RobertNashville

Two things... 1. The job of a LEO and even that of a uniformed security office is quite different than the job of an armed civilian - I'm suggesting that the reasons why uniformed officers carry openly have a good bit more to do with "policy" and their role/job than other considerations. 2. The fact that many people don't "agree" with any given position (be on about open carry or any other) does NOT mean they are closed minded. You are free to think your openly carried weapon is a deterrent; others may not agree - that does not make them closed minded and you open minded...it does not make them "right" and you "wrong" or the other way around; it simply means that they think for themselves and they don't agree with your position. I don't see why that should be a problem for anyone?

Is there a time limit on threads that I'm not aware of? I think the "school lock down" issue is "done"...but that that doesn't mean there aren't still some good points to make.

It's kind of a shame you weren't at Nashville TFA meeting last night, Adam Dread (sp?) who was the attorney representing the likes of Randy Rayburn in overturning the "Guns in Bars" bill was one of the guest speakers followed by John Lott (author of "More Guns Less Crime"). More Guns Less Crime is a book every proponent of 2ND Amendment rights ought to read (more than once); that aside, John is quit an incredible speaker and his wealth of knowledge about the role an armed public plays in deterring crime is beyond what you can probably imagine. A lot of the discussion last night centered around "reaching" those folks "in the middle"...how to approach them. Those are the people you want to talk too because the ones who are rabidly anti-gun and always will be (they will never change their mind); the others may well become gun right supporters (or at least not "anti") if the facts and arguments are presented in the right way. I'm not going to get into whether open carry is a good way or a bad way to "educate" people; I'll just say that coming off as confrontational or smug or just ranting about "rights" will never persuade anyone and can easily push someone "winnable" over to the other side. All that said, if you want to have something to hand out, I'd keep it simple and have it mostly be a notation of one or two website/sources where the person can look into on their own.

I would assume that there are few people stupid enough to carry openly if they didn't have an HCP. That said, even if this guy does have a HCP; I can say with some assurance that having a HCP is not a guarantee of having common sense; or any sense at all for that matter.

Well; he is a very "Republican Republican"; he just isn't and never was and never will be a "conservative". It's true that as a whole, most "conservatives" identify themselves with or at least vote with "Republicans" but there are plenty of Republicans, especially those in leadership and/or who have been politicians or in office for a long time who, even if they started out as conservatives, become less and less so over time. It seems to be a disease that affects everyone who works in Washington D.C. and the longer the exposure, the worse the infection gets!. Once a person is infected, it probably can't be cured - the only known treatment is voting the infected out of office. This is one area where I think our founders may have failed us simply because they didn't and likely couldn't foresee the concept of a "career politician"...if you simply live a conventional life, then serve in a state or federal government office for a time and then go home; the disease doesn't have time to take hold...make a "career" of being a politician; especially if you've never done anything else and the infection rate is almost 100%. I think we can see this happen with Marsha Blackburn (I think Diane Black was already infected before she got to D.C.) and it's probably time to bring both of these congresswomen home at the next available opportunity. Bottom line is, a true conservative, and for that matter, anyone who lives their lives based on real principles, doesn't have building a "consensus" as a goal...Alexander doesn't understand that; neither does McCain.

Probably a lot more than would be helpful for the point of the article. Of course we all know, it's the "gun" that's the problem in drug/gang related shootings!

You can get by (legally) in Tennessee with not informing, at least until you are asked, but (and this more of a general reminder, not really directed at you so much) that many states require you to inform an officer that you are armed and if you don't and you are you have just broken the law. All I'm saying is, for anyone who travels, you need to know the laws of each state you'll be traveling through. Now I know, most everyone knows that but I suspect there may be a few who don't (or just don't think about it).

An old saying comes to mind (don't remember who said it and I'm certainly paraphrasing here)..."Better to keep your mouth shut and be though a fool than to open it and erase all doubt". If an officer is thinking I may be guilty of a serious crime, I'd rater keep my mouth shut, even if it means I'm detained/arrested (because it raises the officer's suspicion) rather than say something stupid that can be use against me later. Getting detained and/or arrested and hopefully, later released is certainly inconvenient but a LOT better than getting convicted of something I may not have even done simply because I was trying to "cooperate".

It is, I think in every state, to lie to a LEO. It is also, I think, very good advice to not offer any statement that could be used against you which is why, most attorneys will tell you to say nothing. That said, I also think that saying nothing at all could lead to more problems/raise the officer's suspicion, etc. What I'm suggesting is that you need to strike a balance; say as little as possible - don't volunteer anything - be pleasant and cooperative as possible while still not giving any information that would be harmful to you and, above all, anything you do say needs to be truthful. Now...if the officer suspects you might be guilty of something really serious (as opposed to a traffic infraction) then yes; I'd say absolutely nothing except name, address and "Officer, I don't want to be uncooperative but I don't want to say anything else without counsel present"

The only time I've been stopped (TN HP) while carrying it was a total non-issue. The Lieutenant didn't even ask nor did I bring it up which I was a little disappointed in myself for not doing so. Based on training I've received about how to handle a traffic stop while armed as well as the fact that some states require to you inform up front (including some states I regularly travel in), I've always thought it best to at least hand the office my DL and my HCP at the same time but yet I didn't do so the only time I've been stopped! Not sure why I didn't; I just didn't. In any case, it was a non-issue; although I still got the ticket!

I don't expect people to be comfortable with others carrying a weapon...frankly, whether or not other people are or aren't comfortable with people carrying weapons is a secondary, even a minor issue. At the same time, I try not to carry in such a way that it makes others uncomfortable or in a way/in an area where it can cause a problem - I don't need that headache and, at least in my opinion, it can lead to a backlash against all of us who carry. I would suggest that most of the angst against people carrying weapons isn't about whether the weapon is carried openly or concealed...it isn't about whether it's "normal" or not...sometimes it is based on fear and and a lack of experience with/understanding of firearms but I truly believe, more often than not, it's based outright hatred of firearms in general. For those people, I find it odd to think that seeing others carrying a weapon openly is going to change their minds about the issue; in fact, it might well just reinforce their hatred of all things "firearms". I don't carry to make a political statement - I work on bettering weapon's related laws through the political process both directly through my own meager efforts and through my membership in and donations to groups that do the same. I don't carry to change people's attitudes about or comfort level with firearms...I do that by taking people to the range with me and through discussion and through being their friend. I don't carry to draw attention to myself (in fact, I would rather do precisely the opposite). Like TMF 18B stated, I carry to have a tool to protect my life and maybe the life of some other innocent person.

It gives my mind a rest.

Just a quick update...I posted about my problem with the stuck Emag on the FNH forum - one of the engineers (now retired) from FNH contacted me and advised me that the FS2K does NOT like Emags or Pmags for that matter; AR15 style only...he also gave me some pointers about how to get the mag released which worked well and I now have a functioning FS2000 again! I'm a little disappointed in that I bought a bunch of Emags (you know, for when the SHTF) because of their ruggedness and, I thought, interchangeability between both of my SCARs and my FS2000...I've only got a few AR15 metal mags so now I probably need to buy more of those.

Other than scattered anecdotal stories; that's opinion. It maybe right or it maybe wrong but still opinion. There is significant evidence/research to show that an armed citizenry is a deterrent to crime. However, I've not found any research that quantifies whether criminals do or don't target "people with guns". Generally true (except where the potential reward is significant enough to overcome the risk of targeting a sheepdog). However, carrying openly doesn't make one a sheepdog nor does carrying concealed make one a sheep. Some are and some aren't and even the stupid wolf can be very dangerous, even to a well trained sheepdog.

And don't you think, just possibly, that with such a fear now ingrained in many people (justified or not) that we (those who do carry) need to be mindful of when and were and the possible reaction we'll get? There are times to push the envelope...there are times to be discrete and go unnoticed...the key is knowing which one to be and when.

I've never ordered from Bud's but I will say that no store/business is perfect...that's just life. What matters is how well or how poorly the store handles the problem once they screw-up. Maybe they were just having a bad day?

Yes, given that I've been a firearms enthusiast and a conservative all my life, I am insulted to be called a liberal or told that I'm "thinking like a liberal"; especially so when the accusation comes from someone who doesn't know me - to me, that SEEMS like Bovine Scatology. Who are you to decide anything about me, label me or take me to task on what you perceive to be my position on an issue we weren't even discussing in this thread? You have a lot of gull and poor manners to come onto a forum geared to firearm enthusiasts in Tennessee (a state you don't live in) and make assumptions about and apply labels to someone you have never met and know nothing about. It's also odd to make such assumptions when the "issue" you seem intent on making is immaterial to the point that was being made - my citing the law (Post 130) which you took exception to had nothing directly to do with the Second Amendment.- it was not nor was it intended to be a commentary on the rightness or wrongness, nor the constitutionality or lack of same with regards to Tennessee law as it currently stands. I cited the law to emphasize that refusing to use discretion about how and when and where someone carries a firearm in public can harm both their own ability to continue to carry in this state (under current law) as well as harm the carry population in this state in general. Even more odd that you want to continue to label me when I've already stated that I fully agree that we are supposed to have the right to keep and bear arms and that I understand the difference between a "right" and a "privilege" - why you seem to feel the need to infer anything else about my position on the matter makes it seem like you just want to find something to argue about. There is nothing wrong with living in Indiana and belonging to the Tennessee Gun Owners forum...likewise, there is nothing wrong with and you certainly can hold any opinion you want on anything or anyone you want, including opinions about me...however, insulting someone you don't know is at best, childish and, in my opinion, isn't acceptable conduct on a forum whether you are in Tennessee or Indiana.

Kind of sad to see this happen...as an employee of a major auto manufacturer (for 14 more days, anyway) it's sort of always a sad day to see such an iconic model disappear. It was necessary financially, of course and such cars as the Crown Vic are pretty very out of step with today's market but, still sad to see it happen. Yeas ago, I owned a Mercury Marquis (a '79 model I bought in '89) - it was a tank, huge...and a hell of a lot of fun to have (it was a second/commuter car for me as I've always bee a sports car nut at heart).

I'm up for it if it's on a day I can be there...do you have a place or would we have to find one?

Did anyone say otherwise? Is there some reason why you want to discuss a point that no on disagrees with? There may be a few members here on TGO who don't but I suspect most people who frequent this forum understand what the U.S. Constitution says and what it means with regards to the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms but there is what the Constitution says and then there are the laws we MUST live under today, both Federal laws and the laws here in Tennessee. As I said before, the Tennessee Constitution has granted the authority to the legislature to regulate the wearing of arms and they have so regulated. Until the law in Tennessee is changed, I do not have the legal authority or the "right" to carry a firearm on my person in public without a permit, issued by the state, that says I can do so...further, my permit can be withdrawn; perhaps not necessarily on a "whim" but it can certainly be withdrawn (as as one of our HCP holders found out not too long ago). That regulation effectively makes my "going armed" a privilege whether you want to call it that or not and whether it should be or not...that is not "liberal thinking", at least not on my part...that's just the way it is.

For me, I have two doors on both entry doors and the door I don't have to open, while not nearly as substantial as my completely metal primary door is still a barrier...no one is going to just walk through the outer door (not without a significant likelihood of serious injury, anyway). That said, when I might open the primary door to someone is going to depend on several factors, including... 1. Time of day 2. Whether I know them/are they a neighbor, and mostly; 3. My gut feeling about the situation...hard to describe or put into words but a very real part of the process, for me anyway. I'm not willing to totally give up on society and assume that everyone is a threat - if I were, I doubt I'd ever leave my home and go out in public at all. I try to be situationalally aware...I have taken and are taking training to help me in that regard as well as training on what to do when bad things happen anyway...I know that there are thugs out there and that some of them are probably young, attractive girls. However, as bad as some people are...as much of a threat as some people are; most people are decent folks and if one of them knocks on my front door, needs help and I can help; I probably will. Maybe that will get me killed some day but so be it.

I'm glad no one was hurt. Both these guys are pretty dim to be that unaware of their situation (or to go to an ATM at night on foot for that matter) and especially dumb to chase after armed robbers while they were unarmed. No, Murfreesboro is hardly a "big town"...even Nashville is not very big as far as cities go.

The more scary scenario would be if it passed and did stand up in court...this bill could further open the door to even more intrusive federal government rules/requirements on states than we already have. If the federal government is going to pass anything regarding firearms, it should be a plain language re-statement the the second amendment means what it says and neither the federal government nor any stat has the power to infringe on it...short of that (which of course will never pass); this is an issue best left to the states.

Ron Paul is done...stick a fork in him. Any chance he might have had was obliterated in last night's debate - some of his foreign policy views are just crazy, they are dangerous and I think that was very obvious last night. Obama CAN be defeated - 14 months before the election is too damn early to throw in the towel.

I never answer my door, especially at night, without a pistol in my hand hidden behind my back. Three "young" girls would probably not raise a red flag immediately but the request to use my pone, in this day and age, likely would. In any case, could I shoot them? If I truly felt that my life was threatened then yes...I made the decision a long time ago that I would do whatever was necessary to save my life or the live of someone else; if I'm not willing to do that then I would have to question why I would carry a weapon in the first place. That said, I would have to shoot three young women but than again, I would hate to have to shoot anybody no matter their age or their sex; but, once a person (young, old, female or male) decides to place my life at risk, at that point are simply a threat that needs to be neutralized.