RobertNashville

I don't see that this will be a "blow for the Second Amendment" - from the article that is admittedly light on detail, this doesn't have the appearance of a justified homicide and if it isn't a justified homicide then the Second Amendment is (or at least should be) a non issue. It will be interesting to hear all the facts (if we ever do)...there must be quite a story behind a "visit" turning into a shooting death from a rifle!

I agree. It seems to me that this "mom" is guilty of the crime; the issue is the sentence and as I think has been noted, this is a mandatory sentence. Many people like mandatory sentencing for criminals which came about as a response to what seemed like lenient sentences being handed out by judges when they shouldn't have been. But, as if often the case, people addressed the symptom (lenient sentences) by applying mandatory sentencing rules rather than addressing the actual problem (stupid, liberal judges). When you take discretion away from bad judges you also take it away from good ones too and then you get cases like this one.

I've only been there once (since I don't exactly live in that area) but I have nothing bad to say about my one experience. I would say that on any given day at any given shop you always have the chance of running into an employee who is having a bad day or just isn't down with the concept of customer service and I try not to draw conclusions about one or two bad experiences. Of course, if you run into that almost every time you go there then you likely have a systemic problem.

I've never heard of a good reason (or justification) for a "warning shot". If you aren't justified in shooting to stop the threat then you aren't justified to discharge your weapon at all; at least that's what I've always been taught. As armed citizens, "stand your ground laws" or no, we should do what we can, at least within reason, to avoid the need to use deadly force but if deadly force is justified and required then we use it, we don't shoot into the ground or up into the air.

I moved here from Ohio in '96 - I think you'll like it here. TN does NOT require you to reveal to a police officer if you are armed (unless of course, the officer asks you). So, it's a matter of personal choice but as a matter of practicality, I do inform if only to avoid having to remember if the state I'm in requires it or not - I would usually just hand over my DL and my HCP together and let to officer know I'm carrying. If he/she wants to know more (like where it is) they'll ask.

We have them because the legislature wanted it and doesn't really seem to care that much about what the state constitution says AND the people have never held them accountable for usurping power they weren't supposed to have so why should they change? If the legislature actually followed the constitution with regards to firearms laws here in TN there would be a lot of changes needed (although I don't know that would have any impact on tax on ammo...I think they are in the clear on that issue). Anyway, considering that we can't get a parking lot bill passed with a GOP controlled legislature and Governor; to the point of them illegally blocking the bills from reaching the floor for debate/vote; I don't see that there is much hope for streamlining the firearms purchase process in TN; especially since it's a revenue generator for the state - anyone proposing a bill to change things might have to prove that doing away with the process would actually save the state money.

Thanks for the info. A couple of weeks ago I audited a class at Range Master (required before they would let me take their Level II handgun class) and even though it was what they do for the HCP process, they spent quite a bit of time on shooting including a lot of what you just told me. I suppose sometimes we get so tied up in gadgets and getting more advanced we can forget the basic stuff! Thanks! I've been doing better with both eyes open than I used to and my accuracy isn't bad but I know there is still a lot of room for improvement; I guess that's why we practice.

I noticed that...in my own defense, I was responding to ETP before I read other responses.

If you are on the ass end of and ass kicking, how do you decide if the guy doing the ass kicking is going to stop before he kills you or causes you permanent and/or life threatening injury? Do you wait until just before you go from a mild concussion to near unconscious and then respond? I'd really like to know the answer to that one because I haven't been able to figure it out yet. I can say that is some stranger who is a half a foot taller and 30 years younger than me decided to jump on me some night I'm probably gong to be in fear for my life...maybe I shouldn't be and maybe someone else wouldn't be but I probably will be and if I'm able to get to my weapon I'm probably going to use it. And, if by shooting my attacker I stop the attack before he actually does cause serious harm which means I don't need a lot of medical treatment at the scene, does that mean I couldn't have been in legitimate fear for my life? Do I have to prove my life was truly in danger or only that I had cause to think it was? I'm not suggesting who is right and who is wrong...just trying to understand.

No worries, David...it's an small inconvenience...it's not the end of the world.

I don't think it is. As I see it, this is simple self defense or it's not. If things happened the way Zimmerman has claimed then he was already leaving the area (at least heading back to his vehicle) and was attacked from behind...even in a stats (well, except for the commie ones) that dictates a duty to retreat you would still have a right to defend yourself. Of course, the Mayor Bloomingidiots and Eric Holders of the world will use anything they can to their anti-gun advantage.

Well, looks like I'll be on TGO a it less often...of course, some people will probably be very happy about that.

I find it odd and troubling that one prosecutor said he didn't have enough evidence to bring any charges yet another charges Murder 2. It seems to me that if there is enough evidence to convict on Murder 2 there was certainly enough to bring charges of something before now. At lest, perhaps, this will go to trial and we'll get a chance to see the actual evidence rather than what the idiot medial has manufactured and called evidence.

Anyone who had paid the same 15% into any decent investment through their working life would be a millionaire by the time they reached 65 even if they did absolutely noting else. Moreover, it would be THEIR money; money they could pass onto their children if they didn't need to use it all before they passed. The real return on the money we pay into the system isn't even enough to qualify as a bad investment - a bad investment would still give a better return than SSI does.

I hate it too but tell me, most people do well just to get their bills paid; especially after the government takes 15% of their income for a promise of SSI later, how exactly are most people supposed to prepare for their future under those conditions? How much are you putting away right now? If you haven't been saving at least 15% of your income since you started working you aren't going to be prepared either. You already know you need to be saving but are you (you don't really need to answer me and I"m not trying to beat you up here...just trying to make a point)? Someone WILL have to bite the bullet but it cannot be those who no longer have time to prepare - try and just discard those people and you'll have your armed rebellion. It's probably too late for me but I'd still give up ever taking SSI if they would just stop taking from me now but most people my age and certainly no one who is very much older can possibly make up for not having social security income when they can no longer work.

Word leaking out is Murder 2. I find the whole mess questionable. If some new breakthrough evidence has surfaced that justifies charges then I think it reasonable to ask where it came from and why now? If they don't have anything new then was the original investigation handled incompetently (or was a purposeful coverup)? OR Is this a sham prosecution being brought only for political expediency (i.e. to keep rioters quiet at least while they go through the trial process)? I can only hope that the charges, whatever they are, are truly justified based on the actual evidence...I hope that we haven't sunk to the low of charging someone with a crime only to shut up the Sharptons and Jacksons of the world.

A President can say that all day long but it's meaningless because the President has no power to make it happen. A president, if he is popular enough and/or if his party holds power (or a lot of the available power) in the legislature then he can set the agenda and push for change but a lot of the power of the president is in his ability to block or not block change by virtue of his veto power. We aren't going to change anything overnight - you aren't going to end SS by the stroke of t pen and even if you could, I can't imagine a more cruel act than to steel money from people all their working lives on the promise that they'll at least get some of it back only to tell them "sorry...try the dumpsters behind Kroger for your food.". Changes will have to be done in a way that is gradual with everybody losing some but not some losing everything. So what if we don't change it back to 100% of how it was...that doesn't mean we shouldn't do it nor doe is mean that armed rebellion is an answer - first because it probably wouldn't be successful and even if it were successful there is no guarantee that the government put in place will be one that is actually better than the one just overthrown. It may be different but not necessarily better. The only real answer is getting people to vote and to vote for the betterment of the country rather than for what the government will give them. If we can't get people to do that...if the welfare/entitlement generation continue to only vote for their own selfish interests or if people who know what is needed refuse to participate (and would rather just complain about the lack of quality candidates) then our course will not change.

Yeah...real self centered of him; I mean how dare someone experience a problem and then actually start a thread to ask a question that they were looking for an answer to about the problem. At least the self centered OP's thread served a valuable purpose - it allowed everyone who has read the thread to see what an a horse's a*s you are.

Where exactly do you do it for a living and what is your function there? Do you own a firearms store and are the licensed ffl dealer? Are you a sales clerk? Do you train ffl dealers on the intricacies of firearm transfer laws? I'm fairly open about myself here - you can discern a lot about me from my profile and my posts. However, if you want to know details about me then you need to be at least as forthcoming with details about yourself, otherwise, you can go pound sand. I do my best to be informed about firearm related laws and honing my skills and in pursuit of same I've spent a hell of a lot more than a "few hundred bucks and a few hours in a classroom". That said, you probably do know more about the process that I do; never said or hinted otherwise. However, even if you are an "expert"; it doesn't give you leave to be abrasive to people just because they are seeking a little information; even doing so by injecting yourself into a post I made that was not directed to you (in fact, it was specifically asking for someone new to offer some experiential insight rather than dealing with minutia of the process). You started out in this thread with an unhelpful comment to to OP and then another equally unhelpful response to him; later acknowledging that you hadn't even read the OP's posts before responding...I'd like to know that store you own/work out because if that's your typical level of customer service I'd like to avoid buying anything in your store!

Well gosh golly gee wiz...I didn't know I was in the presence of someone who is an acknowledged authority on this subject (at least in his own mind). Perhaps you could tell us of at least a few of what I'm sure is a long, long list of your accomplishments that demonstrates your knowledge and expertise on the subject? We have some true experts on this forum; some of them nationally known (who don't need to declare on the internet that they deal with this issue "daily"). Maybe your are one of them (but I doubt it).

Do what? Make an ass of yourself??? I do that pretty often myself although I don't usually brag about it.

Frankly, rather than arguing about the details, I'd be more interested in hearing from someone who has lived in and purchased a firearm in a state where the carry permit is used and then purchased one after moving to TN so that he could compare the process in each case. My suspicion is that using the carry permit as an effective substitute for a new background each time make the process simpler and faster; maybe even less expensive and maybe even subject to fewer errors (or at least the errors happen and can be solved on the front end before the carry permit is issued rather than needing to re-solve the problem every time you buy a firearm from an FFL). If there is really no benefit to the firearm buyer then maybe changing the process in TN isn't worth pursuing???

And I really don't care if you have which I'm sure is exactly how you feel about me.

If they don't want to vote then what is their solution? If their solution is to do nothing then they aren't worth your time to convince them of anything. If their solution is armed rebellion then I respectfully suggest that they are at least borderline insane and, again, aren't worth your time. We have two ways to effect change in this country, one is peaceful and one isn't...one takes only a very modest amount of effort and the other means destruction and bloodshed and even if the "right" side wins, the country may never recovery from it. We don't need a "total rebuild"...we simply need to return to the principles and documents the country was founded on and operated on from the mid-1700s until about 1930. We CAN do that with voting and people being involved. One last thought, if people are too lazy or too cynical to be wiling to vote and get involved in a peaceful process; where do you think such folks would be in a bloody revolution? My guess is that they would be peeing their pants and hiding in the closet. In other words, such folks will NEVER be part of the solution no matter what is required to get to a solution.

GWB was a disappointment in many ways although I will never regret my voting for him over Mr. Tree or Mr. Ketchup.