East_TN_Patriot

You are describing every political party.  The Tea Party certainly has its fair share of closed-mided ideologues.  I was a supporter of the Tea Party movement at its inception, but quickly moved away from it after attending the rally in Knoxville and listening to idiots in the movement like Sarah Palin.  There are plenty of Tea Party supporters that are eagerly calling for armed revolution, but these are not the mainstream, and any attempt to point out the lunacy of their stance results in a furious response that usually includes being called a communist/socialist/statist/liberal/etc.  There are also plenty of Libertarians who advocate virtual anarchy, but they are not the mainstream.  However, for many Tea Party supporters, it is those fringe that are used as the poster children for the entire Libertarian Party. As far as their policy ideas, the certainly don't overlap with the Republican Party, which is the party the group tries to affiliate with.  They elect Republican "Tea Partiers" with hopes they will change the Republican Party and are outraged that they go along with the party line once in office.  Changing the values of a major political party is harder than changing the behavior of your spouse.  Why not support a party that has those values as part of their national platform?  

That you do, but action without wise and thoughtful focus can easily do more harm than good.   The Tea Party has not been the only group active in speaking out against creeping government power.  The Libertarian Party has been doing it since 1971, but Tea Party followers like to pretend that they are pioneers in calling for limited government.  I'm baffled why this recent upstart gets credibility from people in the movement while the Libertarians are treated like fringe lunatics.  The Tea Party is a loosely affiliated group with no clear mission or platform, while the Libertarians have been active at trying to have candidates elected to office for decades.  

I found this today while wandering around the Internet.  It shows several uses for a cell phone in a survival situation including a signaling mirror, making a primitive compass, and a cutting tool.  Pretty cool stuff. http://www.artofmanliness.com/2012/06/14/survival-cell-phone/

That video spent 13 minutes complicating a problem that people in this county have been decrying for decades.  Since WWI, the United States has embarked on nearly a century of policies that are simply nothing more than manipulating the global economy using our military might, and the perpetual rhetoric of existential threat to drive military and criminal justice policy.  We have pissed off billions of people across the globe including many of our own citizens.  The social elite in this country work to preserve their own wealth and social status at the expense of the rest of us.  Their efforts are so effective that people refuse to consider alternative policies or political parties.  No tinfoil needed.

Considering that you are on the receiving end of policies back by Republicans and Democrats, perhaps the Libertarian Party would be worth a look. However, to your original question, yes, people carry without a permit, and many people with permits carry in places they know they are not legally allowed to do so.  When government passes a law, it's only as good as the willingness of people to follow it, the ability and willingness of police to enforce it, and the willingness and ability of the court to prosecute it.  When government passes laws that many see as unjust (as a friend of mine stated in a post on a political blog we have, justice and legality are not necessarily the same thing) people will be far more likely to choose to ignore it.  As a disclaimer, I'm not suggesting that is necessarily a wise or legitimate way to handle it, but that is reality.

You could show up and OC one of those Hardee's bacon barbecue Thickburgers.  

Not at all.  Have at it.  

  There is simply no comparison between slavery and Bloomberg's soda ban and slavery does not deserve any justification whatsoever.     I never said the people in the South were evil, even if we recognize slavery as evil today.  Historians agree that it's somewhat puzzling why thousands of non-slave holding Southerners decided to take up arms and revolt over the issue of slavery.  This is where the issue of states' rights enters the picture.  With that said, slavery was THE dominant issue in the decades leading up to the Civil War.  History is clear on this.  It dominated politics and social discourse, was the focus of many federal policies, and resulted in the beating of abolitionist Charles Sumner by South Carolina Congressman Preston Brooks in a debate over slavery.  The nation was divided politically and symbolically by the Missouri Compromise line dividing slave states and free states.  The debate was revisited every time a new state was admitted into the United States.  The debate was "decided" by the Kansas-Nebraska Act, which also dealt with slavery and ultimately led to a small-scale war between pro-slavery and abolitionists in Kansas.  By the outbreak of the war, slavery was a dominant issue in presidential elections.  Economic growth in the South was tied to slavery and many businessmen in northern states that began to seek out sources of raw materials that they traditionally got from the South did so due to their distaste for slavery.  The Dred Scott decision that fueled the abolitionist movement was about slavery.   I used to buy into the "states' rights" argument for the South, but the simple fact of the matter was that the concept was being used to justify the institution of slavery in the United States.  Essentially, the Southern states claimed that the federal government did not have the authority to outlaw slavery, but that it was a state level decision.     By the time of the Civil War, slavery was a southern institution and was expanding.  Slavery had been made illegal in the northern states.  There were a handful of border states that were officially still part of the Union, but did not abolish slavery.  These states saw people enter the war fighting for the north and the south.   Bringing this all back to the issue at hand, the same argument applies.  Do the states have the lawful authority to deny specific groups the benefits and protections of the law simply due to an arbitrary characteristic such as sexual orientation (or race as was the case with slavery)?  I say no.  The Constitution says no.  The political philosophy behind the Constitution says no.  

I worked at a gun store several years ago and at that time, most women gravitated towards the smaller guns.  At that point in time in that geographic area, most women were only purchasing a firearm for self-defense, had little knowledge or experience with firearms, did not particularly enjoy shooting, and were looking for small firearms that they could hold onto easily and put in their purse without adding too much weight.  Many times female customers would show interest in a particular gun because it was "cute".  It's the same reason gun manufacturers make small handguns with pink grips.  It's "cute".   Many women have difficulty comfortably holding a full-size handgun.  During my law enforcement days, our department had to order smaller framed duty pistols for a couple of female officers who could not effectively handle the Sig P229 we issued.  My mom never developed the arm strength to rack the slide on a large semi-auto handgun.   I agree that a sales person should not make assumptions about female customers, but I suspect that many don't think that they are treating the women differently or at least not unfairly.  I also think that many female customers also live up to the stereotype.  

I do think that religious organizations should generally be able to decide whether they want to do same-sex ceremonies or not, but I would say again that the views of these same churches should not be the deciding factor whether legal privileges are given to same-sex couples or not.   As far as private businesses denying services to same-sex couples, I can understand why a private business owner would like to be able to pick-and-choose their clients, but the law does not allow business to discriminate based on arbitrary characteristics like race, sex, sexual orientation, religion, etc.  I would compare it to businesses who refuse to provide services to gun owners by prohibiting concealed carry.  

Allow me to clarify.  People, in my experience tend to fit into three groups: 1) People who are very well aware of the racial connotations of the Confederate battle flag and display it specifically for that reason while lying about it, 2) People who are actually ignorant of the reason why some would be offended by the display of the flag due to the history of racism that is associated with it, 3) those who are displaying it for the purpose of "southern heritage" and try to act as if the racial issues in the Confederacy aren't really a big deal, pretend as if they are not important, or that people should "get over it".  Frankly, to me it would be like German people flying the Nazi flag trying to say it's about "heritage, not hate" and that Jews should just get over it.   Anyone who claims that slavery was not the primary driving force behind the US Civil War is, again, either ignorant of history, being disingenuous, or being dishonest.  Yes, it was a states' rights argument, but slavery was overwhelmingly the policy that drove the dissension of the Southern states.  Even the declaration of secession by South Carolina that started the Civil War specifically mentioned slavery multiple times as the reason for their exit from the union.  It is the very rare person who really knows the history of the Confederacy.  Rather, they are believers in what has been called the "myth of the lost cause", which is an inaccurate and nostalgic interpretation of the Confederacy and the Civil War. I was one of those people until a few years ago.

The Bible is also "pretty clear" on all sorts of behaviors that their parishioners partake in, yet you don't suggest that their denomination is not legitimate.  This is the point of my comparison that you took offense to.  I am an Episcopalian who attends church with gay and lesbian couples and know of one member of the church staff that is gay.  I was raised a Southern Baptist, spent quite a bit of time in a Christian Missionary Alliance church and a Lutheran church, attended a small rural non-denominational Christian church for a while, went to a Nazarene church a couple of times, and explored the Catholic church.   I find my current Episcopal church to be one of the most genuine and Christian-like out of all of the churches I have attended in my life.   Many Biblical scholars would point out that your interpretation of what the Bible does say about homosexuality is inaccurate.  Here is one such scholar who spoke at my church several months ago.  Dr. Rev. Rebecca Wright is a Methodist minister and a professor at Suwannee, so I give her argument some serious weight. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uR6ZzhYHS6s   https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uR6ZzhYHS6s

No, I don't think the Confederate flag should be banned, although I do think that most of the people who fly that flag and try to say there is no reference to race implied is either being disingenuous or blatantly dishonest.  I do find it curious as to where you came up with that question in this discussion. However, speaking to my comparison, I will stand by it with one clarification.  I am not suggesting that the majority of Christians in this region actually propose to establish a theocracy or would kill people to enforce it.  However, much like the extremists in that culture, they are completely intolerant of lifestyles or beliefs that are not the same as theirs.  In the past five years I have lived in Tennessee, I have seen multiple incidents where people propose to limit the personal liberty of others under the banner of Christianity.  That is the comparison I was making.

That it is not listed in the Bill of Rights does not matter.  The Bill of Rights was never intended to be an complete list of rights to be retained by the people, rather, it specifically listed the ones that the framers felt were the most important.  The Section 1 of the 14th Amendment is the pertinent amendment here.  It states:   Note that it says the states cannot deny to any person "equal protection of the laws" meaning that the state must apply the law equally to all citizens and not select groups who are deemed worthy of getting special protections or benefits provided by the law.    

  Which was the point I mentioned.  I don't think the government should sanction any religious ceremony and/or provide special benefits to people who are allowed to participate in it.  I think the problem would be best solved by allowing any adults to enter into legally recognized civil unions that would provide the property and personal benefits associated with married couples, do away with the tax benefits completely, and letting the religious institutions decide whom they want to marry based on their own beliefs.   Unfortunately, so many people are brainwashed into believing that society will crumble if we do away with government-sanctioned "marriage" that they won't even consider this as a reasonable solution.

  No, they don't.  They are not allowed to take part in the legal institution of marriage that provides a wide variety of legal privileges and benefits.  These are being denied to a specific segment of our population simply because their lifestyle doesn't fit the worldview of a political majority in this country.  As long as benefits are being made available to married couples, something that I think should end, then same-sex couples should be allowed to legally marry and live their lives together just as I am allowed to do as a heterosexual.   And before anyone asks, I also think that polygamous folks should be able to marry as well as long as all involved are consenting adults and are aware of the multi-partner relationship.  It's none of my concern whether some guy wants to marry one woman, one man, or a group. As far as the Christianity argument goes, it seems as if most Christians in this part of the country would be more than happy to establish a Christian state much like the Muslim nations in the Middle East.  Folks around these parts claim to support personal freedom, but do so only as long as everyone submits to the same interpretation of the Bible as they do.  The mention of homosexuality as an "abomination" is in the same part of the Bible that also says eating shellfish is an "abomination" and encourages stoning of women who don't submit to their husbands.  Homosexuality isn't mentioned anywhere in the New Testament, which is actually the true foundation of the Christian faith.  Why religious zealots in this country have decided to camp out on the issue of homosexuality is something I'll never understand.

Anti gay rights = anti-freedom.

I understand your point and I presumed that was what you had in mind.  The flaw in that logic is that people assume the general population leans toward being open-minded about firearms possession, when I am confident in saying it is the opposite.   There are plenty of gun owners out there who don't agree with open-carry under any circumstances beyond being actively engaged in a sporting activity that requires it.  Keep in mind, we are talking about a population that generally believes that AR15s are "machine guns" that hold "bullets" in 30-round "clips" and have no value beyond the battlefield.  They believe that a person flies through the air when shot, that guns need to be registered, private gun transactions are illegal or shady, that there really is a "gun show loophole", and that guns are as easy to buy as a pack of chewing gum.   I could potentially go along with an open-carry rally that is specifically organized in a lawful manner, in an appropriate venue, and with a clear message that doesn't include belligerent talk about revolution.  I will not support the idea of showing up to a political event and bringing the firearm along just to make a point.  The point you are making is not a good one.

Looks like it would be like a Glock 26 compared to the 19.

Here is the scenario you pose: A group of anti-gun protesters traveling the country to push for gun-control legislation likely using the argument that gun owners are gun-obessed, irresponsible, and potentially dangerous.  You propose, in response, that a bunch of gun owners should show up with open-carrying to make a political point.  Who are you trying to persuade with your action?   Clearly, the anti-gun group are not going to be convinced.  Rather, they would use the display as evidence that gun-owners are crazy and can't even let people peaceably assemble without showing up armed to intimidate them (kind of like the Black Panthers at the polling place).  It would follow that the only reason someone would choose to use a gun to intimidate someone is if they would actually use the firearm, thus reinforcing their point further.  The media, generally ignorant about lawful gun ownership, would be more than happy to "report" this armed protest and the talking heads would spin it up as proof that gun owners are out-of-control. Gun owners don't need to be convinced that gun ownership and carry is safe, so your actions would not do anything with that group either. So really the group that all gun owners should actually be concerned with are the biggest group in American politics, the "mushy middle" that is minimally informed on issues, has little interest in becoming informed, and easily falls prey to media hype and spin.  I think it is very safe to presume that most Americans are not especially informed about gun ownership and are not comfortable with people openly carrying firearms (right or wrong, that is reality).  To back up my point, during my police career, I had multiple people challenge the lawfulness and wisdom of police officers carry firearms off-duty, so I am confident that they would have an issue with private citizens doing it.  So to prove how prudent and safe gun owners are, you are suggesting that a bunch of armed people show up at a protest of unarmed individuals.  The story the media story that will result (the one mentioned above) will easier for them to comprehend and digest than your argument since they are already socialized to believe that guns are dangerous and armed citizens are also dangerous and we can't have people walking around openly toting guns like it's the Old West.   This is the point I make over and over again, and not just with gun owners.  Protests that are not specifically tailored to the group you need to convince are not helpful and are likely to alienate the people we need to win over.  If you want to do an open carry rally, fine, but there is a right time and place for that and it can't be like the one that just happened in Pennsylvania where they openly violated the law to make their point and then verbally assaulted the police who showed up to investigate the crimes.  

Kind of like slavery and DC's ban on guns I suppose.

  I, for one, am quite glad you missed it.  If you are serious about this approach, please do all gun owners a favor and not try and "help" the cause.

Do they still have a 2 mag limit?

Yes, this looks like a gun belt that you wear as a belt over a normal trouser belt, which is similar to a police duty belt.  You secure it to your trouser belt with a set of belt keepers.  I have a similar setup for my competition gear (whenever I manage to find time to get back to the range).  The benefit to this setup is that you can leave all of your gear in the same position on the belt and just take it on and off as needed.  It also provides a much more stable platform for your holster than a trouser belt alone.  IMHO, that is the best way to go.

Wow. Order shipped less than 30 minutes after I palaced it.