RobertNashville

I fully understand the job of the police; I don't expect or rely on them to protect me (although I suspect most would do so if they were there at the time).  My point is that if the "government' (as does the city of NYC) make it impossible for a citizen to avail him/herself of the best tool available to provide for their own protection then it seems to me that the city (i.e. police) then should have a duty to protect.    I know it will never happen...just railing at the obvious inequity of the situation for the people of NYC.

But most police, regardless of the "requirement" would not stand and watch someone get attacked and possibly killed...at least most say they would not.   More importantly, in a place like NYC where it's virtually impossible to legally even own, much less carry a firearm for protection; there ought to BE a duty to protect. The government (city) should not be allowed to have it both ways...denying people their best tools for protection while concurrently maintaining that they (the city) has no obligation to protect citizens seems to me to be, on its face, a violation of at least the 14thA.

I've no idea if Rubio will get the nomination...he may well do so because I'm sure the party powers like him; but real conservatives, I think, are done with him and won't vote for him (at least not in significant numbers).

I admit, there are plenty of important issues out there but there are only a handful of issues that are paramount for me; support for the 2A and the plain language it's written in, is one; willing to cut our spending to at least no more than revenues is another; securing our borders (with whatever it takes including our military) and getting the 20 million illegals out is another.   Anyone who is 1) willing to (or leaning toward) give amnesty to these invaders (and they ARE invaders; some with weapons; most without), and/or  2) who wants open borders is simply not worthy to be President of the United States (or hold office at all for that matter).   This invasion of uneducated masses (or diehard criminals) into our country WILL destroy the country as surely as an invading army and right now neither "party" wants to do a damn thing about it; I'm not sure what could be a higher priority.

If Rand is the best we can do then there is no hope for a turnaround (not that I have any hope left anyway).   Any politician that wants to hand out amnesty to millions of criminals and is willing to cuddle up with the likes of Alexander is a politician we don't need; we might just as well vote for Hillary in 2016 (or whoever the Democrats run) or not bother.   I was beat over the head here last year about how "Romney" wasn't good enough; am I now supposed to support another political hack just because he's more palatable than Romney and isn't Hillery?

You have, what seems to me, to be an odd definition of narcissism.   A narcissist has an inflated sense of their own importance and a deep need for admiration and attention - they believe they're superior to others and have little regard for other people. To me, that definition perfectly describes his actions. Now, I'm not psychologist either and I don't pretend to know the man well enough to make a diagnosis even if I were a psychologist but based on his actions, I believe my calling him a narcissist is certainly reasonable.   Then again, I suppose I could have just said that he believes the world revolves around him with the Earth's axis running through his ass and out the top of his head.

Well, I'm not willing to use "questionable" websites...if I can't get the programming I want without doing so then it's a no-go for me.

Most any lender is going to require an open collection/debt to be paid before they'll approve a mortgage.  If you are looking to buy a home soon then "fighting it", even if you don't owe it, is probably not worthwhile; especially so given the relatively small amount.   One thing you need to do before you pay anyone anything is to make absolutely sure "who" you owe the debt to. Just because someone is reporting it to the bureaus doesn't automatically they have own it or, if they don't own it, have the legal authority to collect on behalf of whoever does own the debt (there are plenty of collection agencies out there who will be happy to take your money even if they once did but no longer represent the debt owner).   When you know for sure who needs to be paid you can ask that, in return for payment in full, they also remove the account from your bureau reports. They have no obligation to do that but they might...it certainly won't hurt to ask.  Even if they don't remove it but only update it to show it's been paid, I doubt it will harm your bureau scores enough to disqualify you from obtaining your mortgage.

Your post is very true.   However, just because juries vary and we can't predict what a particular DA or jury will do, Chip's post above and Massad's class I took recently points to that fact that there are plenty of common sense things we can do to either avoid being charged at all (best outcome) or prevail in a trial should we be charged (next best outcome).   Zimmerman did have a jury that actually listened to the law and the facts and reached the only obvious conclusion but they were able to listen to the facts and the law and understand them in large part, because Zimmerman's attorneys and witnesses were able to properly educate the jury about the facts and explain Zimmerman's actions; even in spite of what many feel were Zimmerman's mistakes (like spilling his guts to police immediately after the shooting...a very dangerous thing to do).

Based on what I'm reading here, what I'm concluding is that it's possible to do away with cable or sat services and get "almost" all of the TV a person might want to see (and plenty of the TV that is actually worth watching) but it's not quite as convenient as actual cable/sat service.   For me, I know I like being able to record a program on Wednesday (like Top Shot All Stars, for example) that I'll watch tonight or sometime over the weekend (skipping through the commercials)...that kind of convenience is a bit hard to give up.  Other stuff I want to watch that may have been broadcast months or years ago, yeah...streaming that is no problem (assuming I know the program exists).   I guess I'm not ready to make the switch yet...I'm streaming a lot of shows, especially old movies, but I'm not quite ready to give up the convenience yet. ;)

Remember the original Dirty Harry movie where the dirtbag paid a guy to beat him up so he could blame it on Detective Harry Callihan (Clint Eastwood's character)?  Voldemort strikes me as the kind of guy who, if he could no longer elicit the kind of response from police that his narcissistic soul desires, would do something like that just so he could blame it on police.

Good post and I agree.   I do think, however, that complaining on this forum about people not following your particular, proscribed desire for a thread is a bit ridiculous...there is probably not a single thread on this forum that didn't stray off the intended course at one point or another.  Even more silly to complain, I think, is when the question posed doesn't seem to make much logical sense. ;)

This is almost unbelievable; but not quite....       I will admit that this is not a new concept; but it's still a very disappointing one and most especially so when it's in a city like NYC where it is virtually impossible to have a firearm for your own protection and now, as a matter of law, have no reason to expect that armed police will protect you either EVEN IF THEY ARE STANDING THERE watching you get stabbed (or shot, or beaten).     LINK: http://www.examiner.com/article/ruling-on-subway-stabbing-victim-highlights-gun-control-catch-22

That doesn't make the arrest unwarranted.  If he later proves to the satisfaction of the DA that he is not guilty of the charge(s) then they charges will be dropped; that's how the system is supposed to work.   He can sue all he wants but as has already been noted, ALL his garbage (and believe me, it's everywhere) that he's posted on forums and websites and his history of actions will be fair game for defending against his suit...he'll get ZERO as well he should. I can only hope he'll wind up with paying a large amounts of costs/fees for wasting the court's time.

what do you hunt? Anything specific?   I tend to hunt clay pigeons myself; usually easy to find and drop but they taste horrible no matter how long I cook them ;)

 It's odd how defensive and argumentative someone can get when, on the day they join the forum they ask a question, ostensibly looking for information and opinions, and then get bend out of shame because the information and opinions the person gets wasn't the information and opinions they were hoping for. :screwy:

Locked, taped doesn't matter...by his actions, lack of even the most basic of cooperation, his body armor and more; he provided all the probable cause they needed to open the case without waiting for a warrant.

Maybe we are talking two different things here but I can't see how anything above has anything to do with any lack of "due process" in his having his HCP revoked.  :shrug:   With regards to being "targeted because of who he was"; don't you suppose that the body armor and AR15 (even though it was in a "case" so that you could obviously tell it was an AR) had something to do with the 911 calls and being questioned by police?   Keep in mind that you do not have a right in Tennessee to carry a loaded firearm in public.   While you are allowed to carry a loaded handgun(s) in public if you have an HCP; even then, a LEO has the right to determine if you have a valid HCP if you are carrying and he knows it/sees it.   More importantly to this instance, whether with or without an HCP, you can't carry a loaded rifle/long gun in public so; when you walk down a city street, are wearing body armor and carrying what appears to be an AR rifle (whether it's "cased" or not) it will generate 911 calls (and SHOULD) and the police are going to respond and it really won't matter "who" you are.   Now, I agree that he had no legal obligation to answer questions but there is a difference between not answering questions and being purposely confrontational and uncooperative.  When you completely refuse to cooperate or answer any questions at all, coupled with the body armor, the apparent rifle and the location; I believe an officer has plenty of probable cause for a complete search of anything on him/is being carried.

Massad Ayoob covered these and a many other related topics in his MAS 20 class...probably the singly most useful two days I've ever spend in a classroom dealing with the use of deadly force. Ammunition was a significant discussion precisely for the reasons you cite above and it's made me decide that I need to "re-group" my PD ammo; I always use factory ammo but I need to be able to ensure that I can identify the specific ammo I am carrying at any given time in any of my carry weapons.

I don't know where you got this notion that a judge must be involved?  There is no such language in Constitution.  The Constitution, primarily under the 14th amendment, guarantees us due process, yes but due process, as a legal term is defined as a fundamental, constitutional guarantee that all legal proceedings will be fair and that one will be given notice of the proceedings and an opportunity to be heard before the government acts to take away one's life, liberty, or property and that the law will will not be unreasonable, arbitrary or capricious.   The process proscribed for revoking an HCP and seeking to have it reinstated most certainly meets that definition on its face. That he chose not to avail himself of the process is his problem and his problem alone; no one denied him due process except himself. I'm reasonably sure, had he followed the process, that he could have taken it to court at some point but it's up to him to take the appropriate actions so I don't really give a rat's ass that no judge has ruled because.

It was done with due process; precisely as the rules he (and we) agree to when we apply for and receive an HCP.   Claiming his freely made choice constitutes a lack of due process is like complaining that your cake didn't bake because you chose to not turn the oven on.

This has nothing to do with "rights" or being or not being "libertarian/Libertarian".   In Tennessee we do not have the RIGHT to carry a firearm on our person in public AT ALL (we can argue all day about how bassackwards that is but that is the way it is at the moment; arguing about it isn't going to change that simple fact).   In Tennessee, we are ALLOWED to carry a loaded handgun on our person in public with a carry permit and whether we like it or not, as I understand the original legislation, the intent was that the handgun be CONCEALED (allowing "open carry" was put into the legislation to avoid charges such as "brandishing a weapon" if our concealed firearm became unconcealed inadvertently).   We are NEVER allowed to carry a loaded long gun on our person in public.   So, when someone carries a loaded handgun openly and/or carries what is almost certainly/obviously a rifle in plain view the police will stop you and questions you almost 100% of the time; especially if the person carrying does so on the sidewalk of a city the size of Nashville because doing so will result in multiple 911 calls and the police will and have an obligation to respond.   When they do respond they will and have every right to question the person to determine if that person has the legal authority to carry the weapon being carried in the manner in which it is being carried; most certainly when the weapon in question is or appears to be a rifle.   Assuming this goes to trial, a judge will decide if searching this so-called case was justified under probable cause/without a warrant.  Wthe as*h**e refused to answer even basic questions such as "is this a rifle and is it loaded" I believe the police then have sufficient probable cause to ascertain if the weapon is a weapon and if it's loaded and had they not done so, they wouldn't be doing their job.

  It was done without due process?  Really??? I wasn't aware that the HCP holder who refuses to avail  him/herself of the proscribed process constituted not receiving due process.   I must have missed that memo; can you send me a copy (and a copy of the latest TPS report)?  ;)

No...he may be intelligent; he may have a high IQ, but he is stupid and a fool because his actions are stupid and foolish.

That's a good question. On the other hand, I'm not at all surprised given his record of winning friends and influencing people.