RobertNashville

The only thing clear here is that you are obsessed with the subject of open carry (this is like the third or fourth thread you've either started or have been a major player in in just that past few weeks). The only real emotion being displayed here is coming form you through attacks on anyone who doesn't respond to you in ways that you demand and/or that don't support your likely already formed opinions about open carry. You claim to want "data" instead of opinion while concurrently making wild-ass, baseless assumptions about what is "clear" and who is "against" open carry. I can't help but wonder what "facts" you have to support the position that open carrying does not make one a "first target" in an altercation? Understand that I DEMAND facts...not opinion and certainly not some emotional argument about how great open carry is and you must respond in only the way I want or I'll get wine about it and call you names. ROTFLMAO

And again, all your words boil down to surrender. You seem to want instant results or you don't want to play at all. Government and politics and especially making significant changes is usually more akin to a crock pot than a microwave. Things are starting to move in the correct (and the "right") direction - you can either chose to do some real work to help keep that going or you can go and hide behind your participle of "voting for the lessor of two evils is still voting for evil" bovine scatology. Assuming that both are truly "evil" I would still rather have the one who is less evil than more while still working for better choices in the future.

If you truly wanted an answer to your "alleged" honest question (rather then simply wanting answers that fit your agenda and/or that you could argue about) you would go out and do the research rather than sitting on your ass and trying to get a small group of people (this forum) to do the work for you. There are likely volumes upon volumes of local, state and federal crime statistics that you could research. Of, if you couldn't find the answer there then go out and conduct your own, REAL research - maybe you could write a book when you are done. There are good, logical, tactical reasons for carrying concealed and not letting a potential attacker know beyond doubt that you are armed...anyone with an ounce of working gray matter can figure that out even if there isn't a single instance of ANYONE being targeted first by a bad guy because the bad guy saw his weapon. Some people disagree and say that making your weapon visible will make you less likely to be a target...that may be true if the bad guy is just some punk looking for an easy grab and run at a convenience store; they may well just go somewhere else. However, that line of reasoning probably doesn't work if the bad guy is actually several bad guys who have for weeks been planning a major robbery and will do their crime whether you are there or not and will if THEY have an ounce of working gray matter, immediately take out any thread they see (including YOU with a visible firearm). So...if you really want to know, DO YOUR OWN RESEARCH then come back and enlighten all us mean posters that haven't played by your rules. I suspect, however, that you just want to sit here and argue.

There you go again...maybe you need to just put all your mirrors in the closet.

You REALLY need to stop looking in the mirror as you post.

Using ridiculous scenarios is...well...ridiculous and does nothing to substantiate your argument.

Obviously you didn't really comprehend the point of my post or what I was asking for and how dare you try to answer my questions with a thread that I don't like and don't want to accept as an answer even though it does.

I want to conduct a little research of my own (and I don't want to bother to look on my own) so I'll ask all of you to do it for me. Can anyone give me credible examples (from this forum) where threads have: 1. Had this many or more pages of posts, and 2. Have been active/gone on longer (in terms of time) than this thread, and 3. Has been as totally meaningless and inconsequential that this thread. Of course, if you give me examples to answer my question I'll call you names and/or prove how your answer isn't an answer but please feel free to offer your answers anyway.

They aren't running Yeah...it's surrender.

This isn't about Bush or how good or bad he was...he did some good things and he did some bad things but I'm convinced that he was a 1,000% better President than Mr. Tree or Mr/Mrs Ketchup would have been. Ronald Reagan wasn't perfect...Abraham Lincoln wasn't perfect...neither was Washington or Jffeerson nor will any candidate ever be perfect. No problems will ever be solved by becoming uninvolved - to remove one's self from the process or to vote for candidates that cannot win is just a form of surrender. I will surrender only after I've assumed room temperature.

Your action of having no part in the election might be reasonable and logical if your premise were correct but I don't accept that is correct. And, if it isn't correct then voting for someone who cannot win or not voting at all, simply increases the likelihood that the worst candidate of those running will be elected and bringing the "disaster for liberty" you seem to fear.

I don't believe I'll ever understand the mindset that will allow people to shoot themselves in the foot (figuratively speaking of course), in refusing to vote for a "Big government/Establishment Republican" and (claim, at least) that they'll vote for a candidate that cannot and will not win. The time, indeed the only time to make such choices in in the primaries...that's why we have them. However, once the nomination has been made, it's time to get on with the business of electing the best candidate that can win. I can think of many candidates that could have been on the Republican ticket in '08 that would have been better than McCain but I'd vote for McCain any day and twice if they would let me, despite his many, many "problems", over a Dalai-Obama (or anything close to Obama). We (individual states) have far more control over putting good people in Congress (house and senate) and if we continue to do that, then having a "bad" Republican in the White House becomes almost a non-issue. I hope we'll all work and do what we can to have a positive impact on who the Republican candidate for President is but let's not lose sight of the overall goal which is, I would say, is a return to a government that operates much closer to the intent of the Constitution than we've seen in a long time...that's going to take more than the "perfect" Presidential candidate (in indeed such a candidate exists).

Is there something wrong with discrimination? A person discriminates every time a choice is made. Ron Paul is what many people consider "old" and many consider his age "too" old to become President. that is simply the reality of the situation

I can't help but wonder (or as some would say, wander) if it's even possible to have an thread that mentions "open carry" or "concealed carry" that doesn't degenerate into stupidity and denigrating which ever side opposite the one posting. Given recent history, it doesn't seem likely.

I too can vouch for The Safe House...I bought my Browning almost exactly a year ago...top quality products and top quality service...what you pay is worth every penny. I also STRONGLY recommend that you don't just depend on a safe no matter how good it is. Security for your valuables, your home, and your family should never be dependent on any one thing no matter how good that one thing is. As was said, layers and even layers upon layers is what it takes. Dogs, monitored security systems, cc cameras, neighbors that know each and look out for each other...as many of those layers as you can apply the better off you'll be!

Ever since the rather "heated" discussion (in a couple of threads) two or three weeks back, I've been open carrying a bit more than I ever have in the past. So far, the only times anyone has said anything was to discuss what I was carrying in a "knowledge seeking" way. In other words, it's been mostly and "non-issue". I still and likely always will believe that, generally, concealed carry is both advantageous from a tactical point of view as well more appropriate in most situations if only to avoid unnecessary confrontations (especially confrontations with those who are vehemently opposed to the idea of an armed private citizenry).

Nissan's plant in Canton Mississippi uses (or at least they did and I believe they still do) hail cannons to break up hailstones and protect the cars parked on the lot before they are shipped to dealers. As far as I know they are pretty effective. Nissan Uses Device to Stop Hail - WLBT 3 - Jackson, MS:

I think (or at least I do hope) that the Republican party can find not just a better candidate than Ron Paul but a truly electable candidate (which Paul simply isn't). I'm not trying to discourage anyone from supporting whatever candidate they wish in the primaries; that is after all what the primaries are for. But eventually, if there is any chance of unseating the Dalai Bama it's going to take a candidate of WIDE appeal. No one can get elected to president with "just" Republican or Democrat votes...a candidate must appeal to all those who don't identify with a party but DO vote. Paul is a good man but he simply isn't going to win the essential "middle" group. That said, I've no idea who might be the Republican nominee...all we can do at this point is watch what happens and when we see someone we can get behind; to get behind him (or her).

I'd say a lot of the luster if off Obama now but I find it highly unlikely that he won't win re-nomination. It could happen I suppose if something big happened that he so totally screwed up that someone like Hillary or another well-known Democrat could step in but that seems incredibly unlikely. Frankly, I hope it doesn't happen because Obama now has a lot of baggage/history he didn't have four years ago...which gives him a hill to climb that someone else starting fresh (so to speak) wouldn't have to deal with.

I don't get excited about much these days so let me have my fun. I know things look pretty bad no matter who is in the White House but I'm not ready to give up yet...I can at least hope!

I'm not not excited about the presumed front-runners but I do think that there are some good potential candidates out there that may not be in the lime light just yet. The next few months will set the stage and I wouldn't give up hope just yet. Anyway, Obama becomes almost a non issue if there are enough good (and real) conservatives in both houses of Congress....to me, getting those good candidates retained/elected is more important then whether the Dalai Bama retains his position or not.

No matter "who" you were talking about, the reality, in my opinion, is that many voters will not vote for someone pushing eighty for a first-term president. Being near eighty presents a significant hurdle (regardless of party/philosophy) for a Presidential candidate to overcome - that hurdle could possibly be overcome if a candidate had huge support in every other area that can/would come into play but I don't believe Paul has ever enjoyed that kind or support nor do I see him as ever being able to garner that kind of support. I think he's a good man with good principles and good ideas (not that I agree with all of his stands) but I think his ship has already sailed and it didn't reach port.

Ron Paul will never win the Republican nomination nor, if he won the nomination, would he ever be elected President. He is right on most issues but as a Presidential candidate he simply doesn't have any broad appeal even within the GOP, let alone the electorate.

I like the direction of this bill A LOT!

No glossing over was going on; it's simply that how the current constitution came into being or how it was changed was not what was being discussed nor was such details germane to the question/answer. How the present constitution came into being, etc., etc. may be worth discussion at the theoretical/philosophical level but in day to day reality, is rather meaningless. The constitution we have is what we have unless or until someone does more than "discuss".