RobertNashville

Nitto's? Really??? Real men use Yokohama Advans!

I'd arrange with an FFL where you will be staying and ship to him. I know it's an hassle but flights get re-routed and can wind up someplace where you could be charged with a felony simply for possessing your otherwise legally owned firearm. No matter how many times someone has flown without a problem, getting arrested once/facing felony charges is reason enough to avoid the hassle. Once that plane is in the air you have zero control over where it might have to land.

My advice is that if you are going to fly with your firearm; don't fly with your firearm. I suggest you ship your firearm to your destination by UPS, etc. then do the reverss when returning...you could potentially save yourself both hassle or worse. Avoiding the hassle is one reason but actually, with all the ridiculous fees that airlines are charging for everything it can be cheaper to ship almost everything separately rather than have it with you on the flight.

I think all of us can rightfully support the fact that this gentlemen acted, that no innocent bystanders AND that these two thugs didn't get away with their crime and have been arrested/facing charges. That said, I don't think that the fact that things turned out well should blind us to what the good guy did that was at least questionable, perhaps even technically illegal. Pointing out that he seemed to be checking his shot placement as if he was on a range practicing accuracy, for example, is one thing we all should keep in mind when we train...likewise, continuing to fire after the thugs were out the door was, I would submit, a very bad idea at best. Bottom line is that the good guys won, the bad guys lost, no innocents were hurt and we are lucky in that we can hopefully learn from the incident since it was captured on camera.

"Surviving" is one thing; "thriving" is quite another. Obama is a chump...a speck of dust...and I believe will be remembered that way but, the author's assertions aside and as Dave Ramsey like to say; you can't out earn your stupidity. The U.S., despite its natural resources, cannot out "revenue" (tax) its current stupid spending policies - no country can thrive or even survive when continuously spending 145% of its revenue...we will fall over the cliff and there will be no one to help us because no one else is big enough. We are already monetizing our debt - we don't have much time left and right now, I'm not sure that it will be turned around by anyone because I don't see the political will to do it. With almost 50% of the country living off the taxes of the other 50% we are at the tipping point and may have already passed it.

It's sort of odd that a store that already carries firearms/ammo, etc would stop carrying it during a time (since '08 actually) that sales of both have been going so strong.

The law doesn't say anything about "running away" just like is isn't going to try and cover the other 10,000 possibilities that can arise in a situation....the law assumes that you can understand what does and what doesn't constitute an "imminent threat". That said, when the thugs are falling over themselves trying to get out the door and run away that should be an indication that the "threat" is over hence it is no longer imminent hence if you shoot and/or kill one of them at that point you'll likely be facing a jury who will decide where you spend the next few years.

My primary reason for carrying is to protect myself (and loved ones if need be) from harm. Protecting the lives of others is secondary. I would have to be absolutely sure of the facts of the situation before I'm going to use deadly force against someone who isn't directly threatening me. It is not that I am cold-hearted or immune to cries for help but it can be very difficult to know if deadly force is justified when the victim and the perpetrator are both total strangers to you.

If someone is running away or is obviously attempting to disengage then, in my opinion, they no longer present an imminent threat of death or seriously bodily harm and if that is true then the you, as the armed citizen protecting himself, no longer has the legal right o engage with deadly force; at least not in TN and not as I understand TN law. You do not shoot to kill...you shoot to stop the threat...period. Folks who fail to understand the difference can find themselves facing charges and may well have bystanders saying that the threat was over...that's not a good place to be.

TRS is "Thunder Rance Special". I own one. I have bought and sold many fine 1911's over the years and I own more than a few now; my Les Bare is not the most expensive 1911 I own or have owned but it is, without question, the finest 1911 I do or ever have owned. The Les Bare Thunder Ranch is everything a 1911 is supposed to be. Just my humble opinion of course.

That's logical but doesn't really answer my question...if they truly don't want firearms on their property why then put up a sign that is difficult to see?

One of the things I've noticed on this and actually, on most internet forums and just in life for that matter; is that people seem to have a difficult time differentiating between a a person thinking another person's opinion is wrong equating to thinking that there is something wrong with the other person personally or that the other person "can't" have their opinion. I'm not sure what can or should be done about that or even if anything can be but I still find it disappointing even though I know I've fallen into that trap more often than I'd care to admit.

How can anyone truly make the determination that the conviction was based on the news as compared to the defendant having a lousy lawyer or even, for that matter, a preponderance of the evidence? I know we are dealing with human nature but I find it difficult to believe that 12 individuals would all, at the same time, forget the oath they swore and convict someone of a crime based only on what they read in the news...maybe I'm just blind to how bad things have really gotten.

Lester, I'm still not sure why you keep going on about religion...I'm also at a loss regarding what you are really trying to communicate but I guess that's okay. I don't need a religion for me to know that murdering someone is an immoral act...that it's wrong. I don't need a god in my life for me to understand that taking, without permission, something I didn't earn from someone who did earn it is a immoral. I don't need religion to conclude that being untruthful with others is wrong. I can figure this out without religion because I can see the harm done to individuals and to society in general when people lie or steel or murder. I'm not saying that a person's religions beliefs or lack of beliefs don't or can't influence the moral principles they base their life on but one is not required to have the other.

Probably true but I'm not so sure that's a change and isn't that somewhat immaterial anyway? The only place it really needs to exist is in the courtroom and in the minds of the jurors who are sworn to make their decision based on the evidence. We may lose that now and then in specific trials but if we lose it in a majority of trials then we might as well do away with the court system, save the money and time and just go to having Judges such as they had in the movie (i.e. Stalone's character in "Judge Dread").

I don't think anyone has said that or believes that. This isn't a "liberal" or "conservative" issue at all. Doing what is right is not a "conservative" or "liberal" issue; it's a moral one and what brings politics into this case are the race-baiters and politicians who are more interested in scoring points for their side and/or lining their pocketbooks than actually getting to the truth and seeing justice done. I don't believe accusations; I believe evidence and these recent accusations are suspect if only because of their timing; plus, they have zero to do with his guilt or innocence of the crime he is accused of.

I think you are dealing with a routine question...cops like to know who they are dealing with and I think I can understand why...how many times have we heard about a copy pulling over a a very non-suspicious person; even a husband and wife, only to wind up shot dead? As a matter of law, if you aren't driving I don't believe you have any obligation to hand over your DL or any other ID for that matter but whether you do or don't I would unless you have some good reason not to or unless you are aching to make a point.

Probably former residents of Chicago.

The problem is not now nor has it ever been nor will it ever be the "two party system" or "winner take all primaries" (and not all states are)...the problem is getting good men and women with the correct (i.e. a servant-leader) attitude to run at all levels. If just 1% of the people who complain about the parties or the candidate choices actually involved themselves in the system and did something things might change. Complaining about all the shortcomings, real or imagines, will never change anything.

My prediction is that Homeland Security will decide he is a domestic terrorist and ship him off to Getmo.

Damn...I agree with DaveTN...hell must have frozen over...why didn't someone tell me???

I believe Glen Beck nailed it this morning one of Romney's strengths is that he is careful and tends to not make mistakes; the other side of that coin is that he generally isn't "bold". Selecting Sara for VP was truly a bold move by McCain (he and his handlers screwed up the opportunity but that's beside the point)...I agree, snubbing her this time may or may not be smart but it certainly isn't bold and he (and we) need some bold.

I like the one that is ON both my vehicles (although it's custom vinyl lettering and not an actual bumper sticker)... "My Basset Hound is smarter than you honor student and Barack Obama"

What does one have to do to be able to participate? Do you have to actually be any good? Is there a classification for "he shows up"? I did actually join IDPA a couple of weeks ago; now that I'm almost done with my latest degree I actually have a little bit of free time (at least on some weekends).

Yep...I've thought from the beginning that Zimmerman was being railroaded by the racebaiters and pundits looking to push their own self-importnace. Zimmerman may not be totally innocent or without blame in what happened but that's a long way form second degree murder. He, at the very, very least deserves a fair trial and I'm glad he appears to have good lawyers on his side.