RobertNashville

For most people, it has nothing to do with "Party"; it has to do with removing a dangerous, inept, America-hating socialist with delusions of godhood from the Presidency...a man who WILL do whatever he has to do to install his agenda (and his agenda is anathema to everything this country is supposed to be). Have you watched the video this thread is about? If you haven't then I encourage you to do so.

Nice try but I think we all just have to accept that there are some people out there who just don't want to see it that way....anybody who wants to ignore Obama's voting record on gun related issues while in Illinois, not to mention what he has said he wants to do, is obviously someone who doesn't want to be confused by the facts.I've looked at his nine posts, other than a couple, they all take some kind of swipe are Romney and/or promote Ron Paul...I may be wrong and if so I apologize but it looks to me like he's just a frustrated Paulbot.

I have a good friend in Detroit who I'm truly concerned about...he's an elderly black man; retired postal worker, who is heavily involved in the same car community/shows/etc that I participate in...it seems no matter where I go for a convention or regional show he's there (Missouri, Oklahoma, Tennessee, North Carolina, Georgia, etc)...he's 78 years old and one of the nicest guys you would ever want to meet. My point is, there are good people in Detroit and I just hate that fact the the city has let itself go...I haven't been to Detroit in a long, long time but I have always enjoyed it what I have been there....it's just a shame...I don't know what else to say. ;(

I was curious so I started looking around; while I can't say with 100% certainty, based on the various sites I looked at the tracks leash/loose dogs laws by state, Tennessee has no such requirement at the state level. That said, most if not all cities do as do some counties/metro areas plus in most states, any loose dog can be picked up by the dog warden. Whether a dog, per a state or local ordnance is supposed to be leashed or not, I think the only salient point is whether or not the dog is presenting a real danger to you/your dog...if it is then I believe you can use whatever amount of force is necessary to stop the threat.

http://www.clickondetroit.com/news/Cars-being-shot-at-in-I-96-area/-/1719418/17060908/-/fx7mx8z/-/index.html Apparently 16 cars so far and all seem to be same shooter.

I agree, if an FFL really thinks there may be a straw purchase issue then he has every right to refuse the sale...I just don't think that's the case here...I understand that you feel otherwise but given the story as we know it (and since this WalMart denied comment all we have is this story as we know it); the whole "straw purchase" excuse sounds...well...like an excuse to me. My opinion, based on the story is that a stupid WalMart clerk (who probably wouldn't know a real straw purchaser even if he/she was wearing a sign identifying him as such) either out of stupidity or out of trying to be a big frog in a small pond and didn't think this petite lady should be buying such a big gun. Just my $0.02

There is a large segment of firearm aficionados, liberal, conservative and all shades of those two political philosophies, who seem to have the opinion that a "hunting" firearm (meaning one that "looks" like a hunting firearm, in their opinion of course), is fine as is collecting firearms for the sake of collecting them but, as a group, are just as opposed to and dangerous to the public (you and me) being armed for our own protection as is any gun-grabbing/brady-bunch type group. I guess it just goes to show that stupidity and a lack of rational thought can be found in all facets of society.

Running a background check on both a husband and wife would only be effective if it was a spouse doing a straw purchase for the other spouse but even if that is what's happening; is that what the BATF really concerned about? I would think the "straw purchases" everyone, including the Feds should be worried about are the ones when a stranger is buying for a criminal (or buying lots of guns for criminals). What I don't get, and maybe someone who knows can explain to me, is what is the liability of the FFL is the FFL does sell to someone and it later (even much later) is found to have been a straw purchase? I don't think it would be that difficult for someone with a little bit of brain power to go into a gun store and buy a weapon and give absolutely no reason to the store to make it suspicious that it's actually a straw purchase. So, if it later turns out to have been one, is there really any liability on the part of the business??? I would think that, if there is a substantial pattern of an FFL conducting these sales that would be actionable but I somehow doubt that the FFL can be held responsible for anything unless it can be shown that hey knew or should have known what was going on.

I agree that a business has the ability/power to refuse service to a any customer for any reason (and oftentimes it's more than justified)...my point was that doing so is sometimes illegal and/or actionable in court or even cost enough sales that the business surfers.

True but I always prefer the third option that doesn't require either of the two above.

I'm not sure you understand the purpose of a "stand your ground" (also often known as "castle doctrine" laws)...the purpose is so that you CAN stand your ground and that you DON'T have a duty to retreat but can meet deadly force with deadly force. In states that do not have such laws, you can literally be found guilty of murder/manslaughter because you didn't jump out of an upstairs window. So....I sure don't want SCOTUS to ban such laws.I agree, just as we shouldn't need permission to breath, we shouldn't need permission from a government to be allowed to defend ourselves but that is not the reality we live in today.

The only reason why we have one one side of the story is because that WalMart refused to tell their side. That being the case, I don't consider that a "plus" in WalMart's favor.

At my age, I don't have enough years left on this earth to recount all the reasons.

Right in your actions or not, if you are standing in a state that requires you to retreat and/or hasn't passed a version of "stand your ground" then a person thinking his actions are right won't keep him out of prison. At last count, 25 states have passed some sort of castle doctrine/stand your ground law which means 25 haven't. As is always the case, you need to know the laws of the state you are in or going to be in if traveling as each has its own flavor when it comes to the use of deadly force to defend yourself just as each have their own version of what is and isn't permissible in terms of carry. Finding out each state's laws isn't that difficult if one wants to know!

A new AWB or even a complete confiscation of all firearms wouldn't affect me at all...I don't have any guns (that's my story and I'm sticking to it).

You could put a pair of antlers on that woman and.... Oh well I'll be nice.

I think the real moral of this story is; DON'T SHOP AT WALMART. Especially don't shop there if you intend to buy a sophisticated, specialized and fairly expensive example of mechanical engineering (like a firearm) and expect or need to deal with a salesperson who has at least some knowledge of what he is supposed to be selling.

Why am I not surprised??? I was betting either CA, IL or WI

Sorry...double post!

I don't have time to look for the citations at the moment but I do believe that there are some states where the duty to retreat is carried to an extreme....I'm certain (and will try to find the source) that there was even a case where a victim who defended himself was charged and found guilty (not sure of the specific charge) because, while in his own home and I believe at night, he shot an intruder....the finding of guilty was based on the fact that the victim could have jumped out of a SECOND STORY window rather than defend himself. So...while I think most states will back up your interpretation; I don't think all will.

Personally; I'm not going to shoot a dog or a person unless I really feel it's necessary but I will shoot either if I believe it is necessary. As you can probably tell from my avatar, my hound is pretty important to me and as foolish as it sounds I'd probably sacrifice myself to save her (and I believe she would do the same for me) so if a dog comes charging at "us" and it's a big enough dog to do real damage to me or my hound then I'm probably going to dispatch the attacker and deal with the consequences later. However, discharging a firearm in that situation may not only be unwise bit not the best course of action. First of all, if it were me I'd be in my neighborhood where a stray shot could cause a lot of problems. Second, unless I can react quickly enough and given how quickly fighting dogs move around; with shooting I run the very real risk of hitting my dog either instead of or along with the one attacking. All that to say, when I used to bicycle 200-300 miles per week I carried dog repellent..and I can tell you from experience that it was effective on many different breeds; even once, thank God, a doberman...I even used it once on a human and it was pretty effective for that as well...to this day, I carry spray with me and especially when out with my dog and that's probably what I'm going to go to first because it's likely to work and doesn't kill either the attacking dog or, more importantly, my own. I guess in general, I like having a non-lethal option.

Well I did say "most, although not all sane people" didn't I??? If you live in a state like CA or IL where insane people are electing equally insane people to their state legislatures you are going to get insane laws as a result - that's how you wind up with idiotic laws like not having a right to defend yourself even in your own home in the middle of the night if you have a third story bedroom window you can jump out of rather than defend yourself...it's apparently how you get a legislature to make carrying in parks legal in TN except, of course, in one of the most dangerous cities in the country (Memphis). ROTFLMAO

Well, as recent events have taught us, it's not nearly that simple - if the person shot was a 17 year old black kid in a hoodie all bets are off as even our "President" will weigh in on the matter.

I'm not sure why the media or even, in this case, the sheriff's office uses the phrase "stand your ground" other than ignorance or for hype. Either a person has a right to defend his life or he doesn't...either the shooter had just reason to believe his life was in danger or he didn't; I don't see how "stand your ground" even enters into that. I think most, although not all, sane people (pro or anti gun alike) acknowledge that a person has a basic right to defend himself and from this brief story, it seems as if this man had good reason to be in fear for his life...I expect no charges to be filed unless there is a lot more to the story that we currently have.