RobertNashville

Whether the word "establish" is used as a verb or an adverb, to establish something, especially something as complicated as a religion, requires significant action; far beyond simply giving group "A" supplies for them to hand out to Group "B".   Now, if the government "only gave the supplies to one particular religious group and refused to give it to others or took other overt actions then perhaps an argument could be made but I don't see anything like that happening here.

The Nashville Rescue Mission is the only one I support; not because they are faith-based (although that's fine) but because they refuse to accept any sort of government "help".   Sleeping with the devil has consequences!

If I had done 10% of what my ex accused me of during our one year(plus) divorce I would still be in jail almost 30 years later. People you loved and who you thought loved you can become pure evil in a divorce - whether that is all or even part of what is going on here I neither know or care and I'm a bit surprised that such a stupid story has generated three pages of posts about it.   And yes, I realize that with this post I'm adding to the discussion but this will be my only addition to this one!

I'd really hate for anybody to judge me based on what my ex-wife had to say during our year-long divorce!   She tried to apologize 20 eyars later....I didn't accept it.   The best revenge is living well!

At this point I don't see what difference who gets elected in 2016 will make regardless of who it is.   By the time Obamacare kicks into full implementation this country is over...there will be no turning back; it will simply be too late to substantially alter the entitlement train wreck that is approaching,   ALL elected office holders, regardless of party will really have two and only two choices to make; continue the entitlement gravy train without raising taxes (substantially anyway) until the weight of our enormous debt crashes the economy OR raise taxes to the level necessary to sustain the entitlements which will also ultimately crash the economy...same destination regardless of the decision made.   As unpalatable as it was we had a small chance to turn things around in 2012 but no one who actually gave a #### could even agree to vote for Romney…he isn’t conservative enough...libertarian enough...he is just as bad on “gun control” as Obama...he isn't  Ron Paul  and on and on the excuses went.  Well; elections have consequences and the consequences of 2012 will be a decidedly left-wing  SCOTUS, Obamacare, 20 million criminals being rewarded with citizenship (and all the welfare that goes with it) and the 35% of us still working paying the way for the other 60% to sit on their asses all day with a higher lifestyle than most of the rest of us have.   And in case anyone is wondering; no... I haven't been drinking tonigt...maybe that's the problem.

Really sorry this is happening - I hope it works out well for you and him!...prayers your way.

Good reminder...that would be especially true in my case since most of my vehicles are not titled in my name at all.

Probably little role on the street but perhaps an impact in the court room with a judge.

I had just moved to Tennessee when the original bill was being debated/passed so I'm going by two things; my own memory of what I was hearing at the time and what Ron Ramsey told me was the intent (at the time he told me I believed him although given his recent actions with regards to firearm legislation/honesty trusting him to tell the truth may have been a foolish thing to do)   So...I've never tried to confirm it but I would assume such data is in the archives somewhere.  :shrug:   The AG opinion 05-154 makes it pretty clear that Tennessee doesn’t require concealment and goes on to say that had the legislature wanted concealment they would have said so but frankly, I don’t think the opinion really attempts to deal with the more subtle intent I’m referring to.  Anyway, if I get a chance I’ll try to research it more as it’s an interesting question!            

If I misunderstood your intent then I apologize and yes, I think our discussion in this thread is done.   Regards,

Are they truly posted because of the "media" or because people have openly carried into such places and caused an incident?  The answer is probably both!   Most business owners just want to see their business thrive. While some are idealogues (Randy Rayburn comes to mind) most will either post or not post  based on what they feel is best for their business which is, I would suggest, the way it should be.   I don't and never have said that a business property used for business reasons has the same "property rights" as private property used for private reasons but even so, I don't think the governmetn should force businesses to allow arms inside of their business proper...there needs to be a balance found that is as fair as possible whcih is why I believe that business should not have the power to forbid arms in "parking lots' but ought to be able to do so with the inside of a business itself.  We should exercise out power by not giving our custom to businesses that do not welcom our arms.   I guess there is the danger that "every business" will decide to forbid arms but I don't think that using the power of government to stop that is the proper course to take.

  My only real point of disagreement with your post is the effectiveness of these checkpoints. It's been a while since I looked up the specific statistics from CDC and NHTSA but if memory serves, in 2010 (the latest year available when I looked), DUI driving accounted for about 10,100 deaths and 1/3 of all auto accidents that year which represents about a 50% reduction from 15 or so years before.   One can certainly argue about how much a part these checkpoints have played in that reduction and I doubt there is any way to truly know with any certainty. But, I doubt many could reasonably (there is that word again) argue that the overall effort, which includes DUI checkpoints, has not had a significant and positive impact on reducing DUI related death and injuries. As to how many DUI citations are issued vs other results, I don’t know but I would suspect it’s less now than it used to be.  IN any case, I’d say that it’sa  good thing if these checkpoints also find and arrest those driving without a license/under suspension or those with warrants out for their arrest.   I would also suggest that anyone who has been breathing for a few decades can attest to the overall change in attitude about driving under the influence - what was once thought to be a victimless crime or not a crime at all; even something for comedy skits is now seen for the danger it is – such a danger that there are probably few people on this forum who has not lost a friend, loved one or family member to a drink driver.   Whether these checkpoints are “fair” or not is something of another matter and certainly something we can disagree on.  The word “fair” evokes similar words such as equitable, honest, lacking favoritism, etc.  I would say that the way these checkpoints must be conducted, per SCOTUS/NHTSA rules does make them “fair” but that is just my opinion.

No one "has" to do anything here. However, if a discussion forum is for discussion then there is a need to do more than just stating opinions at each other. Just posting opinions is obviously the easire course to take but there can't be any real discussion about anything; at least not about anything significant if stating opinions is as far as threads ever get.   Words, no matter where they are written, even those and perhaps especially those of documents of laws such as the Constitution, are always subject to interpretation and must be so; most especially words like “unreasonable” found in the fourth amendment.   If a person can't intelligently and correctly define and understand what "unreasonable" means in the context of the fourth amendment then they have zero ability to understand the "clear" meaning of the fourth.

I guess it seems to me that a "no-firearm's" sign (whether under current law where there is the posibility of a criminal charge or after a change in the law) should be enough that the business owner (or whoever is in charge) shouldn't have to confront and individual just to tell him to leave as that person who entered the business anyway shouldn't have done so in the first place. :shrug:

What? This president worry about money?  Are you kidding?   Haven't you noticed, they've actually stopped counting the deficit spending a few weeks ago leading the uninformed to believe that we are no longer spending 145% of our revenues.  :wacko:

I think this is one of Yeager's better videos in which he discusses not just treating someone who has been woulnded/injured but the ironic response he gets from some when he does!   I carry a good deal of emergency medical supplies with me in my vehicle and shooting bags - even though it's been quite a few years since I worked as an EMT I want to at least be able to help OR provide needed items to someone on scene who has more experience than I do.       https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=Uqp87-tt_j0

Despite our feeble economy ours is stronger than most and depended on by almost every civilized country including China and Russia.  If (or might I say when) our economy collapses every economy in the word will follow.  I suggest it is that fear of collapse and their following that has kept other countries supporting our worthless dollar all this time and a good reason why neither China nor Russia really desires an armed conflict with us…it would be akin to cutting off your nose to spite your face!   That said, wars are rarely if ever fought based on facts or common sense…they are started and fought based on emotions and passion so a third world war; perhaps THE war could be around the corner based on what Obummer does or doesn’t do.

That's a good quote but I don't see how it can apply here unless someone can demonstrate that DUI checkpoints are unconstitutional because if such checkpoints aren't unconstitutional then they aren't an expression of "tyranny" (sincere, soft or otherwise) no matter how many times the assertion is made (unless, I suppose, one thinks that the Constitution itself is a form of tyranny).   Perhaps I'm asking for too much or perhaps an inconsequential question?  Perhaps anyone attempting to demonstrate that these checkpoints are or are not constitutional is simply not possible or won't matter to anyone.  I suppose that if someone is convinced that these checkpoints are or aren't constitutional then any presentation on the matter that doesn't support the already taken position won't matter anyway.  :shrug:

There is nothing to indicate that he did but I he probably should have.   Every instructor I've ever had when discussing this subject has indicted that we should do so when pulled over/we encounter a LEO for at least two reasons, one being that it can perhaps avoid a sitiation like we ahve in this case and second, if you do so consistently then you don't have to remember whether the particulare state you are in requires it or not.   In this case, however, I doubt that the situaion could have been avoided...this cop was simply out of control.

Farnkly, while it probably puts me in the minority here, I'd rather see those who carry observe TN law as it was intended by the legislature and passed in 1996. That is, not as blanket permission to open carry but as a protection against exactly the sort of thing going on in Florida; that is, attempting to prosecute permitted people for the accidential/unintentional revelation of their carry weapon which in some states can carry serious charges.   However, this thread is not about how one carries but the out of control actions of this one police officer; one that I hope is appropriately punished for his behavior.

Politically significant?  I don't really think so...the only thing that makes him significant is the power of his office...the Democrats will start to distance themselves from him pretty quickly (some already have) because the politically savvy Dems know that overall, Obummer is pretty unpopular and will likely be even more so after his wonderful Obamacare raises everybody's health care premiums (especially all those healthy millennials who will have to start paying through the nose so that old farts like you and I can have “inexpensive” health care insurance).   No…this is about ideology and likely also keeping the population from talking about immigration and the debt ceiling and defunding Obamacare.

They don't give the LEO's age but my suspicion for quite a while now is that the younger the cop the more likely it is that he/she will have the attitude that only "professionals" should be allowed to carry arms.   I don't know if you can chalk it up to the overall culture of our society today or the results of the anti-gun attidude of public schools (and those who teach in them) or even if those things are so interwined that they can't be separated???  I suppose it could also be the difference betweena cop with a lot of experience and one without out.   Whatever it is, I hope they properly punish this cop for his actions.

and the cop is now facing felony charges   “Put your hands right there or I’ll shoot you in the f**king back!”     LINK:  http://thelibertarianrepublic.com/cop-threatens-shoot-concealed-carry-owner-arrests-now-officer-facing-federal-lawsuit-video/#.Uivewj_Byxh

That's a beautiful collection!   I've never really been a revolver guy...I guess I love my autoloaders, especially 1911s too much.   I do have one, though, my "Dirty Harry" S&W Model 29 blued with full 8 3/8" barrel...and I do love it.

  So if I don't agree with you I'm "down with the nanny state"? Is it simply no longer possible to disagree with people on this forum without someone attaching unflattering, even insulting labels to others?   What I'm "down with" is following the Constitution and no one here has yet (or even attempted) to demonstrate how DUI checkpoints are actually unconstitutional and until someone does so and does so convincingly I see no reason to alter my position no matter what anyone calls me; all the bellyaching about "rights" notwithstanding.   I say again, it seems to me that what some of the posts in this and similar threads reflect is a general dislike and distrust and sometimes outright hatred of “government” and law enforcement...it has nothing to do with "rights" or the "constitutionality" of these checkpoints at all. Perhaps there are even some here who are so anti-governmetn that they aren't even comfortable with living within the Constitution the founders gave us...oh; they'll claim that they are but in reality, they truly don't care if DUI checkpoints are actually "constitutional" or not because they see even the slightes power exerted by the governmetn as evil.   If "compensation" is the proper way to handle such things as damage caused by a drunk driver prary tell how does a drunk driver who causes an accident and kills the driver of the other vehicle "compensate" the spouse of that driver or the driver's children or other loved ones? Can such a loss be defined in terms of coinage and if so, what's the going rate for a human life these days? Even if you reduce life to a $$$ figure, what is the chance that a drunk scumbag is going to have the financial wherewithall to pay such compensation and if he/she can't, what then?   It's a funny thing about rights...you can't let any one right or the rights of any one person trample the rights of others or they all become meaningless.