RobertNashville

Like many authors who make it "big", Tom Clancy had some really terrific books and some no so terrific ones. The first novel I read was "Red Storm Rising" which, aside from being an excellent read, I found intriguing because it was all "Navy" and being former Navy myself it was interesting to see naval battles played out with ships and equipment and technology that I knew (sometimes knew very well).  I then went "back" and read the "Hunt For Red October". Following those I read most of his works until the past few years as they simply weren't as good.   Last year, I had the opportunity to take the two day "Fighting Rifle" class at Tactical Response with Mark Greaney who had just finished co-writing what was then a soon to be released "Threat Vector" (he also co-wrote the novel prior to "Threat Vector", "Locked On") - Mark and I talked a bit about Tom Clancy and his ups/downs but I do think the two that Mark was involved in were much better than some of the previous works.   Anyway...I'm going to miss Tom Clancy's books...he had a knack for using accurate military/technological data and weaving them into very believable novels (and also could make you feel good about your country).   RIP Tom, you will be missed.    

It's sad how we have abandoned our only real ally in the Middle East...sad but not surprising.   If our country's leadership had 1/10th the backbone of the Israelis we would be living in a much better country, one much closer to what the founder's intended, right now.

Just take a  :chill:   I'm confusing nothing nor am I skipping over anything and it wouldn't matter if I did...if you want to keep making a mountain out of a mole hill be my guest but I've said all I have to say or need to say about this ridiculous topic in Post 45.

Well, somebody's got to pay for all that "free health care insurance" Obama wants to give to people who did nothing to earn it.   When he told Joe the plumber that he wanted to spread the wealth around; I wish more people had listened.

If discussions like this weren’t so dangerous to identifying and resisting REAL infringements on freedom and liberty I’d find them pretty comical; or at least entertaining.   I mean really, some guy gets a sign confiscated that he placed in his yard, apparently illegally (because of city ordinance/easement) and this not only get’s posted as a second amendment issue (on boards around the country, not just TGO) but as an example of Tyranny! LOL!  Even the venerated “founding fathers” get invoked as if those invoking them have real insight into what the “founders” would or would not have done.   I love history; especially American history and I've spent much of my life reading not just books about our founders but their actual writings and one thing I believe that I know about our founders is that these men believed in the rule of law and if  such men purchased land that had deed restrictions or that existed in a city that had ordinances that prohibited certain activities, they would follow the law or they would chose to buy land elsewhere or they would seek to change the laws through the proscribed methods to do so (petitioning the legislature/city council, referendum, etc.). I am very certain that such men would not cry foul about a city official enforcing a law that they had agreed (expressed or implied) to live under! I also doubt, during our founder’s time, that a city official enforcing a law give motive to uninvolved people taking to the communication methods of the day to complain/cry about the law and call it “tyranny”.   Our founders knew what real tyranny was and it wasn’t living under laws they had AGREED to live under through a representative government - real tyranny doesn’t hide in the form or a city ordinance that was properly put into law nor in the act of a peace officer doing his job.   Calling incidents like this "tyranny" is akin to the 24hour news networks taking every story, regardless of how small,  how insignificant (and unverified) they are and reporting it as if our very existence hinged on their reporting of the story.   If this man's signs were illegally confiscated...if they really were on his private property (not property on which the city had right of way/easement, etc.) then his remedy is to go to court and make his case. That's how adults handle problems. Whether the man wins or loses his case then he wins or loses but neither outcome has any real bearing on anything except him and it most certainly isn't an example of a tyrannical government.

No they don't and if you had bothered to read the earlier posts you would see a specific example of a city ordnance in Tennessee where police are directed to immediately confiscate a sign that's in violation.  But hey; why let facts get in the way of a good rant when a rant is so much more fun!  :rofl:

  :drama:   Tyranny...yeah...it's really tyrannical when people voluntary associate in cities and municipalities and suburbs and set standards for how they want their community to operate.  I mean...how dare they decide for themselves how they want to live!  :shake:     What some want to call tyranny others call freedom of association and freedom of choice. But apparently; there are some who think that the freedom of people to chose what laws they will live under is only appropriate if those people make the "right" choices; otherwise it's "tyranny"!  :panic:   Such a view would be really funny if it wasn't so narcissistic and dangerous. Narcissistic because the unspoken insinuation in calling things like this "tyranny" is that unless people see things the way "I" see them then they are accepting tyranny; dangerous because such nonsense assertions blinds people to real tyranny.

Kosher...legal...reasonable and the people's right to do.   Such rules are absolutely necessary for the operation of a city/municipality/county where people live in close proximity to one another.  There is a way to handle restrictions/easements/ordinances that one doesn't like, negotiate them away before they buy property there or don't live there.   If someone or a group of someone's want to live in a city/suburb where city zoning doesn't allow a next door neighbor to turn his half/acre lot into a commercial junk yard or can't place a bunch of signs or a flag pool or whatever and make that a matter of law; then those people have every right to do so.

If the city has a legal easement for a certain amount of the property (which they almost certainly have and is very likely written into the dead for the property) then the city absolutely has the right to restrict signs on it or put any other restrictions they wanted...restrictions that would have been agreed to when the dead was executed (likely when the property was subdivided and agreed to by the developer); your assertion that it's a "stretch" or "novel" or "wouldn't fly in Tennessee" notwithstanding...I suspect most cities in Tennessee have very similar easements. It's also not for you do decide what rights an easement confers...if the city doesn't allow signs on the easement then it doesn't allow signs.  It also doesn't matter whether, in your opinion, the sign of that size doesn't pose an issue; that's for the people who live there and the city they live in to decide.   Just because this guy is allegedly a pro-2A guy doesn't mean he's in the right and just because the city took down his sign doesn't mean anyone's "rights" are being violated.  :drama:

So, apparently/maybe we have a firearm owner trying to "help" the pro-2A community on city property???   If, as the blogger claims, it isn't public property a court case will be interesting...I do have to wonder, though...doesn't this guy and the city know what property is his/theirs and what property isn't?  I mean...that shouldn't be too difficult to figure out should it?  :shrug:

I'm going by what those in the industry have said/published...the most rosy estimate I've read of total annual production running 24/7/365 is between 2/2.5 billion rounds per year; that works our to between 11,000 and 13,500 brick of 500 day.  Considering the many thousands (I think there are in the neighborhood of 1,500 Walmart's alone) of retailers in the country that's a handful of bricks per retailer per day at best.   However you slice the numbers, what I think is the undeniable truth is that until demand slows there will be no change in availability.

Where is 22LR?  Any given manufacturer has a finite amount of production capacity to produce a given product...when I've checked, our total U.S. capacity per day of 22LR is about 230,000 rounds; that can easily be depleted in a single day even just a handful of people buy a few bricks of 22LR per day and people are - demand is through the roof and manufacturing capacity is being fully utilized. You can blame the demand on anything you want, panic buying, scalpers, sunspots...it doesn't matter...until demand subsides we are going to have trouble finding it.   As to having money to burn, I freely admit that my distaste for Walmart has a personal side - I have first-hand experience with their dirty, disgusting business practices and I won't ever deal with a company that operates the way Walmart does.  More to the point, however, I believe in supporting and I believe it's in the firearm's community to support businesses that have an actual stake in the hobby/interest that I'm buying product for...Walmart could not care less if they sell ammunition or $3 table lamps...licensed firearms dealers do and must care about the firearms industry.  If I have to pay an extra .05 or .10 per round for .223 then I consider it an investment in keeping my local firearm dealer in business.

I will vote for anyone who hasn't assumed room temperature if it means not voting for Corker or Alexander; even a stinking pinko commie Dumacrat.

That's cool!   I used to have deer in my backyard all the time until they build the houses/condos behind me...now all I get is rabbits and possums!

Unless or until someone can demonstrate (and duplicate) a mechanical/scientific explanation for this (or prove that the entire thing is a hoax which seems unlikely given where the details are coming from); the most logical explanation for this event is that something supernatural happened (since the normal/natural thing would have been that the gun would fire inside just as well as it did outside). Whether you believe the root cause of the supernatural event is "God" or something else each person has to decide for him/herself...personally, I lean toward God's involvement.

I will gladly vote for a Democrat before I'll ever again vote for Corker or Alexander.  I hope it won't come to that...I hope that we'll have a real choice and get rid of Alexander in the primary but whether we do or not, he'll never get another vote from me.

I don't really disagree...I guess what I'm saying is that I'm not convinced whether this cell phone business is or isn't constitutional.   Technology makes easily possible what either was not possible before or was possible only with exerting a lot of effort.  Think of "instant credit"...30 years ago no business or bank would lend any significant amount of money to someone without a thorough credit background and even then it was often limited to what was available locally (the local credit bureau office, etc.)...today; a company in LA can grant credit to someone in TN in a matter of seconds with no human involvement at all because it's all based on "data" collected from everywhere and transmitted at the speed of light.   If I know your address I can, right now, find out what you paid for your house and the name of your spouse in just a few seconds from the PC I'm sitting at now...I could have done the same thing 30 years ago too but I would have had to go to the paper records located in the county you live in...is one method necessarily better or worse than the other???  Much of the information we consider "private" has never reel been private; it just wasn't as easily available to someone as it is today.   I don't think there are really easy answers here and I suspect that both individuals, governments and the courts are going to be fighting this battle for a long time to come.

I guess overall, while I don't like any form of government snooping (be it law enforcement or any other government/quasi-governmental agency) I don't get terribly excited about it so long as I have a way "out".   If I don't want the government snooping through my email, text messages or cell phone I can used actual letters sent through the mail (or other carrier) and not use a cell phone. If I don't want them tracking what I buy and and where I buy it I can use cash rather than a debit/credit card.  While doing those things can be terribly inconvenient that's actually how we ALL lived just a few short years ago.   Where I really get bothered is government snooping when I have no viable way to "opt out"

I wouldn't...I didn't...and I won't.   Everyone is free to spend their money where they want to but I promise you that I don't and I won't buy anything from WalMart; most especially anything related to firearms.  Even if I were willing to shop there it's just not safe!  On average, of every three shootings I read about, two of them have happened in a Walmart parking lot!  ;)

I weep that people buy things at WalMart.  ;)

You also pay money for a vehicle and modern vehicles collect all sorts of data...if police want access to that data do they need a warrant for it?  I'm thinking not but I really don't know???

Frankly, I'm not sure how I feel about this.  I don't like it but is it "Constitutional"?  I suppose in part it depends on why they are using the data for doesn't it? I mean, the data itself is neither good or bad...I can certainly see it being used for both good and bad!   I think an important consideration that the court mentioned is that no one is required to possess a cell phone; all of us who use them volunteered for the trip. As difficult as it is to contemplate, the proliferation of cell phones has really only happened within the past 20 years - it wasn't long that before that if you actually wanted to talk to someone you had to either call their home or go to where they were...we really could live without them right now if we actually wanted to do so.   We don't even have to give up the "security" of a having a cell phone...a deactivated cell phone is still good for true "911" emergencies because even a cell phone that is not active will still dial 911 so long as the battery is charged.

Everybody learns lessons a bit differently but all the ways generally fall into one of two categories; the easy way or the hard way.   A girl I went o HS with became a pretty successful entertainer and has made it her career. She lives in LA and has for most of the past 40 years....she is black, very beautiful (well, age has caught up with her just like the rest of us ;) ) and she was always very "liberal" as far as politics goes.  But, she told me a number of years ago that she changed her politics once she started handling her own business finances; that was a pretty easy lesson overall but the point is, until she really experienced how liberal policies affected her personally; it didn't click.   I'm sorry for your friend and his family...sadly, their best move personally would be for her not to work which then may make them eligible for more welfare (in the form of tax breaks/rebates, etc or even help paying for the wonderful Obamacare we'll have in just a few days).

You are right, I hadn't thought of Eddie...he is a one of a kind good guy.  I had to chance to talk with him a bit before he left the legislature and it was obvious that he had far too much common sense to stay!

Okay - I surrender - I don't have time to debate you; especially when what is being debated is likely a non-issue anyway and Is pointless in any case.