RobertNashville

He was not "detained"...he was free to leave at any time as far as I can tell; he just wan't allowed past the gate to the ramp. He just doesn't want to follow the rules that are the natural outgrowth of the laws passed by the body he is part of and that the little people have to follow; if we want to fly. Until he and the rest of Congress starts to dismantle these ridiculous laws they've created I'm not going to wast a moment feeling sorry when one of their own gets entangled in them. The TSA needs to be dismantled but until they are, you will follow their rules or you won't fly...seems a pretty simple concept to me.

I expected a less biased piece from Brian...I'm disappointed. It does, however, pinpoint one of several reasons why I will NEVER buy the Tennessean newspaper; I'm bombarded with liberal garbage every day so I'm sure as hell not going to pay to get more of it.

Actually; some of them do have clear-cut answers and the issue of pardon's is one that should tracing its lineage to well before the U.S. ever existed.

This is a clear cut case unless you are a government bureaucrat looking for a reason to deny an HCP. Pardon means just that...once granted it's the same as if the crime the person is pardoned for was never committed and stats are SUPPOSED to recognize such things as pardons and such when granted by another state.

Yes...if he does run on his own or on the "L" ticket the socialist will be in office for another four and we can kiss what's left of our liberty good-by in which case I will be a charter member of (or may even start) the "I HATE RON PAUL" party.

I've had my LCR (38) with CT laser grips for at least a couple of years now...although I don't "consider" it to be my primary carry weapon it's the one that is actually with me the most! It's been absolutely trouble free and totally reliable and although the venerable 38 special is not the biggest round on the block, it can get the job done with manageable recoil. Now, I would never suggest it's the most enjoyable gun I have to shoot but I think for a small yet powerful carry weapon (BUG or primary), it is very difficult to beat.

Most certainly, running formally as the "Libertarian" candidate would be his best shot at getting on the ballots and getting votes; however, I don't think that would be his ultimate motivation. If he runs "third-party", Libertarian or otherwise, I would submit he'll be doing it to make a statement or, as I personally think, to stroke his ego (as he would have to know that will not and can not win the election). If, indeed, making a statement (or ego) is his motivation then he doesn't need to do that running formally as the "Libertarian" candidate.

Of course they were firearms...I'm sure they were purchased in Tennessee at a gun show taking advantage of the "gun show loophole"

He can stay in through the convention and still run third-party; that only thing that can truly stop that is Ron Paul deciding not to do it which is why, I find it troubling that he won't answer one way or the other. I find it disingenuous of him to be running for the "R" nomination in the first place as I believe he does so only to take advantage of the Republican machine/structure/primary process, etc...he knows he would never get any real coverage from any news outlet if he ran as a Libertarian yet it seems to me that even though he identifies himself as a Republican, his positions on most issues are in reality, much more closely aligned with libertarian positions than Republican.

Actually, "the right-wing news media" talk about it because he has been asked point-blank if he will run on a third-party ticket if he doesn't win the Republican nomination and he has refused to answer. I don't know about you but for me, anytime a politician won't answer a question you can pretty much guarantee its' becasue he knows that the answer won't be well received by the people who's votes he is trying to court..

There may be som

I have to admit that my love of the Auto Five is quit a bit fostered by nostalgia. When I was a kid hunting with my Dad and my uncle (the uncle I mentioned in another thread as providing much of my interest in firearms), my Dad owned an Auto Five that I thought was about the most beautiful gun I had ever seen or have ever seen. My Dad eventually sold that Browning to my uncle and I"m sure it will get passed to my cousin now that my uncle is gone. I also just happen to love the Browning brand...my skeet gun is a Citori that never ceases to get admiration from those who have shot it, even those with much more expensive shotguns. I really have no need for another shotgun but I may have to pick up one of these new ones!

I not only agree but support the concept that each person should support whatever candidate they feel deserves that support in the primary. I think RP would likely be a good president but I think any of the candidates still in the field would be light-years better than the socialist who currently occupies the oval office and should we be unfortunate enough that he wins a second term, I truly believe that our country, as we know it, will truly be lost forever...this election is an election about saving our country from people who truly hate our country and want to see it destroyed...these people want a socialist state...they want our economy to collapse. Getting back to the actual subject of the thread...I do feel that RP purposely bypasses major opportunities for media exposure but I don't understand why. Maybe doing so is a smart move (or maybe at least that's what his staff/he believes)....I do wonder though how it is that so many of RP's die-hard supporters keep saying that RP doesn't get the same media coverage as "Newt" or "Mit", etc when RP seems to bypass opportunities.

I would definitely be interested in this, whether there is range time or not.

i think you've hit on something here...there are several places (cities and/or states) who don't what to be bound by that pesky "Constitution" and will ignore it at every opportunity but they are certainly more than happy to take money stolen from the citizens of this country in the form of taxes and doled out by the fed govt.

You don't have to get the synthetic stock although if you are going to get wet with it then it's probably not a bad idea. There is no shotgun on the planet better than a Browning Auto Five...old or new; at least that's my opinion and I'm sticking to it.

Infringement on the rights of any, including residents of New York, is a danger to all of us, including here in Tennessee. As was recently stated by the Buckeye Firearms Association, that the two biggest threats to second amendment rights are... President Barack Obama and his campaign staff and The Apathetic, Misinformed, or Anti-gun Gun Owner Yes, some people cry "states rights" (appropriate and sometimes inappropriately) at times but I would suggest that this is not a "states rights" issue...this is an area where the federal government should intervene. One of its most basic responsibilities is to ensure that a citizen's rights, recognized and enumerated in the Constitution, are protected and not allowed to be infringed. Whether one plans to travel to NY or any other place so openly hostile to our rights, we should do what we can and all we can to push back.

I suppose doing the rental and driving to a "friendlier" is the best option but of course you are still likely a "dangerous felon with the intent to do harm" until you have crossed that state line! As I mentioned a few pages ago, as long as cities and states can have such anti-gun laws; this seems to me to truly be an area where the federal government should step in (with regards to "transporting" a firearm from point A to point .

Very well said, Sir.

No, we don't "have to continue" at all...I respond to you posts, and you respond to mine; you can always chose to not do so. There is nothing wrong with the example I used regarding religion and the fist amendment; the example was entirely on point by drawing a comparison between laws that infringe on our rights as noted in the Constitution (I find it curious that you chose to attack and/or dismiss the example)...I drew the comparison because of your statement where you said.. Based on your statement it appears that you have no problem capitulating to laws even if they are likely an unconstitutional infringement on our basic rights. Is that your position or not?I ask the question because in my opinion, a position of capitulation is dangerous to all rights, including the right to keep and bear arms...it's a position that I believe should be challenged as a danger to our rights...a danger recognized by Gerald Valentino of the Buckeye Firearms Association when he said that...

Really? Well...I'm glad you made that decision for every other member as well as for David (who owns the site)! I WAS discussing the right to keep and bear arms but apparently you aren't familiar with the concept of using examples in order to make a point.

No matter what individuals think about Glock pistols, they did very much change the firearms landscape! I'll be picking up this book too!

I appreciate the many good ideas/suggestions...obviously I have some time on my side at the moment but I'll be checking out these options for sure!

You know and can know nothing about my "attitude" and while you can say that my comments are "out of line", your assertion of that is meaningless without further explanation. As preciously stated, if I have misunderstood what you meant with your original comment, I apologize. If I have not misunderstood you then I am "trampling" on nothing.

Disdain for a person's actions (and possible motives) is NOT the same as disdain or "hatred" of the person. I think many of us have a BIG problem with what he has DONE and what says he plans to DO and the possibly very negative consequences such actions have on the whole firearm enthusiasts community.