RobertNashville

I'm not sure we'll reach that point; not because Obummer doesn't want to make all firearms illegal but for an entirely different reason.   Time.   I think even Obama will move slowly...pushing here and there.  In the meantime, we continue to rack up debt at over a $Trillion a year and continue to print completely worthless currency.  What I'm saying is that unless large and significant changes are made and made soon, we'll probably see a complete economic collapse before we see government troops going house to house to search for and collect firearms.

I'm not afraid of anarchists; I simply find their philosophy void of logic and unrealistic. More importantly, the anarchist's philosophy is anathema to the concept of a constitutional republic. Although an anarchist will not agree, bur regardless of the textbook definition of an anarchist and regardless of their intent; their path will lead inevitably to chaos and the ruling of the strong over the weak. We have government and we have rules because we need them...they are essential for a society to function. Espousing the absence of government and of all authority in favor of living only by their own rules is really just hubris dressed up as a political philosophy.

Thanks to Chip for taking the time to present a great seminar! Those who misses it REALLY missed some great info.

I don't really disagree; I just didn't get the impression that anyone is celebrating; just comparing. :)   I'm glad that most states (I think we are now down to 1 1/5 that don't at least allow some kind of carry) have been making progress and I'm glad I live in a state that compared to many others, has a system that does allow me to carry and to do so in a lot of states but that's were my celebration ends! It was mostly incremental steps that got all these laws in place that effectively took away our right to carry and it will be incremental steps that take us back the other way...I hope that even with Obummer's sure to come efforts to stop our progress, we can keep the momentum going in the right direction. 

    Still reading into it something that I don't believe is there (something I was just recently accused of ;) ) NH, in that poster's opinion, "doing it the right way" in comparison to others...I think you are painting with far to broad a brush to suggest that the poster or any of us mean that we think t should be done at all.

Who, specifically, has said that any state is "doing it the right way"? People are comparing the way various states do it but I think you are jumping to a conclusion if you believe that means we all think the process is "right". I think, at least most of us, would prefer no "permit" process necessary anywhere but that's not where we are right now. We didn't get to this point overnight but we HAVE made great strides in the past couple of decades or so which we all ought to be happy about even while continuing to push the pendulum further toward its original (and proper) position.

Yuup...I missed Alaska for sure and apparently one other.   Last time I looked at TN there were 39 but maybe I was including TN???   Anyway, 22 is still considerably less than 38. ;) and more important to me personally (not that that's important to anyone else) is that two of the states are states I regularly travel in!

[quote name='hkusp40cal' timestamp='1355667363' post='861203']Personally I think NH does it the correct way. When I got my NH permit when I was working on a contract up there the process was very simple. Go to local LEO station. Fill out form. Turn in form. I was called 3 days later to pick up the permit. No picture, no finger prints. They ran the standard background check and that was it. Shame TN can't adopt something like that. Oh yeah, process was $10.[/quote] Sounds like a cheap and easy process but if I understand New Hampshire's process correctly, it's a concealed permit only and only 19 states recognize their permit compared to open or concealed carry in Tennessee with 39 states that recognize our permit.   I know it doesn't matter to some but I don't want to trade 20 states I can legally carry in just to have an easier or less expensive process. I'd rather have my cake and eat it too (wide reciprocity and inexpensive/easy process) but if I have to chose, I'll take the wide reciprocity. ;)

  Yes, I do understand. But I didn't say you were an anarchist, I said that the path I believe you are on...that, based on what you have said in this and other threads, that anarchy is the destination of the path you are on and it is that destination I find dangerous. If my interpretation of what you have said/meant is wrong then it's wrong and I apologize. An internet forum is a very inadequate place for real understanding of what someone truly thinks or means to say.         I disagree (surprised aren't you?) An extreme libertarian is not just a libertarian...if so then wouldn't the embellishment be unnecessary?  ;)   It's been my experience and observation that those at the far end of the libertarian spectrum don't just want the constitution enforced; they want no rules at all of any kind or as he said above (i.e. left alone to live as they chose). The problem with no rules is that it will always lead to anarchy whether the "extreme libertarian" desires it or not. That is the danger of the philosophy and that is why, even though I lean that way, I’ll never actually embrace it. But hey, maybe I'm right and maybe not. ;)

I'm not preaching to him.   Perhaps I'm oversensitive on the subject and maybe I'm 100% wrong in how I took his comments; if I am then I owe him an apology.   It's just than when someone starts quoting Mao I start wondering where they are really coming from philosophically and describing one's self as an "extreme libertarian" also gives me pause because while a libertarian and and anarchist are not the same thing, it can sometimes be difficult to tell one from the other.    I doubt anyone here has been more vocal about our country's financial future than I have and it may be too late to stop the inevitable; but I'll continue to hope that we can stop it...I'll also continue to hope that even if we can't stop an economic collapse that we can still avoid a "mass use of force".

If you are really concerned about this...wouldn't spare parts and ammo for the weapons you already have be a better investment?   As to the executive order question...while I've no misunderstandings about what he wants; he is a crafty persona and I doubt he'll do something that dramatic this close to the most recent tragedy...I think hell try more conventional means first (i.e. legislation) while quietly going for regulations through his various cabinet agencies (HHS, Justice, Homeland Security, etc) to whittle away at firearms.

  Well; he said: [quote]Now we are under despotic rule and the only way out will be through mass use of force[/quote] Substitute any word  for "preaching" that you feel is more appropriate but to me, his words sound like a desire for it; not just an observation.   If we have done ALL that we can to peacefully turn our nation around (and losing a couple of elections hardly constitutes "all") and then we fail or if jack-booted thugs come to take away what freedoms we have left and/or simply start shooting then armed resistance is all that is left but I've no desire for such bloodshed nor will I support anyone who does desire it.

I agree - it won't be "patriots" attempting a 2nd American revolution; when it happens, we'll simply be concerned about survival.

If you've come here to preach armed rebellion I certainly do hope you are in the minority.   You may be "libertarian" but where you are heading is anarchy; that's a trip I won't take with you.

Some can be swayed in their opinion; others can't...the real difficulty is being able to tell which is which so you don't waste time and effort with the one's who will never change their opinions.   Most of the arguments against firearms, at lest carrying firearms, are all emotion based and it's just damn difficult to make headway against that.

The "sheriff of the county" system works great unless you happen to live in a county where the sheriff is a asshole politician with an agenda or a "mere civilians shouldn't carry a gun" mindset more so than he/she is a law enforcement officer.  While most aren't that way, even in a shall-issue state, one bad sheriff can be a real impediment to getting the permit for the unlucky people that live in that county.   I honestly don't know if costs in Tennessee can be reduced or not and no one else here does either.  The two primary costs are the cost of the class (I've seen prices from $60 on up) and the cost of the application which is, what, $115? I LIKE that Tennessee requires a class because that's a major reason why our permit is accepted in so many states (when others aren't). So the cost of the class is not something that can really change if we are going to keep that part of the process. As to the application fee...no one here knows what it really costs the state to process an application and unless we DO know the cost all the claims that it's "too high" are meaningless. It could be they could charge 75% less than they do; or, for all we know, the fee being charged today doesn't even cover the cost.   I think the best ways to improve the HCP process is to change the law so that if the TBI finds something "questionable" in a person's background the burden is on the state to prove you aren't eligible for the permit and that there be a firm processing time frame placed on the process (say, 30 days) after which they MUST issue the permit (very similar to the process followed when someone is denied a purchase).   Make those changes and then institute "constitution carry" for those who don't really need the advantages of a permit and 99% of the problem is solved.   Ultimately, I'd like to see "constitutional carry" in every state so that, as long as we can legally possess a firearm we can carry in all states; no permit required.  Whether we'll ever get back there again I don't know but I'm sure it won't happen in my lifetime.  However, even if we "got there" I suspect there would still be some restrictions such as what we can carry (i.e. handgun only) and how (concealed only), duty to inform an officer, etc...I don't ever see those sorts of restrictions going away and they'll probably vary by state.

I put very few rounds through mine.   I once trained with a retired Navy Seal who runs a training facility in Minnesota. Frankly, he convinced me that in many ways, shooting live rounds, aside from being expensive, is neither efficient or even the most effective way to train.  HE explained the whole story of "why" he knows that and it is interesting but I don't have time to go into it at the moment. Suffice it to say I found his reasoning and my later experience pretty convincing so most of my practice is what to say to avoid/warn, drawing, weapon presentation, grip, dry firing and then what to do THEN! Since I carry a Glock most of the time, about a year ago I purchased a SIRT training pistol which is a fabulous tool for training although hardly necessary.   I still shoot live through my carry weapons but most of the times that I go to the range it's more for fun than training.

This isn't a "throw her out" conversation...I'm not talking about destroying her; she can't even be voted on again for a while.   I know it's human nature to classify/quantify "sins" and place them in some kind of order...so yes, I agree, she is "behind the curve" compared to many when it comes to dirty politics and questionable acts. That doesn't mean she shouldn't be called out for some questionable acts or given a pass just because she is not as "bad" as others or because she has a firearms-friendly voting record.   She's in for a while and she isn't in my district so what I think of her is of no real consequence anyway...however, come her next election I may well be sending some money to her opponent if he/she seems a better choice.   More to the point, I don't think any of this side discussion has any real bearing on the topic of the thread. ;)

Seemed pretty dirty to me and I really didn't care what party was involved but if dirty is too strong a word, okay...how about sleazy or perhaps, a lack of character??? ;)   She may vote "conservative" and that's fine but her actions in 2010 tells me that Mae Beavers is either a liar of she can't make up her mind; neither are qualities I find appealing in someone sitting in either house of the state legislature. Does that make her as "bad" as some others, probably not...but that doesn't mean I think she's the best we can so either.

[quote name='sventvkg' timestamp='1355554499' post='860622']I don't believe the 2nd Amendment leaves much to be interpreted Robert. It's written very plainly. That said, Politics in this country is broken and I agree with Mao who said real political action comes from the Barrel of a Gun :) I believe the criminals in Washington believe the same thing. I know I'm in the minority on this board for sure. I'm fine with it. As I said, i'm much more libertarian minded than most. [/quote]   Well, people and the courts will interpret it anyway; that's also part of that reality I mentioned.  Recently, the courts haven't been doing too badly.   I believe that most of the laws regarding firearms that exist are unconstitutional. Even so, I still say, based on what I do know of the founder's thinking, and even though I'm sure they would take a minimalist approach, that they too would not be completely against some restrictions/requirements on carrying arms TODAY. This IS a  different time - how we live, where we live, and work and interact with each other is not the same as it was in the 1700s and I suspect our founders would take that into account if they were alive today.   Dictators and murders like Mao think political action comes from the barrel of a gun - civilized people who actually believe in freedom and liberty and want to live responsibility and who value life don't think so. That doesn't mean that good people will never take up arms, indeed, there are times that they have to. Thankfully those very wise founders gave us a way to change things without the need for bloodshed.

While I intended to be done with this thread since you responded to me I'll reciprocate.   I have a pretty good library of the founder's writings and historical reference works and I've read them; I simply disagree with your interpretation. However, even if I agreed it wouldn't matter because whether you care what the courts say or not, the reality is that States have the power to regulate...that's the reality supported by the courts...you can ignore that reality if you chose but as has been said; you can avoid reality but you can't evade the consequences of reality.   You started this thread complaining about the steps necessary to get a carry permit in Tennessee and espousing the need for a "real political action movement" and in the same sentence, disparage the most effective firearms advocacy group on the planet.   Well, if you want a real political action movement start one.   Whether you like or hate the NRA, join it and contribute extra to their PAC then join the TFA, USCCA, GOA and every other pro-firearms group out there.   Spend some money...spend some time and get some other people to do the same; that's how you effect change.   The TFA in Middle Tennessee meets the third Tuesday of each month in Hermitage...the next meeting will be in January. Their website is easy to find as is their Facebook page.

  I don't know why you are so intent on grinding this ax but if you are really that concerned that "the poor" can't afford the HCP process, why don't you move on the suggestion I made earlier in the thread to someone else and put your computer keyboard down for a moment and start a 501c3 foundation to accept donations so that the foundation could then pay for part or all of the process for a poor person to obtain his/her HCP.   You can rant all day long on the internet about what is costs in Tennessee and how people are forced to "buy their god given rights" but ranting about won't change jack shit.   Let me know when you have it up and running and I'll contribute. Until then I am done with this thread and with you.

While I understand where you are coming from, the unfortunate truth is that "security" at schools, top notch or not, can't cure what is wrong with the world and more specifically, what is wrong inside the minds of people who commit atrocities like this.   I know that it's a logical response (much more logical than disarming everyone as some are likely to want to do) but "security" at a school is just dealing with a symptom of what is wrong with society.

I'm not sure what point you are trying to make with this, if any?   While it's difficult to tell exactly what happened, if the man did in fact have a knife then I think the officer was justified in shooting...I've had enough training classes to know just how quickly someone can cover ground.

I gave a 1911 to my then 13 year old nephew last Christmas and I'll be giving a Ruger 22 to my 13 year old niece this Christmas - technically, I guess the firearms belong to my sister, their mother but I see no problem with it and neither did my attorney. :)