JayC

If you go back to my last post I commented on how our first war as a country was a fight against radical Islam. Our founding fathers were well aware of Islam... There were a number of legal cases here in the American colonies before the revolution concerning the status of muslim person, including cases of being sold into slavery and then being released by British and American courts because they were considered equals to whites under the law. And just to be clear... I do think that radical Islam could pose a threat to our freedoms sometime in the future... I just don't consider it to be in the top ten, or even in the top twenty threats... IMHO we have more pressing threats to our liberty, that we should focus on fixing before worrying about a threat that might pose a serious risk decades from now... How about we focus on real problems such as our national debt or the over reach of all levels of government? Those are issues that directly mpactour liberty today, not in 60 years. The first amendment is difficult to appreciate at times, but our founding fathers placed it there for a very valid reason, knowing full well the dangers of some religions to corrupt our freedoms if given the chance.

Dave, I took an oath to uphold the constitution and wore a uniform for this country... I'm educated well enough to know that blind alligence to a government is not being a true patriot. Our founding fathers were well educated men, most of which had either first hand experience with Islam, or were well informed of the religion. They knew all of the same things we know about Islam today, the only change being humans have discovered high power explosives. Are there things we should be doing to stop groups who want to subvert our God given rights to worship as we see fit (within the boundaries of not harming others)... Yes but Islam is a much smaller threat to me than progressives and neocons are... Let's focus on restoring our God given rights and getting rid of our Unconstitutional laws... Then in 4 or 5 generations if people are still pushing Shari law... We can fight that battle then... When it poses a real threat to our freedoms... The fact is if we allow the government power to regulate religions to fight off a largely fake threat to our freedoms... The government will start abusing that unconstitutional authority long before Islam could possible pose a serious threat to our way of life. And learn a little more history before you start calling people unamerican... I'm 100% American.... My values are much more in line with our founding fathers than somebody who would ban a religion for something that might be a serious problem 80 to 100 years from now.

There are a number of towns in tn that still have pre 1986 laws on the books. Some even appear to technically prohibit all forms of carry with the city limits even with a permit... But there has been no record of any of these laws being enforced. There are also a bunch of parks posted that probably can't be posted under the current law... Any public park that is operating on leased or loaned state land can't be posted legally... Metro Nashville has posted some parks which appear to violate posting under the state law.

Other than court rooms, schools, parks and wildlife areas state government property is covered under the same posting law as private businesses. So a non legal sign on a government building carries the same weight as a non legal sign on a business unless it's one of the above special victim zones.

More progressive horse poo getting spread around... First, we didn't have a pledge for over 100 years... because it violated many of the principals of our founding fathers. Second, the pledge was written by Francis Bellamy, a Christian SOCIALIST (aka progressive), who believed in "the rights of workers" and "equal distribution of economic resources"... Does that sound familiar at all? Couple little facts about the pledge, in the beginning you didn't put your hand over you heart, you did a Nazi salute. http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/65/Bellamy_salute_1.jpg A picture of American school children performing the pledge in May of 1942. Oh yeah and Bellamy, a complete racists that didn't believe that all men were created equally The Pledge was 1 part business idea to allow the paper he worked for to sell more American flags to schools... and 1 part progressive agenda. Third, It was only during WWII that Congress in a propaganda move, added the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag Act... Fourth, 12 years later, adding 'under God' as a propaganda move to help fight communism. Go back and re-read Jefferson's, and Adam's... read the transcripts from the Amistad where John Q. Adams (former President) represented some Muslims... Our founding fathers were well aware of the issues with radical Islam, having fought our first war against it, yet still believe in true freedom of religion.

My point is you can start a confrontation and still be clearly justified in using self defense.... The case in this news article doesn't seem to be an example of that... But you can't say just because somebody starts a legal confrontation they loose the ability to claim self defense. As for the Zimmerman case... I don't think we know enough about what happened between the end of the 911 call, and the shooting, to say who was the aggressor and who started the physical assault. But, I will say at the end of the 911 call Zimmerman had not done anything illegal up until that point in my mind. Following somebody is not a crime.... Walking up to somebody and asking them what they are doing in your neighborhood late t night isn't a crime... The key to that case is the couple of minutes between the end of the 911 call and the start of the 911 call where Zimmerman is screaming for help. Until we hear testimony or see evidence relating to that timeframe, it's hard to say if Zimmerman is guilty or not... I will say I'm leaning towards not guilty, because I don't see likely scenarios where Zimmerman broke the law.... While Martin a known drug user who appears to have been suffering physical effects from purple lean abuse - including brain and liver damage is much more likely to have been the aggressor in my book.

No offense, but starting a confrontation in and of itself should have no bearing on self defense... Starting a physical altercation or making verbal threats should... Here is a perfect example: You're coming home from your next door neighbor's house, and you see somebody messing with your wife's car parked on the side of the street.... you approach and start yelling, "hey what are you doing?? get away from that car! I'm calling the police", and you start to approach the car, as you do the man turns and has a weapon in his hand, and he is within 20 feet of you. Clearly SYG should apply, you have a bad guy breaking into your property, he's armed, and within melee striking distance... that is a pretty black and white SYG case... But in your mind since you started the verbal confrontation it's not? Getting in a shouting match has (and should) have nothing to do with SYG... the aggressor is the first person to use, or threaten to use violence illegally. I can tell you examples all day long that are clear cut self defense under SYG, yet the personal claiming self defense started the 'confrontation', yet did so legally.

Scott belongs in jail a lot more than Zimmerman IMHO.

How exactly do the police have probable cause that a bank robber is stopped at a stop light at this exact minute, yet have no information about their race, gender, age, clothing, or make, model, color of vehicle they are in? The citizens were held in handcuffs for almost 2 hours, had their vehicles searched, and there children who were riding with them scared half to death... That sounds a little more serious than a simple inconvenience to me.

There are a number of good inexpensive vehicle gun safes... it's better than nothing... I guess... only time I use mine is when I have to enter a 'kill me zone'.

First, the entire class system is make work... corporate welfare for ranges, instructors, and the finger printing companies... and make work for TDOS, a way to add employees without having to get more money from the legislature. How do we know it's make work? Because 99+% of people who take the class pass. Second, I'm not worried about HCP holders... There is a little know stat about shootings, an average citizen (and we know how little firearms training the average citizen has had) is 5 times less likely to shoot and kill an innocent person in a self defense situation than a police officer. Third, the VAST majority of adults can pickup a handgun and hit targets at 3 yards all day long with little or no training... That is why we all want handguns they are the great equalizer, they require very little training, and work for just about anybody with 2 brain cells to rub together. I see the argument for keeping the permit system in place to allow people who want to to carry in other states, but we should adopt constitutional carry, if you can buy it, you can carry it.

Umm, I'd report said instructor, as state requirements don't list a certain caliber you must qualify with. The state class and shooting requirements are a complete joke to begin with, nothing but make work and corporate welfare for ranges and instructors.

Well not exactly true, you're only required to show your HCP if you're asked for you HCP. I doubt very many officers go around randomly asking people if they have carry permits. As for the ride along, I've been on a few with different departments ranging from urban/suburban and rural. I understand why they're asking for ID, it's a tool they use to catch criminals... My issue is what appears to be in this case, the reaction to somebody legally saying no. It appears to me as crossing the line from keeping the public safe, investigating possible criminal activity. I watched a show on Discovery channel last night, the title was head games, or something like that, where they went over people's "sheeple" reaction to a man in uniform among other things... My guess is officers rarely get told no by law abiding citizens, and they are pre-programmed (like all of us) to have an irrational response from the non-conformity presented to them. The show was very interesting I'd suggest everybody take a look at it.... Either way, it appears to be that irrational response to non-conformity at work here.

Here I am thinking that bail was only supposed to be enough to make the defendant show up for his day in court? How does a defense fund setup and seems to be controlled by his attorney going to encourage him not to show up for the trial?

Don't forget about the RINO Beth Harwell.

But, if you don't wish to give out your ID, and the law requires it... and there is no evidence of a crime what does it matter to the police officer? I'm not advocating that police officers can't investigate... can't ask questions... only when people choose to legally not cooperate... that lack of cooperation doesn't prevent them from investigating if a crime accorded. In this case, the video appears to show the police arriving, seeing there was no crime being committed, and instead of leaving they continued to involve themselves, even though everybody involved was acting lawfully. Whatever the reason (although it appears to me to be because people lawfully refused to show ID) the instant they determined no crime was being committed, their entire reason for investigating went bye bye.

How does you showing ID or not showing ID tell them if you're committing a crime (not talking about HCP permits here in TN)? It should have no impact what so ever... either they see you committing a crime, or they don't...

I don't think anybody is saying the police shouldn't respond, and shouldn't have approached and said hello... even asking for ID isn't wrong... The issue is once politely told no, seeing that no obvious crime was being committed, they didn't just leave... they pulled the guy away from his friends and his meal to have a "talk" with him alone, and then tried to talk the restaurant manager into kicking these folks out. The first part is fine, the second isn't. Who can argue with that?

It's coming Palmer v D.C. http://ia600408.us.archive.org/2/items/gov.uscourts.dcd.137887/gov.uscourts.dcd.137887.1.0.pdf Honestly I thought it would make it before SCOTUS this year, hopefully next year.

I'm not talking bad about the State Guard, just trying to set the record straight that it largely is under funded, and it's mission is not well defined, and is poorly implemented... It's an organization that the state is trying to find a purpose for because they don't want to support a trained state defense force. Re-read the the state law that authorizes the State Guard, it calls for the Governor to organize a state defense force, to be kept within the borders of TN when the national guard is called up for federal service. The State Guard was originally organized into infantry and military police battalions (ie light infantry), and back in the 80's and 90's did combat training. That mission has fallen out of political favor, and as such the State Guard has been left to find a more politically correct "mission". TNSG is trying to do a lot of different things, that other volunteer organizations already do, and in virtually all cases, better than the TNSG currently capable of doing. Mostly because of funding issues... but there are other structural problems. I'll give you a case in point, during Katrina, the Red Cross and TEMA were setting up a shelter for people being evacuated from New Orleans in middle TN. TNSG showed up looking for something to do, first they had no communications capabilities, second, they were requested to help provide 'security' to a sensitive area of the shelter (ie checking ID badges of people coming in and out of a room)... The request had to be made in writing and it took 3 days for the TNSG to deny the request (a job that had by then assigned to 60 and 70 year old ham radio operators, some of which were riding around in electric wheelchairs). This was an MP battalion, one would think that one of the duties of the National Guard (and by extension TNSG) during a natural disaster, would be to provide security to an evacuation center and that an MP battalion would be the right folks for the job Now, I am aware the TNSG has made great strides over the last few years, they have increased their communications abilities, most units now have bubble pack radios, and a few ham radio operators, and but they still suffer from the not as good as the other guys problem... CERT teams, more volunteers, less red tape, very similar training to the TNSG. ARES/MARS, again similar training, a lot larger, much less red tape... Red Cross/Salvation Army/etc huge organizations with out the limitations of the TNSG. We already have a great number of NGO volunteer groups who are doing disaster response and recovery work, they today do it much better than the TNSG, they're much better funded than the TNSG, and have many more volunteers than the TNSG. Most importantly, the TNSG which by law is supposed to be a DEFENSE FORCE, is unable to complete that mission, not because of the men and woman who are members of the TNSG, but because the TN state government doesn't want them to.... Either way, for somebody who is looking to join a state ran 'militia'... I think we both can agree you're not going to spend a lot of time shooting rifles, or learning military tactics,etc... You're going to be doing Red Cross/CERT/ARES style volunteer work in 1980's woodland BDU's and having to salute people in the process

I can tell you from experience, that isn't what the state guard is doing today. The guard has 21 M16A1 rifles, and a handful of pistols in it's only armory. They are a batch of rifles given to the state prison system when they got custody of James Earl Ray (killer of Dr King). When the state prison system got better rifles they were transferred to the TN state guard. They have a VERY small ammo budget each year, I'm not even sure it's enough to qualify all their members on a regular basis. Most of their field equipment is older than you have to be to get a HCP in this state... all early 80's era gear, including protective gear... They aren't training their members for combat (even though most of the units are infantry units on paper). Honestly, the state is largely the hold up here, unwilling to provide the funding needed, and unwilling to have them train and prepare for their stated goal. A couple of years back, I was recruited pretty hard by one of their units, including a long sit down with the commanding General, and a few of his aides. Very good group of guys, but they are severely hampered by the state. As for public NGO militias, there are a few, some are good guys, others are nut jobs, it's pretty easy to Google and find them, and figure out which are which... And there are private groups who are doing preparedness and tactical training throughout the state, again a mixed bag. You just have to listen and ask around in the right places and you'll find those groups. Honestly most of the private groups seem to be better trained and organized IMHO.

The TN State Guard is NOT a militia. They are a good group of guys, who are trying to help their community out, but are largely hampered by the state in being of much use today. A militia by law has it's line officers elected by the members of the unit. Only staff officers are appointed by the Governor. This is a very critical difference from all state guard units I'm aware of in this country today, and laws regarding traditional militias approved under state law. Why is that such a critical difference? Because it makes the officers directly answerable to the men they are leading. It drastically changes the dynamic of units when they choose who will lead them, and then those leaders select the NCOs from within the unit. This is how militias were ran from the revolution all the way up to the start of the civil war.

I'm a law abiding citizen who doesn't like having my time wasted... who doesn't want some stranger rooting through my personal belongings and papers... I work hard, why are they wasting my time? Again, no issue with them asking to search or see an ID, just an issue with them getting upset when you politely tell them no. I've not had this type of bad experience before, but it's clear it happens a lot more often than it should... Most of these videos seem like a power trip for the police officers, instead of really trying to protect law abiding citizens. There was absolutely no need to pull that guy away from his friends and his meal... So why do it? The likely reasons aren't good.

It could and probably does happen, more often than we all like to admit... but they don't have a right to force somebody to identify themselves just because they want to know... The real question is, if you REALLY think that your local police department would make stuff up just to lock somebody up who isn't breaking the law, what are you doing to fix that problem? Because they don't loose their jobs when they do stuff like that, your taxes go up to pay for the lawsuit the city looses... The increases in insurance fees, or in the case of self insured cities and counties payouts are a matter of public record... go down and ask to see the budget sometime for your local PD, and wait for you eyes to bug out in how much we the tax payers are paying for that line item.

true, but I'd take a truther over a progressive any day of the week Somebody who thinks the government is purposely trying to destroy vs somebody who thinks the government can solve everybody's problems? Both might be nuts, but the truther at least has the right idea about how to fix the problem