RobertNashville

I think you are being a little disingenuous and painting with too broad a brush.   Some on the left and some of the homosexual community may "want to destroy the nuclear family" but that hardly means that a majority want to.  I would suggest that while homosexual activists may hate and despise the "traditional" family, and marriage, the trouble makers no more speak for the majority of homosexuals or the left than the Westboro Baptist Church speaks for most  Christians.

I don't know but a large crowed gathering to jeer at and disrupt his funeral would certainly be a little poetic justice I would think.   Then again; I find disrespecting a funeral to be a pretty disgusting thing to do regardless of who is being buried so I don't plan to do so.

No...I watch that sometimes but I only have a finite amount of time I'm willing to devote to TV. :)

I'm not enjoying this season at all; not because it isn't well done, or well written or well acted; it is well done, well acted and well written...it's a hell of a show but the damn show depresses me every week.   I know...I know...such may be the "reality" (if you can use that word in a zombie disaster show) of things just getting worse and worse but I'm not sure I want to keep watching it. In a disaster scenario, one thing people need at least as much as water, food, shelter and each other is hope...I don't see any real hope in this show or in its characters anymore.

I'm neither happy or sad but I won't miss him or his hatred and I suspect the world will be a better place once he's assumed room temperature.

And THAT is why we're in this mess. Sorry if the truth hurts. Lp   What "mess" is that?   Are people or businesses free to express themselves or not express themselves ("take a stand" or "not take a stand") only if they hold the same opinion on an issue as "us"?   Do such concepts as liberty and freedom only apply to the those holding the "right opinion"?   That's kind of what it sounds like around here sometimes.

I see this no differently that I saw the Starbucks request (even though a lot of gun owners raked Starbucks over the coals for their decision).   Starbucks just wants to sell coffee; not be in the middle of the 2A/Open Carry issue.   Sam Adams just wants to sell bear; not be in the middle of the "homosexual rights" mess   If I owned Starbucks or Sam Adams I'd probably have made the same decisions.

I agree with the conclusion here.  Certainly, in the case of firearms; bigger really is better. Biggest handgun, biggest caliber...etc...etc. But lets face it, a handgun is still just a handgun and in the overall scheme of things, is not the best tool for stopping a bad guy (or several bad guys) meaning that if we all could carry a modern fighting rifle without getting investigated by police every five minutes (and arrested in many states) that rifle would be our first choice to carry!   I carry full-sized 45acp and/or compact 45 and/or a Ruger .38 LCR or sometimes just a Kimber Pepperblaster - it changes because the situation often dictates what and how I can carry something for self defense.

If a company (corporation, privately owned business, whatever) wants to "take a stand" against the homosexual lifestyle; I'm okay with that; it's their business.  If they want to take a stand FOR the homosexual lifestyle I'm okay with that too for the same reason.   Sam Adams likely just made a business decision to not participate in a St Patrick's day parade because the parade organizers don't want a pro-homosexual banner in their parade.  Every time a business makes a decision about...well...just about anything; they are going to anger some of their customers...it's up to the business to decide who they want to anger, not anger or anger the least.   I've no quarrel with Sam Adams before this nor do I have one now...I'm not much of a bear drinker but I've had a few Sam Adams and liked it and will likely do so in the future.

I may be way off base but I'm pretty sure that a "school" (essentially a branch of the government) does not have a right to ignore the constitution meaning that searching anyone's vehicle would still require a LEO with a warrant or at least some pretty good probable cause to be legal. A locker inside of a school building is one thing, the trunk of a privately owned vehicle is another.   Of course, to fight it would probably take a lot of $$$ that the kid/kid's family likely doesn't have.   Of course, none of that alters the fact that this "Zero Tolerance" Bovine Scatology is exactly that, BS. Parents need to get back control over their public schools or get their kids the hell out of them.

To me, a good shotgun is just something anyone who is serious about owning firearms should have...it's kind of like having at least "something" in a .22LR like a 10/22.    Whether it's a double barrel, over/under, pump, auto loader, in 10, 12, 16, or 20 ga doesn't matter -- you just ought to have one. :)   A lot of people mistakenly think it was the lever action rifle (1873 Winchester) that won the west or perhaps the Colt Peacemaker or but in actuality; it was the good 'old shotgun that most of the folks had and it's hard to get any more "American" than that!   I currently have three shotguns in my possession; the 12 ga pump I mentioned above (a Bnelli Super Nova Tactical); a Browning Cetori XS Pro Comp (over/under 12 ga) and, my unicorn; a 1965 Browning Sweet 16 that is almost as perfect as the day it left Belgium. My Benelli, while a terrific SD shotgun is not my primary SD weapon; I use a SCAR light for those duties but my Benelli is my back-up SD weapon depending on exactly where I am when I need one! My Over/under is my skeet gun and the Sweet 16...well...I'm just happy to have it.   The Sweet 16 was my unicorn because when my dad, uncle and I would go hunting my dad would take his beautiful Browning Auto Five (12 ga) and I was absolutely fascinated with that beautiful piece of firearm and mechanical art. Much to my dismay, he sold that gun to my uncle and it's now in the possession of my cousin (at least it's still in the family!). For many years I searched for an Auto Five but never found one in the condition I wanted. Then, about 10 years ago I had a chance to do some skeet shooting with a friend's Sweet 16 and I was hooked and was finally lucky enough (thanks to a great member here) to pick up the Sweet 16 his dad had owned but had barely shot.  So...now I have my "Auto Five", not exactly like the one dad had but close enough...not the most valuable firearm I own but easily the most valuable to me. Sorry to ramble on...I now return you to your regularly scheduled thread.

The first shotgun I hunted with was a 410...I wish I still had it but it's long gone. The first shotgun my dad bought for me was a single shot 12 ga that was a breach load (much like my sheet gun today).  I don't have it either unfortunately.

This story is out of Ohio; where I grew up - during harvest season and during the first week or two of hunting most of the kids in school were helping their family on the farm/hunting and kids who were driving often had their shotguns in the trunk of the car so that they could go hunting after school; no one ever thought a thing about it.

Yeah...they got a dangerous future soldier and public servant off the street and gave him a felony criminal record; all for having a pocket knife in his EMT kit. I feel so much safer now knowing he won't be roaming around with a dangerous pocket knife trying to help people.  :(

Sometimes, the ridiculousness of our public school systems simply astounds me although given the number of these stories every year I'm not sure why I'm astounded any more.  Either decent, logical, patriotic people with a functioning brain need to take back control of their school systems or people need to abandon them.   He’s 18 and Spent 13 Days in Jail for a Pocketknife in a School Parking Lot — and The Story Only Gets Crazier From There  

Thanks for the info...I'll read it!   Ultimately, our opinions really don't matter much I suppose; and certainly not as far as CT is concerned. ;)

It's my opinion that the original intent of the founders, and certainly of Madison, was that the States would agree to abide by the Constitution and were expected to protect the same rights as those enumerated in the U.S. Constitution. I submit that the reason why we have a 14th amendment was to settle this question but that the intent of the founders was that the rights of all people as identified in the Constitution would be protected regardless of which "State" they happened to be in at any given moment.   "The intention of the clause ("the citizens of each State shall be entitled to all privileges and immunities of citizens in the several States,") was to confer on the citizens of each State a general citizenship, and communicated all the privileges and immunities which a citizen of the same State would be entitled to under the same circumstances." Justice Joseph Story; Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States, vol. 2 (1883)   If you want to maintain that the States believed they could and did act as if that they had no legal obligation to follow the U.S. Constitution that they ratified and promised to follow then I'll grant you that. However, everything I've ever read on the Constitution leads me to believe that it was intended by the founders that each State would abide by the Constitution including the basic rights enumerated in and protected by the Constitution. The 14th amendment simply codified that original original intent.  

and you are old enough to remember when it was healthy. LOL

I'm not implying anything; we have our rights; and some of those rights are protected by law (well, at the federal level anyway and, if we are lucky, maybe at the State level); there is no misunderstanding on my part where our rights come from and if you think there is then you haven't been reading what I've written in this thread.   I guess we all need to stop this bellyaching about our "second amendment rights" since, per your opinion, the second amendment only applies at the federal level so if a State wants to make all civilian ownership of firearms illegal then they can do so (and someone should inform the Supreme Court since they've made a couple of real bonehead decisions in recent years; telling WDC and Chicago that they 2A applies to them!). Likewise we all need to stop harping about what the CT legislature is doing since they are only doing what they have the legal authority to do; let's just hope Tennessee doesn't follow suit or all our guns may be rendered "illegal" for us to possess.

I don't know...I'm old but I'm not THAT old so I don't have any first hand knowledge of them. ;)

To be clear, then, your position is that that the State of Connecticut (or any other State of the Union) can weaken, change, disregard or completely eliminate any of the rights enumerated in and protected by the U.S. Constitution because the U.S. Constitution has no power over the States; correct?   If so, then Connecticut, or Tennessee or any other State if it wanted to do so, has the legal authority and would not be violating the U.S. Constitution if it made all civilian ownership of firearms illegal and confiscated all firearms because the Second Amendment of the U.S. Constitution means nothing except to the federal government....do I have that right?   I suppose it also follows, then, that we all need to just stop talking about the second amendment as having any meaning or power at all except for when we are referring to federal legislation, rules and regulations.   If that isn't your position...if I don't have that right then please explain to me how I'm wrong because if, as your assert, the U.S. Constitution only limits what the central government can and cannot do then I don't see how anything Connecticut is doing could be considered "unconstitutional" or "wrong" on any level since CT is only doing what it has the legal authority to do.

Yuup...there were idiots even before Al Gore.

The 14th may have codified the issue but I read nothing in the Constitution, the Federalists Papers or any history of the Constitution, or history/intent of its authors that supports that idea that States ever had the legal authority to infringe on rights enumerated and protected by the Constitution. Every original State ratified and agreed to abide by the Constitution (as has every State that has joined the union since the original signatories); they didn't just agree to abide by the parts they liked and ignore the parts they didn't like - if, in fact, they could do so then it would render the Constitution meaningless and irrelevant.   I don't dispute that the individual states were sovereign nor that they were treated and looked at far differently than they are today but that sovereignty did not eliminate their responsibility and legal obligation to abide by the Constitution that they freely ratified; a Constitution that both recognizes and protects our basic human rights.

I quite vividly remember a couple of decades ago (at least) that the cover of either Time or Newsweek or Scientific American or Discovery (can't remember which publication but those were the ones I read regularly and had subscriptions to) was an artist's rendering showing NYC with an ocean liner floating by the Empire State Building because of the polar ice caps melting which would raise the ocean by some ungodly amount of feet.   That was suppose to happen by the year 2000 unless we did something immediately!   Well, I haven't been to NYC in quite a long time but as far as I know the ocean liners and other shipping still have to tie up at the docks. LOL

Sorry but your assertion is simply ridiculous as well as completely illogical.   No State has the legal authority to infringe on rights protected by the U.S. Constitution.  The state of Tennessee (nor any other State in the Union) cannot legally take away our rights to free speech...to practice (or not practice) q person's religion or to search our persons or our homes without a warrant or to refuse our right to a trial by jury or to take our property without remuneration. If you really believe that the State can then please offer up your documentation.   EDIT:  By the way, if States have the legal authority to pass laws that take away rights recognized in and specifically protected by the U.S. Constitution then why the hell is anyone here complaining about what's happening in Connecticut? Why do we even have these Connecticut threads???   If a "State" constitution trumps the U.S. Constitution then Connecticut has every right in the world to pass any firearm law it wishes right up to and including making ALL private ownership of firearms illegal and go door to door to search, without a warrant, any person or property to find the firearms and confiscate them and we ought to just shut up about it because it doesn't even affect us.