RobertNashville

[quote name='strickj' timestamp='1352159761' post='839635']Not taking anything personal. I Just seems you want to laugh at the factual statistics that I posed instead of actual providing information to the contrary. Going back to your professors comment. Did you professors accept papers with no sources at all?[/quote] What my professors expected was for me to do a hell of a lot more research than just take the first couple of links from a Google search. LOL

[quote name='strickj' timestamp='1352158737' post='839619'] Laugh it up. At least I provided a backing instead of just laughing at you. [b]If my numbers are wrong then provide the correct numbers.[/b] I'll not hold my breath waiting on Fox news to say something negative about their poster child. [/quote] You've made it overwhelmingly clear what you think of Romney and for at least the last six months you've ignored anything that anyone has posted that might tend to not support how you see him so what would be the point of me posting numbers or anything else for that matter - nothing is going to change your mind. Tomorrow is election day so so go vote for whoever you want to vote for (if you haven't already) or don't vote; whatever you want to do.

[quote name='strickj' timestamp='1352158494' post='839615']...[/quote] Look...I get it; Okay? You don't like Romney so you'll post anything that supports your opinion of him...it's only human nature to do so.

[quote name='strickj' timestamp='1352157096' post='839600'] Any site showing a negative on Romney will be biased against Romney? Duh. The numbers I posed are fact. Fact. Fact. Fact. I do invite you to research the facts that I posted yourself. Post the results here. And I expect a totally unbiased link [/quote] So are you suggesting that so long as a source says what you need it to say, it doesn't matter where it comes from or what their bias might be? It sure didn't seem to work that way for my master's degree....those professors always insisted on "competent sources"; the Huffington Post and Wikipedia were not acceptable! ROTFLMAO

Okay...at first blush, I don't see this as some big breech of this marine's rights. Regardless of our "rights" and regardless of whether the state we are in at the moment does or doesn't allow open carry and/or constitutional carry; I don't think it should be difficult to understand that when an officer stops us, whether he was or wasn't justified in doing so, it's not unreasonable that the officer may be concerned about the fact that we are armed and may be overly cautious. I guess what I'm saying is that both this marine and this officer could benefit from some relaxation techniques. In the meantime; I'll listen to this again...maybe I missed something.

[quote name='OhShoot' timestamp='1352155158' post='839586'] Did you leave out a "not" or are you joining the Gestapo also? - OS [/quote] Yuup...fixed it.

[quote name='OhShoot' timestamp='1352149355' post='839512']...Wow. The Gestapo. You realize he broke no laws?[/quote] True; at least as far as I know, he didn't break any laws and should not be in jail for 20 years. However, in my always humble opinion, his antics did more to harm and tarnish the reputation of responsible Tennessee gun owners than anyone else I can think of. He acted foolishly, without showing any level of common sense and without giving any thought to the predictable results his antics brought. He is more than worthy of disdain whether he broke any laws or not. Edit: Fixed it.

[quote name='OhShoot' timestamp='1352148966' post='839506'] The idea is that if your rep (who is the most local federal pol you have) had to answer to his constituency for [i]everything[/i], things would more likely be done according to the pervading will of that constituency, including choices of senators and the presidency/veep. And people would likely tend to be more involved than they are now, since there would be one point for input. - OS [/quote]Maybe I'm just being dense but I don't quite see how that would really effect a change or to put it another way, many people (including me) are unhappy with Corker and Alexander but I'm doubtful...very doubtful...that if our senators were chosen by or legislature that we wouldn't still have Corker and Alexander as our senators. As I understand it, the Senate was supposed to be less subject to the whims of the public...more deliberative...maybe if they were appointed that would be the case but I suppose I'm just cynical enough to believe it would be just as bad as it is now no matter how the senators got there.

[quote name='OhShoot' timestamp='1352144576' post='839468'] The US Constitution agrees. That's why it only stipulated that people voted for their area representative. Not senators or even president. The American Idol method of choosing the president has become an abomination. We'd do well with going back to what the constitution intended, which was to become more involved with politics by holding local reps' feet to the fire about everything in Washington. Including choosing the prez. - OS [/quote]Not to get off topic but even though I've asked the question of proponents of repeal of the (I believe) 17th amendment, no one has been able to demonstrate to me that the legislature of each sate choosing its senators would provide "better" senators than we have gotten by electing them.

[quote name='strickj' timestamp='1352140196' post='839439']...It isn't an opinion. It is fact...Saying this stuff isn't his fault because Massachusetts is so liberal is nothing more than apologist excuse.[/quote] And just saying stuff is his (Romney's) fault could be labeled as nothing more than rationalization. Most of the "facts" listed are a bit one dimensional and one dimensional facts rarely tell the whole story....stats such as "lost 14% of its manufacturing jobs" is meaningless unless one is willing to look at all the relevant information and do actual analysis of data. Would they have lost 28% had Romney not be governor? Dose the governor of MA actually have any substantial control or measurable input into how many manufacturing jobs the state has or gains or loses? Were there trends happening nationally that were the driving forces behind that stats quoted? Some of these questions may be unknowable but simply blaming Romney seems to a conclusion based more on convenience than evidence. I understand you don't like Romney and that's fine but I would suggest that there is no candidate running who is both demonstrably better and can actually win the election. Further, the other choice is anathema to the ideas of individual freedom and liberty.

I don't think we need to see members of an already small group get killed off to prove it's a dangerous world...this is TV drama done for entertainment; not a documentary done to educate. I've invested a good bit of time and emotion into this show (if I wasn't willing to do that I wouldn't bother to watch)...and as silly as I know this sounds, I guess I care about what happens to these people.

Works for me...I'll be there whenever if I possibly can be!

I've not read the book(s) so maybe this was how they go but I have to say, I don't like having characters I've come to care about (yes, I know how silly that sounds) get killed off. I have to agree, I won't miss Lori as much as TBone but those are just the latest in a long line of this group I've hated to see get killed off...I guess what I'm saying is that ultimately, I want to see the "good guys" win and in this case, the good guys are decent people who aren't zombies...seeing them getting picked off is making it hard for me to keep following the show.

[quote name='c.a.willard' timestamp='1352096212' post='839297'] I know that its a TV show about zombies so i shouldn't expect any form of realism, but powdered milk and formula both have a shelf life of about a year. Powdered milk can be extended by preparing and packaging it specifically for long term storage, but i doubt that the prison has any. [/quote]I believe aseptic packaging (not sure if I'm spelling that correctly) can provide a very long shelf life for milk...however, I can't say it's anything I've looked into recently.

[quote name='Drewsett' timestamp='1352074109' post='839120']If any of you could name more than two third parties; or more than one third party candidate's name, I'd be surprised.[/quote] I can but it has no impact on how I voted because I won't throw my vote away by voting for a non-viable candidate (plus I have at least as many, and in ssome cases many more, philosophical problems with these third and fourth tier candidates as I do with Romney, although not the same ones). [quote name='Drewsett' timestamp='1352074109' post='839120']...the reason our candidates didn't make the cut is because they weren't Democrat or Republican. Between the fact that the DNC/RNC control the access to the debates through imposition of arbitrary percentages and the fact that the mainstream media are in the business of appealing to the... mainstream, you won't hear anything about these so called "fringe" candidates.[/quote] They didn't make it because none of them have ever appealed to more than a fringe percentage of the population...their message doesn't resonate...supporters of these third party candidates can blame everything from sun spots to unfair treatment in the press but at the end of the day, these candidates have no chance because THEY don't have a message that works. As to the debates, I don't want to see a presidential debate with 10 candidates who, if you took the eight who were not the R or D nominee and combined their votes together, they won't get more than 1-2% of the vote - why the hell would I want to wast time hearing them in a debate. [quote name='Drewsett' timestamp='1352074109' post='839120']...but the simple fact remains: the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results. ..[/quote] You mean like RP running for president multiple times without ever gaining any ground?

People have a right to vote for anyone they want but the idea of a "protest vote" is about as ill-conceived as a screen door on a submarine...I guess it just goes to prove that some folks would rather believe in fairy tales than get their hands dirty doing the real work of effecting change. If anyone thinks voting for some meaningless third-party hack or writing in someone who isn't even good enough to be picked up by a third party is going to make a difference to the "two party system" or make "Republicans take notice" they are fooling only themselves (assuming they actually believe it). If Obama wins reelection, either because you voted for him or effectively voted for him then we'll all be getting exactly the kind of country we deserve.

[color=#0000ff][i]We have to trust that MOST people will do the RIGHT thing if we want to live in a free society. If we cannot trust people to do that then the ONLY sensible alternative is a totalitarian government that controls everything we do and think and say. [/i][/color] Referring to the above, let me also say, while I understand its shortcomings; I much prefer the the former (free society) to the latter (totalitarian government).

[quote name='zort' timestamp='1351985598' post='838524'] sorry to disagree with u all but i really dont think just anyone should carry. convicted felons, minors and people that dont know anything about guns shouldnt carry. id prefer to pass the parking lot bill and let permit holders have more rights to protect themselves and others. i like the stand your ground laws but just would feel uncomfortable with just anyone walking around with guns.[/quote] I understand your sentiments but I have to disagree. I started hunting with a firearm when I was about 9 or 10...started shooting before that...I didn't carry a weapon on me 24/7 nor do I think I should have - I agree that a minor shouldn't be carrying arms unless they have adult supervision (just like minors can't and shouldn't do a whole lot of things like enter into a contract, or vote, etc.) until they are no longer minors. As to people who "don't know anything about guns"....no one knows anything about guns until they decide to learn about them and that includes the most highly respected, most widely know "experts" alive today. As a practical matter, how are you going to decide who qualifies? A test? And if so, shouldn't we also require a minimum score on an IQ test for voting or proof of common sense before allowing people to breathe the air? Maybe everyone should be required to have a psychological evaluation before buying a gun or being allowed to have sex or being allowed to travel from state to state??? Frankly, I think criminals who have committed a violent crime should never be out of jail. Thus, their ability to go armed is moot. Other "felons" who's crimes were not violent and who have served their sentence should, I think, have all their rights restored, including the right to vote and to own arms. In other words, the problem with felons owning guns is not that felons own guns...the problem is a weak and ineffective system of punishment that allows career criminals back onto the street time after time after time who steel the guns of law-abiding people and/or buy them on the black market and then go out and commit more crimes (starting the revolving-door cycle all over again). Just a seat of the pants guess but I suspect that most crime would cease almost immediately if we kept the criminally minded locked up for most or all of their lives. I see no common sense in having restriction on some God given rights while having none on others. more importantly, the rights we talk about and claim are ours don't come from some government or government bureaucrat...they are the rights of all free men; given to us by our creator (or if a person doesn't believe in a creator, simply because they are men). Therefore, these rights should NEVER be infringed except under rare circumstances and only then after due process - the government, in the form of the judicial system and with the consent of the governed can take away any right, even the right to life but it should never be done lightly or unfairly. Bottom line is, and what has taken me a LONG time to learn, is that there is a price to be paid to have true freedom and individual freedom and we either know that and accept it or we don't. If we don't know it or know it but chose to not accept it then we inevitably move toward tyranny and oppression and the suppression of the individual for the sake of the collective. If we truly want to be free and have the greatest amount of personal liberty then we must accept the truth that stupid and/or unintelligent and uneducated people will vote, mentally deranged people will procreate, inept/uncoordinated/mentally handicapped people will drive a vehicle and cause accidents or even kill innocent people and some people who "shouldn't have a gun or who know nothing about guns" will buy one or steel one and do something terrible with it. We have to trust that MOST people will do the RIGHT thing if we want to live in a free society. If we cannot trust people to do that then the ONLY sensible alternative is a totalitarian government that controls everything we do and think and say.

Perhaps not as stupid as Mayor Bloomingidiot putting in water and food stations and generators (not to mention closing roads and all the police necessary) for the f**king stupid NY Marathon who will be running through the streets of Manhattan where people don't even have food, or water or electricity or any way to get those things. Part of me feels sorry for these people but then I get pissed off and say they are getting what they deserve for voting in idiots like Bloomburg...I guess I'm conflicted about it.

[quote name='Raoul' timestamp='1351870866' post='837775'] I think the hoarding label is based on the number of safes you have. More than 10 safes and you are technically a hoarder. [/quote]Well if that's the case I have a way's to go. But...how do you factor in weapons you purposely don't put in a safe because you want immediate access to them? How many of those can you have scattered around your house before you are a hoarder, or at least, being overly paranoid???

^Well no, not really...the word "horde" has an entirely different meaning than "hording"; at least I think it does in the way the OP asked the question (maybe I'm taking the OP's question too seriously???

To answer this on a serious note; if you are putting you/your family's financial health at risk just to buy guns/ammo or if you buy guns/ammo compulsively with no rational explanation for why or you are letting your collection take over your life, you may truly have a psychological problem that needs to be addressed. Real "hording" is hording and it can be a truly serious problem for you and those around you - it doesn't really matter what is being horded...whether it's toilet paper, or guns or action figures or whatever. Certainly, having a few guns and some ammo, if you could afford to buy it when you bought it, doesn't rise to the level of hording; at least not in my opinion - someone who hates guns would probably disagree.

[quote name='PapaB' timestamp='1351860795' post='837690'] Sorry Robert but it's not just about whether it's his money on the line. I applaud the bank president for not letting the criminal get away with it. IMHO the bank president showed true courage and I wish there wasn't such a shortage of people like him in the world. [/quote]We'll just have to disagree I guess...wouldn't be the first time that's happened to me. Courageous or not, without exigent circumstances, I believe it's stupid to put your life and, when in a public place such as where this happened, other people's lives (all "380 jokes aside), at risk to protect property (in this case money)...even more so when it's not even your money you are trying to protect. To look at it another way, should an armed citizen be able to shoot and likely kill a thief if steeling is all he is in the process of doing? Are we in favor of capital punishment against someone whose only act was to steel $500K? If we aren't then by what right do we have to draw down on him? Should we ever draw our weapon if we don't have the legal and moral authority to discharge it? I say no, we should not and that is what I've been taught. Maybe that puts me in the minority but like the above, it wouldn't be the first time for that either! Am I glad the dirt bag criminal was caught? Sure I am...the banker acted and it turned out the way we all want such things to turn out but that doesn't mean the actions of the banker were either brave or appropriate (or even legal in a lot of states and looking at Missouri law, which is where I think this happened, his actions probably weren't legal there even though I would be surprised if any charges were filed since he didn't actually discharge his weapon - had he actually fired I would bet real money he would be needing to raise money for his legal defense fund).

There was what I thought was a really good article in Concealed Carry Report from a couple of months ago dealing with this subject (sort of)...it was discussing how many firearms you had and whether you were really preparing for self defense or were really more involved in collecting firearms. He specifically said that there is nothing wrong with collecting firearms; just not to delude yourself into thinking that having lots of guns "prepared" you. His suggested ratio, if you were serious about self defense, was to have at least one training course certificate for every five firearms you own. Personally, I have firearms both for self defense ad simply for the joy of having them but I'm sure some folks, depending on their background, would "wonder" about me if they saw what's in my safe. Oh...and I'm averaging two training courses per year and plan to keep that up as long as my finances and my health allow!

All true but we don't need to change our state constitution to do all of that; we just need elected officials who are willing to do what is right rather than what their party leadership tells them.Right now, the party leadership (i.e. Republican leadership) in Tennessee is telling the rank and file that "gun" related legislation is too controversial to handle right now and I guess it is if all you are worried about is getting re-elected (plus they are pissed off that the NRA and TFA went after AND defeated one of their lap-dogs, Debra Maggart. Don't expect any 2A friendly legislation from the State House until at least after the 2014 elections.