RobertNashville

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.

Hell, Mike I lived through all of Ronny's runs for president and so did you...even those who strongly supported him had no idea how good a man he was or how good of a president he would be and he wasn't perfect either...if he were running today we'd probably be hearing the same kind of complaints we've been hearing. Years after he left office I read many of his writings (radio addresses, etc.) and only then did I realize that Ronald Reagan had an intellect, a depth of knowledge and a love of this country that few recognized then or now.

It's only over if people give up...sounds like you have.Are you involved with a Tea-Party group or something similar? Have you contributed money or time to any candidate running for anything this year or in the past four years? Have you gone to any of the rallies in D.C or attended a town hall meeting with a legislator? What have you done to show those in office that you are tired of the direction of the country or to encourage better candidates to run? I tell you this, we are lucky we have ANYONE of any decent character running for office today and I to be blunt, I've had about a belly full of all the people who complain about their choices but don't do s**t about it other than complain. If people want better candidates then maybe THEY should get out there and run for office or knock on a few doors and give money to candidates they like but throwing a pity-party isn't going to help and sitting out this election like some are claiming they will is damn stupid....if Obama gets another term we'll be lucky if we have elections again. Rant off...sorry if I offended anyone (although not too sorry).

Actually; there really is but it's often up to the people to remind them of that.

Haven't you heard? We are going to have a brokered convention and Ron Paul is going to be the standard bearer. I said many months ado that Mit was going to be the nominee...not because I wanted him to be but that was simply how I say things turning out...this is one of the times I really wish I had been wrong. That said, I'll support Mit in any way I can to get him into the oval office as well as support those running for the congress that I hope will keep Mit honest.

I don't know what other states do but I suspect some check every year and some less often. I wasn't suggesting that there may not be changes necessary to Tennessee's system including making up for any perceived loss of revenue. What I was doing was responding to the notion that "we don't know what's happened since the permit was issued". That's true, we don't know but even if we checked every year or every month or week or day we can never be 100% certain that someone meets the "qualifications" for purchasing a firearm (of course, whether there should be "qualifications" and what those qualifications should be is another discussion) but whatever they are, my real point here is that background checks are 100% pointless and that the only reason we have them at all is to placate the anti-gun crowd and the ill-informed. Unfortunately, I don't see the requirement going way; at least not anytime soon. That being the case, considering the cost we go thorough to get our HCP it would be nice to have this little perk as part of the deal. Even more so as we move toward constitutional carry which would make the HCP process moot for some people (or at least make it a lot more voluntary).

I've seen nothing to suggest that Zimmerman was doing anything close to stalking or even following; at lest not following in the active way some want to suggest was done. I would suggest that it was more likely that Zimmerman was trying to see where Martin was going/went to - he did "lose him" if I recall correctly, even to the extent of apparently giving up and going back to his vehicle. Conjecture on my part but it's conjecture based on experience of seeing someone I though was "out of place/suspicious" and trying to keep an eye on where he was going while waiting for the police to arrive to check out the person.

If someone with an HCP does something that disqualifies them from having it then the HCP will be rescinded. Background checks are and have always been pointless....until such time as we have time travel and can see what someone will eventually use a firearm for, the only function they can serve is to make the ill-informed "feel better" about people buying firearms. Our effort as a society should be on punishing people who chose to misuse firearms to commit crimes and then putting them in jail and keeping them in jail (then they won't be on the street to commit more crimes ad/or buy firearms). Putting impediments on those who have done nothing wrong is exactly what we should NOT be doing.

Only because Tennessee has decided it's mandatory. Other states allow their permits to qualify for purchases from FFL without a new background check.

No...suggesting I need psychological help...making stupid remarks about my "dad" is not "helping"; they are a personal attack on me and I'm sure quite intentionally so. That you would chose to do so speaks volumes about your character.

Or a carefully crafted opinion.

Humm...the person who was complaining about all the alleged "personal attacks" going on decides to attack me personally by deriding my upbringing finishing by suggesting I need psychological help...what a stunning surprise. It doesn't bother me that you hold a different opinion...it bothers me that a person is willing to hold such a resolute and unshakable opinion that is based on carefully chosen "facts" (at the exclusion of others) and filling in the blanks with innuendo and assertions...it's intellectually dishonest and yes, that bothers me.

It makes a hell of a lot more sense than letting someone else chose for you. Making choices for ourselves...taking responsibility for ourselves; that's what liberty and freedom is all about. Making the choice to vote or not or who to vote for is not dissimilar to the choice many of us have made to carry a firearm so that we can provide for our own protection. Carrying is a burden...the weapon is heavy and can often be uncomfortable...you have to know the law about when and where you are allowed and not allowed to carry...you take on a tremendous responsibility the goes alone with carrying and all the ramifications that will come should you ever be called upon to use it. Frankly, I'd rather not carry. But, I've chosen to carry a firearm on me because I am not willing to leave my fate in the hands of evil men or depend on protection from an over-worked, under-paid, law enforcement community that will almost certainly NOT be there when I would need them the most. But; if you are satisfied with someone else making choices for you then you will get exactly what you deserve.

So it's not a fact (and I agree that it isn't) that Zimmerman complied with the operators request but you see no disconnect in your assumption that Zimmerman was "pursuing" Martin??? You seem very willing to accept any bit of information that implies wrongdoing on the part of Zimmerman and very slow at best to accept anything that might exonerate him. However, I suppose that shouldn't be a surprise - that's been true of your assessment since the beginning.

True but the country is suffering a major injury (namely, too many people expecting someone else to take care of them) and losing blood at a frightening pace (the government spending money it doesn't have to do things that, mot of which, it shouldn't be doing in the first place) ...the injury must be healed but you must first stop the blood loss; getting rid of Obama is like putting on the tourniquet...it's a necessary step; not a solution.

That isn't a possible answer...everybody is going to get one end or the other.

Us vs them? What I think you are seeing is a predictable response to threats being made by one group against another...threats not based on rational thought or on evidence; but on hate.

...nor do you want to it would appear.

I'd rather someone be an Obama lover than someone who cares so little for our country that they are willing to do nothing and the consequences be damned.

This isn't about "R" or "D"; it's about survival of America as a democratic republic. I am not optimistic about our chances but I am convinced that Romney on his most liberal day is still a 100% better choice that Obama on his most conservative day. Any president can appoint a justice that may turn out to be liberal even if no one thought they would (we have several examples)...Romney "may" appoint someone more liberal than would, say, Santorum or Paul but Romney isn't going to shut his penis his zipper if he can avoid it so it's likely he'll appoint justices that conservatives can at least tolerate if not get excited about. On the other hand, we already have proof that Obama will appoint not just liberal bur radical liberal justices...there is ZERO reason to think that in a lame-duck term he won't appoint justices that are even more liberal than he already has. I don't "like" Romney either but he has accomplished something in his life besides being a politician. He is, I believe, a decent, moral man who dose have some principles he livers by. He does, I believe love this country and will not knowingly do things that will tear it down. He is a capitalist at heart and believes in the capitalist system. I can say NONE of those things about Obummer....not a single one...those reasons alone are reasons enough not to vote (directly or effectively) for Obama. Getting Obama out of office after one term may not save our country but leaving him in for another four may well assure its demise.