RobertNashville

Fine...then let's talk about it.   Reagan supported some gun-control and while he may not have been a champion of the second amendment; he was not its enemy either.   Some attempt to paint Reagan as pro-gun control based primarily on the pro-Brady Bill op-ed piece making it sound as if he supported universal background checks but he did not...he supported a kind of background in that his goal was establishing a background check system for people who buy handguns, his op-ed said nothing about shotguns or rifles. Moreover, he also specifically preferred state-level legislation; not federal. He wrote an op-ed in support of background checks on handguns, not on shotguns or rifles and he believed that states' rights needed to be protected and proposed that the Brady Bill should not apply to any states that implemented their own background check system.   I don't purport that Ronald Reagan was "perfect" on 2A issues but I don't and never will vote for or against someone on any "one" issue either.

"In this present crisis, government is not the solution to our problem; government is the problem. From time to time we've been tempted to believe that society has become too complex to be managed by self-rule, that government by an elite group is superior to government for, by, and of the people. Well, if no one among us is capable of governing himself, then who among us has the capacity to govern someone else?"                                                              - Ronald Reagan's First Inaugural Address (1981)     Sometimes I can't help but think to myself that "people" are just too dumb or too uneducated or too self-absorbed to be able to "handle" the burden of governing themselves and I fall into the trap of believing that "someone" needs to step in and do if for those people.   Ronald Reagan knew better...I think he had a true and abiding faith in America and it its people...that THEY, even if they weren't perfect, would always be better at governing themselves than any government, not matter how well intentioned, could ever be.   I miss Ronald Reagan and I miss how he made us feel about America.

  That's a damn good suggestion and one I should take to heart.   I guess this subject is just a touchy one with me...not sure why...just is.   Take care.

  Not to lighten the significance of those TDOT workers killed but do you really suggest that a TDOT worker's job is as or more dangerous than a law enforcement officer's job? Really???   I've worked in several industries over the past 40 years and have knowledge of far more than 100 deaths on the job in that time...lots of jobs are "hazardous" but none those industries expect their employees to run TOWARD the gunfire or into a burning building or to be a target for every dirtbag criminal out there just because they happen to wear a badge.   I'm really glad we have people maintaining our roads and bridges but comparing the hazards of that job or most any other (or without saying it directly, comparing qualifications for each) to law enforcement officers would be humorous if it wasn't so disingenuous.   For someone who claims he doesn't have a chip on his shoulder it certainly sounds as if you do.  :shrug:   I'm sure you are a decent guy and we may well agree on most issues but we are NEVER going to agree on this one...have a nice day.

From what you’ve seen???  What, exactly have you seen?  How many LEO's have you had experience with? From my quick research, there are approximately 700,000 full time state, city, university and college, metropolitan and non-metropolitan county, and other law enforcement officers in the United States and 120,000 full time law enforcement personnel working for the federal government. So how many have you met/encountered that has formed this opinion that "most leo's I've met are leo's because frankly, they're too sorry to do much else, or else they get a thrill out of screwing with people...? And oh yes, thanks for making that important distinction that you are only denigrating and insulting “most” and not “all”.   And no, I haven't changed what you've said...I've QUOTED what you said.     Out the vast number of law enforcement officers you have met/encountered; how many have expected to be put on a pedestal??? As to other professions, I respect anyone who works for a living (rather than living off the work of others) and who is a "plus" to his/her community but moreover, I happen to have a lot of respect for people who actively put their lives on the line (and have to face insults and slanders from some)for doing so…other than law enforcement, and our military and I don’t know of many other professions that have those kinds of job requirements...I know mine doesn’t…does yours???

:taser:  Yeah...I guess as far as you are concerned, police today are all loosers who couldn't get a real job or are just sadists who do the work just so they can screw with people, right?   :screwy:

Me too although I'm starting to think that those of us who do are in the minority around here.  :screwy:

You are the one who said...     I'm implying nothing. I'm saying it's pretty damn disgusting to denigrate and insult a whole (oh I'm sorry, I mean only "most" of) a profession who's members put their lives on the line every day to save the asses of people they don't even know while armchair quarterbacks make snide remarks such as calling them "to sorry to do much else".

Intent aside, if you refuse to let them search in this situation and you would be hindering them. If that's a true statement then you either need to get out more or move. Or perhaps better yet, if you think the job is so easy and the majority of LEOs so corrupt or so stupid that they "can't do much else" then perhaps you should try to go through a police academy and get hired on then come back here in a few years and let us know how it worked out.

Well yeah...I supported McCain over Obummer and would any day of the week and twice on Sunday if for no other reason than I think McCain is a much more honorable man than Obummer will ever be.   There is a difference between "supporting" someone in a specific race and being a full-time, no holds bared, foaming at the mouth supporter for a politician.   In a similar way I like much about Rand Paul and believe him to be an honorable, truthful man. Unfortunately, I think he's absolutely dead wrong on this immigration/amnesty BS he's behind so whether I can vote for him now in a national election I'm not so sure...it's going to depend a great deal on what my other choices will be!

I agree..."top dog" maybe in the eyes of establishment Republicans but certainly not in the eyes of Republicans who are conservative.   I will admit, I have admired much of his fiscal policy and his plainly worded discussions that he has had with the liberal establishment in NJ...I realize I'm judging from afar here but he seems to walk a fiscal that, perhaps isn't "conservative" but is at least realistic.

I totaled a 2012 Nissan NISMO 370Z two weeks ago (a lady turned left in front of me)...totaled her Mercury Sabel as well as mine; I walked away with extremely minor injuries but she had some major ones.   Glad you are okay...I really like that Land Rovers; great vehicles!   My replacement vehicle (Nissan Armada) is also white...it's the first white vehicle I've had since 1975! :)

While I don't like that an "NRA" shirt caused an incident in the first place; I'd say that any kid (and any parent who let him) who would wear one to school...ANY school in the country today, is either stupid or looking to cause an incident (I suspect the latter).   Everybody knows how most schools and most school personnel feel about "guns", especially recently...hell, we have children being expelled for drawing a picture of a gun or even eating a cookie around the edges to look like a gun....do we really think that a t-shirt with the image of a gun isn't going to be met with the same type of overreaction???   And yes, partially because I think that was the kid's/parent's intention in the first place I suspect that the kid got mouthy and disrespectful to the school administration and the cops which is generally a pretty bad idea even if he wasn't doing anything wrong in the first place.

Humm...I admit I didn't do an in depth study of what Christie is proposing so maybe I'm missing something important but other than beefing up addressing the mental health issues I don't see a big change here from what is already law in NJ.   I know that most "gun control" laws do absolutely nothing except infringe on the rights of the law-abiding but the "mental health" issue is one that really does need to be addressed...that issue scares me to death because of the significant potential for abuse and because I don't trust politicians to deal with the issue well even if they don't abuse it. However, I think most of us realize that firearms in the hands of mentally unstable people IS a major problem and we need to find a way to deal with it.

Now there is a someone who has a crystal ball with fully charged batteries.  ;)   Anyone who says "X"..."can't happen to me" or "can't where I live" is "can't happen at my age" or any other similar assertion often find out just who wrong they are.   Anything can happen to anyone, at any place and at any time...that "X" doesn't happen to most people doesn't and never will mean that it can't happen.   By the way, this dirtbag wasn't in anyone's "house" so whether he could get inside your home without your knowledge is not only probably not 100% accurate but, in this case, immaterial.

I stand by my statement (that you quoted)...you can "what if" it 'tll hell freezes over but it doesn't change my viewpoint.   Most of the time, I'm going to try and HELP law enforcement; not hinder them just as most of the time, law enforcement is comprised of good people trying to do a job that most of us couldn't qualify for and wouldn't do even if we did qualify.   Bad LEOs who willfully and knowingly violate individuals' civil rights are a different matter and should be dealt with (mostly in a court of law and not the front door of you home) but when folks proclaim that THEY aren't going to let police in to search because of THEIR fourth amendment rights it sounds a lot like a kid in a playground with a chip on his shoulder darting another kid to knock it off...sometimes that kid with the chip on his shoulder wins but as often as not he gets knocked on his ass.   As to my weapons...what weapons?

I think you are painting with a VERY broad brush.   Were mistakes made by some law enforcement agencies....sounds like that may be the case. But an overall "D" for all law enforcement in this case; I think that's a bit harsh especially when giving the grade with the help of hindsight.

Sometimes I think we take this "rights" thing a bit too far...we take it to far in that some are ONLY concerned about THEIR  rights while ignoring the very simple truth that no one's "rights" exist in a vacuum.   The "rights" we insist our ours because we are endowed by our creator (or if you prefer, simply by the fact that we are human beings) also, I would suggest, carry responsibilities to our fellow-man; something I believe our founders understood well.  In this case, that responsibility is to not be a pompous ass by refusing to let police search our home/property to look for a terrorist that planted bombs at a sporting event which killed three (including a eight year boy) and horribly maimed many others while you pontificate about your "fourth amendment rights".   I also think that some folks have an inordinate fear of law enforcement and assume that every LEO is going to screw us given any opportunity.   Just my opinion of course.

While many here don't like it, for any state (and TN is one of them) who follows the Uniform Vehicle Code "a car driving below the "normal speed of traffic" should be driven in the right-hand lane." Because it indicates "normal speed" instead of saying "speed limit" a driver going above the speed limit but slower than most traffic is still in the wrong. TN LEOs may not care and may not ticket you but it is what it is. Other states absolutely WILL ticket you and KY is one of them.   So, for those who think that they can't be breaking the law if they are driving the speed limit I call Bovine Scatology on that assertion. Of course many won't think so as they don't like being confused by the facts which was so eloquently stated by Garnfa when he said...  

So true... So true!

I don't think that is a 100% true statement...I don't believe it is necessary that YOU must be a suspect in any way.   I may be absolutely wrong on this but if a law enforcement believes or have reason to believe that someone they are pursuing may be inside of your residence, that is sufficient cause to compel a search with a search warrant (i.e. to legally search your property). Of course they would have to convince a judge of that but the point is, I don't think they have to convince a judge that YOU personally are a suspect in a crime.

As I said....   "on a multi-lane highway, anybody who sits in the passing lane when they aren't actually passing a slower vehicle..."

I don't know whether I would consent to a search or not...in a civil society there are laws and procedures that are supposed to be followed and I don't really know if they have been in this case...given the situation I might hedge my bet a bit and grant permission to enter and search for the fugitive they are looking for but nothing else (for whatever difference that might make).   I DO know that standing at my front door,  especially given this situation, is probably not the place to have an argument about it...if the police/law enforcement/government are violating citizens' rights as they do this then it's going to have to be settled in court and many days, weeks, months or even years after.

It's not about "being nice"; it's about obeying the law and safe driving.   The passing lane is for passing; I'm not sure why that concept is so difficult for some to grasp.  And, in just about every stat if you are in the passing lane and you aren't actually passing another vehicle then you are breaking the law.   Vehicles that just cruise along in the passing lane also set up a decidedly unsafe situation. Changing lanes, regardless of what lane you are changing from or to, is one of the major contributing factors to traffic accidents.  Left-lane hogs, either on purpose or out of ignorance, force people to move to the right lane or even more than one lane to the right to pass. This not only is a dangerous maneuver (and should be unnecessary) but drivers, by and large, don't expect to have "faster"/overtaking traffic to their right so when they FINALLY decide to get over they often won't look to see if another car is there.   I say again, on a multi-lane highway, anybody who sits in the passing lane when they aren't actually passing a slower vehicle is an ass...if they are doing it knowingly/on purpose then they are a dangerous, self-absorbed ass.    

Yes they will...they are one of the several states that go beyond the Uniform Vehicle Code, which says a car driving below the "normal speed of traffic" should be driven in the right-hand lane. Because that code indicates "normal speed" instead of saying "speed limit" a driver going above the speed limit but slower than most traffic is still in the wrong.   KY will ticket you and I've seen that enforced many times (as I travel between Nashville and Columbus OH frequently).