RobertNashville

You can look at it that way if you wish but to claim that any one person actually "represents" any group as large as the Republican Party and the actual views of its members then you are simply ignoring common sense to arrive at the narrative you want. Although some may come closer than other, I've yet to see any candidate from any party that was a perfect candidate or that could truly represent all the views of everyone in an entire party of that might encompass hundreds of thousands of members.   As to your logic about Republicans not voting for "him or his ilk", who, pray tell, is the "rank and file" Republicans (or those who generally vote Republican) supposed to support if not the Republican candidate?  As much as you want there to be there hasn't been any other viable choice other than the Republican or Democrat since at least the mid 1800s.

No, he and his ilk represent a component of the Republican party but not the entire party.  There is another faction vying for control led by the likes of Paul and Cruize, etc...claiming that McCain represents the entire party is simply not accurate.   As to last election, it was a lot more than just "not wanting the Democrats to win the Superbowl"...we haven't even seen the half of the damage Obama will do before he leaves office...once Obamacare kicks in and he appoints a couple of justices to the Supreme Court you might as well kiss any semblance of the Constitution being meaningful goodby; that will be Obama's true legacy and it's a legacy that will be felt for decades. That's why it was worth voting for Romney.   Alas, elections have consequences and we are going to face some bad ones.

Yes they do and only to the State of Tennessee.

There is one, it's called the Tennessee State Guard which traces its roots back to the Revolutionary War.   It's primary roles today is disaster relief, including medical and chaplain units, communication and security.  A lot of folks don't give it much credit either because we don't meet in secret (or run around a woods playing Revolutionary War, the squeal) or because are mission is not to be a combat force...we don't drive tanks, carry M16s/M4s, throw grenades or mortars but we have plenty of members who know how to do those things - we follow U.S. Army guidelines and the overwhelming majority of members are prior military (many have retired from the active military).   These men (and women) come together to train and provide services because they have a burning desire to serve and generally have a view of our current government that is in line with what the founders intended.

No...no....no....he is a "White-Hispanic Racist"!

I have seen covers advertized that are supposed to defete "red light cameras"; but I don't believe they work..   Here is a link to a sight I've come to trust for info: http://radartest.com/Red-Light-Camera-Countermeasures-Test.asp   I think this kind of "surveillance" is something we just have to live with unless enough people can get together and pass legislation that outlaw such technology. I have mixed feelings about it anyway; while I don't "like" this kind of invasion of our privacy, it IS illegal to run a red light...it's illegal to steel a car, or be a felon who has broken his parole and this kind of technology can do a lot of good to apprehend those guilty of those things. Also, we have no natural right to drive a vehicle on the public roadway.  

I'm not sure I want to belong to any organization like this that anyone else knows about. ;)

Those sheep have rights too including the right to vote and to put pressure on their elected officials...doing things we know will scare them and cause them to react negatively doesn't do the firearms community any favors at all and most certainly will not help us restore that rights WE have let be infringed.   It's wonderful to say we have the "right" to do this or that but there is also a reality we have to live in that we ignore to our own detriment.

Well, I'm not and wasn't talking about "Tennessee"; every state is different with regards to weed; it was just an example.  As far as Tennessee goes, I think you are incorrect; at least to some extent...   Maybe I'm wrong but this all seems to hing on "1/2 oz" which tells me that more than 1/2 oz. is a felony.     I'd bet a little research would reveal that half of what are called "crimes" today, including many, many felonies were not ever considered crimes at all in the 16th and 17th centuries. We've had prisons in this country both before the revolution and after; while they may have executed more often in the late 1700's and 1800's I don't accept that such punishment was nearly as frequent or liberally applied as you seem to be indicating.  More to the point, there was NO restriction on the right to bear arms for these criminals once they had taken their punishment; that concept is a fairly recent one.     If the are given parole and complete it successfully that IS completing their sentence. I'm fine with no on getting parole but aren't you the one above who said that was unreasonable?   I'm fine with NEVER letting out of jail anyone who has committed a serious, violent crime and the only thing that keeps our society from doing that is a lack of will to do so.   Are you in favor of background checks for firearm purchases or do you think they should be eliminated?

No doubt his Facebook page was sanitized immediately to make him look like a sweet little angel.   Nah....what am I saying, no one would do that!!!

I'm not saying anything about judging or not judging someone based on or only on his military service; I'm simply saying that honorable military service should always be honored and respected.  To not do so is, in my opinion, an affront to all veterans and their service.

I understand the purpose of the thread; I was responding to a specific statement in a specific post.

Irrelevant...I'm not suggesting that the laws be changed to allow violent felons should be able to legally own firearms; only that it should actually be a moot point in that such felons shouldn't be out on the street in the first place.   That's an assertion not supported by the facts and it's an assertion I don't accept.   Someone being caught with one oz of weed (instead of three-quarters of an oz) doesn't suddenly make their "crime" so damaging that they shouldn't be trusted with a firearm (frankly, there are quite a few folks that were it up to me I wouldn't trust them with a firearm but they have as much right to arms as I do). Likewise, I don't think that someone who once wrote a few bad checks or embezzled a few hundred dollars or committed any of the other myriad crimes that used to be misdemeanors but now can easily constitute felonies or crimes they committed in their youth but have lived a solid life for years after that should be denied arms.   Perhaps most pertinent, I very seriously doubt that our founders would ever have envisioned removing basic natural rights from someone forever for what are relatively minor criminal violations. Or to put it another way...if a convicted criminal should lose his right to arms forever, why should he ever again be able to enjoy any rights? Why should he be allowed have freedom of speech or freedom of religion or allow him to own property or to enjoy any of the other natural rights we obstinately believe a person has and that the Constitution protects?   I suppose what I'm saying is that the right to arms is so basic to being a free man I see no logic in saying a man can have other natural rights but not that one.    As to "most of them never complete their sentence" I'm not sure what you mean...unless they escape from prison and/or break parole then they do complete their sentence - to whatever extent the court decides is appropriate.  I'm not suggesting that we make wholesale changes to the law regarding felons and weapons but there is a hell of lot of room for improvement.   I now return the thread to its original subject - carry on.

There is a difference between someone who writes multiple checks with the intent of defrauding the recipients compared to someone who is simply sloppy at keeping up with their balances. However, intentional or unintentional isn't the point; as I suspect you know given that you and I have had this discussion before. There is a difference between a rapist or a murderer or and armed robber who should likely be in jail until he dies vs someone who wrote some bad checks or had a couple of ounces of weed and has completed his sentence. The rapist should never be allowed to be in society again making his "right" to own arms moot.  The person who's crime was nonviolent at all and who has completed a reasonable sentence should, in my opinion, have all his rights restored.

Makes perfect sense to me.   The only truly logical reason to deny convicted felons the right to bear arms is if by doing so they would be a danger to society but felons who are a danger to society/other people should not be out of prison and allowed to be part of society in the first place The fact that they are out of prison is a failure of the system.   Other "felons" who's crimes had nothing to do with violence/physical harm/firearms, etc and who truly are no longer a danger to society should have their rights restored to the same level as all other citizens.  We tend to think of felonies as only serious, violent crimes (rape, murder, etc) but I think we should take into consideration that many otherwise relatively minor offenses can "become" felonies...pass a few bad checks, even if it was unintentional and you may well be convicted of a felony...should that person forever lose his right to arms (or to vote, etc.) forever, even after long since completing his/her sentence?   I'm not suggesting that all crimes should be ignored but I think there is room in our current system to make some changes.

Sorry but I can't agree with that, at least not totally.   One of my best friends is about as liberal of a Democrat as exists but he volunteered for service and wore the uniform in Vietnam, was combat wounded and still carries some of the shrapnel in his body 40 years later.  He and I will never agree politically but I will never disrespect his service. It is very, very rare that I agree with McCain on politics/issues of the day but I will never disrespect his service unless he does something specifically to disrespect it himself (such as, in my opinion, ketchup man Kerry did after his service).  I can detest a man's politics/issues on positions without detesting the man or his honorable military service.   There are tens of thousands of veterans out there who have had their lives horribly changed because of their service; who will carry scars (some visible and some not so visible) for the rest of their lives; do we dismiss them as well if their politics don't match up with our own?

I'm sure it depends on the job...I've never had a job that they didn't run a criminal background check; just have never been asked about being charged; only convicted.   I'm sure asking about being charged is usual for a job in law enforcement or that required a high govt security clearance.

Mine was initially denied because of a "charge" from over 20 years before...I had to obtain documents to show that everything was dismissed.  As is usual when government bureaucrats are involved, they were very efficient in recording the "charge" but seemed to lack any ability to show that the charges were dismissed almost the same time there were made...makes me wonder just how many other folks have something like that hanging over their head and don't even know it because no one has had a reason to look???   Funny thing is, even the background check you can buy on the internet to check up on someone (even to check your owe record) shows it correctly for me yet the TBI can't seem to find that info on their own. :shrug:

???  Is ammo still hard to come by for most or many folks or is it just particular stores like Walmart that hasn't had it?   I buy 308, 300 Win Mag, 5.56, 45ACP and 10MM and 22LR and while I haven't seen stocks overflowing with any of those, I really haven't had all that much trouble finding anything except the 22LR and even that seems to have gotten better since late spring. Admittedly, prices have been higher than a year ago but it seems to me that's stabilized as well.

I've filled out a lot of job applications in my life; even taken a polygraph or two...I can't recall an application where I was asked about being "charged" with anything of any degree but probably all of them asked if I had ever been convicted of a crime other than a minor traffic ticket, etc. Other than enlisting (which did involve nuclear missiles) I haven't applied for jobs that involved weapons or controlled substances...still, I've held jobs where they definitely would not want anyone with a criminal background.  :shrug:

Oh well...so teh slide to complete idiocy continues...stories like this are getting so common that I have trouble even careing any more.   I'm just sort of shttinghere  :popcorn:   waiting for the final shoe to drop.

For me, I will be buying another Nighthawk Custom; probably a Talon just like the one I just traded away a few weeks ago - once you get into that level of 1911s it's almost impossible to say one it truly better than the other but I guess I'd give my nod to Nighthawk Custom   I had an Ed Brown Executive Targer; sold it...don't really miss it. Not saying it wasn't a great 1911 but I wasn't all that impressed with it.   I have a Wilson Combat CQB and it's a phenominal 1911; same with my Les Bare Thunder Ranch (which has the most incredibly light and smooth trigger I've ever had on any weapon)   There are good reasons for buying a 1911 with a particular name on the side but it's not really the name...these firearms are pieces of mechanical art built by some of the best gunsmiths, not just in the area but in the country plus you have a major company behind you when you need it.   .

Guys, if you care about our nation's history you are only doing a disservice to yourself to avoid the Smithsonian.  I've been to most of the great museums in the world and there simply is nothing else like it anywhere.  You could spend days just in the Museum of American History alone not to mention the two Air and Space Museums, and the Museum of Natural History.  Combine that with the National Archives and the Library of Congress and a person could spend his/her life just exploring those places and never be exposed to it all.   I'm not discounting all the other places in the country of historical significance but honestly, if our history is important to you; go to DC and at least take in the Museum of American History.

If they get it it's actually supposed to go into an as yet unbuilt facility dedicated to African-Americans but who knows...they have to get it first. It might well just go into storage as something they feel is worth keeping preserved.

I think that's a bit unfair or at least, premature.   Overall, the Smithsonian is one of the greatest institutions in the world and while it gets what to us is a lot of money from the government to operate, it has it's own endowment and a lot of private contributors.  The institution has made some PC mistakes over the years but what organization hasn't?   I guess what I'm saying is that I'm wiling to wait to see what they actually do with this thing (if they get it) before I'm going to throw the entire Smithsonian under the bus.