RobertNashville

Well, this girl should just be glad she wasn't driving a car, caused an accident and then, becasue of her illness she was unrespnsive to officer commands and assumed then to be drunk at which point she woudl have been  violently dragged her from the vehicle, handcuffed her behind her back and put facedown on pavement on a 100degree day whie the officer walked away leaving her that way.  :panic:  

Back in the mid 1960s; my fraternal grandfather had a professional geneaoligst trace our lineag back to 1600s Germany although the surname apparently has fairly ancicent German orgins going back much further.  As the story goes, my ancerstors either were a "noble" house or at least considered themseves to be.   Anyway, as the story goes, one of my ancestors married a "common girl" and the family patriarks kicked him and his new bride out of Germany...they came here and settled in Virginia no long after the Revolution.  There are two spellings of my surname (no one is 100% sure which one is the most correct) and there are approximately 100,000 peple in the country wiht my surname.   At the end of WW2 my father stayed in Germany as part of the occupation army (much to the dismay of my Mother) and apparently was able to track down some of the family that still live there.

That's right, no one has which makes we wonder why you woruld bring it up other than to be ridiculous.  :shrug:   But, I sort of consider this whole question to be pretty ridicuulous; even more ridiculous that  you don't like that people aren't playing along by limiting themselves to your specific paramaters.  Perhaps somethng a bit more realistic would have generated better responses???   Realistic is that my "get home bag" will contain the weapons and ammunition I have with me every time I leave my home (which does not include a 50BMG)...my "bug out bag" should I be unfortunate enough that i hve to use it will likely include the exact same weapons and ammuniton with the addition of one fo the rifles/ammunition I have at home...that rifle won't be a 50BMG either and it won't be limited to only one additional firearm either.

It seems to me folks are spending an inordinate amount of time blaming (cops, parents, etc., etc.) when the time would be better spent beign glad that no one was hurt when clearly, shomeone chould have been.   :shrug:

Excellent advice.   Personally, for many reasons, I'm not planning on bugging out because, although there are other considerations as well, I don't have a bug out location to go to.  I am certain that I and some of my neighbors would be far better off to work together rather than leaving (of course, in the event of a disaster that required leaving the area that's a different situation).   One of the things I decided to do a while ago was to decided just what calibers of weapons I wanted and then started parring down - this allowed me to concentrate my resources on just a couple of primary calibers.   I like the 22LR for plinking and I can concede some advantages for very specific purposes but for the most part, whether pistol or long gun, I want the most "gun" I can have.

No one here was there so while we can speculate all day long that there may or may have been another way to handle it we certainly don't know that and at least this way was effective - this officer may well have saved that girl's life.   Getting tasered is certainly not fun but it's better than getting hit by a 3,000 vehicle.

I know a few LEOs as well and what they are telling me is that many of the younger cops (those just joining the force or have joined in recent years) have a very different view of an armed citizenry. These cops seem to feel that only "professionals" should have weapons and in many cases, they personally don't like firearms at all.   I'm sure there are plenty of exceptions and hopefully, for those who do feel that way, a few years of duty may change their minds but in any case, I think we all have to look at each LEO individually because being a LEO is probably no real guarantee either way of how they feel about citizens and their 2A rights.

There is no reason to answer, especially when you "add to the scenario"; something I knew a while ago but forgot this morning when chose to respond to post #24 in the first place.

Anybody following this thread for survival ideas deserves what they get!  ;)   Every time I see a Prius all I can think of is a giant virginal. :rofl:

So am I...you excoriated Zimmerman for leaving his truck so he could see where the thug-want-a-be went and could inform police (and then defending his life when he was violently assaulted) yet you seem to have no problem with shop keeps running through malls, and through parking lots and engaging gun fights.

  Yes I am selective and I would hope anyone who uses a firearm to protect themselves, especially those who carry in public, is also selective. I'm all for citizens protecting their lives and the lives of other innocent people; I'm just supportive of people chasing thugs through a shopping center or down a sidewalk or through a parking lot while discharging their firearms to do it - doing that kind of #### seems more like wanting to be a mall-ninja than a desire to protect life.   I'd have no complaints or issues with the actions of the store manager in the earlier instance or the store owner in this instance using deadly force during the time the threat exists (whether the thug was wearing or not wearing a hoodie and/or looking or not looking suspicious) because it's while the threat exists that a citizen has the legal authority to use deadly force.  Where I get selective is when the threat is gone because once the threat is gone (which is generally albeit it not always the case) when the thug is in the process of running away, that authority is also gone.

You are welcome to your opinion.   My opinion is that your opinion is pretty sad.   Miracles happen every day; very few people ever realize or notice them.

Oh you can shoot the SOB/thief all day long and twice on Sunday (so long as you are prepared to defend yourself from a murder charge).  ;)

Some memories seem to be a bit selective.   In a four page thread I was referring to, all we knew for most of the pages (at least the first three) was that a store manager, after the robbery was over and the thug had left the store and was running away, followed said thug into the parking lot and "shot him in the back" (per the headline). In the original news story on which the thread was based, there was no info presented that the thug may have fired his weapon at all, first or otherwise yet that didn't stop the bashing of me for suggesting that the manager following the thug after he had disengaged and was running away was being stupid and reckless and needlessly endangering anyone who was in the parking lot when the gunfire started.   The case in this thread is at least similar and maybe very similar - a store owner chases fleeing thug into parking lot and store owner discharges his weapon (apparently no fire from the thug); one difference in this case is that the thug is still alive and apparently the shots fired by the store owner were warning shots (or perhaps just poor marksmanship???).   In any case, in the prior thread and in this one, Tennessee law only allows the use of deadly force when the victim has a reasonable fear for his life and/or of grave bodily injury; a fleeing thug, even an armed one, no longer presents a reasonable threat of death/injury once he is running away. At that point, the threat is over and so is any justification for using deadly force.   Following a fleeing thug into a parking lot is stupid and reckless (the warning shots only compounding the stupidity and recklessness).

It wasn't all that long ago in another thread (maybe a couple of months at most) that a robber was shot at while he was fleeing from the scene through the parking lot of the store he had robbed (or tried to rob)...I was roundly, even vehemently criticized for maintaining that the citizen who fired at the fleeing thug was reckless and endangering innocent bystanders and more importantly, no longer had the legal right to employ deadly force.   Yet, in this thread, the consensus seems to be that this citizen was reckless in firing at the fleeing thug.     Maybe there is some pertinent fact in this case that wasn't there in the other but I don't think so. :shrug:

What's "accurate" is to take note that you continue to fail to offer up the clause in the Constitution or the rules of the Congress (that stem from said Constitution) to support your "belief" that the bill in question couldn't be proposed and voted on because it was "immoral" and "illegitimate"; apparently just so you can denigrate Corker and Alexander for actually doing the right thing for a change. It seems to me that you are quite willing to ignore the Constitution when it suits you to do so (even while concurrently claiming you honor it).  I would suggest that both Corker and Alexander do enough things worthy of disdain. I would also suggest that many folks, me for sure anyway, find it a bit childish of you to bash them for this when they actually did the right thing.   To answer your earlier inquiries, yes, Chucktshoes, I know (and for the record, belief has nothing to do with it) that the Constitution merely recognizes our natural rights as sentient beings. I know that these rights are ours by nature and not provided to us by the government or by a constitution.  I know that the Constitution is there to protect us and our rights and protect us from said government. What you need to know and apparently fail to or refuse to understand is that absolutely nothing I just said in the preceding three sentences has anything to do with the bill in question or how it was processed. The bill was properly introduced, properly brought to the floor and properly defeated all IAW the Constitution and the rules of the Senate and that Corker and Alexander did precisely the right thing in voting to get the bill to the floor and then helping to defeat it.   With that said, I'm done...I see no reason or benefit to continuing this so I'm going to "unfollow' the thread and move on and enjoy a rare weekend "off".

I find these threads somewhat tiresome (albeit a bit amusing) but yes, I've noticed that some will extol the virtues of the free market at other times but then complain when it impacts them negatively. There is always a little bit of pain for someone when market conditions change; some win and some lose but it's usually those who don't panic and have some patience who are the least affected.   I want ammunition prices to come down as much as anyone; I'd also like to see $1.89/gallon for gasoline but I suspect $5 is the more likely future; perhaps even $10/$20/$30 per gallon (when gasoline can be found) when considering the current dictator-want-a-be that's in office and the very real possibility of Egypt decaying into total anarchy but back to the topic at hand...   The free market takes care of itself almost 100% of the time; when it doesn't it's usually because of the government stepping in to "help"...I'm sorry if some folks don't have enough (or as much as they want) ammunition right now or can't afford to buy at the prices it's being offered for but I don't see how constantly complaining about it is going to help much. Moreover, like gasoline, we may never again see ammunition prices return to the levels they were a year or two ago and we may just have to learn to live with that.

I don’t care if you reject it or not; it doesn't change anything.     Nope; it doesn’t. Nothing in the Constitution as originally written or in its amendments, the second amendment included, prevents a Senator from proposing, introducing or voting on any bill they want to propose, introduce or vote on. In fact, bills being proposed, introduced and voted on is precisely how it supposed to work. If you think there is such wording in the Constitution or the rules of the Congress that flow from it, please point it out. Until you can, I doubly-don't care that you reject my premise.   If you don’t like the bill then you make your opinions known to your Senators…if they don’t listen then you seek to replace them at the next opportunity. That’s how the government was laid out; your feelings about any particular bill notwithstanding.   You won't hear me say this very often but I'll say it again, in this instance, Corker and Alexander did precisely the right thing.

Just for the record, I happen to hate Walmart but it has zero to do with their ammunition.   I've had to deal with them on a professional level on behalf of some of the companies they've screwed over with their business practices - since that time I swore I would never buy another thing from them again.   I also won't go to a Walmart because of the danger!   For every three incidences I read about somebody getting shot or mugged or carjacked one of the three has happened either inside a Walmart or in their parking lot; I'm not going to put my life in danger to save three cents on a pound of ribeye.  ;)

I donated...I hope it this thing comes about; sounds like a great idea to me!

The lens I view it through are the lenses in my eyes...I READ it and nothing I've read indicates to me that the bill in question could not be introduced, voted on and defeated which is all that happened here.  If you get your panties in a wad over just the procedural process in Congress I can't help but wonder what happens to you when they actually pass a horrible bill.  In any case, until you can point to a clause in the Constitution or the rules of the Congress that says otherwise, your feelings about whether the bill was "illegitimate" and "immoral" is irrelevant.

When it comes to matters of our government and how it operates, I look to the Constitution; not what you "feel" is illegitimate and immoral". Just because you don't like the fact that the bill was introduced at all may be meaningful to you but has nothing to do with the proper operation of the Congress.  Feinstein (or whoever it was) had every right to introduce the bill at which point, getting it to the floor and then defeating it in an up or down vote was precisely the right thing to do.  In fact, I wish it would happen that way all the time...it's the shenanigans that keep bills from getting an up or down vote that should be causing heartburn in those who believe that the Constitution is supposed to be followed and not just printed out and hung on the walls of Congress.   Thanks for clarifying your comments...at least now I know the insults were absolutely intentional.

I understand.  I have all but given up hope that there will be any change regardless of who votes for whom. However the logical (or maybe just hopeful) part of me knows that voting for a party that can't even get 1% of vote is certainly not going to make the Republicans change their ways or put forth better candidates.   Now I can hear people thinking right now that "if all those conservative Republicans and conservative independents would just see the light and come over to the Libertarian party (or some other third-party) then the Republicans would  have to take notice of that".  The problem with that line of thought is that there is simply no reason to think that enough conservative Republicans/independents will ever do that and if they did do that; all they would effectively do is split the Republican/conservative-leaning vote so much that the Democrats will just keep winning election after election - one thing I do know with absolutely clarity and certainty; no Democrat in the last century (except perhaps JFK) has or is going to do make any positive changes or move the country back to a point where the Constitution is honored and obeyed.

Sounded pretty accusatory to me; especially taking the rest of your post into consideration...if that wasn't your intent then you have a odd way of starting a conversation with someone you want to buy ammo from.  :shrug:

You want to discuss the effectiveness of voting for a third party, fine...discuss it. You want to argue with or disagree with what I said then fine...argue it but at least do so directly and quoting me accurately,