RobertNashville

[quote name='Worriedman' timestamp='1354651387' post='854860'] The last face to face I had with him led me to believe that he did not intend to allow exclusions. Just what he intends to use to get Speaker Harwell to agree escapes me at the moment, as she has already said she would NOT allow this to come to the floor, but we shall see. [/quote]Maybe that is precisely his plan...he can be allowed to look like the big pro 2A knight on a white horse while Harwell blocks the bill; no harm to her since I don't think anyone ever thought of her as much of a 2A supporter anyway. Haslam gets to stand above the fray and look like a Governor without actually doing anything at all.

We cannot allow a parking lot bill to pass...PROPERTY RIGHTS TRUMP ALL ELSE.

[quote name='Oh Shoot' timestamp='1354742709' post='855384'] The neutralized reps were Tea Party supported candidates. - OS [/quote]If you'll allow me to be a presumptuous elitist; I think you missed my point. These "Tea Party" Republicans have lost some power and are being "punished" for not playing nice with the party elite but they still get to vote and speak out about their ideals and values and ideals which is what the Tea Party is really all about.

Not sure how this equates to the GOP "absorbing" the Tea Party. The "Tea Party" isn't one person or one group of elected Congressmen/Senators...it's a movement of tens of thousands if not hundreds of thousands of individual people who agree on certain basic and central principles such as small government, low taxes and not spending money you don't have. Removing four congressmen from committee leadership can't kill the Tea Party nor erase the ideals the brought people together. The GOP is in its death throws. The structure of a party is needed for any number of administrative needs but the more power that the Republican power structure tries to control the less relevant it becomes overall...most of the "Republicans" I know (and at nearly 60 years old I know quite a few) who hold to similar principles as I do no longer identify themselves as "Republicans" at all and I only see that continuing with moves like this. In other words, I think the ideals that brought people together under the "Tea Party" banner are alive and will continue to be so no matter what the GOP power brokers do - the 2010 crop of "Tea Party" Representatives are just as committed to those ideals as they ever have been.

just saw that posted by a Facebook friend...pretty good stuff. Unfortunately, Morgan's comments are exactly what many people think of the Second Amendment.

This looks to me like just more tripe and an opportunity to dump on the "gun culture". I no longer believe the "nice, pure, little boy" pictures that tend to come out now when ever a "young man/little boy" has been shot by an "angry old man"; even less so when the situation is a "young black man/angry old white man". Based on the incredibly limited info given here it seems to me as if the shooter was in the wrong and if so, then I hope he fries for it (or whatever they do in FL); if he was in the right then I wish him well and I don't really give a rip who is what "color".

[quote name='fauklin' timestamp='1354416162' post='853648'] I believe it will be bad also. Sad part is that, for now, there is still more freedom here than any other countries. Bionic Post[/quote]With the kind of means I'm speaking of, I think I'd be okay.

[quote name='Lester Weevils' timestamp='1354413176' post='853613'] Just playing the old debbils counselor, many people in those graves spread around the country came from such as Ohio, NY, NJ. If people are capable of reading and learning from history, the lesson might be taken to heart by all sides. That is why I suspect when balkanization begins to increasingly look like a good idea to more and more folk across the nation, it will be a relatively amicable divorce. Few on either side would see the logic of risking their skins fighting a "lost cause". Good riddance, don't let the screen door hit you on yer way out. There are lots of blue state liberals that would be just as glad do be rid of the south and midwest, as there are red staters who would be glad to be rid of the coasts.[/quote] Respectfully; if you think this or any other president is going to let states leave the union after 200+ years and after already having fought one war to keep them together than I'd like to try some of whatever you are taking. You also seem to forget that most of the "red" states; especially those with significant populations and resources aren't really all that "red" so "leaving" the union seems problematic at best even if it happened. This isn't a marriage where you can simply divorce your spouse; the only chance this country has for freedom is to put it on a path back toward the Constitution and that will not and cannot be done with secession or guns...if we can't put it back on the right path then the U.S. is simply over. That's assuming, of course, that we don't have a complete economic collapse which will end the country as we know it forever no matter what else anyone does. To be blunt; if I had the means I would already be moving out of the country...that's how bad I think thinks are going to get. By the way, many of those graves [u]are[/u] from places like Ohio; one or two belong to my ancestors who fought for the Union; I believe their cause was just and I believe keeping the United States together still is a just cause.

I have the privilege of being in CIC when my cruiser served as plane guard for the Enterprise on more than one occasion....she is a great ship with a great heritage; sad to see her time end but of course it has to happen. As sad as her end is, however, it's not early as sad as what this administration has been and is doing to our Navy...at the rate they are going; if things ever got ugly they would have to start confiscating private yachts, put some 50cal AA guns and some torpedo tubes on them and send them out as destroyers.

[quote name='seez52' timestamp='1354389783' post='853431'] Some commenters here need a history lesson. I expect they will soon get one.[/quote] Some of us are old enough to have lived a bit of history. If I read my history books right, we've had two civil wars on our soil; one fighting our brothers and countrymen in the American Revolutionary war and the second fighting our brothers and sons and fathers during the American Civil war of the 1860s...both were pretty bloody and messy affairs and there are a number of graveyards around Tennessee to show that. Those two should have been lesson enough but even if not, I'm pretty sure that things aren't so bad that we need another lesson.

[quote name='cardcutter' timestamp='1354396864' post='853480'] I was always of the mind that active duty military should refrain from anything dealing with politics with the exception of voting. [/quote]I was somewhat active in supporting candidates (phone banks, handing out flyers, making what little $ contributions I could afford at the time, etc)...just didn't do so in uniform! Although I would agree that it's safest to stay away as much as possible.

[quote name='cardcutter' timestamp='1354396702' post='853478'] Thats clasified. No seriously. I was an active duty Marine with access to classified documents and equipment. [/quote]Humm...I had mine primiarily because of access to top secret message traffic (even though handling message traffic wasn't my primary role, just when I was the NCO of the watch). I was just contacted Friday about a job in New Orleans that requires a Top Secret clearance (working for a major govt contractor)...I wonder if I had signed this petition if that would disqualify me???

Great - welcome to the forum.

Who takes up arms first is irrelevant. There will be no bloodless secession. Signing a petition is pointless especially one that is only symbolic. If people really want to effect change that can happen when they get their hands dirty and get involved in the process - get out from behind their keyboards and their TVs and go to meeting or run for office or work for a candidate. If they think civil disobedience is the way to go then they actually need to engage in some. This "petition" isn't worth the electrons it takes to generate it.

I want one of those heavily armored "FEMA fighting vehicles"! And once the government actually goes bankrupt (which I think will happen relatively soon) it may well be possible to pick one up at a relatively low price.

There are no rights that are absolute nor did the founders say there were; they specifically allowed for any of our rights, even the right to life can be taken away with due process. What should not happen is for politicians to exert power to infringe or discard rights without due process but that is exactly what we have allowed to happen (and in fact, many, like Sara Brady, have asked for).

Humm...I wonder if perhaps TGO needs to establish a policy that no one is allowed start a thread or post immediately upon joining the forum or that the fist "X" number of posts must be approved by a Mod before being visible??? I've nothing specific against the "petition" above (I don't really know anything about it other than the post) but it just rubs me the wrong way to have someone from Colorado join just for the purpose of posting a link to a petition.

[quote name='Fingersoup' timestamp='1354308630' post='853014'] They're not doing too well up north either - they've got a Senator proposing to dissolve Detroit into Wayne County.. [/quote]If some of the customers of "Hardcore Pawn" are any indication at all; Detroit is a lost cause. I keep hoping that those idiots who come in and DEMAND that the store take their worthless junk and give them money are all staged but I have a feeling that they aren't.

[quote name='mcurrier' timestamp='1354138075' post='852073'] A brilliant piece by Walter E. Williams - [b] Parting Company[/b] [url="http://www.gopusa.com/commentary/2012/11/28/williams-parting-company/?subscriber=1"]http://www.gopusa.co...y/?subscriber=1[/url] [/quote]I thoroughly enjoyed the article and, while my agreement doesn't mean anything I agree that from a Constitutional perspective; a sate does have the right to secede. However, I would say that any actual attempt by a state today to do so today would turn out even less well for that stat than when it was attempted the last time. Even were such a move "successful" and peaceful, I think those who would propose it would be ignoring many, many realities of life today.. The Constitution may be (mostly) the same as the day it was ratified but society has changed in ways that our founders could never have imagined. All the individual states today are extremely dependent on other states for basic needs from food to pharmaceuticals to fuel and 10,000 other items any state existing without the other 49 is almost impossible and has been so for at least the last 100 years or so.

[quote name='Oh Shoot' timestamp='1354310322' post='853033']Well, any number of states already agree that you have no right to carry, but we may let you if... Including TN.[/quote] That's true if you are talking about the TN legislature but the TN Constitution clearly reflects and supports the 2A right to keep [u]and[/u] bear arms; perhaps even more strongly than the U.S. 2A - however, [i][b]WE [/b][/i]have let politicians assume power not granted by the documents they have sworn allegiance to uphold and that's our fault. Should SCOTUS ever rule, as these two appellate courts did, that no individual right to bear arms exists I believe it will mean a huge change as any legal standing we have to seek a restoration of our full 2A rights will be gone.

If I understand the rulings, these go beyond whether a state can regulate but rather that a person has no individual right to carry a firearm at all. It may be a bit subtle but there is a difference, I believe, between acknowledging that you have a right to do something but apply regulations VS saying you don't have a right to do this "thing" at all but we may let you if.... I think these two rulings are showing the weakness in the two recent favorable SCOTUS decisions.

Unless there is a lot going on that isn't apparent; the store clerk was an idiot to open the door to someone he had already been arguing with...I can't imagine how he could possibly think doing that was a good idea. Shooting someone who, at that moment, had only thrown a punch if that is [u][i]really[/i][/u] all that happened before the shooting began (i.e. no additional movements to keep punching or violent threats, etc that isn't being offered to the public on the tape) also seems like an inappropriate level of force in response. I'm guessing, however, that there was more than just that one punch before the clerk fired; at least I'd like to think so. Just a few weeks ago, one of the trainers at Tactical Response noted (highly paraphrasing here) that it seems as if it's just not possible anymore to just have a "fight" without someone pulling a gun...seems he was right.

[b]Federal Court Rules you do NOT have right to carry firearms[/b] [size=4][font=times new roman,times,serif]That’s right. The 2nd and 4th Federal Court of Appeals have heard arguments dealing with the carrying of firearms outside of the home and one has ruled it is NOT a constitutionally guaranteed right. In both [url="http://www.examiner.com/article/concealed-carry-gun-restrictions-upheld-as-2-courts-raced-to-rule"]New York and Maryland[/url], where the lawsuits were brought, the states have enacted draconian permit systems that favor the wealthy and well connected. While the rest of us must ASK to exercise our constitutional right a la Oliver Twist.... ...Now, both of these cases will undoubtedly go before the Supreme Court to be decided definitively. To all the readers who [i]claim[/i] they are pro gun, yet voted for Obama I wonder if you will be hoping as much as I, that the high court hears these cases before one of the [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_of_Columbia_v._Heller#Issues_addressed_by_the_majority"]Heller Five[/url] steps down. I mean, you keep telling me that Obama is so pro gun, I wonder if you would like the fate of the Second Amendment to rest in the hands of Kagan or [url="http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/jun/29/sotomayor-targets-guns-now/?page=all"]Sotomayor[/url]?[/font][/size] LINK: [url="http://gunowners.wordpress.com/2012/11/29/federal-court-rules-you-do-not-have-right-to-carry-firearms/"]http://gunowners.wor...carry-firearms/[/url]

[quote name='maroonandwhite' timestamp='1354306891' post='852993'] The saddest part about this whole thing is that she got 200,000 signatures asking for the debt to be forgiven. Of course with the state of things now I guess that shouldn't surprise me. Where do these people think this money comes from? [/quote] I'd bet real money that many of those people also believe that they need to have their mortgages modified and principle forgiven just because their home went down in value instead of up in. There are no end of people who think that contracts should only be enforced when it's favorable to them!

If memory serves, isn't CA one of the states that has federal bailout money in its budget as a revenue item doesn't it (and I don't think they budget is balanced even then)? As far as I'm concerned, these people are getting exactly what they deserve when reality finally starts catching up with them...unfortunately, they are going to try and make everyone else pay for their inability to run their state properly.