RobertNashville

No...I can't           P.S.  If your life is 2/3rds over then I've been dead for ten years.  :dropjaw:

Hey now, I drive nice vehicles too, not BMWs but certainly that price range so let's lay off the anti-nice-car comments, okay???  :) I'll bet this guy was well under 40 years old, maybe even well under, right??? I think it's time we all come to grips with the simple fact that our entire education system from kindergarten through graduate school has an agenda to convince students that "guns are bad" and I'll bet this fellow learned exactly that so of course, he was appalled that you "had a gun"; after all, he's probably been taught that for years and years. I know, this is Tennessee but Tennessee isn't immune to this educational brainwashing.   Only parents and uncles and such can counter that teaching...Reagan said "freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction"...the same is true when it comes to a love and appreciation of the right to keep AND bare arms.   Now, if you'll forgive a little bit of criticism - I think this encounter could have gone a little better if you had been a little less confrontational and a little more educational.  I know it's difficult to do when confronted with stupidity but I suspect that this guy simply went away more convinced of his own position than he was inclined to consider yours which means his kids are likely to think the same way and, unfortunately, they'll be voting someday (of the country lasts that long). ;)

Knowing the facts?  I suppose not knowing all the facts could be a problem but how often are police involved in a gun fight and the police are the "bad guys"?   I guess the way I see it, if bullets are already flying and I'm "there" then isn't my life in danger?  I don't think it's theoretical at that point...maybe intervening isn't the smartest thing to do but I think it would be the right thing to do.

This^^^   It certainly depends on a lot of variables but if I carry, I carry to save and protect life, primarily my own but certainly also the lives of other innocent people (whether they are wearing a badge or not).

Thank God there is something we can agree on (at least if I understand your post correctly ;) )   I think one of the biggest problems we have with our current elected officials is that they are there too damn long.  I think we need to look no further than Marsha Blackburn for proof...I've spoken with he many times; followed her as an elected official and have been mostly pleased yet the longer she is in WDC the more I notice her "softening" her positions.  I can only surmise that there is some sort of airborne or waterborne virus that exists in DC that causes principled men and women to lose their principles (not all at once of course; usually they just erode over time).   I think that if we simply had enough people of conscious, regardless of "party" vote consistently and replace all of them on a regular basis about 85% of our problems would be solved and that doesn't take armed rebellion and going to war with our own government.   I just wish I thought it would happen...but I don't.

Those who value freedom, liberty and the natural rights we all have (and embodied in the Bill of Rights) WILL eventually lose the "gun control argument" unless we force the gun-haters (which are actually haters of liberty and freedom) to talk about the actual problem, CRIME by CRIMINALS.   We know that the problem is not "guns"; the problem is criminals. But, as long as we talk only about the TOOL criminals like to use (not to mention let the gun-haters spew absolute lies about "gun violence") we will always lose the argument because is sounds so common sense that every gun transaction should go through a background check and that "no one needs 10 bullets in a gun" for hunting...I mean after all, it's just common sense, right?   Republicans are NOT going to fight this fight for us; the only effort they will expend will be what is necessary to not get booted out of office in the next election.

Okay guys...how do we identify "who" to give this to?   Is just one enough?   Given the current situation, what do we do about ammo?   I want to see this rifle (or several rifles) go to children who's parents truly don't have the extra funds to do this on their own...any suggestions?

No; I don't think so.   By definition an "armed rebellion" is a rebellion...a conscious decision by a group to rise up and attempt to overthrow an existing government or authority of some kind. The American Revolution was an armed rebellion.   A societal breakdown is just that, a breakdown in social order that may or may not require people to use their "guns and ammo" to protect themselves and their property from those who would take it; primarily because there either would be no police force (or at least not enough of one) to handle it; that's not rebellion...just survival

I know a lot of folks here don't like Glenn Beck but his book (written in large part with John Lott) "Control" is excellent as a resource.  I HIGHLY recommend it.  Paperback for about $10 and pretty much destroys every singly argument posed the gun-haters as well as the simply ill-informed, miss--informed and totally ignorant.

Who carries these in the Middle Tennessee area?  Anyone know?

I think I'm going to go buy a Cricket then find a family who would like to give it to their child.

One of the things I won't do to get rich is put myself on the internet just so that I can insult people I don't know at all because doing so fits into my hatred of guns.   Child porn my ass...I'll bet this guy even has armed security and I'll bet they carry something more potent than a Cricket.

Well, as others have said here, it may come to an armed conflict at some point but there won't be any "restoration" or any winners at all for that matter.  As DaveTN just said...it will just be the end. I don't really think armed rebellion is what's coming anyway...what I do think is a much more likely possibility is a societial breakdown, most likely from an economic collapse - that, I believe, is the far more likely end to the path we are on.

I thought I'd come back an update...TEOTWAWKI: Beacon's Story was a pretty good read.   I would give it 3 out of 4 starts; not perfect but certainly worth your time I think. :)

Odd...I've be almost skinned alive (figuratively speaking of course) by some in this forum just for daring to suggest that anyone who can legally own, possess, transport a firearm should be legally able to do so and leave that firearm in their parked vehicle in a public/employee, etc parking lot regardless of signage or company policy...I've been denigrated for suggesting that my right to bare arms should, in that instance, supersede the business property owner's right to control his property...and we are only talking about a parking lot; not inside the building, etc.!   As pro-right to bare arms as I am; I don't believe that a property owner (private, or business) should be forced to allow firearms inside of their home/business proper. As such, the only way that a business can enforce such a policy is to allow (sufficient) signage and to have that signage carry some sort of criminal penalty for ignoring it.   I like signage; it tells me where my money is welcome and the businesses I to whom I should give my custom.  I don't mind the penalty for knowingly carrying past a sign because I don't knowingly carry past a sign.   I know this isn't the point of the thread so I apologize for hijacking it and I'll leave now. ;)

I know these aren't PMAGAs but I thought I'd share that I was able to obtain several FNH AR10 20 round mags and SCAR 17s 20 round mags from Able Ammo.   They were not inexpensive but they never were and I can't say I noticed much difference in price "now" vs a few months ago.  I note their availability as I've had a devil of a time finding them anywhere else at any price.

Armed rebellion...what a great idea.  :screwy:   I can't imagine any scenario where such a rebellion would turn out well for either side; more likely just kill a lot of people.

  Bet what you want.   I’ll say it again; purposely shooting someone in the back is a cowardly act.  There is nothing you are ever going to say that will change my opinion on that regardless of what you think about my opinion or what snide comments you make.   Further, I believe that following a retreating thug into a parking lot of a store was a tactically unsound decision; I think it needlessly put both the manager and other people in danger by doing so (or at the very least, perpetuated a dangerous situation that was otherwise ending).   I also believe that following the thug into the parking lot was contrary to Tennessee law.   The fact that the thug is now dead (which i don't regret at all) and the fact that the DA chose not to press charges doesn't change my opinion about the above; neither will dissenting comments from you or anybody else on an internet forum.   When it comes to tactics and the civilian use of deadly force I listen to people who have proven; sometimes over years and often over decades, that they know what they are talking about…such are the people I seek out for face-to-face training - such are the types of people who can sway my opinion because I know THEY know more than I do.   I may be 100% wrong about my take on the issue of this thread but when it comes to issues like the subject of this thread I’ll continue to base my opinions on the training and knowledge I've received from people that I know are experts in the field and not from postings in an internet forum.

I agree!

No, I'm not going to let him shoot first.   However, if the thug was just trying to get away I doubt very much that I'm going to pursue the thug into the parking lot to give him a chance to point it at me either.  ;)

I don't consider DaveTN a news source either but he is a LEO if I remember correctly and give more credence to what he has to say than on issues like this than the rest of us (even when I don't agree with him.   And yes, the additional stories help a lot.

Yeah...shooting someone in the back is a cowardly act.  I really don't care if you agree with me or not.   Yes, armchair quarterbacking is easy as you should know since that's exactly what you and everyone else here does when we are dealing with news stories on incidents like this   I'm not at all ashamed of my comments nor "should I be".

:confused:   What you quoted in your post above seems to be in contradiction to DaveTN's post above when he said  "As far as who fired first; unless the news story are wrong the Manager said he fired his weapon first."   Maybe I'm just misunderstanding what DaveTN actually meant and I don't know what story DaveTN referred to but if the manager fired first then how could "return file"???   Anyway, if the thug actually fired first and the manager was returning file then it puts the story in a very different light...I still would not have followed the thug into the parking - I believe it was incredibly stupid and just put more people in more danger...I also don't think pursuing the thug into the parking was legal under TN law; charges filed or no chance of a jury conviction notwithstanding.     P.S....shooting someone in the back is still an act that strikes me as cowardly and smacks not of "self-defense" but of dishing out justice.

I don't disagree that the 2nd amendment won't be recognized in a courtroom; right now....the court would just be wrong.   And actually; there is nothing all that wrong with how our state constitution looks at the right to keep and bare...the problem is that our legislators past and present don't seem to grasp what "with a view to prevent crime" actually means.  As was correctly noted above, most if not all or our TN laws violate our our constitution (not that very many legislators or judges seem to care).   Non of which, of course, will keep you out of jail should you chose not to play the state's little game.

Driving at almost any speed is a dangerous endeavor. Couple that with the fact that most "driver education" doesn't teach a damn thing about actually controlling a vehicle at speed or in an emergency situation and you've got good ingredients for a problem.   However, as with firearms, those who bother to seek out training can lean to do thins in a vehicle relatively safely that would scare the s**t out of other people...mix in a little common sense about things and traveling at significant speeds on "public roads" can be at least as safe as doing so at normal speeds. I'm not advocating that people should be doing well into triple digits on public roads; just saying that as with many things, how "dangerous" it is depends on a lot more that simply "speed".  Of course, as is often the case, rules are set based on the lowest common denominator and/or the easiest thing to measure. ;)   When I was oversees I was told that, at least in come countries in Europe, the "speed limits" are set based on the driver's proven abilities (as are insurance rates; noted by badges on the vehicle)...don't know if that was true then or not or if it was true if it still is. However, I always though it wasn't a bad idea as it would be an incentive for people to go beyond learning what a stop sign means and maybe get some real training. :shrug: