RobertNashville

Requiring a person to have a government issued photo ID to prove "who" they are when they go to cast their vote is a "hardship" only in the fevered minds of liberals who are frantically searching for plauasible (sounding) reasons to strike down such laws. The reasons they've presented are so feeble that they are ridiculous on their face - I have a couple of good Democrat friends who have been spouting this stuff at me and I'm having a difficult time believing that even they believe what they are saying. The one thing that Democrats/liberals can't allow themselves to admit is that they WANT people to vote who can't legally vote (felons, illegal aliens, etc) because they know that for the most part, these people vote Democrat. Personally, it's my belief that if a person is on ANY type of government assistance (Welfare, food stamps, unemployment, etc.) and/or anyone who doesn't actually PAY federal income taxes shouldn't be able to vote...anybody getting government largess shouldn't be able to influence, by virtue of their vote, how much they get! If you "pay into" the system then you should have a right to vote, if you don't then you shouldn't have the right to vote.

Could well be.

I've been stocking up on incandescent light bulbs in anticipation of all of them becoming illegal just as the 100w bulb will be in a few days...I'm sure, if things continue, that it won't only be illegal to sell them in the U.S. but illegal to possess them as well. Given the seriousness of the laws regarding my toilott I'm sure possess of the wrong kind of light bulb will also be a felony.So...with your line of reasoning, I should be put to death, right??? Considering the number of people who have served years, even decades on death row only to be exonerated by DNA evidence, I'm thinking we should be reconsidering how often we impose a death penalty on anyone (but I guess that's a different discussion for another time).

I think part of the problem is that we (society) is now recognizing just how potentially dangerous things such as a driver texting or even talking on a cell phone can be but at least in most states, it's not an illegal activity. Education is a good thing and will help and I agree that we do need less intrusiveness by government. But, we have laws for a reason; usually that reason being that we know that "education" is often not enough and so we need laws and enforcement to deal with those who refuse to comply. This comes down to what I suggest is a true public safety issue, not unlike the reasons we have laws regarding stop signs and traffic lights, etc...as such, this is an issue were the think the government has a legitimate role to play. I think the question then becomes whether it's a federal or state issue to deal with.

Can anyone here spell "denial"??? While I'm sure such advice will be ignored, I really suggest you reevaluate your common driving habits...I've attended quite a few funerals of those who, by any objective measure, were VERY competent drivers who's skills were honed by lot's of time on track and who were driving vehicles who's capabilities were far beyond normal (and probably far beyond anything your are driving short of a race-prepared vehicle). I don't care how good your skills or your vehicle's capabilities are or how good you think they are; triple digits speeds simply do not belong on a public highway.

I may be mistaken on the exact specifics but in Tennessee, I believe that if the shooting is ruled to be justified then you have an affirmative defense (per TN law) against any lawsuit from the person shot or his family...I don't believe that can "prevent" you from being sued but it does render a suit a relative waste of time.

"I was in fear for my life and I defended myself...I don't mean to be uncooperative but I don't want to say anything else until my attorney is present" - that statement should be good enough for any LEO investigating a homicide and I suspect the good officers will know and respect that.

People aren't perfect...got it.

I'm sure most of the law enforcement officers on this site doesn't appreciate this information but I think it's absolutely true, you shouldn't talk to LEOs...if there is a problem, the courtroom is the place to address it.

I would say that with many government functions/agencies; it often has more to do with who is in control of them at the moment than the existence of the agency itself.

I am ALL for keeping guns out of the hands of dangerous people but no background check will ever do that. What will do that is to lock up criminals and keep them locked up - that removes many dangerous people from society and serves as a warning to others who are thinking of taking the same route. Those who are mentally disturbed should be institutionalized (as used to be normal) - if they represent a danger to innocent people then they shouldn't be allowed the opportunity put innocent people in danger. Finally, we need to have more law-abiding and well trained citizens who are armed so then those who fall between the cracks like this sicko in Phoenix can be taken down before he kills a bunch of people.

If you are routinely driving 2 or 3 or more times the posted limit then there is no radar detector that can help you other than, perhaps, to tell you to get your wallet out of your back pocket. Moreover, I don't think driving that much over the posted limit, no matter how arbitrary they may be, is a good plan; at least not if you want to keep driving.As to your driving ability, I'll take your word for your skill level. In any case, there is a lot more to driving safely and not putting yourself or someone else in danger than just raw skill - there are many things that can go wrong when you are on the road, not the least of which are other drivers who may not have your skill - things that the driver cannot control and that "skill" will often not get you out of. The greater your speed, the less reaction time you have to avoid disaster; it's really that simple.

Do I think that the trivial amount of food or prep an individual might have will have any affect on how these agencies might react? No, I don't think what any one individual has would. But; do I think that knowing that some significant percentage of a lot of individuals have "X" amount of emergency provisions (and what kind) might make a difference to, say, TEMA; possibly, yes. As to the customer list, I'm hearing different things about what is being asked and who is doing the asking so I can't "justify" anything at this point; all I was doing was making a point there there may be a less nefarious purpose to the questions that some are assuming.

Do you really want to go back to that story? I think that thread was a few dozen pages long and nothing new to be said about it.

Whether or not FEMA should exist or is a proper function of the federal government is something that can be debated but clearly, the states have a right to have such organizations if they choose to have them. I would submit that FEMA or something like it both should exist and that its existence is a proper function/role of the federal government. You cannot have life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness if your house and half of a state has been destroyed by an earthquake – an individual can and should prepare for emergencies but some emergencies are too large for individuals to prepare for/survive without help and some are too big for a community or a state to prepare for/respond to.

Who said they were (the answer to everything)??? Just because they aren't the answer to everything doesn't mean they aren't the answer to SOME things or that they don't have a legitimate function to play in, for example, a natural disaster situation. Even doing a poor job during a disaster doesn't mean such an agency shouldn't exist. The primary responsibility for our protection and for being prepared for emergencies IS, first and foremost, an individual responsibility but that doesn't mean the government shouldn't or doesn't have a part to play.

Well...healthy skepticism of government is a good thing but there is always the danger of such skepticism reaching an unhealthy level. In any case, why would you want a government agency to spend money on preparations that they don't need to or even worse, spend too much on the wrong preparations??? I would agree that most people aren't prepared for an emergency but I also believe that that level of preparedness is changing (and that more people are preparing)...I"m sure that TEMA and FEMA thinks so too and as such, I don' t see them asking people to be "butting into people's personal affairs". Besides, you can always chose to not respond to their questions just like I chose to not respond to most of the census questions last year.

I think some of you are being a little oversensitive. The "news media' is predominantly liberal leaning; sometimes VERY liberal leaning and most liberals are "anti-gun"; some are VERY so. It follows, then, that anytime a crime is committed with a gun involved or anytime they can run an opinion piece about the subject, the anti-gun bias is going to come through. However, I very much doubt that the anti-gun rhetoric is significantly "more" right now than it has been or usually is...that may change as we get closer to 11/2012 of course!

Part of what I learned - how TEMA operates/how their are structured, toured the Nashville operations center and what they do to respond to an emergency, etc...the fact that they have almost no assets of their own and such a small number of actual employees was an eye opener. I surprised you see no legitimate reason in their knowing, at least in a general sense, how "prepared" the public is or isn't because I certainly can see such a reason. Moreover, an emergency response agency like TEMA in one function/area that I think is very appropriate for government to be engaged in - significant disasters, whether man-made, natural is something that any one person, community or state would have trouble responding to totally on their own and not something the private sector can really do either, even was it so inclined.

Well...I've slowed down too...at least somewhat (you aren't likely going to see me under the limit unless I'm slowing down for some specific reason)...however...these days, I leave 95% of my speed/performance driving where they belong; track events and autocross courses. There is something to be said for maturity - maturity such as what speed is truly safe based on the road, the weather, other traffic, etc. Of course, like virtually ever other law ever passed, "speed limit" laws can be very political in nature and even if they aren't, they are generally based on the lowers common denominator. Therefore, what may be a truly safe speed may be above, or even below the "posted" limit.

I'll take a sales tax over an income tax ANY DAY and TWICE ON SUNDAY...in fact, it was a MAJOR factor in my decision to more here; I wasn't even considering moving to any stat that had a state income tax. Most of the states I've lived in, except for Washington, had both an income and a sales tax (and many others)...the only thing that was good for was keeping tax accountants employed filing income tax returns for the state and the city you worked in and the city you resided in and on and on it went. I would also point out that during this current recession...depression...obamasession; it's the states that don't have an income tax that have fared better than those with income taxes!

Having just completed a course with TEMA I can say that there is a legitimate reason why TEMA, FEMA, etc would like to know just how prepared the public (in general) is for an emergency...they don't need to know precisely what I have or how much of it nor am I going to give them the serial numbers of everything in my gun safe but if they want to know if I've made some preparations for an emergency I'm not going to have a problem telling them so.

No one is claiming that a detector is going to save your ass every time...BUT...technology like this moves the needle just a bit toward toward the citizen.

Well, I rarely just "take" something as fact from someone I don't know and even more especially from someone I don't know on an internet forum. Unless you have some substantial, empirical data to support your opinion then I'll rely on my 40 years of driving history and using detectors since my the first FuZZbuster that I bought in 1976.

I don't have to think a radar detector will; my detectors have saved me form many tickets over the years...what they won't save a driver from is his/her own stupidity.