RobertNashville

There is a lot of information about me available to both the public and/or to the government that I am not happy about thanks to the digital age we live in…so much information is amassed now that it almost boggles the mind what a person with the right tolls and the desire to do so, can find out about us. That said, maybe I should care but I’m not sure I really do care if “big brother” knows how much food I’ve purchased or not purchased from a supplier like “Food Insurance”, etc…I’m not happy about it but in the overall scheme of things I’m not going to get overly excited about (maybe I’m just too old to get too excited about such things???).

Part of me may feel compassion for someone who is breaking into my home because he is "hungry", etc. - I don't think I'd be much of a human being if I didn't "care". However, if someone breaks into my home I"m not going to ask him his motives - the only reasonable course of action is to assume he/she is there to harm me and for me to defend myself with the best tool I have within reach (which I intend to be a firearm). ___________________ As to whether firearm rights should or should not be restored to a felon, I say that there should be a "path" to having the full rights of citizenship restored to someone who once committed a felony and especially so since many states do have a method/pat to restore some rights - the right to keep and bear arms shouldn't be singled out for permanent removal while allowing other rights (such as the right to vote) to be restored. Such a path should be available to those who committed non-violent crimes and should be after a proscribed period of time has passed during which they have lived a productive life. Obviously, violent felons and particularly those who committed their crimes with a firearm should never have rights restored...in fact, in my humble opinion, such criminals should never see the outside of a prison cell making any restoration of rights a moot point anyway.

Unfortunate news; especially the apparent death of the office. However, other than the fact that it was near the campus of VT, there doesn't appear to be any connection beyond that - the latest report I just read said this was apparently a traffic stop incident.

Personally, I drive the speed that my abilities, road conditions and traffic allow as "safe". Many times, "speed limits" are set based on bureaucratic policy/politics rather then common sense or measurable criteria. For similar reasons, I tend to ignore the "car pool" lane restrictions as well.

I would suggest that most of the problems with detectors not picking up radar quickly enough has less to do with any failing of the detector and more to do with users overestimating what a detector can actually do!

Some of the things these guys do are pretty crazy and some are a lot more dangerous than they look on TV...I wonder how many people watch their experiments and thikn to themselves how foolish these guys are for taking such measures to be safe then something like this happens and you suddenly realize that the safety measures were likely pretty important!!! As Robert Burns said - "The best laid schemes o' mice an' men oft go awry"!

I really like the G31 and the 357Sig caliber; in fact; that's what I carry (a different one from the commemorative issue model). That said, I don't see that much "special" about a former duty weapon just because of the additional laser work compared to a stock one...I'd simply buy a new, stock G31!

Do yo mean the commemorative edition for the THP's 75th anniversary? I have one; very low serial number and never fired/new in the box that I bought just because I though it was a really neat piece to have but I have no idea what they are going for at the moment.

I have quite a few 1911s...I love 1911s...I carry a Glock. Glocks aren't pretty but they almost always go "bang" when you pull the trigger plus for the money, they are hard to beat. I too vote for the G30 (and I have one).

Probably...it happened to me!

Often times, I think their primary purpose is to give Ron Paul supporters something to feel good about.

RP is showing some life as a real candidate but I don't see him as a viable candidate for the Republican base and, more importantly, not viable with swing voters who, as usual, will decide the outcome of the 2012 election. Personally, I'm in a quandary about who to actually support at the moment; I don't like Newt (as a President) and like Romney even less...that pretty much leaves me with Michelle B as a choice (which ironically is where I started a few months ago!). I haven't been truly excited about a Presidential candidate since Ronald Regan - it's been a long, dry spell and this election doesn't look as if it's going to change that.

I think before I did anything to submit a change, I'd try to ascertain why they have the language in the fist place. If the current language is there simply because it was in some boilerplate employee handbook guide you are likely to get a different reaction to a proposed change in policy compared to the language being there because the owners are anti-firearm or are overly worried about liability, etc. I suspect most employers who disallow "weapons" on their property do so as a "default" position and/or because it's simply easier to have a stated policy against weapons than it is to craft a policy that everyone feels comfortable with and insulates the organization from liability. As to specific language, perhaps you could qualify the term "weapons" by substituting the phrase "illegal weapons". If the "weapon" is legal under Tennessee law then it's legal to have it on company policy; otherwise, it's forbidden...that would take care of someone going armed without a HCP and it would cover someone carrying a knife that is illegal per TN law.

Correct me if I'm wrong but the NRA had nothing to do with bringing the two recent firearms cases to the Supreme Court...they DID jumped on board once the cases got going and they certainly tried to take credit for them but I think they would have been more than happy to have never taken on/supported those cases themselves; they waited for (I think) the GOA to step up to the plate. I don't consider either of those cases to be a "little issue" and while not "perfect" decisions, they moved the pendulum back at least somewhat to where it belongs.

I would suggest, respectfully, that there is no "bigger" protector of our second amendment rights but I do think there are better ones which is why I am a member of several pro gun rights groups and suggest others do the same. When I say "better" I mean organizations that are more consistent in their view of precisely what the second amendment means and more active in trying to restore it that meaning. The NRA has a lot of power/political clout but I think they are often a lot more "accepting" of the status quo than they should be.

Yes...mine are insured too. However, I'd still feel sick if I lost any of them whether to fire or theft; even more so thinking about what some criminal might use them for.

All my guns are loaded all the time - an unloaded" gun is a dangerous gun. I never use trigger locks - any gun not in my gun safe is ready for action; if it isn't then I don't need it out of the gun safe. Now, I don't have any children and if I have visitors, every gun except the one I have on IS in my gun safe! I'm not an attorney but no, I don't believe you are doing anything "illegal" by not having a gun safe or by not using trigger locks. That said, and in my opinion, a "gun safe" should be part of an overall home security plan. I have a good gun safe - I also have a monitored home security system and monitored fire detection system...I also have reinforced my entry doors and I have multiple lights outside, some on timers and some that are motion sensitive...I have a viscous (sounding) dog and I also am an active part of my Neighborhood Watch group. All of the above is important to protecting my gun collection and other belongings from fire and theft and while the gun safe is a major piece of it; it is just a "piece". It doesn't sound like you have a lot of money or emotions tide up in the firearms you have right now; as such, you might want to consider an inexpensive cabinet that would at least be a minor deterrent to a would be thief. For me, taking reasonable steps to protect your firearms from theft is just part and parcel of being a responsible gun owner.

That's true and it's too bad that it is true. If we kept dangerous criminals locked up our "need' to carry a gun for self-protection would be diminished a great deal...how many times do we read of some horrific crime being committed by someone who has already committed other violent crimes but who are either still or once again on the streets? I"m getting tired of reading about this grandmother being killed or that cop being killed by some thug with a dozen or prior, serious criminal charges. We'll never be rid of violent criminals but we could put a big dent in their population if we kept them locked up until they were too old or too ill to be a danger to the public.

Unfortunately, perhaps in an effort to correct the bad decisions of bad judges, we've legislated a lot of the "human touch" out of the justice system - we've replaced common sense with legislated mandatory sentencing. Most people can look at at the situation above with the now married adults and know instinctively that he shouldn't have to wear the "badge" of a registered sex offender for the rest of his life - we know, instinctively, that two teenagers (even though one was an "adult" and one wasn't of the age of consent in THAT state) is a vastly different situation than a 40 year old raping a 12 year old little girl. We know that a 20 year old who has a bag of pot on him or who commits some other non-violent crime (albeit a "felony") is different than someone who committed an armed robbery even if the "felonies' are classed the same or nearly the same. We know the difference but our "law" doesn't, at lest not on a consistent basis anyway. I do think that 1) After a reasonable period of time, 2) Where the person can demonstrate that he/she is not committing further crimes, and 3) When the original crime was non-violent; a person should be able to get his/her rights restored. At a minimum, if ANY right can be restored (i.e. the right to vote) then it should be possible for ALL/ANY right to be restored, including firearm rights.

As with most things in life there is a version that is "good enough" and/or "good for the money" to satisfy the needs/wants of most people and then there are the truly exceptional (and usually much more expensive ) versions of an item. Often the "exceptional" are only marginally better than the less expensive counterpart - each person has to decide for himself/herself if the marginal difference justifies the price increase. We make those kind of decisions all the time. A $400 all in the box home theater system is plenty "good enough" for most of us; but if you can appreciate the difference in audio quality and have the money, you may opt for the $4,000 high-end, professionally installed system. I've been fortunate to acquire a few truly exceptional, custom 1911s...I've never regretted buying them but I can still appreciate a well-put together, basic 1911 whether it originated in the Philippines or here. What really matters is: 1) Does it goes "bang" or "click" when you pull the trigger? and 2) Does it generally put the bullet where you aimed it!

It's always gratifying to hear when a good guy wins and a bad guy doesn't. it's also always a sad reminder that we need to carry to be able to protect ourselves from those who think they have a right to take from you whatever you have that they want.

I'll be there although not in time for the food...my car club has a brunch meeting so I'll be getting there sometime around 12:30 or so! I'm planning on bringing a couple of rifles (a SCAR light and a FS2000) and a Glock 20 and Glock 31.

The Republican leadership, both in the Governor's mansion and in the legislature gave the firearm-owner's community absolute NOTHING in 2011 and I'm sure they wish we would all just go away and be quiet in 2012. If this troubles you the GET YOUR ASS INVOLVED - call, write, give PAC money to the TFA...don't just sit at a keyboard and complain about all the stupid, liberal anti-firearms people and do-nothing politicians because that is ultimately as useless as most politicians are.

Amen

I believe the cost for the visit (with a member) is $5; a membership is $40. If I get to go to this I plan to join this time myself!