RobertNashville

I too have life lock ultimate and have been impressed with them. Last November, some ###hole in Georgia used my debit card info to buy a child's car seat (of all things) from Walmart over the web. I caught the suspicious charge (about $230) easily the day it hit my checking account (because I update my accounts online every day). Called Walmart and they were able to cancel the shipment so the dirtbag didn't get their car seat and my bank returned the money that same day. I got LifeLock the next day. Since then, I found out that someone filed a fraudulent IRS return with my SSN for the 2010 tax year....I hope there is a special place in Hell for these dirtbags (right next to the folks who sit in the passing lane and won't pass). And frankly, ANYBODY who steels another person's identity is a scumbucket of the highest order, that goes double when it's a relative. Moving on...not using the internet today makes about as much sense as refusing to use a telephone in the 1930s....or limiting your music to 45rms singles - technology isn't the problem; good, old-fashioned dirtbag criminals are the problem and the only thing that can end that problem is to eliminate the criminals.

I'm sick to death of the stupid "private property rights" argument....the opposition to this bill has Zero to do with property rights and 100% to do with campaign money.

I emailed Ron Ramsey a couple of days ago (surprisingly I haven't heard back from him) to express my disappointment with him and the rest of the leadership from the governor on down. It's beyond irritating that they grovel for the votes of firearm enthusiasts and will expound at length about their support of our second amendment rights yet won't even let a bill come to the floor for a n up/down vote. All the cowards and liars need to be voted out and I hope we get some good, true conservatives to run so that the current power structure doesn't have the power they now wield.

The delegates and "who" they say they are "for" are actually immaterial. According to the chair of the TN Republican party, the delegates will be awarded proportionally to the winner and second place finisher depending on a somewhat convoluted formula about percentage carried statewide and percentage carried by district...usually by the time a first and second place finisher are awarded their delegates there aren't really any left for third, fourth, etc. If, for example, Santorum wins or finishes first or second, the party will work with Santorum's campaign staff to actually pick "who" his delegates will be at the convention.

What "edit" are you talking about? The post I replied to and quoted still says (at this moment) exactly what I said when I replied to it.

I'm not taking it personally but it does make me happy that you FINALLY answered my question.

It's at least as smart as arguing ballistics.

Because the weapon is needed, as you are so fond of saying, to "stop the threat". However, most of the time, stopping the threat doesn't require discharge of the weapon. According to the National Self-Defense Survey (Gary Kleck, PhD) "no more than 8% of the 2.5 million annual defensive gun uses involved a defender who claimed to have shot their adversaries"; meaning that 92% of the time, the innocent didn't have to fire.

I'll be happy to recount my self-defense experiences when you do - however, given your reticence to do so I'm suspecting that you have none. Now, having none isn't a bad thing, quite the opposite actually....it's just that you are SO certain about your "mousegun" stand that I assumed it was based on your real-life experience...apparently I was wrong about that. You keep wanting to argue ballistics but you are the only one who wants to do so. No one here has said or even hinted that a 22 is a better caliber weapon to have than something with better ballistics...if I have a choice, I'll be reach for my rifle any day over any handgun caliber. The problem with ballistic is that while ballistics are fine to talk about and compare, ballistics won't save your life. Ballistics won't "stop the threat". The will to prevail regardless of what caliber you have (or if you have any firearm at all) is the only thing that can really save your life...if you don't have that; a 50BMG isn't going to be a big enough caliber.

You first...I asked first...yet you won't answer...I wonder why? ROTFLMAO I've never owned and don't own a 22 caliber anything; as I have already said - you must have missed that post.

You have a very unique (one might say, "flexible", one might even say "convenient") definition of the word "Ridicule". So, you want to discuss labratory tests and magazine and TV "facts"...is that it? ROTFL As I said and have said many, may times NO ONE is arguing that a 45 or a 10MM or a 357Magnum isn't "better" than a 32 or a 308 or a 22 so how is discussing "consistency of sub-service calibers" pertinent? I'm talking about PREVAILING in a life and death struggle which is ALL THE MATTERS and if you don't or won't understand that then I don't care if you ARE carrying a " howitzer" or something "extreme" to paraphrase your previous statement; because when you life is on the line all those ballistic tests and talking head opinions won't mean a damn thing.

Your experience??? It makes a difference; if you've had it.

More ridicule? Didn't you just scold someone else for doing that??? I don't own a 22 anything and never have. You said "people" and then specifically that I "didn't understand" ...how different is that from telling someone they don't know what they are talking about? I'm not insecure about my opinions at all...and by the way, I'm still waiting to hear what life and death struggles you've personally been in requiring you to use your firearm that supports your opinion about "mouseguns".

The smallest caliber I carry is a 38; usually as a backup to my backup...my primary weapons are 357Sig/45ACP/10MM; usually the 357 and the 10MM together so no, despite your ridicule, I'm not defensive at all about mouseguns....nice try though. I'm still waiting to hear what life and death struggles you've personally been in requiring you to use your firearm that supports your opinion about "mouseguns".

But apparently, telling other people they don't know what they are talking about while offering nothing but opinion does make for a good argument, right?

I'm still waiting to hear what life and death struggles you've personally been in requiring you to use your firearm that supports your opinion about "mouseguns"? You seem so certain that small calibers are ineffective I have to believe that the opinion wasn't just formed from reading magazines or watching TV.

My lack of agreeing with your illogical stand does not mean I don't understand. Plenty of people have been armed with big calibers and didn't prevail...PREVAILING is all that matters and that is what this young man did - I'd put this young man's determination and 22 up against plenty of people I know carrying big calibers any day. I can't help but wonder how many life and death struggles you've personally been in that makes you an expert on what caliber is "worthy" of being used...how many times have you defended your life with a firearm?

People understand just fine. A "good defensive weapon" is any one of any caliber that does the job when it was needed...in this case the threat WAS stopped....that's what matters...that's really all the matters. No one is suggesting that we turn in our 45ACPs or 10MMs for a 22.

Gee...and just a week or so ago I was getting beat up for suggesting that a woman just thinking about carrying should carry whatever SHE is willing to carry, regardless of caliber. Essentially I was told that carrying an "underpowered" caliber was tantamount to carrying nothing. How is it then that this little 22 got the job done???

Voted this morning...Santorum

Actually, you misinterpreted my meaning; at least to some extent...or maybe not??? Anyway...I agree that states have been allowed to ignore the U.S. Constitution (the operative word being "allowed"), however, in my layman's understanding of Constitutional law, the U.S. Constitution always trumps. In other words, in the case of clearly delineated rights identified in the U.S. Constitution, a state simply cannot "legally" ignore those rights. In my opinion, a State has no more right to forbid the keeping/bearing of arms then it does to decide to throw out the prohibitions against unreasonable search and seizure or force the harboring of troops. Obviously, I'm talking technicalities here..in practice, "we the people" have stood by with our eyes and ears closed while both the Federal and State governments have nearly trashed the Constitution...I don't know that we'll ever reverse that.

That clears it up...it was the sink's fault!!!

This case can't hurt but I think it's one more step in a very long journey. One would think that the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution would apply to all citizens in all states and that no state or local law could supersede it yet, we all know that isn't true. It took decades to get here and it's going to take time to get back to where we were AND a Supreme Court that doesn't have a preponderance of justices who think like Ginsburg (and if Obummer wins re-election our one vote majority on the court is gone).

Dolomite's method is pretty good, actually but that does still leave the problem of "where" to put it. The only way I can answer that is "it depends". Some stalls make that an easy problem; some not so...you just have to decide what's best given how the stall is arranged.

I have met Caster...he is a bit "different"...I think I now have some insight into why.