RobertNashville

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.

Yes...I haven't watched them myself but see this thread: http://www.tngunowners.com/forums/tennessee-politics-legislation/47787-bill-haslam-tfa-meeting-last-night.html

No one is talking about abolishing the HCP process - many of us, me included, need it and want it because our HCP is recognized by some 36 other states. What is being discussed is not requiring a HCP to carry a handgun in Tennessee if you are otherwise legally able to possess a handgun (i.e. not felon, etc., etc.)

Do you really want McWherter sitting in the state house; a man who is opposed to almost everything gun owners support (not to mention what most conservatives support)? McWherter and Haslam are the only two realistic choices and at this point, especially after meeting the man, the choice is pretty clear to me.

We can discuss the real and/or perceived shortcomings of Mr. Haslam until the cows come home but suffice it to say, he isn't perfect. However, of anyone running with an actual chance to win, he is, I think, hands down the best choice we have. To be blunt, we have Mayor Haslam to vote for because 1) we had two other conservatives running for the nomination with him and 2) we have no provision in Tennessee for a run-off election whenever a candidate doesn't get at least 50% + 1 of the votes cast. Those are the primary reasons we have the choices we have for the general election...we can lament that all day long but it won't change anything for this election cycle.

True but keep in mind, Bredesen is a pretty typical liberal Democrat and Haslam, while perhaps not as conservative or as fundamental as we might like is not a liberal Democrat. Only time will tell but should time prove him to be lying about his support of our right to keep AND bear arms (and he did stress the "and" last nigh) what he said last night will certainly come back to haunt him.

I don't know that I'll ever be "excited" about Bill Haslam but I will say that he acquitted himself pretty well last night and while he wasn't my first choice for the nomination, I do think he'll likely do a decent job as governor. There is no question in my mind that he is a much better choice for the job than his Democrat opponent.

Good to meet you last night! Maybe I'll see you at Owl Hollow on the 30th!

Wearing a shirt for the Middle Tennessee Half Marathon is likely as close as I'll ever get to running in it!

Looks like we are going to have a pretty good crowd! Let's hope the weather cooperates and do remember, this is an outdoor facility so dress accordingly!

Nashville Chapter is scheduled to meet on MONDAY, October 18, 2010 Formal meeting time is 7:00 p.m. to 8:00 pm Our guest at this meeting will be Bill Haslam who is running in the race for Governor of the State of Tennessee. The meeting will include an initial span of time where Mr. Haslam can address the group and then we plan to open the floor for questions with an emphasis on those questions pertaining to 2nd Amendment topics. Arrive early - 5:00 to 5:30 would be good. Eat in the meeting room if possible and if not, get as close as you can. We will try finishing eating by 7:00 in the meeting room to clear out everything but drinks for the meeting if we have a large turnout. Location: Golden Corral Hermitage 315 Old Lebanon Dirt Rd Hermitage, TN 37076 (615) 874-1313 IT IS IMPORTANT TO PAY AT GOLDEN CORAL AS YOU COME IN FOR THE MEETING IF YOU ARE EATING. TELL THEM THAT AT THE CASH REGISTER THAT YOU ARE THERE FOR THE MEETING AND TO APPLY THE "GROUP RATE" WHICH INCLUDES YOUR DRINK. You do not have to be a TFA member to attend nor do you have to be a resident of Nashville. Everyone is welcome and encourage to bring guests - even spouses. I want to encourage each of you to bring someone with you to the meeting who has not been to one or been to one recently. There's no cost to come (unless you eat because the meal is on you).

By the way; at it stands now I'll likely be bringing... 1. One of my SCARs (.223/5.56 and generally use 62 grain or higher), 2. Probably my Glock 20 (10MM Auto) which I haven't even shot yet, 3. MY HK45, and 4. At lest one of my 1911's (likely either my Les Bare and/or my Nighthawk) I will also have my Kimber Pro CDP II and my Ruger LCR (primary carry/bug) with me so they would also be available for anyone who wanted to try them out.

Please consider this thread CLOSED. See http://www.tngunowners.com/forums/events-gatherings/47392-northern-middle-tennessee-meet-sunday-october-24-2010-mcsc.html#post618613 for details about the meet! Thanks.

ANNOUNCING: Northern Middle Tennessee MEET WHEN: Sunday, October 24, 2010 WHERE: Montgomery County Shooting Complex Montgomery County Shooting Complex TIME: Meet at the main office (it’s a mandatory sign-in there anyway) at 1PM (that’s when they open) Although not mandatory; if you can, please list below if you are planning on attending and also what firearms you plan to bring and ammo caliber (at least if you are willing to let others shoot them)! For those of you who may want to fire someone else's weapon; please bring some ammo for that weapon and keep in mind that there is some but limited ammo available at the range. If you have any questions at all please feel free to PM me or call me 615-849-6975 If, by chance, the weather is really lousy we may call this off but obviously we’ll have to make that call very near the meeting time so be sure to call me or check here for any changes or updates before heading out to the complex. I hope to see a lot of you there! for background info about this you can view this thread: http://www.tngunowners.com/forums/events-gatherings/46877-middle-northern-middle-tennessee-meet.html

Which "both days" do you mean? We've got one day with four votes (Sunday the 24th) and two days with 3 votes (Saturday the 23rd and Saturday the 30th).

We're crazy? Who just added to the thread when they could have closed it.

I probably get more right than Dr. Phill does; I've just never had Oprah behind me to make me famous. Maybe I'm wrong but I think my assessment is at least a base hit even if it's not a home run. Wow...you even quoted me and still got it wrong! As I said .As quoted, I said you were bashing THIS FD. Oh is that what you call what you've been doing in your posts. By the way, I'm still waiting for you to explain where you heard that the guys in this FD wants to “...argue what they did was right†as you accused them of several posts ago - as far as I know, and I've read a lot about this story, no one else has claimed they ever did that.

That post ought to be the LAST post in this thread as I think it tells us everything we need to know.

Frankly, I find that surprising and disappointing…all this angst over what you have decided this FD should have done but you don’t care about the guy who lost his home??? Wow. Again I ask; if you don't care about the only person who actually suffered a loss in this mess; why the hell should this (or any other) FD care enough to risk their lives and their equipment????? Strong arming…on what basis did you decide that? Exactly how and when did this city "strong arm" anyone? What exactly isn’t “right†about a service provider expecting to be paid for their service? The FD was on the scene for one reason and only one reason, to protect the property of the property owner who had paid for the service - they had no duty (legal, moral or otherwise) to risk their lives or equipment for anyone else. You don’t know what I’m talking about??? Ok…let me quote AGAIN from Post No. 232… You claimed, as I quoted, that these men/women are calling themselves “First Respondersâ€. You claim that they “want to argue what they did was rightâ€. I’m asking you where you are getting the information to base those claims on because other than your claims, I haven't heard these firefighters do/say any such thing…what is not to understand? So am I supposed to “rip†on these guys now just because, according to you, we never do? I don’t rip on anyone unless I think they did something wrong and I don’t think these guys did anything wrong. No, I am not a fireman nor have I ever been. I have served as a volunteer paramedic with two different fire departments and then with a totally separate volunteer EMS service…I guess all together I’ve done that for about 20 years although I don’t anymore. Based on such comments about the “right hand of God†and how no one ever rips on them it’s sounding like you have some deeper and not so supportive feelings about firefighters in general that go far beyond this incident. I’ll take that bet. What I think is going to happen is that this county will get their asses in order and start providing their own fire protection OR the folks who have been playing Russian roulette with their fire protection (by not paying the very tiny annual fee) are going to start paying…that’s what I think is going to happen. As to telling them how you feel…I’m just suggesting that since you’ve spent so much time in this thread bashing this FD you ought to consider redirecting your efforts to the folks who you are actually mad at and maybe encourage them to change to something you find more acceptable...you can complain on this or any other forum all day long but it isn’t going to change a thing.

So you don't care about the guy who lost his home, only that this FD didn't do what you say they should have done? If you don't care about the victim why should the SFFD? I mean...isn't care for the victim one of if not the primary reasons that there are fire departments...or are you suggesting that the trailer is more important then the man? And if, like you, the SFFD shouldn't care about the victim why the hell should they put their lives and equipment (that isn't theirs to do with as they please) at risk? I truly don't understand your reasoning here. Moving on; I've not heard it reported that a single one of them have called him/herself a "first responder". I also haven't heard it reported that any of them defending that what they did was "right" or say much of anything at all for that matter. So...I'm wondering where you are getting your information from because I if it is being reported I've missed it. You seem to feel pretty strongly that these guys (and/or gals) are pretty worthless (or "bad people") and apparently every single one of them are bad since not a single one of them did what you insist they should have done (and regardless of the consequences)...have you contacted SFFD individuals to tell them how you feel about them?