RobertNashville

  So you are saying that the federal government police (FBI) cannot enter my home without a warrant or probable cause or legally force me to testify and incriminate myself but the the Tennessee Highway Patrol or TBI could?  Really?   Can Tennessee outlaw all religion, religious expression and make attending any sort of religious service illegal? Confiscate property with no remuneration? The very concept that our "natural rights" only exist at the federal level is an oxymoron - our natural rights (or God-given rights as I would prefer) are ALWAYS our rights; if they aren't then we might as well just turn in our guns, bibles and pick up our little red books.

  I don't doubt that returning to what our constitution says; to actually limiting ALL government to that document would be a very difficult journey but in your prior statement you didn't say anything about it simply being "difficult"; you said "...I believe in States Rights and believe they trump the 2nd amendment".   I said and I say categorically that such a statement is absolutely wrong.  It's wrong, not because of being or not being a "realists"...not because it would be difficult to return to the Constitution...it's just plain wrong!  No "State" has the legal right to just ignore the U.S. Constitution nor any other rights enumerated in or protections guaranteed within the U.S. Constitution.   If a State could do so; if TN could legally ignore the second amendment protection of our right to keep and bear arms then it can also ignore protections about self-incrimination or being free of unreasonable search and seizure or any other basic, natural right we have. So I ask you; do you believe that the state of Tennessee can trump our right to be free of unreasonable search and seizure?  Do you believe they can compel someone to offer testimony that would incriminate the person testifying?  Can they refuse to let a person being questioned by police the right to consult an attorney before answering questions?  I ask because if you truly believe that a state can ignore the second amendment I fail to see what would prevent them from ignoring the entire U.S. Constitution and everything in it.   As to the current legislation to "allow" us "Constitutional Carry' (legislation that will go absolutely nowhere) we shouldn't need "legislation" to allow us exercise a natural right, in this case, keep and bear arms...such legislation is as much an affront to liberty and freedom as it would be if we needed to pass legislation that allowed us to hold certain opinions.

What was passed is a crap bill that slightly improves the crap bill passed and effective last year.   Whether it really means anything to any particular person will depend entirely on that person's employer.

I think that fact that "he wont' go away" has as much to to with the news outlets (and people who refuse to let it drop) as it does Zimmerman himself. He's probably just trying to generate some income but I suspect almost everything he does is going to generate a "news story" and then someone will post it here. ;) As you noted above, except for the attempt to make this a "race" killing Zimmerman and Martin would have been quickly forgotten after the trial (assuming it ever got to be national news in the first place).

You can believe what you want but it doesn't really matter...12 people who had no dog in the fight and heard ALL the evidence and testimony (and likely more than any of us armchair quarterbacks saw) decided that his use of deadly force was justified.

I have a Benelli 12 ga pump and I only load buckshot.  It's not my preferred "go to" weapon but it's there!

What does the thug's age have to do with anything?   If I'm in imminent danger of being killed or serious physical harm then I'm going to stop the threat with deadly force - what age the perpetrator happens to be is immaterial...whether he's 10 years old or 110.

Punishing criminals predates the Constitution and there is nothing in the Constitution that would prevent the same nor any indication from the founders that they intended not to punish criminals. As to the mentally incompetent/insane I think we have an understanding of such issues than épée did hundreds of years ago. I'm not suggesting that we return to the exact same methods as I think, as a society, we can address such issues in a more humane fashion. However, I think the basic concepts should be followed.

I used to vacation in upstate NY (Fulton lake chain and Finger Lakes regions) and it truly is incredibly beautiful country. Tennessee is a pretty great place to be (I moved here from Ohio in late '96 and have never regretted it).   Welcome to Tennessee and to TGO!

  Sorry but I don't agree....only our pansy-ass, bleeding heart society the doesn't want to punish criminals or "offend" certain groups (such as the mentally incompetent) would make that a concern; that needs to change too.   If someone has proven himself/herself to be a criminal and commits crimes (with or without a firearm) that is serious enough that they should not be allowed to have arms then they should be in jail...PERIOD.   People who are mentally ill; too mentally ill or insane that they should be prohibited from possessing arms then they should not be walking among us but should be institutionalized in a safe, controlled environment.   Everyone else SHOULD be allowed to keep and bear arms (as to "age" that should be up to their parent or legal guardian; not the government).   Frankly, if we really locked up criminals and controlled the mentally incompetent there would be a hell of a lot less reason for us to even need to carry at all since it's the criminal element and the nutcases that actually cause 99.99% of the problems that make it needful for us to carry.   More to the point, I really don't care...I believe we should be following the Constitution.  

And I've never hidden the fact that in my opinion, your opinion is absolutely wrong on that point. The United States Constitution is the supreme law of the land - NO GOVERNMENTAL ENTITY, be it a county, city, State or the federal government should be passing or enforcing ANY laws that violate the constitution. Only the laziness and stupidity of the people have allowed it to be otherwise.

If I might elaborate on what SWJewellTN is saying here...I think some are forgetting that these laws, "unconstitutional" in our opinion or not, have been properly passed by a legislature and put into place and law sworn law enforcement officers have both a duty and an obligation to enforce them regardless of their personal opinion.   Now, if an officer really has a problem of conscious with a particular law and decides to not enforce AND is willing to face the consequences then he/she could certainly do that but to expect officers to do so wholesale is, I think, rather ridiculous.   The place to address "unconstitutional" laws is in a legislature and/or the courts...not on the street with a LEO...LEOs are NOT the problem here...WE ARE THE PROBLEM because WE'VE let legislatures pass these laws in the first place.

Has nothing to do with my point. ALL GUN CONTROL LAWS are unconstitutional in my opinion, according to the second amendment, regardless of what percentage of the population they apply to including the dun control laws we have here in TN.   There is simply no logic IN being upset at what the state of CT is doing while we sit on our asses here in TN and put up with what we have here. We should at least be equally outraged and equally willing to do something about them. But of course, we aren't...THAT was my point.

Maybe folks are falling victim to Hollywood special effects? At lest of the explosions I've seen in real life they've never been as impressive as what we see in the movies!   Folks are so used to seeing gigantic explosions with huge fireballs and such that unless you've actually handled things that go boom (like dynamite) it's probably easy to overestimate the explosive power of a a given amount.

Let me ask you a question (and anyone else here who might want to answer), that I've posed to several people on other various sites...   We have "unconstitutional" firearm relates laws right here in Tennessee yet they get enforced all the time; not the least of which is that carrying a loaded weapon on one's person without a HCP is a crime.   So...why does it make sense for anyone here (on this forum) who don't live in CT to believe that LEOs in CT shouldn't enforce their "unconstitutional" gun laws but we don't demand the exact same of LEOs in TN?  Shouldn't we all refuse to comply...march on Legislative Plaza?

A better question is why in the world does anybody care?

At this point, I'm not  believeing any of hte "news" on what's happening in CT untile it happens and has multiple sources for the story. Otherwies, I'll chalk it up as hogwash.

well that could never work here. To have people of that quality you would have to require basic intelligence and background checks and I think we all know three quarters of the TSA would never make it! ;)

I truly do hate the TSA. Because of them I avoid flying just as much as I possibly can - today I will drive on trips that in previous years I would've flown gladly. That said, I also understand that the country really does need to protect airline travel - there are evil people out there who would gladly use planes to terrorize and kill us. So boys and girls, what would you propose we have in place of the TSA or, what would you change about the organization to make it more palatable? The Israelies seem to do a good job but I'm not sure that their methods would garner any less complaints from Americans than the TSA does now.

Do you really believe that if some of the population rise up against the government that the government would have any compunction about using the military to put down the rebellion and would ignore any law that is supposed to prevent that? The government already in forces and doesn't enforce whatever walls chooses; I don't see why a situation involving domestic terrorists would be any different at all.

This is where things get rather complicated. You see, it really isn't just the politicians who want to fundamentally change the country; it's also a majority or at least a near majority of citizens who agree with them here "that" group grows larger every day. Now before everyone starts reminding me, I realized a rather small percentage of the population actually fought against the Crown. But, almost everyone in the country felt the heavy boot of King George on their necks and even if they didn't fight we're at least sympathetic to the cause of freedom... I am not sure that would be the case today.

I think most scholars who actually believe the 2A means what it says would say that the intent was for citizens to have the same/similar arms as would be common for a solder to carry with him into battle and I would argue that, even though they aren't identical we have "reasonably" similar arms in that regard.   Where I think the significant difference would come into play would be with things like armed drones, maned air support, armored vehicles, communication/command & control (not to mention training of our standing military).   A "rebel army" of today fighting a modern U.S. Army (and Air Force and Navy) would find it pretty tough going although a rebel army could probably inflict a lot of pain.

Age is hardly the primary reason for poor driving; in fact it rarely is...stupidity, selfishness, and a lack of real driver training are.   Last April I had a less than one year old Nissan 370 Z totaled in a wreck when a stupid woman (quite a bit younger than I am) decided to turn left in from of me...I guess there was some big sale at the Co-Op she just had to get to. This was at noon on a bright, sunny day (I was going to lunch) and  I was under the speed limit (lucky for her) and I always drive with my headlights on yet she was totally oblivious. It also totaled here much larger car and put her in the hospital for almost three weeks (I walked away with a torn knee in my pants and a couple of scratches). According to the police she said she never saw me...probably didn't because she was probably concentrating on a dozen things other than her driving.   Most people have no clue how to actually handle a vehicle and NO driving requirements in any state actually requires that you do...it's a wonder we don't have more people killed in vehicle accidents than we do.   If you really want to bring age into the equation then consider why insurance companies charge higher premiums for drivers under 50?  It's because of claim experience. Also, U.S. Centers for Disease Control (CDC) statistics show that young motorists are more likely to be involved in traffic accidents causing death.  Older drivers do need to be aware of decreasing vision, hearing, etc. but in terms of overall driving ability older adults tend to be more safe, not less.

I do expect CT is going to have a problem as I suspect that many of their LEOs do own weapons they must now register and/or are as pro-2A as anyone else! :)

Connecticut halts plans to round up firearms after finding most cops in the state are on the list I've no idea how reliable this is but for what it's worth...   LINK: http://www.callthecops.net/connecticut-halts-plans-round-firearms-finding-cops-state-list/     I'd also really like to know just how the state knows who has what???