RobertNashville

It's really a chicken or the egg argument isn't it? If i really believed I needed to check a guy out (including asking for his SSN) why would I consider selling to him at all...if you feel you need a person's SSN number to check him out why would you consider selling a firearm to him? I don't buy from anyone I don't trust and I don't sell to anyone I don't trust.

Nor would I...I don't mind showing my DL (which doesn't show my SSN) or other pieces of ID but I won't give my SSN to anybody if I don't have to. Frankly, if I thinking of transferring a firearm to someone and I have ANY reason to be suspicious (or even just a "bad feeling") then I'm simply not going to do the deal - it just isn't worth the risk...I would hope that if anyone felt the same of me they would be conscientious enough to do the same.

Really; I mean no disrespect but I think you are being more than a little thin-skinned here. This is the internet after all; not an afternoon tea...sometimes people get out of line...sometimes they get downright insulting...sometimes they are simply a**h***s but even then but I didn't see anything like that in this thread.

Maybe you are confusing me with someone else because I don't believe I've ever, in this or any other forum, told someone (condescendingly or or otherwise) that they should quite their job over this or any similar issue. However, if you have an example you can point to please feel free to do so. If you aren't suggesting I quit my job does that mean the entire purpose of you post was to insult me by claiming my position is inconsistent with my Washington quote? Nor do I think that the property rights of a business inherently trumps the personal right to live. In fact I've extensively argued, with several on this forum, against the notion that business property rights trumps any other rights...I'm glad we agree. More insults? Is that really the best you can do? How about we try to stick to arguing philosophical positions rather than throwing insults? I know that in the heat of the moment that can be difficult to do and I know I fail at that but I also know that personal insults don't solve anything. EDIT: Just to be clear, no I'm not going to "rethink" my Washington quote as you suggested earlier...I quote it because I believe it and I live it; whether you think I do or not is immaterial.

Don't read more into what I said that what I actually did say. I know you are too smart for that; besides; I'm sure I actually say plenty of things you can disagree with and not need to put words in my mouth. What I'm saying is that I was only referring to the language/attitude; I really wasn't addressing or even considering the drawn weapon part of the equation.

Could be that he knows and doesn't give a s**t; on the other hand, you may be giving him too much credit because he many not be smart enough to "know"!!!

Oh I know...just giving him a hard time!

Congratulations on hitting post number 5,000...I wonder, how many of them actually said anything that others needed to read???

It was actually quite a stupid reply from Obama...sure; continuing to drive something that gets 8MPG sounds pretty stupid when you can buy something that gets 30MPG but what if there isn't a vehicle the meets a person's actual needs that gets that 30MPG? What if a person truly owns (as in no loan on) the vehicle getting the 8MPG but would have to borrow money to buy the new, more efficient vehicle? And what if the guy getting the 8MPG is only commuting 10 miles a day round trip? My point is that looking at only MPG is the wrong thing to do...depending on all the factors that come into play, it might take the guy 10 years just to break even from the gasoline cost savings experienced from buying the the 30MPG vehicle. Last time the price spiked up and was hitting $4+ a gallon a lot of people rushed out and bought econoboxes they are still paying for and still haven't yet saved enough in gasoline costs to make up for the cost of purchasing.

And you know, differences in the way cops and regular Joes treat each other in different parts of the country is probably part of this equation here. Being from "the North" (please forgive me; I got here as fast as I could); there most certainly is a difference, North vs South, in the way people tend to treat strangers...without getting too deep into stereotypes, folks in the South are often more friendly and polite to strangers than folks in the North and I'd say that's even more true when you tart talking about certain Northern cities such as Pittsburgh, Philadelphia, New York, etc. While any LWO can have a bad attitude on any given day, I can truthfully say that in my few LWO encounters in the South, the officers have always been cordial and polite...I can't say the same about a couple of my encounters in the North.

It's great that Tennessee doesn't restrict us to just one handgun (and especially nice that we don't have to "register" the "one" we carry as some states require). We DO have to be careful, however, if we travel out of states as having more than one on yo and loaded/functional can get you in a lot of hot water!

You know...I used to think exactly the same way...that background checks were "good"...that ALL firearm transactions (be it a dealer or private party transaction) should go through a background check and that if we simply did more background checks it would help reduce the chance of criminals getting guns (or at least being able to buy them without a background check). I even argued with other "gun folks" about the issue. I'm glad to say that after a good deal of though and re-evaluation; I realized how absolutely WRONG I was for thinking that way (I must say, it was quite a shock to me to discover that I was wrong on this because I so rarely am wrong about anything). This is one of those subjects where something that can sound perfectly logical and "right" is actually completely illogical and "wrong" - so, I invite you to really consider this issue and your current stand...you may come to the same realization that I did!

Thy why are you??? No and no. And how you would even think of those two questions based on my comments to Mike? As I said here: "The fellow was an idiot...I think the police overacted".

Humm...perhaps because you don't do things that cause law enforcement officers to overact??? Or...maybe because when confronted with an officer giving you orders you are smart enough to do what you are told and then sort it all out later???

There was a time when I road a bike regularly; commuting to/from work as well as long trips on weekends - for those who don't ride it's probably surprising the amount of downright hatred some drivers express for cyclists; even to the point of truly endangering the cyclist's life. So...I can well understand why the blogger you refer to would carry a video camera with him today (however not all that long ago such a camera would have cost thousands and weighed more than the bike!). It may well be that this guy really does always carry an audio recorder with him everywhere "just because"...or...if could be he carries a recorder with him because he either expects or is looking for an encounter like the one he got. Unfortunately we only have his side of the story and we've no way of truly knowing his motivations.

Armchair quarterbacking is pretty easy isn't it. I suspect that had this Sgt. done what you suggest and this "innocent victim" turned out to be an actual nutcase and blown the Sgt away while the Sgt was politely asking for the man's permit; there would be a lot of armchair quarterbacking going with folks here suggesting that the Sgt was a "Barney Fife" for not taking the proper precautions to protect himself and secure the guy before then ascertaining if the guy was a threat or not (while of course, sending condolences and prayers to the Sgt's family for their tragic loss).

Really??? Are you suggesting that I s**tcan a very well paying position...throw away a successful career I've spent nearly 40 years building and that if I don't then I'm some sort of "sell-out" to George Washington's quote? If you are - if throwing away my career is what you are suggesting than I wonder, are you going to pay my mortgage and buy my food and pay my medical expenses after I quit my position, lose my pension and my health care insurance? Certainly, you have to right to say and to think whatever you want to say/think about me but, unless you are willing to put your money where your mouth is you have ZERO standing to do so. IMHO, part of the "independence"...part of being a "free people" such as Mr. Washington referred to is each person having the right to decide what is best for "him" (as long as it doesn't trample on the rights of someone else). That means I have the right to chose to work where I work and to continue to work there whether or not someone makes condescending comments like the one you made above.

You know, sometimes with I read stuff like this, the logic used is so twisted OR the lack of logic used is so vast that I simply don't know how to respond except to say "stupid is as stupid does". Then again... I also recall the recent thread on this very forum where a slight majority of the "pro-gun" people who frequent these electronic pages were perfectly "okay" with background checks despite the complete lack of evidence that the background checks had ever done anything substantial to keep guns out of criminal hands. If "pro-gun" folks can be so easily taken in by the gun grabbers should we be at all surprised at the stupidity of folks like Sarah Brady and her ilk?

I hope to God that I am never put into a position where I have to take the life of another and I also hope to God that should I ever be in that position that I will have the will to do what needs to be done. I carry weapons to save a life; maybe my own or maybe the life of another person - I buy insurance to save me from property loss.

It seems you might be assuming that because I said the police overacted that they were "wrong". If that was your assumption then let me clarify, I was not trying to make any sort of determination about "rightness" on their part...perhaps I need to find a better word than "overact". What I'm trying to say is that without more information, I don't know that ascribing "right" or "wrong" to their actions is appropriate.

You know...in a similar thread I tied to make the same argument as you about businesses being artificial entities and not automatically entitled to the same rights as individuals...it raised quite a firestorm among some here so be prepared for some agitated rebuttal. To the best of my knowledge, not one where I work has ever had their vehicle searched - that's not a guarantee that's it's never happened of course but I suspect if it had happened the grapevine would have talked about it. That said, bags/briefcases, etc. have been searched as people are entering the building proper and some items disallowed as a matter of company policy have been confiscated. I suspect the risk of actually having your vehicle searched is low. In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if it happened only if the company was already looking for an easy excuse to get rid the employee or if they got an actual tip from someone.

After listened to the whole set of recordings; my take on this is… The fellow was an idiot for initially arguing with the police – arguing with a LEO is really never a good idea; arguing with a LEO when he’s drawing down on you and giving you orders is truly idiotic. There is a place for arguments about what the police did and didn’t do and should or shouldn’t have done but the street when it’s going down is NOT that place. The whole “I always carry a tape recorded with me” bit seems really questionable to me…I can’t help but think that this guy was out looking to make an issue. I think the police did overact. Although it was an overreaction; I don’t think the reaction should be all that big of a surprise – this is Philadelphia, Pennsylvania; not Bucksnort, Tennessee . My point being that while you might be able to openly carry in Bucksnort without even raising an eyebrow that doesn’t mean you can do the same in a major city (especially a major northern city) and expect the same non-reaction EVEN IF THE OPEN CARRYING IS PERFECTLY LEGAL. So; to sum up; I think the police overacted and I think this guy was an idiot.

Considering the simple fact that the majority of people today aren't used to seen others routinely carrying a firearm around with them in the open coupled with all the nutjobs/crazies that HAVE engaged in mass shootings and the general lawlessness of society today, I don't think it should really be all that surprising that some people may react badly (or at least with some concern) when they see someone openly carrying a firearm. I'm not saying people "should" react in a negative way; just that the reaction shouldn't be unexpected. In any case, purposely trying to stir up a negative reaction by openly carrying does no one any favors and likely puts all legally armed citizens in a bad light.

Perhaps I just don't get out enough but I've never been to a private residence where the homeowner can demand to search my vehicle and, if I don't let them and/or if they find I have a firearm in the vehicle can fire me, take away my pension and insurance and perhaps even make it very difficult if not impossible for me to find another job in the same/similar profession. However, my employer and many other employers can do all that. So...I'm not sure that the comparison between a private home/homeowner and a business open to and operating in the public domain is a legitimate comparison; in fact, I think it's almost apples and oranges. Just my $0.02

You are absolutely right, of course...but that's still a rather uncaring thing to say and somewhat cheapens what I think most see as an important issue. Yeah...no one "has" to work anywhere and I guess that if someone is in a dead end, cookie cutter job that he can quite and have another just like it withing 48hours maybe quitting and going somewhere else is a viable option (of course, that ASSUMES that the next employer has a different policy...good luck with that!). However, when someone has spent 20, or 30, or 40 years building a professional career and/or we are in an period of upwards of 20% unemployment/underemployment; simply quitting an excellent, well paying job is not necessarily either easy or even the RIGHT thing to do - telling your gun-unfriendly employer what he can do with his job may stroke your ego for a little bit but stroked egos don't pay the mortgage or the car payment or put food on the table nor does it do those things for your family. Sorry for the rant and I mean nothing personal towards you...it's just that the statement 'you don't have to work there" really gets under my skin sometimes.