RobertNashville

It's a rather moot point in my always humble opinion because Corker doesn't deserve our support. He was the better of two bad choices; it's as simple as that and while I don't regret the vote I cased for him then I do regret that I had to cast that vote to keep someone ever worse from taking the seat.

Definitely not too early for that! I've no doubt that the Republican establishment who only see "R"s and "D"s will get heartburn over it but I'm hopeful that the Tea Party groups in Tennessee will be able to find and put forth a candidate that can defeat Corker for the nomination...the primary is the time and the ONLY time we can really make a difference in our choices for office.

There is NOTHING you can do that will prevent you from being sued if someone feels you've "wronged" them and that includes moving assets (which really won't work) and even Tennessee law that is supposed to protect you when you are involved in a justified shooting. If you shoot someone, no matter how justified, you can simply expect to be sued. PERIOD. There is also the issue of what can happen to you if you shoot someone with justification but a stray bullet that didn't hit the bad guy DOES hit an innocent bystander! Now, as I understand the law here in Tennessee, you would likely prevail in most cases and would have an affirmative defense to such a suit (at least from the bad guy if he lives or the bad guy's family if he doesn't) but that doesn't mean you won't get sued and that doesn't mean you won't need an attorney to represent you (meaning you'll need some $$$ at least on the front end). If you really want to protect yourself, I'd recommend a good umbrella liability policy which isn't a bad thing to have anytime just for good financial planning and that's especially true if you have assets to protect. In addition to the umbrella policy, if you ever do shoot someone don't say a dam thing to the police except "I thought my life was in danger", until you've retained an attorney.

I'm glad they have this bastard; it's just too bad that the taxpayers now have to go through the expense of a trial and likely keeping him in jail for the next 60 or so years. It's especially sad that this elderly couple didn't shoot and kill this guy before he shot them; they would still be alive and the taxpayers would be saved a lot of money. I do agree with the posts above; this is yet more evidence that we need to be prepared to defend ourselves at all times and especially so when we least expect to need to do so! Being prepared and being paranoid are NOT the same thing.

Maybe we need just one giant thread where everybody can complain about Haslam...these multiple threads are giving me a headache.

I also carry an LCR as my backup gun...and sometimes my only gun. It's small and light enough that I can carry in pretty much anywhere/everywhere when carrying anything else could cause problems.

Same here, WD...it was great to meet all of you and I look forward to next time (I'd love to shoot a flintlock sometime...I can't even imagine how cool that would be!)

The only problem I see with your anger and disgust at our choices for the general election is that it's too dam late to do any good. The time to get involved and actually do something constructive about this process is well before the primary season. To continue the "medicine" analogy, at this point you are faced with chemo that may or may not heal you but will cause you pain or not taking it at all and facing almost certain death...once you reach that point, worrying about the 4 packs/day of cigarette smoking all you life is pointless.

Everybody has to register and pay the fee at the main building - that's the parking lot I was referring to. As you turn off the road into MCSC you have long, paved road into the complex (with a couple of peaks and valleys)...you then come to a stop and are directed to turn right and register...you really can't miss the building.

I understand where you are coming from; in fact, I share your feelings, but the fact of the matter is that every vote NOT cast for Haslam and/or cast for someone with no chance to win makes it that much easier for McWherter to win...there is no getting around that. Granted, Haslam has enough of a lead that it probably won't make a difference but after meeting and listening to both candidates, there is simply no doubt in my mind now that Haslam is a decidedly better choice than McWherter; as such, I don't want to risk a win by McWherter by not voting for either one or by voting for a candidate that can't win. The only way we will ever get better candidates to vote for is to get involved and work on getting better candidates to run (and perhaps change Tennessee's antiquated and questionable rules so that we don't have people with nominations who didn't even get 50% of the votes cast). That kind of work must happen in the primary...it's too late now to cry about choices we don't like. Not voting for either major candidate doesn't help. It may make you feel better but it won't send a message to anybody (at least, not a message that anyone will hear or care about).

I think we are good to go and I'm still planning on being there. I will likely be in a black cherry (deep maroon) Nissan 370Z roadster so I shouldn't be too difficult to spot!

They aren't all...they are the largest but that may change...that's why I'm a member of the GOA and TFA.

Well...I think the NRA could have found a way to not "shun" him without having to go so far as to officially endorse him. It was, in my always humble opinion, a very stupid move on their part and one of the reasons I'm an annual rather than a life member.

Well..the NRA (for a time anyway) DID endorse Harry Reid so given that recent history, I would say that who the NRA does or does not endorse is not really meaningful!

I think we pretty much have the same opinion, then...just different ways of getting there.

Actually, while it's not true in every state it IS true in Tennessee.

I would suggest that there were multiple reasons for the existence of the Second Amendment; as my George Washington quote below would suggest, he seemed to feel it was both a right and an obligation of a free people to have arms, ammunition and know how to use them including using them to protect themselves and the people at large from those who would seek to do them harm whether the harm was coming from a government or anyone else. In any case, the language of the second amendment seems pretty clear to me and there is nothing in it that would necessitate or support having any sort of government permission to keep or to be armed. I have no desire to see the HCP process be eliminated; in fact, I would like to see it strengthened and improved; but the idea that no one should be allowed to carry within the state without the state's permission flies in the face of both the wording and, I believe, the intent of the Second Amendment (at least in my layman's opinion). There is always a risk it allowing people to actually be free - it is always possible, perhaps even inevitable that some will misuse their freedoms and their rights; that is the price we pay for liberty. But, it's a small price, in my opinion, because the other way leads to tyranny which is the direction we've been heading toward for a very long time. We need to reverse direction!

I noticed that too. I was thinking that if someone is that opposed to people exercising their right to keep and bear arms without a permission slip from the government because they "might" not be responsible probably should not be in the business of selling firearms to anyone because of what they might do someday to someone!

That was not what he said or at least it wasn't what I heard on Monday night. What he said/I heard was that he initially joined this conference based on its goal of keeping guns out of the hands of criminals which, frankly, I don't think is a bad idea and probably something most or us here would support. That was the issue he signed onto. Then group THEN was essentially taken over by the mayors of large cities like New York, Chicago, etc. and it was then it became the group we know about now. I can sympathize with something like that happening because over the years, I've been part of groups that seemed good at the time I joined but then I later decided to un-join when their agenda/purpose changed. Now, whether you believe Haslam's account or not is entirely up to you but I do think we need to be as accurate as possible regarding what he specifically said. I don't know him personally and Monday night was the first time I ever met the man. What I can say is that I have gotten to know a few folks whom I know to be as conservative as I am and whom I've come to trust and they believe him and support his run for governor and given our choices, I will be voting for him when I go to vote. He may be lying to us and he may not be. However, I do believe that whether he is or isn't lying, that he will support firearm-friendly legislation that comes out of the legislature which is a LOT better situation than we would have with McWherter (McWherter impressed me as a decent guy but he simply should not be governor).

There is no constitutional right, inalienable or otherwise to drive a car and although Tennessee may make it one, there is no constitutional right to hunt/fish either. Comparing such things as driving and hunting to an absolute inalienable right, recognized and protected by the Constitution as is the right to keep and bear arms is a specious argument. I’ve never said anything about what I prefer nor have I said anything that would give anyone reason to think I prefer people do anything they haven’t properly prepared for whether that be driving or carrying a firearm. I PREFER that people get whole hell of a lot of initial training before every carrying a firearm and gets continuing training thereafter - I prefer that people know a lot more about driving a car than how to put it in Drive (which is about all that “driver’s training” classes teach a person learning to drive). However, this isn’t about what I or anyone else prefers…it’s about a person’s right and unless a person actually does something to warrant taking a right away, a right should NEVER be infringed…when rights are infringed without justification; it diminishes the rights of all. I also have no problem with people carrying everywhere as well provided the property owners are Okay with it. Criminals break the law; that’s why we call them that. Criminals don’t get carry permits; they just carry and no amount of background checks or processing fees will ever protect us from criminals or the mentally ill from picking up a firearm and using it to hurt or kill an innocent person. But all that is really beside the point. The point is, either a person supports the Constitution and what it says or that person doesn’t…either a person believes in rights or that person doesn’t. I happen to believe that a person has an absolute right to keep and to bear arms without the need to prove himself worthy in the eyes of a bureaucrat.

True, not everyone needs a gun but whether someone "needs" a gun or not should be up to them and not some government bureaucrat (nor anyone else for that matter). You don't have to pass a background check to be a "responsible citizen". The logic behind the need for carry permits to have permission to carry a firearm in public makes just as much sense and could be just as easily applied to any other "right"...we don't have to have pass a background check or have a permit to go to church or to speak our minds yet many, including those who claim to be proponents of the Second Amendment seem to think it's just fine that we have to have government's permission to carry a firearm! If you have to have permission to do something then doing it isn't really a "right" at all. I guess what I'm saying is that I believe people ought to be able to do and/or enjoy the rights recognized and protected by the Constitution until such time as they prove they should not have those rights and that includes the right to keep AND bear arms without the need for prior permission to do so. I'm all for taking firearms away from those who have proven, by their actions, that they should not be allowed to have them but the idea that we have to have permission first is one we should be moving away from, not moving toward.

This is not a "party" screw-up and not voting for Haslam isn't going to send a message to anybody. As to the party "pushing" a candidate; Haslam won the nomination so yes, the Republican party is going to "push" him as a candidate. I'm not sure what you would expect them to do??? No party controls how many people run for an office...they likely have their favorite and will often make that known but if 20 people want to run for the Republican nomination for governor then 20 people can run and there isn't a d** think the "party" can do about it. The problem is with the State of Tennessee and the reason Haslam is on the ballot is simply because Tennessee only requires a candidate to receive a plurality of the votes cast. If Tennessee required and 50% +1 majority and required a run-off election until someone got to 50%+1 then we would likely have someone other than Haslam on the ballot this year. Vote or not vote; that's up to you but don't think that your not casting a vote for governor is going to send a message to anybody.

Wamp was not a good choice but that wasn't what I was saying...he is or at least seemed to be more conservative than Haslam - bottom line is, his candidacy split the vote three ways and that gave Haslam the win. Bob Pope but the stats together. Haslam only carried two counties outright...had just Ramsey or just Wamp ran against him, Haslam would not have won the nomination.

You have not right, inalienable or otherwise, to drive a car.

In other words, you don't actually believe the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution actually means what it says. Should people have training on firearms before they carry one? Absolutely. Then again, how many people get a HCP and never again take any sort of training? Are there some people who, for any number of reasons, probably should not carry a firearm? Absolutely. I also see incompetent people do very stupid things almost every day and some of those things can get them or others killed. Basically, I see two fallacies in your statement above. One is an underlying assumption that obtaining a HCP and going through the modest training and background check required actually makes someone competent to carry a firearm and use it properly if they ever need to do so. To be blunt, the HCP process does not and will never do that. The other fallacy is an apparent belief that citizens of the United States need to be LEGITIMIZED to carry a firearm. We are LEGITIMATE simply by virtue of being a human being - the Second Amendment simply recognizes the right that already exists. For far too many years and in far too many ways, that (and other rights) have been slowly encroached upon until many people don't even see them as rights any longer. Being able to carry a firearm in public is simply a return to what was considered normal, proper and even a societal duty not all that long ago. Frankly, I'm far, far more concerned about the criminal who caries a weapon in public than I am about grandma with her .25 or any other law-abiding, decent citizen going armed.