would be good. I already keep a small, plastic tote/bin with some canned soup, emergency meal replacement bars, a few bottles of water, stainless steel bowls I could eat out of or use to boil more water and a Sterno stove with fuel in my truck just in case it takes me a little while to get home. The canned foods would be difficult to carry if had to go on foot. They would be more for a shelter in place situation, a situation where driving home might be very slow going due to temporarily impassable roads or for an initial couple of days when it might be better to stay put before heading out toward home on foot. Abandoning my vehicle would be my last choice but if it were down to staying with the truck and dying or trying to walk home and having a chance of surviving then I'd have to try and hoof it. In that event, the few freeze dried meals I have in there could be easily stashed in my get home bag (also in the truck) to hopefully sustain me until I could reach home and my other supplies.

Keep in mind, too, that the date stamped on canned foods IS NOT an expiration date. It is a 'best if used by' date and is there at least partially because of government requirements. From the FAQ on the Hormel website - notice the second answer states that the product is ALWAYS safe to consume as long as the seal has remained intact, etc. In other words, as long as it is stored correctly and the can/seal is in good shape there is a good chance that commercially canned food will essentially never go 'bad', per se. It may lose color, texture, flavor and - in some cases - some nutritional value but even that loss is 'gradual'. I don't think the corporate lawyers would allow Hormel to make such a statement if the company weren't pretty danged sure it was true - too much potential for being sued by someone who ate some of their canned food past the 'best by' date. Found here: http://www.hormelfoods.com/About/FAQs/FAQs :

Oh, I am talking about using an aerator. A 'store-bought' minnow bucket aerator, in fact. With non-chlorinated well water. With that setup I used to be able to keep minnows alive for a week, sometimes, by adding a little ice every once in a while, between changing water, to help keep them cool. I'd buy them one weekend and still be able to fish with the 'leftovers' the next weekend. The last, couple of times I tried it, though, I still lost a significant number over night. I think it has something to do with the minnows, themselves - at least where I live. A local gas station/convenience store where I used to buy mine stopped selling minnows because he said he had started losing more than he was selling. He had sold minnows for several years without having that problem and then all of a sudden his die off rates really shot up. Out of curiosity I asked a couple of the actual bait shops in the area and they said they had seen increases in die offs, too. This started eight or ten years ago, now, and I haven't fooled with minnows much in the last, couple of years but the last time I did there didn't seem to have been much improvement.

They are a pain, especially as there are fewer and fewer places to buy them and none of those places are open early enough for me to be on the bank or pier fishing as early as I want to be, meaning I have to buy them the evening before. That used to not be a problem but now it seems they die off so quickly that by the time morning comes half the ones I bought the evening before are already dead or dying. I have just never had much luck with artificial lures, in general, with exception of a few, rare occasions. I wish I did - it would be a lot easier to do spur of the moment fishing with plastics, etc.

My main point, however, was that Hamilton - in the excerpt you quoted - was speaking only about training, etc. of members of a formal, standing military body. He was not speaking about members of the general public who may or may not, at some point, be needed as part of a more generalized, citizens' militia. In fact, the entire paper was about drawing a distinction between the two as, he felt, the entirety of the citizenry could not be regularly trained, "upon such principles as will really fit them for service in case of need. " Just as not every citizen of the U.S. has to maintain a certain type of haircut, salute military officers or know their rank and serial number so the 'principles' Hamilton speaks of do not apply to every citizen but only to the standing military body for which he is arguing and membership therein. So, then, my point is that Hamilton is making no argument, whatsoever, about training or 'fitness' or anything else pertaining to the general citizenry and that there is no way, in my reading, to take it that he is making any argument about applying the standards for membership in a regular, standing military force to the citizenry as a whole when it comes to 'fitness' to own arms or anything else. Meanwhile, Madison is obviously saying that every, single citizen in the United States has the right to keep and bear arms and that such right is, in his estimation, an effective check against the formal, standing military bodies - such as those of which Hamilton speaks - being used by the federal government to enforce tyranny on the citizenry as a whole. The point of both papers was that the Federalists were arguing in support of the need to have some sort of standing, military body that would ultimately look to the federal government for leadership. Many, remembering the war they had just fought where their former government had used a standing military to attempt to enforce its will against the people, opposed the existence of such formal military bodies and believed that, in times of need, the citizens' militia would be enough. So, Hamilton is arguing that such a militia - with no formal, regular training and no pre-existing structure or established division of labor would not be enough while Madison was arguing that such a formal military body would not be able to stand against the citizens' militia if it came right down to it. Further, Madison is obviously saying that every citizen has the right to arms, period. Not after a background check, not with government permission, not on alternate Saturdays and not as long as they pass the requirements to have a permit. So, based on both papers I would still argue that the 'militia' referred to in the Second Amendment is the citizens' militia, not a formal, standing military body and that 'well-regulated' means that at the time such a militia is formed, if it is formed, officers will be chosen from among their number to act as leaders for the militia as well as liaisons between the militia and those governments, likely local or state governments, which the militia supports. So, then, my reading of the Second Amendment based on these papers and other information is: As the possibility of forming a citizen's militia, which would be beholden to local or state governments and regulated by same via officers chosen from among the citizen's militia, itself, is necessary to the preservation of a free state against encroachment from foreign enemies and an over-reaching, tyrannical federal government alike, the right of every citizen to keep and bear arms is guaranteed and shall not be infringed upon in any way, whatsoever, nor shall there be any restriction or requirement other than being a citizen placed upon the ownership and bearing of arms. Now, would I argue that someone who has a professional, medical diagnosis of being bat-guano crazy in such a manner that he or she is a significant threat to themselves or others should be able to own firearms? No. But I think the powers that be should have to prove that is the case before removing someone's right rather than everyone having to prove that we aren't 'unfit' before being allowed to exercise what is both a natural and a Constitutional right. In other words, under the current system you are 'guilty' until you jump through the hoops, pay the fees (be they background check fees or HCP fees) and so on to prove that you are 'innocent'. That, as they say, is bass-ackwards. And, no, a background check would not be needed to weed out those who had been adjudicated as mentally defective to such a degree that they cannot own arms or had been convicted of crimes which had resulted in firearms ownership rights being suspended. A simple database maintained at the federal level - accessible only to those who have an FFL - would be enough. The FFL types a name and SS number into the computer. A match means further inquiry to authorities is required and the sale is put on hold. No match means sale is good to go. No need for fees, filling out forms or any, other nonsense. This would also make it easier for firearms rights to be restored as there would be a single point from which the individual's name must be removed. Delete the name from that single database and that is all that would be required - no red tape, no contacting multiple levels of authorities, nothing.

To me, that sounds more like a small core of 'minute men'. Further, I do not read 'principles as will really fit them...' as having anything, whatsoever, to do with limiting arms. Instead, that would appear, to me, to mean training some to be members of a cannon team, some to be infantry, some to be cavalry and so on, probably so that if the whole militia need be mobilized there would be a core group that could instruct the irregulars and probably take the leadership roles. At least that is the way I read it based on the excerpt you posted. I will take a look at the entire paper, though. EDIT: I see, also, that Hamilton - unlike Madison - was using the term 'militia' in what was, frankly, an unclear and imprecise manner. In one sentence he will use 'militia' as a term almost interchangeable with 'army', in another he will use it to refer to a formal armed force maintained by each state and in yet another he will use the term 'militia' in the way Madison did, to indicate the whole of the citizenry. So, to begin with, that is how Madison's paper described it better than Hamilton's - because even Hamilton, himself, seemed unsure as to how to use the word. Further, even in Hamilton's paper the terms you cited that he used refers only to the standing militia, not to regulation of private citizens regardless of whether or not said private citizen might be called upon to fight as part of the citizens' militia.

Madison clearly explained what 'well regulated' with regards to a militia means in The Federalist #46. and: So, according to the guy who helped write the Bill of Rights, "militia" means any citizen who is capable of fighting against a tyrannical federal government and in order to 'regulate' that militia officers would be chosen from among the militia by such governing bodies (local governments) to which the militia gives allegiance. Further, those local governments would 'unite and conduct' the actions of the militia. 'Well regulated' has nothing to do with who can and who cannot own arms. It has to do with the structure of a militia should such a militia be necessary in order to resist the over-reach of a tyrannical government.

When I went to Reelfoot once the crappie were biting the heck out of those tube baits. Purple body with pink legs seemed to work best out there. I have never caught a single crappie on one around here, though. Maybe I am just rigging them wrong? I have caught a few crappie on minnows around here and even caught one on a wax worm, once.

In other words, because regardless of the rules they are supposed to follow and how clearly those rules are written, the people who can ruin your life and send you to prison think it ought to be that way. Unfortunately.

Baphomet?

As I already stated, I'd rather have the long renewal periods and pay ten bucks for the maybe one firearm I buy per year. Even when I was buying more firearms I would have felt the same, I think. Further, if truly explained to them, I think that most permit holders would agree. I am thinking that the majority of permit holders are not TGO members nor are they people who probably buy firearms regularly. For that matter, my WAG would be that a pretty healthy percentage of permit holders may only own the one gun that they carry. On the other end of the spectrum, the 'hardcore' gun buyers and sellers may not care, either, because they might be doing mostly private sales and purchases.

That is actually what I meant - TICS is an extra layer that is unnecessary and really only serves the purpose of allowing TN to charge ten bucks per check. Further, and maybe things have changed, I have had discussions with folks who were in states with NICS only and, according to them, there was no fee for a NICS only background check. Maybe I misunderstood but that was what I came away with and it has been long enough that I don't even remember what state(s) they were in.

I voted 'no' because I plan to do the $200 lifetime the next time I renew so I certainly wouldn't want to have to screw around with 'renewing' every five years just to satisfy that requirement. Also, to be completely honest, I don't buy guns all that often and have reached a point where, with the possible exception of one or two 'wants', I am not likely to purchase too many more so, for me, ten bucks a pop when I am buying fewer than one firearm per year is a lot easier to deal with than having to renew my permit more often. Honestly, though, the real problem - at least as far as I understand it - is that Tennessee has an unnecessary 'extra step' which is just an excuse to charge the ten dollars. TICS isn't necessary and NICS checks would be free, at least to my understanding. TICS is just there as a money making scheme, nothing else.

I have no, real need for another .380 pistol but the factory 'CC' model has always kind of called to me. I don't even know if they are still making the CC model. It was a factory 'dehorned and melted' version of the regular .380 that was designed for easier and more comfortable pocket carry. I never fired one - or any Bersa to my recollection - but I held a new one at Gunny's in Maryville, once and it felt really good in my hand. Bigger and heavier than my P3AT that I have had for years, though. That combat plus sounds interesting, too and looks pretty good as well. I actually like the .380 round. In addition to the P3AT I have a FEG SMC .380 (Walther clone) that my mom bought at a gun show. She gave it to me because every time she shot it she got the infamous 'Walther bite' on her hand. For some reason, although my hands are bigger, I have never had that problem with the pistol. I like it specifically because, while it is still relatively small and light, it is larger and heavier than my P3AT which makes it much easier to shoot. The problem is that I only have one magazine for it and magazines - when you can find them in stock somewhere - are expensive. If a part were to break it would pretty much become a paperweight as replacement parts would likely be hard to find. I have thought about one of the Bersa models specifically because I like the FEG so well and, also being (basically) a Walther clone I figure a Bersa would give me something similar, still at a fairly low cost, but for which it would be much easier to find mags and to have repaired, if needed.

I ain't going to grab the danged thing up if I have a choice and if I were in rattlesnake country I'd either have a shotgun, a centerfire revolver with snake shot or maybe my NAA .22 Mag with snake shot to deal with them. Heck, I do that around the house in case of copperheads in the summer. What I want him to show is the proper way to clean/skin and butcher that rattlesnake. I mean, it looks like there would be a lot of meat on that sucker and I have heard that they taste pretty good - I wouldn't be wasting it like that.

Seems that way to me, too. I looked at the list of Representatives and Senators who voted 'aye' so that I can begin compiling my list of people to vote against any and every chance I get. I don't care if they are Republican, Democrat or Plutonian. The Republicans at the state level have gotten away with this BS of saying one thing and doing another when it comes to gun rights and carry rights long enough. They pay lip service to 'gun rights' to get our support - thereby probably losing the support of anti-gunners who take them at face value - and then turn around and stab us in the back. It is time they lost the support of pro gun folks as well as the anti gun folks. We need to start sending the message that we want results, not handshakes and promises. If that means enduring a term or two of Democratic control in order to send the message then that is what we are going to have to do. For that matter, in some ways we saw more advances to gun/self defense/carry rights with Bredesen in the Governor's mansion and rabidly anti-gun Naifeh as Speaker - things like no duty to retreat being made official, so-called 'guns in bars' (even though both Bredesen and Naifeh opposed that one it still made it through - over Bredesen's veto, IIRC) and others than we have since the current bunch of losers took office.

But all things are not equal and never are. People who are from wealthy/privileged families will have an advantage regardless of skin color. This means that there are some black people, Asian people and so on who are a damn sight more 'priveledged' than the average white person. Further, you mean to tell me that there aren't a lot more resources, attention and effort devoted to trying to help 'inner city' kids (who are, let's face it, mostly minorities) succeed than there are to making sure that poor, rural (and mostly white) kids succeed? I am not buying it. The 'all things being equal' argument is simply not valid, IMO.

Not me. I think it is absolute B.S. As you said, being born into a wealthy or successful family gives an advantage but there are 'minorities' who are born into wealthy, successful families and there are plenty of white people who are born into families that don't have a pot to piss in. The wealth, influence or success one is born into is going to trump skin color every time. I have a lot more in common with the black man who gets up and goes to work every day and works a regular job to pay his bills than either of us has in common with Barack Obama or Donald Trump. However, as long as the 'powers that be' can keep racial tension stirred up then the general population will never take a look around and see that it is people in the circles in which the Obamas and Trumps of the world operate - regardless of skin color - who are screwing the rest of us - regardless of skin color. These folks have the money and power and they use that money and power to make sure that they keep the money and power which means keeping most of the rest of us 'in our place' - regardless of skin color. That 'white privilege' garbage is just another tool used to keep folks from looking behind the curtain. The only color that really matters is money green.

Sure, but what I am talking about is the CEOs who, apparently, don't have financial sense, leadership skills and so on. If the CEO had those things then chances are that the company would be doing well enough to provide raises to its employees. Instead, the CEO gets let go (finally) because he or she has done a piss-poor job and the company has done poorly as a result yet that CEO gets more money for failing (golden parachute) than the people who are successfully doing their jobs for the company will ever see while the company pleads poverty and says they can't afford to give raises to the people who are actually doing their jobs successfully and correctly. Then, after doing a piss-poor job at that company said CEO will land another high level job at another company and just might be replaced at his old company by someone who did a piss poor job at their previous place of employment - yet received hundreds of millions of dollars for doing so. As I said, these people - who did such a piss poor job that their companies needed bailing out with taxpayer dollars - still got their bonuses when the bailout money came through. Further, this idea that all anyone has to do is 'work toward' being a CEO is about as realistic as thinking you can flap your arms and fly if you just 'believe' strongly enough. You might have that one guy who manages to glide to the next rooftop due to a freak combination of prevalent wind, baggy clothing and dumb luck but the general outcome is going to be a big splatter stain on the pavement below. I am not talking about people who bust their butts as business owners. I am talking about high-level CEOs who got started on the path to where they are as much as or even more because daddy played golf with the company owner and said owner started junior off as an assistant VP than because of their KSAs or hard work.. In other words, I agree with you on 'connections'. Unfortunately, often those 'connections' seem to be more important than skill, knowledge or a willingness to work hard. I am not saying that some CEOs don't have skill, knowledge and a willingness to work hard. I am simply saying that, without the connections, a person could be just as skilled, just as knowledgeable and just as willing to work hard and could still have no, real chance of attaining such a position in a company. Should that person's skill, knowledge and willingness to work hard for the company not also be rewarded? Would not an ethical business want to operate in such a manner that such people would be rewarded rather than taken for granted, used up and tossed away? Oh, and let's see the CEO get to that important meeting where he can utilize his financial sense, leadership skills and connections when all the roads are closed due to flooding because the "ditch diggers" didn't do their job. Again, I am not saying that the ditch diggers should be making CEO pay. I am just saying that, in order for things to work correctly, every job is important. If the job weren't important in some way then said job would probably be eliminated.