RobertNashville

In a related vein, I just happened to catch a National Geographic show called "Doomsday Preppers" this afternoon...I recorded it but missed the first nine minutes of an hour show. It was actually pretty good; examined three families who were prepared for the SHTF scenairo (although each family seemed to have their own personal opinion about what the catastrophe might turn out to be which tended to color how they prepared/what they prepared for) - the show examined each family's preparations and then offered and "expert's" analysis of their plans and offered any advice on what the expert considered weak spots. Here is a link about the show: http://channel.nationalgeographic.com/episode/doomsday-preppers-6202/blog#tab-Videos/10607_00

Well come on now, we need to be fair. It just isn't fair to admonish the anti-gun folks for not using facts because the facts are that they don't have any facts to back up their ridiculous claims.

It's a great read and I loved it and it scared the crap out of me thinking about the possibilities...whether or not you believe an EMP would cause the kind of catastrophic results you see in the book, it WILL make you think of what could happen in an emergency where things aren't back to normal in a few days. I also highly recommend "Lights Out"...is was actually written three or four years prior to "One Second After" but only recently published; I'm reading it now and can't put it down.

I guess we all have at some point haven't we! As a practical place to go/live/survive in a ****F scenario, I'm not sure how how realistic that really is...a person needs quite a lot to survive; even more to actually have a life worth surviving and that generally takes some kind of "community" so completely going it alone can sound really romantic and manly, I think things would be better in a reasonably sized group where chores/work/necessities could be shared. Then again, I'm just now reading "Lights Out" so that colors my perception a bit...I had a chance to meet the author at the Tactical Response Alumni weekend a couple of weeks ago and I've had had trouble putting the book down ever since! More realistically, just having a place to camp, hang out, do some shooting and simply being outside (well, not in 100+ degree weather) is pretty appealing.

Tell you what, if you find something and you make a deal and there is any other land in the general area let me know because I've thinking about doing the exact same thing.

Funny this should come up...I've been thinking recently about looking for some property that's pretty far removed from most other people, cities, etc...just to have as my own personal camp ground and/or a place to go if I need to get out of town.

Then I suppose no one should carry; at lest not unless they pass the "DaveTN" test??? You know nothing of "my world" or what "fights" I've been in or not been in so how about cutting the assumptions crap...the only thing "certain" when faced with someone who is willing to kill you, is that a person can either chose to defend himself or surrender - and yes, I think choosing to defend yourself is "better".

So what you are suggesting here? I carry, hoping that I never have to draw my weapon; much less use it; but I train for the possibility that I'll have to do both. However, if a person carries who is not willing to defend his life or the life of some other innocent then what is the purpose of carrying a firearm? For any of us presented with a situation where some thug is threatening our life, we all have to make what we feel is the best decision given the situation at the moment - I see nothing particularly noble in "dying with a gun in my hand" but I also don't see anything particularly noble in dying with my gun in my holster either...if I have a chance to defend myself, I think I would even if the odds don't favor me being successful and if I'm not willing to do so then I'm not sure I have any reason to carry in the first place.

You took the words right out of my mouth!

That's why I carry and that's why I've spent a good deal of time and money this year (and will be next year and the next year) taking training to better know how to fight with a gun (and without one) and how to be better aware of my surroundings and spot threats, etc. There has always been crime...always been those who prey on others rather than do honest work but society has changed a lot since I was a kid and unfortunately, not in a good way.

My "bumper sticker" says "My Basset Hound Is Smarter Than Your Honor Student and Barack Obama"...I'm sure it's offended some but I also had more than a few give me a thumbs up and/or even get me to roll down my windows so that they could verbally voice their agreement.

Thanks for the input guys; it's appreciated.

I just received a catalog in the mail from Sportsman's Guide; they are offering 420 rounds of 62 gr 5.56x45mm M855 Ammo with ammo can for $169.95. This is supposed to be American made U.S. Govt overrun. It sounds like a pretty good deal, especially considering the ammo can, however, I've never purchased anything from them before...has any of you bought from them before and if so, any problems, concerns, etc. Thanks!

You are making my point for me. "Tennessee state law is very clear..."; per your own quite of Tennessee law; the rights that the business has is simply a function of the state granting those rights; as such, the state can take them away or alter those rights any time it sees fit. Unlike a "business", a human being's right exist because he/she is a human being; not because the state says they have them.

I don't think that anyone has said that property owners have no rights. I would suggest that the discussion turns on whether such rights are impacted at all based on "who" owns the property and what the property is used for. (i.e., does a corporation that owns/controls a piece of property used for commercial/business purposes have the same "property rights" as an individual person who owns property which is his/her personal residence? Whether someone sees or doesn't see a distinction will almost certainly color their position of the topic of this thread.

Sorry to hear that...I'm looking for a new place to be myself (and a lot of what I'm finding isn't in Tennessee)...I think this will be my sixth major "jump" in career in my adult life! I can't say it's always been easy but I can say that believing in yourself and keeping a positive attitude are important and make it easier to face whatever the future brings. I hope things work out well for you!

Does anyone know or remember if Leonard is suing because of the length of time he was detained?

I don't know of any but as I think you said earlier, an officer can arrest someone for pretty much any reason they dream up. Getting arrested can be a very expensive proposition for the person arrested even if the reasons were totally bogus. Wasn't an officer's "discretion" about DUIs taken away because cops were letting people people under the influence continue driving and people got killed? Wasn't an officer's "discretion" taken away because they would go to a scene, think it was just a "family squabble" and then someone would wind up dead later because the squabble turned into something a lot worse? Officer's discretion is a great thing if they know how to use it properly but it seems to me that almost every part of modern society has been slouching toward mediocrity and I suspect that's affected law enforcement agencies too - I'm not sure I want such officers holding a lot of discretionary powers.

Yes; they are "legal entities"; granted the right to exist by the state but they certainly don't have "full rights" to anything. They are allowed to own property...they can do with that property what the state allows and they can't so what the state says they can't.

We most certainly are talking about the rights of businesses...a business has no right to "own" anything, including property, except the that state allows them to do so.

"Businesses" are not "persons" and never will be no matter how much some want to argue that they are...as such, a "business" does not have any "rights"; "private property" or otherwise...they exist at all only because the state allows them to (generally only because the state gives them formal permission to exist) and the state does so only because it's in the best interest of society. A person has rights simply because he/she is a person; businesses only have rights granted to them by the state. Whether or not businesses should or should not be allowed to "opt out" should not be based on the non-existent "rights" of the business but rather, based on what is in the public interest. Most people who have bothered to educate themselves on the facts knows that law-abiding citizens going armed is in the best interest of the public and that benefit far outweighs any minor inconvenience that may be caused to a "business" by the state declaring that they cannot ban firearms within the business.

Just a month ago I was in a meeting with a 30+ year veteran of Nashville Metro; he's an avid gun enthusiast and much of his talk that evening concerned how younger officers, not raised with an understanding of firearms or people's rights were of the mindset that only LEOs should have firearms. Another Sgt of Metro and a fellow who just left the force after 15 or so years echoed the same thoughts to me just last week so NO...I'm not impressed with nor do I want to leave things up to an officer's discretion, at least not when it comes to things that can cause me to lose an expensive firearm or wind up a resident in one of Tennessee's fine prisons.

As a general rule, I like to have such things well defined - ambiguity in the law has a way of biting you in the ass when it's least convenient - when things aren't defined they tend to be up to the opinion of district attorneys, police officers, etc., etc.; I'd rather have it in black and white.

I may be operating under a false assumption but since the ranger was found to have acted properly in seizing his weapon I guess I assumed that the weapon was seized??? The story said "A federal judge has ruled in favor of a park ranger in Nashville who seized a firearm being carried by a man at a state park in 2009".

I never said he wasn't a nut job or that his actions weren't stupid so please don't insinuate that I was but Leonard was never the point of my comment anyway; I don't really give a s**t about Mr. Leonard; my point...my concern is that a firearm that is, apparently, legal to carry was confiscated from a HCP holder and this judge apparently said that was okay. I find that troubling.