RobertNashville

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!

I pocket carry a Ruger LCR; usually only because it's the only option available to me. I would never carry any weapon of any size/caliber in my pocket with the trigger exposed - to do so is simply a negligent discharge looking for a place to happen.

Isn't it PETA (or at least those who claim to be with PETA) who engage in things like throwing paint on (and ruining) multi-thousand $ mink coats, etc??? Overall, this is pretty mild (and non-destructive) compared to the stuff PETA does.

I think you figured him out, Dave. (just kidding) I've looked for REAL, scientifically conducted statistical research with multiple regressions concerning openly carried firearms vs concealed carried firearms...I haven't looked at every possible source but so far, I've found none. Oh there is plenty of "opinion" and some of the opinion sounds very convincing; even scientific...but at the end of the day, it's 99% anecdotes and opinions and proves nothing. Does CARRYING deter crime? YES!* Does carrying openly deter crime? Yes Does carrying concealed deter crime? Yes Are there advantages to openly carrying? Almost certainly yes. Are there advantages to carrying concealed? Almost certainly yes. All of which misses what should be the point! * The only true, scientifically conducted research into the effect on crime of the public being allowed, in most states, to carry a firearm can be found in "More Guns Less Crime". However, statistically, there is no distinction...no stats differentiating between Open and Concealed carry. Moreover, while many states do allow some form of open carry, most do not - most require carry to be concealed (at least I believe most still require concealment - if that's no longer correct then someone please correct me). What we do KNOW is that an armed public DOES deter crime and the arguments against the carrying of weapons by law abiding civilians fall flat on their face before the tidal wave of years, and yeas of experience and stats that show, not just a correlation but a true causal relationship between the increasing number of armed citizens and reductions in crime. I sometimes carry openly...I usually carry concealed but at the end of the day, I could not care less how anyone else chooses to carry; I just hope that they DO carry because it's better for EVERYONE if they do. I DO care about those so bent on openly carrying that it causes problems for others (by failing to use any discretion about how/where they are carrying) or those who carry for their own self-aggrandizement or because they want confrontation and to rub their "right" to carry into the face of the great "uninformed" sheep - those who carry for those reasons/in that manner are a determent to all of us.

So using discretion (which is just a more succinct way to say to "use the grey matter between your ears with regards to carrying a firearm openly" is pandering "to the emotional instability of others"? Really???

Agreed. I hope I didn't come across as "accusing him" of deserving to be robbed/assaulted. I was simply suggesting that he was engaging in some risky behavior. I liken it to a person going into an area of a city, maybe late at night, that he/she knows has a very high crime rate - that person certainly doesn't deserve to become a victim but it still wouldn't be a very bright thing to do.

You know...if you play with fire, you increase your chances of getting burned. We may see prostitution as a victimless crime...but prostitutes are criminals whether some people think of them that way or not and they very often associate with people who are also criminals; sometimes really scummy people who have no conscious and no qualms about robbing someone or worse. If you deal with those kind of people you are engaging in risky behavior and sometimes the risk turns into an actuality.