RobertNashville

That must be why they can't keep up with me.

Careful boys or we are going to get into a X vs Y car debate that will make the Glock vs 1911 debates look like child's play.

It isn’t a problem for me – I just see it differently. I believe I have a pretty good understanding of what libertarianism is and believes; that’s why I’m not a libertarian. I’m a conservative. As a conservative, there are certainly issues and areas where I agree with the libertarian view but I’m still not a libertarian. We have bad/unneeded/overly restrictive the laws because the wrong people were in office...because we have too many damn politicians and few (if any) statesmen in positions of power. I said early on (or at least prior in the thread) that there are many laws that should never have been made law and there are others that may be appropriate but are poorly constructed (or have, subsequent to enactment, have been bastardized). I count all the laws regulating firearms to be laws that should have never been passed. However, I do not see that as applying to all laws or to all laws except those that do not “regulate things or behaviors that do not have a direct impact on someone elseâ€. I’m not hung up on it - maybe I'm just explaining my view poorly. I believe that libertarians and anarchists hold pretty similar views except that while true anarchy (no laws at all) can and likely will lead to violence, libertarians tend to be much more peaceful and envision a world where there is prosperity and virtually no government interference at all (i.e. total personal liberty). That may be a worthy goal but I believe history has shown it to be an unobtainable one.

I believe truly unselfish acts happen all the time; everywhere around us - not that we or other people notice most of them because such things are often done anonymously or at least, out of the public eye. However, there is one that is well documented; the man in the water http://byutv.org/see...the-Water’.aspx Now, I guess if someone wants to think that this man's selfless act was in some way motivated by selfishness then I guess that can be what people want to think but I will never agree with them. Greater love has no one than this: to lay down one’s life for one’s friends John 15:13 NIV How much more so when it's done for a stranger?

Great! I'll be in a black, Infiniti QX56 (full sized SUV) - since we all have to sign in at the main building we can meet up there around 2PM. I'm not sure what I'm bringing yet but probably my new Ruger 10/22 breakdown and one or two other rifles along with a handgun or two.

Most laws impact individual freedom, including murder, rape, and theft. I don't make my decisions about what laws are needed based only on the model any more than I base it on emotion.Unbridled capitalism; unbridled individual liberty/freedom can become just as onerous as unbridled communism. While we could do without many of our laws the majority of them came from a need to address behavior that was not in the best interests of society. As has been said, if all men were angles we wouldn't need any laws at all...but men aren't so we do.

Well, what they went through and what a real bankruptcy is are different animals...in GM's case the "bankruptcy" was really part of the whole bail-out process.

No...that's too swift. What he really needs is to be relegated to obscurity...being the self-centered egotists that he is, it would be a far worse punishment than anything else that could be done.

What he has done and is doing that city is truly sad. However, I stopped feeling sorry for them a long time ago since it was the residents of NYC that voted for that idiot.

That sure isn't where I'm coming from...I'm certainly not using the word to espouse a "moral code" or as a way of explaining why we are here; just a good 'ol dictionary definition such as "fbehavior that shows a desire to help other people and a lack of selfishness". Whatever one may think of "why we are here" as your link ascribes to the word, acting unselfishly is, I believe, something worth striving to do and certainly not something incompatible with individual liberty and actually. It seems to me that it's only with liberty that we have the opportunity to act unselfishly.

I'm disgusted with all of them and even more disgusted with Bush and Obama for giving them my money in the first place - none of them should have gotten a penny. The only reason people are talking about GM is because that's who the posted story was about and because proping op GM is a non-ending story; the bailed-out GM would have collapsed after their sweet-heart bailout were it not for the government continuing support.

What would have happened is that someone or several someones would have bought the company and ended the contracts they could no longer afford and make the company profitable again...that's how capitalism and the free-market works. The only people that would have ultimately lost their jobs would have been people that we not needed which is as it should be.

I really can't believe you don't know what altruism means (or selflessness for that matter given that they are synonyms for each other)??? Yes, laws need to be based on more than current (or old) emotion...I wasn't trying to say otherwise. And yes, some laws, even many, are unneeded and only serve to restrict that good acts of good people; other laws are very necessary, even if they impact individual freedom.

Yuup....seems like it worked too! Now, can't we all just go back to beating up the OC/CC topic (and each other)?

My family owned GM vehicles for almost as far back as I can remember; at least since my Dad returned from WW2...all but a tiny few of my vehicles have beenGM vehicles. However, short of homeland security holding a gun to my head I'll never buy another one. If I ever buy another (ostensibly) domestic nameplate it will be a Ford and I don't even like Fords.

As I said above laws set the boundary...they define what is acceptable and not. I already said they don't prevent (or inhibit). Immoral, altruistic and selfless is a very strange combination and calling such a person "evil" only adds to the strangeness. Saying that altruistism and selflessness is incompatible with liberty stranger yet...individual liberty is difficult if not impossible to achieve without those qualities.

It's odd that you chose to mention "property rights" when to the best of my knowledge, the only mention of the same in the Constitution is the takings clause.

So if I don't accept the libertarian philosophy I’m a cynical do-gooder who assumes that most men are basically bad people? Well, if that’s how you feel than that’s how you feel. I’m not opposed to individual freedom; I’m opposed to the unrestricted individual freedom without boundaries; which is the logical end to the libertarian philosophy (at least as I understand that philosophy). We need boundaries because, while I don’t believe most people are evil I don’t believe, based on experience as well as teachings, that they are necessarily moral, altruistic or selfless either which is, I would suggest, is a primary reason for having any of our laws. Of course, laws do not and cannot hinder the immoral man…the evil man (something we all wish that the sheep would come to understand). Rather, laws define what is and isn’t acceptable behavior. We don’t have laws against murder and rape and robbery to keep those things from happening; we have them because it needs to be known that those acts, for the good of society and the individual, are not allowed and that, when broken, punishment will be meted out.

The problem that most people have with libertarianism, or at least that I have with it, is that as a philosophy it seems to promote individualism to the point that the overall good of society can be sacrificed. I claim no special insight into the founders but at least based on what I do know, I think they also leaned toward libertarianism but not to the extreme that some want to take it. That said, as long as people can recognize that government (federal, state and local) have a prat to play in people's lives, we can discuss and hopefully reach a consensus on just how much of a part that should be.

They also, if memory serves, have a 25 yard range (usually for zeroing a problem scope) and 50 yards as well.

What a great letter...I have an older niece that I wish would read it but I know she won't.

Good idea.Taking photos of all my firearms as well as my other physical assets (mostly for insurance purposes) is something high on my to-do list. Unfortunately it's also time consuming.

Absolutely correct. It's not on CNN because except for Obama's minions and those who want to promote someone other than Romney; the charge is ridiculous and nothing more than multimillionaires disparaging the success of another multimillionaire and for taking advantage of the tax code that the complainers created.It would seem that what some dislike the most about Romney is his personal success.

Hello everyone. I’m planning on a trip to the Montgomery County Shooting Complex this Sunday afternoon to do some plinking; if anyone would like to come along you are welcome to do so! MCSC is in Southside TN about 10 miles SW of Clarksville and is one of the nicest outdoor facilities I’ve ever been to - I try to go every now and then even though is a bit of a drive for me. It’s run by the Tennessee Wildlife Resources Agency and they have ranges for archery, shotgun, pistol, rifle and clay (skeet, trap, sporting clays and five stand) – this link gives some details. http://shoottn.org/ I’m planning to be at the office to sign in at about 2PM and I'll bring a rifle and pistol or two but if there is enough interest we could also hit the skeet or trap fields I'll post here what I'll be driving so I'm easy to locate...while not required, if you know you are going to come and you let me know I'll know to look for you. Obviously, since this is an outdoor range this is subject to the weather but at least at the moment Sunday is looking pretty good.

Looking for food being brought in is probably the more likely reason for asking to search. I can't say I blame then either...as you noted, I've see enough theatre's books to know where the bulk of their profit comes from and it isn't ticket sales. That doesn't mean I'd like to be or would let them search; but the motivation is understandable.