RobertNashville

Yes, and the State of Tennessee allows, under state-proscribed circumstances, people (ostensibly citizens and legal residents) to operate vehicles on public roadways because overall, that is good for society. However, it is still not a right, natural or otherwise.   When someone chooses to violate the rules the State has established then the State has the power and the right to revoke that privilege.

This is a law which I don't see why anyone would have a problem with it.   No one has a right to drive a vehicle at all and certainly not so while under the influence...anyone who does that is SCUM and is every bit as dangerous to innocent people (and just as much of a thug) as the thug that breaks into you house at 3AM.   I've lost too many people to these scum; I have less than ZERO sympathy left for any of them.

I know it's really tough to lose a friend or anyone we care about.   Of everything I've experienced in life, I think it's losing people I care about that is the most difficult to get through and a constant reminder that our time on this Earth, however long or shot it might be, has an ending that we all have to face.

It is both the law in Tennessee and not a violation of your right to be free of search - they "force" a blood draw by getting  a warrant to do so; same as if they wanted to search your car or your home and you didn't consent to the search.

I will actually be picking the Holding Their Own series back up with No. IV; "The Assent" (although I have IV and V already on my Kindle. I've been reading the 299 days series and am up to date with them (I finished "The 17th Irregulars" before starting "The Eye Of Moloch").  I love the 299 Days series and it seems very realistic to me; also I've no complaints at all with the length/content of each book...this will be a large collection when it's done and I think people are more than getting their money's worth. If I have a complaint with the 299 Days series (and most series for that matter) it would be that most of us, indeed most people, simply won't be able to do/prepare for a SHTF or TEOTWAWKI event the way most of the book's protagonists do...I mean; how many people have the financial ability to maintain a nice home in a gated community in a major city (somewhat necessitated by their profession/job) and also go and buy, free and clear, a very nice cabin on a peninsula that provides an ideal defensible location to ride out the end of the world? ;)

This is probably best listed as as a novel of political intrigue but I think it's worth mentioning here all the same.  I just finished reading "The Eye Of Moloch" by Glenn Beck which is the sequel to "The Overton Window".   What makes both of these novels worth reading, in my opinion, is that using documented facts/truth, Beck paints a pretty good picture of where America stands today and touches on many of the factors that could well degenerate into a SHTF event that requires us to go into survival mode.   Anyway; worth the read in my opinion....I'll probably go back now to the Joe Nobody "Holding Their Own" series since there is at least one new one since I left off! :)

My decision to offer a verbal warning, under the conditions I've already stated in previous posts, is my decision to make...how the thug(s) chooses to react to that warning, if given, it is their decision to make. Maybe they'll chose wisely and maybe they won't; that is not within my power to control.     Yes, they may come back some day.   Yes, they may go somewhere else and harm other innocents.   Both possibilities are regrettable; I don't want them to come back later or go somewhere else and possibly hurt others but those are only possibilities. It's also possible that the thug(s) decide that whatever they were after is not worth the risk of death so they move to honest work...or, they may find Jesus and become a pastor and help hundreds of other people.  There are many possibilities, certainly some more likely than others, but that's still all they are, possibilities.  I will not, at least not in a functioning society, employ deadly force against someone because of what they might do someday.

I think some are confusing pursuing an agenda with being "dumb"....I don't consider Obama to be "dumb"; just a very dangerous socialist, tin-plated dictator-want-a-be with delusions of godhood driven by an overwhelming desire to push an agenda and somehow be "relevant".

One word of encouragement I may be able to give is that my one and only bridge lasted at least 20 years  before it needed to be replaced and I probably could have gone longer if I wanted to chance it. Maybe my experience is unusual...I don't know.. but maybe yours would last longer than you think!   As to financing it, if you can't cash-flow it then a personal loan is probably the least costly option unless this "medical" CC has an unusually low interest rate.

  Of course, if someone breaks into my home it's reasonable (and mostly, although not automatically always legal under TN law) to assume my life is in danger and that danger gives me the legal authority to employ deadly force. But, engaging in a gunfight with one or more thugs is also dangerous to my life...to the lives of anyone in my home...and to the lives of my neighbors as well and it makes sense to me that it's better to avoid a gun battle if it can be avoided.   Employing deadly force may be the only option and if it is I will but I absolutely believe that the very best and safest outcome in a potentially deadly force situation is an outcome where no one has to discharge their weapon(s) at all and everyone walks away unharmed. To that end, I will give a verbal warning, if I can do so without increasing the danger to me/others, giving the thug(s) the opportunity to make a wise and rational decision and leave.   One of the rules of life I have lived by is "Your number one option for personal security is a lifelong commitment to avoidance, deterrence and de-escalation - original author unclear/unknown".   Maybe that mindset makes me an outcast here but if it does then it does.   Regards,

I guess changing what I said and pretending it's a quite so you can make fun if it plays well with some.  

  I've dodged nothing; you simply refuse to understand what I've said and if you don't understand it at this point, which you obviously don't then I don't know how to explain it to you any more plainly.

Not sure what textbook you are reading but it's one that, apparently, doesn't differentiate between such concepts/words as having a "duty"to retreat vs. taking advantage of an "opportunity" do do so.   Words mean things. You'll note that I've use the phrase "if the person  can do so safely" more than once...I purposely did not use the words such as "must" or "shall" and didn't for a reason; that reason being that such words as "must" and "shall" and "duty" have very different meanings; at least they used to.

Yes, you are.   I didn't and don't say that the victim has any sort of "duty" to retreat and most certainly didn't say such a duty should be imposed.  I don't think what I said is that unclear; there is a huge difference between saying that the victim should "disengage if he can" vs anything even remotely like saying that the victim should have a duty to retreat imposed on him. Frankly, I'm a little stunned that anyone would not disengage IF they could do so safely; even more stunning d at what some are willing to post about that concept on an open internet forum.

  No one should be worrying about the potential legal ramifications of using deadly force at the moment of imminent threat but they damn sure had better considered it BEFORE the threat.   Goal one is surviving a life or death encounter; goal two should be surviving the aftermath which is why a person needs to prepare for that aftermath, as much as possible, before the event.

I've said nothing remotely akin to being in favor of imposing a "duty to retreat" nor has Rob Pincus for that matter.

  If the criminal is still able to disengage (if given the opportunity) and/or if the victim can safely give ground I see no reason not to do so - it obviously depends on the dynamics of that specific situation. There is nothing "moral" about using deadly force against someone if you don't have to do so...there is nothing heroic or "right" about "standing your ground" if you can give ground safely and defuse the situation. Obviously, if you can't do so safely then you can't and I've not said otherwise or suggesting otherwise. The absolutely very best gunfight you can possibly have for you...for your loved ones...for innocents who may be nearby...is the one you were able to avoid.   Edited to avoid "confusion" of what I was trying to say.

I don't.  I made the decision some time ago to, along with my carry weapon (holstered) I keep a second (identical firearm) on my passenger seat in a holder so that all I have to do is reach over the the seat and have it in my hand.   Trying to draw while seated and especially if seat belted (and I have an armrest on my holster side that would also be in the way) simply takes too much time (plus the weapons serve as BUG to each other).

I've never seen a woman, even my niece when she was 10 (who even today at 14 is 5'2: and < 100lbs), not be able to rack any 1911 or Glock...they simply have to be taught how to apply leverage properly.   I suggest she concentrate on finding the firearm she is comfortable shooting/carrying (if carrying is in the cards) and then learn how to rack it.

This is a law that does not need to change...it's simple common sense. There are simply too many ways that discharging a firearm in a heavily populated area such as a city (especially in neighborhoods) puts others at risk.

Thank you but I don't need to watch a youtube video to understand the (actually mislabeled) "castle doctrine"...which totally misses the point I was making anyway.

I don't see the "story" here...I suspect it's safe to say that in most, if not all "cities" in Tennessee (at lest any that are large enough to actually be called a city) have banned the discharge of a firearm within the city limits for many, many decades (except of course for SD, etc.).   As to the "parking lot bill"...yeah...it was a bunch of nothing (thank you so very, very much Ramsey, Harwell and Haslam) except that in some instances, a "posted" parking lot is now meaningless as far as the posting goes.

The smart (and correct) move is ALWAYS to leave and get away from the threat if it can be done safely.   We are civilians; we are not law enforcement and we are not soldiers (if you want to act like LE or Military then join up; they can always use good people). Civilians have a basic human/god given/natural (take your pick) right to defend our lives IF they are in actual danger.  Anything beyond that is called murder and prosecuted as such and rightfully so.

I would always "warn" if I have a safe opportunity to do so...why wouldn't I??? I not armed just so I can shoot someone, especially if it can be avoided; if the home invader (or the thug in any given situation) can be warned and he decides to make an intelligent decision to disengage then so much the better. This is right in line with most every other training I've had including Massad Ayoob.

Chemical weapons, if indeed are being used, changes nothing. We have little strategic interest in Syria (other than, perhaps, its geographical relation to and possible threat to Israel which is our only true ally in the Middle East). More importantly, there is no "good" side here...neither the established government nor any of the rebel factions are ever going to be our "friends' and are fare more likely to simply kill us given half a chance.   We need to stay out of it; see who "wins" and try then try to establish at least some sort of working relationship with them for communication's sake if nothing else.