RobertNashville

    I disagree...while I can't recall any that have been an ordained minister; it's quite the norm for the Republican candidate to express profound Christian beliefs which is not only accepted by most but I would say, expected by most. So, the fact that he was (or may still technically be) a minister I think will be a minor issue in him being the nominee. If it hurts him it will be in the general election which I think is about 99% lost already regardless of what candidate gets the R nomination.   Who knows...I may be completely wrong...I guess we'll know in about 18 months or so!  LOL

The chip will happen; I've not doubted that for many years and we now have the technology to make it a reality. I don't know "when" but "soon"...sort of like the answer I got from my parents when I asked "when will we get there?". :)   As predicted in the Bible (and even if it weren't); there will not be 100% compliance at which point those who don't comply will have to rely on an underground/barter process for what they need (then again, I'm about halfway there already! :) )

Huckabee will almost certainly be the nominee. His history, completely a matter of public knowledge, doesn't leave anything for the left to attack...he's conservative "enough" that the less informed conservative voters will go for him in the primaries to give him the win and he's moderate enough that the Republican elite establishment will be comfortable supporting him. All of which is unfortunate because while he is light years better than Obama or Hillery he is still, at the end of the day, just another middle of the road, moderate who claims to be conservative but really isn't. Rand Paul is too radical/far right to get the nomination or the support of the establishment and even if he did, I won't vote for the man any more than I would vote for Huckabee. I don't see Issa with any significant chance although he is the one I know the least about so I don't know if I could vote for him or not. My problem and I suspect the problem with most true conservatives with the 2016 election is that it's pretty likely that anyone I could truly support and vote for is probably either far "too" conservative to get the nomination (and the support of the establishment) OR is too unknown to the country to get real traction (or both). :shake: :cry:

One advantage I didn't see mentioned (may or may not apply to you) is if you have a wife/girlfriend, etc. that doesn't really like shooting and/or is "afraid" of guns.   A .357 revolver shooting 38s is almost always going to be a more pleasant experience for a novice, woman, etc. shooter than shooting .357 which make make it easier to introduce a new/novice shooting to the sport...may make them more likely to practice...may make them more likely to use the revolver should the need arise since they are familiar with it/not afraid of it and a woman with a .357 packing 38 special that she will use if need be is a WHOLE safer and more effective than one with a .357 revolver she is afraid of/won't use. ;)

  Why?  Because there is no reason to introduce such a bill when it has zero chance of even being given a hearing in committee.  There is no reason to go after the impossible when even getting the possible is extremely difficult under this administration/legislature.

I'm aware of both but what do they have to do with my comments you quoted?   I'm simply saying that slavery is associated with the civil war and it doesn't really matter how appropriately or inappropriately the association. Given that association, it shouldn't be surprising to anyone that reminders of the civil war are being and will continue to be removed.

One real concern remains the wording "privately owned vehicle"...are leased vehicles covered under the legislation?  What about a rental vehicle while yours is in for repairs?   To me, and I suspect to most thinking human beings, unless a vehicle is stolen it's "YOUR VEHICLE" while you are using it just as your hotel room is YOUR HOME and has the same protection under the law as the house you live in.   Frankly, much of what is wrong with the current legislation and the whole "parking lot issue" would be solved if TN law made it clear that a person's vehicle (owned, financed, leased, rented or borrowed) is a legal extension of your home and deserving of the exact same protections. Therefore, you can have anything in your "home" at any time provided it's something that is "legal" to possess in the first place.

I heard of it a few years ago...but it didn't change how I use the terms in the IT work I do. :)

I will freely admit that after living in Tennessee going on 18 years now, plus my own study, visiting Gettysburg as an adult, etc...my overall view of the civil war has altered somewhat. It's altered at least to the extent that I have a much better understanding of some of the philosophical and economic currents that precipitated it.   That said, there is the very simple truth that at one time in this country, one man could actually "own" another as one would own a cow or a horse, It was a despicable thing and a stain on our country's history and, rightly or wrongly, that stain is inevitably linked to our civil war. That being the case, I think it is at least understandable (even if also regrettable) that cities and governments and groups would like to "forget" our history and eradicate reminders of participation by those states that seceded.

And at your advanced age your old fart, tweaking my nose is about as exciting as it gets for you! :)

Well, you should be EXTREMELY capable considering how many ****ups you make! LOL

Well, I didn't even notice the emoticon!   In any case, the pictures posted do appear to not actually depict what some allege they do so they sort of are BS in that regard aren't they???  :hiding:

Thanks for posting that, Mike...I have several Isralie friends and they've never mentioned that they carry such as depicted in these pictures so that above story makes a lot of sense.   I haven't been inside of Israel but I've been to Lebanon and Syria and most of those carrying there were Hezbollah!  :)

Where exactly did Mike or anyone call your statement "BS"?  :shrug:

Yeah...that still doesn't mean we should be carrying a loaded AR through a shopping center.

Don't really disagree with the above but I don't see how what they do in Israel has anything to do with this story in particular nor with the whole concept of carrying what appears to be a loaded AR15 in in a shopping mall in the U.S.    Frankly, I hope we never reach the point where our lives are in such constant danger that we NEED to do what they do in Israel...more than that, I would much prefer we lived in a world and in a country where we NEVER needed to be armed.

I'm neither "sheepish" nor a "nervous Nellie" but in this day and age if I see a stranger walking through a shopping mall with what appears to be a loaded AR15 slung across his back I'm going to call 9-1-1 (while I have my hand on my holstered pistol looking for cover) because given what has been happening in the world I'm NOT going to just assume that the stranger is harmless.  I'll let the LEOs come and they can sort it out and either arrest him or let him go on his way.   If some folks here don't like that reaction so be it; I'd rather be safe than dead.

I'm not (and don't think I did) say it should be excused; I'm just noting that encountering such in law enforcement is likely going to become more of the norm than the exception going forward.

Well, I didn't say it would be illegal...but I do think it would be pretty stupid. :)   Although it's worth noting that in this case; the AR appeared to be loaded which is illegal under TN law.

We have a labor shortage in this country for two primary reasons...   1 We have too many uneducated people in this country or people who don't have the job skills that are needed in today's job market - these people either refuse to learn new skills and/or they have the skills but won't move to where the jobs are; OR   2.  We have to damn many lazey ass people in this country who won't take the jobs that exist because they can get by, and sometimes MORE than get buy on all the free stuff they get from government. Yeah...solving the illegal problem might cost some money but so be it. Problems need to be fixed and if fixing them costs money then it costs money; that's the way life works. We could easily cover the costs and/or cut taxes by billions if we stopped spending so much to support people who won't work.   If you are already concerned about your business' labor and administrative costs what do you think is going to happen to prices and the cost of doing business when all that cheap, illegal labor becomes legal and qualifies for all the free stuff and/or they start joining unions and start demanding the same wages that it would take to get Americans to take the jobs?   Those illegals who work under the table are likely not going to be willing to work under the table anymore and those that currently take real W2 jobs but at wages that many American citizens are unwilling to take because the wages aren't high enough to entice them to do so are probably going to start to demand the same level of wages that it would take to get those current American citizens to take them meaning that any way you cut it, amnesty/citizenship for these criminals is going to result in MUCH higher costs for businesses and ultimately, for consumers - we'll all pay for it one way or another.   I guess I don't understand why some folks (not you...just in general) are so blind to the very real threat these people pose to the United States...it's no less of a threat than 200 million Chicoms screaming across the border...it's a threat to our very existence as a country...if stopping that isn't worth spending money on then I don't can't think of anything that is. I wonder what some of those folks are going to think of our open borders when we get some Iranian terrorists inside the country who sets off a couple of suitcase nukes in Chicago or Memphis or NYC or some other major city???  I wonder if anyone then will think that maybe open borders isn't such a good idea and that it might have been worth it to spend some $$$ to fix it. :shrug:

And if you carry a long gun, especially one of those "evil assault rifles" in a shopping mall in Tennessee I can guarantee you'll get a much less pleasant reaction that this guy got (as well you should).   If I see some idiot walking around a mall in TN with an AR or something similar I'm going to have my drawing hand on my holstered sidearm while calling the police with my free hand; concurrently looking for a place to get the hell out of this guys sight until LEOs arrive.

Well, I am a bit lost as to why someone who lives in GA spends so much time on the Tennessee Gun Owners forum or why it matters whether or not you "would be way more surprised to see someone with a gun case than someone with a gun on there back down here" (meaning there in GA I assume)! LOL   I don't have cases for ALL my long guns but I I most certainly have cases that I could (and do) use for my long guns and up here, or anywhere else for that matter, if I was going to walk around in a public mall with one of my long guns (although I can't imagine any reason in the world why I would do that) it would absolutely be in one of those cases.   Maybe this guy was totally innocent in intent but I can't really imaging any logical reason why he would need or want to walk around a shopping mall with an AR15 (real or otherwise) carried openly on his back..I'm thinking he either had a momentary brain fart (i.e. acted without thinking or caring about the possible consequences of his actions), or that he was specifically looking for the encounter he got.

All the more reason to believe that not having it cased, boxed or not carrying it at all was simply an effort to tweak noses/instigate an encounter and why I don't have any significant sympathy for him as I think he got exactly what he was going after.

Yuup...as a city it's as progressive/liberal as any in the country so their taking this action really isn't surprising at all.

I suspect that the county's refusal to budge will hurt them FAR more (financially)  than it will hurt the gun show owners/promoters.