RobertNashville

I suspect that even our founders understood that rights have to be balanced and that there is a place for regulation.   What we have a right to do in our own homes...on our own private property, is significantly greater than what we have a "right" to do once we are in the public arena.  Anytime one person's right starts to infringe on another person's right, government has a legitimate role in setting boundaries and rules.   I.E....you have a right to listen to music on your car stereo while driving down the street; you do not have a right to listen at a volume so loud you could damage the hearing of people on the street as you drive by. By the same token, you can be drunk as a sailor in your own home...walk out on the street and it's a different matter...get behind the wheel of your car and it's really a different matter. ;)

I think it would be more correct to say that "driving" a motor vehicle is a privilege; I don't believe that using the roadway is a privilege.   We may not have the right to drive but I think it can be argued that we do have the right to travel freely and without undue restrictions from one place to another and since roads are (almost always) paid for by taxes I think the government would have a difficult time saying you can't use them at all. ;)

You know; when talking about the law, it often helps to actually look at it. ;)   Public Chapter 307 allows law enforcement officers in TN to require blood of a driver under arrest for DUI when (a) he/she has a prior DUI conviction or (b) a child under 16 years of age is in the vehicle at the time of the arrest. This new law will go into effect January 1, 2012. Attached is the link: I don't know "who" actually draws the blood or tests it but I would presume it's the exact same procedure used now (as police have always been able to force a blood test with a warrant).

You can join the TFA and NRA and GOA and USCCA and other pro-gun/pro-2A organizations right now...the best way to move toward actual restoration of our 2A rights is to get involved. ;)

Well said.   Of course media influences us...to deny that is ridiculous.  Media, and advertising in particular has changed our society   “The conscious and intelligent manipulation of the organized habits and opinions of the masses is an important element in democratic society… In almost every act of our daily lives, whether in the sphere of politics or business, in our social conduct or our ethical thinking, we are dominated by the relatively small number of persons … who understand the mental processes and social patterns of the masses. It is they who pull the wires which control the public mind.”– Edward Bernays, founder of the public relations industry.   Among other things, Bernays and his methods is why Americans think a bacon and eggs breakfast is "normal"; it didn't use to be! I don't know how much, if any, violent video games or other media play any part in the mass shootings we've seen recently, but to deny that possibility seems ludicrous on its face and while some here seem to claim they know; the fact is that we don't know and until there has been legitimate, scientific studies done to examine the issue there is not way to know.   All that aside, I'm not suggesting that we should ban or legislate such games and media out of the marketplace...in fact, I don't think we should.  Not only do I think that would be the wrong thing to do I don't believe for a moment that it would solve the problem because the problem is, as has already been mentioned, society.

Whether his observation is correct or not, I don't see any reason to get on your high horse with him; do you even know what kind of music he produces? If it's "I want to rape you and kill you" stuff then yeah he probably should quit..I would. If it's "I've got tear in my ears from lying on my back in my bed as i cry over you leaving me" type stuff then I don't think that's a problem.

I think you missed my point which is that not all speech is protected speech and even speech that is protected can be controlled/restricted without violating the First Amendment.   If any real connection between violent video games (or movies or books, etc) and actual violence can be documented then such speech is not protected anymore than speech that incites rioting is protected. Again, I'm not saying that their is such a connection or that such should be banned or controlled even if there is a connection but I don't see a First Amendment problem with the overall concept.

How can this moron breath while standing in such a huge pile of bull shit?

You are not incumbering "free speech" to keep such games and movies out of the hands of the children any more than you are by making child pornography illegal.   I'm not saying I necessarily agree that violent movies or video games and such should be controlled or banned or even that they are a problem (in fact, according to John Lott, at least I think it was him I heard say it, studies don't support this alleged connection between such games and violent acts); just saying that I don't see an 1St. Amendment problem with restrictions on this type of "speech".

The story said he refused to leave...as I understand it refusing to leave private property once asked is trespassing; seems like a good charge on its face.  The mall absolutely had the right to ask him to cover his shirt or leave; most especially if they have a standing policy on such things which they seem to have...this moron's only chose at that point is to comply or not...he chose poorly.   Folks can laugh all they want about the "lying to police" issue but the news stories on several outlets say he was arrested for criminal trespass and "filing a false report". I understand that lying to police isn't illegal but filing a false report is; at least it is in the five states I've lived in as an adult. While we don't know the details of that "report" I see zero reason at this point to think the charge isn't legitimate. If they aren't legitimate then they'll likely be dropped.   The guys a moron but even morons deserve their day in court and he'll get his...but I bet he won't like the outcome.

Well...I watched it...my opinion hasn't changed...he's an idiot.

I've shot quite a few rounds myself - through an M1 and M14...they were pretty reliable too. ;)   Don't misunderstand; I'm not dissing the AR...if I had already owned two or three ARs a few years ago I don't know that I'd have bought an SCAR but I didn't own any and saw no reason to get one once the SCAR became available.  I've nothing against the AR platform...I've shot many from various manufacturers; even an M16 a number of years ago as M14s were being retired.   The SCAR is cool...it's also a hell of a lot of fun to shoot!

I do understand they are pricy but they aren't just sexy, they are sexy but not just sexy. ;)   I took a two -day fighting rifle class a couple of months and used one of my SCAR 16s - I purposely didn't clean it between days to see if it would start to malfunction but it went through the entire class without a hickup; everybody's ARs and AKs started having multiple feeding problems/malfunctions; some really bad problems.   I realize that's just my example and not something you can make sweeping generalizations nor am I saying that there is anything with an AK or AR but I was very pleased with home mine performed.

What time will it end?   If' it's going to happen I wish it would happen before going to work but with my luck, it will probably be just about the time I'm leaving work.  ;)

I don't put faith in any organization run by man or any man for that matter. ;)   But even if I did, not really about faith...it's about showing solidarity and strength as well as supporting this (and other organizations) that actually have wields some power among those who WILL make these decisions (because we don't get the make the decisions; the people we've sent to DC will).

  Throwing around words like "appeasement" and phrases like "roll over" is exactly the same as is done by those on the left when they use phrases like "assault weapons" or "high capacity clips' or "cop killer bullets". Such phrases only serve to inflame the other side and try to make the opposing view look foolish or crazy...they also severely limit the possibility of real discussion.   I'm not willing to appease or roll over...I'm also not going to take up arms and I refuse any suggestion, overt or covert, that appeasement or civil war are the only choices.

Maybe...but words don't cost anything (or at least not much) - not directed at you or anyone in particular but I suspect there are a LOT more people talking tough than there are willing to put their lives or their children's lives on the line to back it up.   Armed rebellion is a pretty messy business no matter who wins and likely, such a war here today will just result in misery - not a "win"...not a preservation...not a a restoration of anything; just a shattered country and misery.

They ban high capacity magazines...people will buy more 10 round mags...I can change a mag pretty damn fast and I know plenty of other people can do it faster than I can.

Did you not read the article? I admit it doesn't give all the facts (big surprise there I know) but yes, the man was asked to cover his t-shirt and/or leave and he refused.  Security called the police and they arrested him for trespassing.   He also lied about how he got to the mall...the article doesn't say I but suspect how this became an issue was when MPD were identifying him they found out his license was suspended; since I'm sure he knew his license was suspended at some point in the process he lied about driving there (probably worried about driving without a license).  More details we don't have...I don't know at what point the "lie" about his transportation became an illegal act but one thing is pretty damn clear - this guy was an IDIOT.   He was an idiot not just for his disgusting message on his t-shirt but he was an idiot for wearing it at a busy shopping mall before Christmas while news of 20 small children being murdered was still fresh...he was an idiot for wearing such a shirt which was obviously going to draw attention to him (or at least is should have been obvious) when you ILLEGALLY drove to the mall. Now, I'm no criminal mastermind but I my license were suspended and I was going to drive anyway; the last thing I would want to do would be to do something that was going to draw attention to myself and THEN, refuse to leave a business which was going to get the police involved.   If this guy was a driver for a bank robbery he'd probably hang magnetic signs on the doors announcing "GET-A-WAY VEHICLE"

This is not the first time I'm read this - where is this misinformation coming from? The NRA is a 501c(3) non-profit organization; if people don't like the NRA fine, but how about at least getting basic facts correct.

The only way that "NO" to compromise/new gun laws has any impact is if those who say"no" are are willing to back it up with force; even if it means their death.   It's just my opinion but I suspect that for every 10,000 people who say we must say "no", about 1 of those 10,000 will actually show up for the fight.

Fine...what exactly are you going to do?   Are you going to "go out guns blazing" when the police or BATFE or whoever comes to get you illegal guns?   Going to start a civil war and see maybe tens of thousands of people die?   It sounds so manly...so patriotic to say "I'm not willing to compromise any more of my rights away, period" but what exactly are you going to DO?   Those are rhetorical questions and even if they weren't you probably shouldn't answer. I just think they need to be thought through very carefully.

As I said in another thread; if we value any of the infringed 2A rights we have left we had better find a way to ban together and stop eating ourselves. Not joining the NRA because it isn't a perfect organization is an excuse that needs to be put aside...not only should we join the NRA but we had better join every pro 2A organization we can find AND contribute money to their PACs because THAT is where the dollars are needed for the battle that's coming.   Sit this one out and don't join because they once did something you didn't like and you'll wake up one day and all you'll have left is your bolt-action 22LR or maybe even just a BB gun (just don't shoot your eye out).

Regardless of when it happens; all this bloated, self-important worthless examples of human flesh are hypocrites and deserve any insult that can be thrown at them.   I can at least respect a liberal, even a gun-hater, who lives by the principles they espouse...I have nothing but contempt for people like Rosi, or Opra or Moor or Bloomburg who go around telling everyone that they don't need firearms while THEY are protected by private security WITH GUNS.   They all need to be rounded up, stripped naked, put into blocks in the public square and humiliated for being as stupid and condescending and worthless as they are.

I dislike the "background check" process as much as anyone - we know it doesn't really stop criminals from getting guns and it especially can't stop someone from becoming a criminal after the purchase; maybe even weeks or years after the purchase.  However, would having to succumb to going through an FFL for all firearm transactions, including private party, be an reasonable trade to, say, keep being able to BUY weapons; especially those they wan to ban entirely because they "look mean"?  I would certainly prefer the background check if the alternative is banning many types of weapons.   Of course I don't like it but what exactly are we supposed to do?  We can talk about how we won't compromise our rights but what exactly does that mean?  How far are you willing to go? (no need to actually answer that; just proposing that people need to think about it...really think about it).   Of course there are no amount of gun laws of any kind that would have stopped this young man from doing what he did at Sandy Hook Elementary nor will any new gun laws stop the next one. But I'm sure you know, that doesn't matter.   People are so appalled by what happened that they are going to demand that something be done and, as is always the case with government, they'll address the symptom rather than the problem...as is always the case when a gun is involved, they'll blame the gun. Why?  Because it's so much easier to do so and because many people and especially those with a liberal mindset hate guns; even if they don't know why they hate guns.   We all know that if this disgusting, evil man had stolen a big dump truck and rammed his way into the school and killed twice as many children; NO ONE would be blaming the dump truck.   The real problem is not the gun or the dump truck; it's EVIL. We know evil exists, that's why most of us who carry, carry...we understand the very unpleasant reality that the ONLY thing that can stop an evil man with a gun is a good man with a gun who is willing and able to use it. But, no liberal politician and a lot of (alleged) conservative politicians want to say that because they don't want to be labeled as a nutcase or as someone who wants "military grade child-killing weapons" available to the general public.   Any way you slice it, we have an uphill battle coming...I think we'll be lucky to beat back very many of the proposals that will be coming out of DC. As James Yeager said in his video that I and others posted, we had better pull together and stop eating each other...we can't find ways to agree on how to push back on what's coming then nothing will stop it.