-
Posts
2,181 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
1 -
Feedback
100%
Content Type
Forums
Events
Store
Articles
Everything posted by East_TN_Patriot
-
Mossberg 500 or Remington 870?
East_TN_Patriot replied to cyh1830's topic in Competitive Shooting Sports
I have owned both and prefer the 870 for a few reasons. The first is the action seems more beefy and tight on the 870 than the 500. There seem to be more aftermarket accessories for the 870, but I know there are plenty for the 500 out there. I also like the action release on the 870 more than the 500. All that said, I never felt like the Mossburg was anything less than a reliable shooter, so I suggest you just pick the one you like better. -
YES! I was eating at a local restaurant the other day and I saw this guy with a badge hanging on his belt sticking out from under his shirt. I immediately thought it was some local cop who didn't learn anything about staying low-key off duty. Then I looked a little closer and saw it was a Concealed Weapon Permit badge. What a winner!
-
I prefer to buy from a local dealer, but in the Knoxville area, the selection is pretty minimal and the prices are generally high. The stores I go to are packed the rafters with Glocks and AR-15 rifles. If you want anything else, your selection is very limited. I have asked local shops to get me prices on guns, but they either never call back, or they want far more than what an online dealer will cost me.
-
This is exactly my point on this. The assumption that it's not possible for a sober driver to haul around a bunch of drunks is no more logical than the opposite. In either case, it's irrelevant because it ultimately comes down to the driver making a decision whether to drink and drive or not. I strongly believe that for a driver to make such an irresponsible decision, the existence of an open-container law is a moot point. Once a driver is willing to do something that stupid and illegal, a silly open container law has zero influence. Also, if an officer must rely on the presence of an open-container to make a legal DUI arrest, then they either need more training on how to detect and investigate a DUI, they have allowed themselves to get lazy, or they don't care whether they need to criminalize a harmless behavior in order to make it easier to make an arrest. One poster doesn't understand where my perspective comes from, but the answer is simple: I don't mindlessly go about my daily life accepting the world as it is without questioning the logic of it all. When I have encountered multiple people doing things that are technically illegal, but see that they are causing no other person any direct harm, I wonder why we are wasting time and resources worrying about it. When I see drug dealers shooting it out in the streets over the illegal drug trade so people can sit in their houses and get stoned out of their mind without harming anyone else, I question the logic of the policies we have. When I can look at US government data that clearly shows the rate of illegal drug use is higher in 2010 than when the "War on Drugs" was started in 1982 and I consider all of the money and lives that have been wasted on it, I question the logic of the policy. When I see alcohol causing more harm than marijuana and cocaine, but we make alcohol legal and outlaw the others, I question the logic of the policy. Finally, I strongly believe that it is morally wrong to use the law as a tool to force people to act in certain ways, not because they are doing harm to me or someone else, but because I simply disagree with the behavior. If someone wants to drink a beer while riding to a concert or party, what harm are they doing to anyone? Why do we care? If the driver does it, then we have a different story, but until someone can show any sort of causal relationship between passengers consuming alcoholic beverages and the increased likelihood a driver will suddenly be enticed to drink and drive, then we need to worry about more important crime problems.
-
This is clearly a debate between two competing views of the law. The first, and the classical Enlightenment/republican view of the law is to prevent and punish direct harm to another person. The other is the progressive view that the law can be used as a tool to regulate behavior, enforce morality, and prohibit behaviors that MIGHT lead to harm. We have far too many of the latter forms of laws and they do a very good job of punishing people for behaviors that cause no direct harm to anyone. For example, in this particular debate we are debating whether a passenger drinking should be illegal. The supporters immediately go to the 'might' argument without any sense of how likely it is that a driver would suddenly be enticed to drink while driving or whether the law actually deters anyone from driving under the influence. Other examples of this argument are the multiple drug laws that are regulating what an individual wants to put into their body on the basis that it's "wrong" to use drugs and the person 'might' do something to harm others while under the influence of said drugs. They also point to the crime that surrounds the drug trade without considering the very obvious fact that the violence that surrounds the drug trade is the direct result of drug prohibition (remember that pesky little period of American history called Prohibition?). Do I think drug use is a good idea? Generally speaking, no. Do I think the law should incarcerate people who choose to do it? Absolutely not. Do I think that the law should punish someone who uses drugs irresponsibly and then causes some harm to another person? Absolutely yes. Are there some drugs that are so inherently harmful that they should be prohibited by law? Possibly, meth being one that comes to mind. This is coming from a guy who has never used any illegal drug and started his police career with a 100% support for the war on drugs and has made probably hundreds of arrests for drug law violations. As the years passed, I started to realize the problem was not with drug use, but with the illegal drug trade and that would no longer exist if drugs were legalized, regulated, and taxed just like alcoholic beverages (I guess in this debate you couldn't smoke a joint as a passenger in a car). Prostitution is another example. Gambling is yet another example (nevermind that the government has been running their own gambling operation for years with the lottery that is done "for the kids"). My point here is that we have a perspective of the law and behavior that we don't take the time to question and that includes prohibiting behaviors that violate our own personal views and standards of personal conduct. If we follow the progressive line of thought that prohibits behaviors that we think are simply a bad idea or bad for you, then we see what we have now with laws banning certain foods (trans-fats and salt) because you may overeat and have a heart attack. There is plenty of legitimate harmful behavior out there without looking for other behaviors to add to the mess.
-
Yes, but it was the driver, not the passenger. The law already prohibits the driver being in possession of an open alcoholic beverage. If I suspected someone was DUI, I did the proper investigation: observed the driving, made the stop if there was probable cause the driver was under the influence or committed a traffic violation, and then did the proper roadside sobriety tests. I still don't see how prohibiting passengers from drinking in the vehicle makes any difference at all in this debate. Once again, nobody here is saying we should allow drivers to consume alcoholic beverages. Nobody here is saying we should allow underage people to consume alcoholic beverages.
-
But again, nobody here is advocating allowing anyone to drive a vehicle while drinking. You are talking about teens, but teens are already prohibited from possessing alcoholic beverages. This isn't about whether teens should drink alcoholic beverages. This isn't about letting drivers drink and drive. This is about responsible people being able to enjoy a drink while riding in a car as a passenger with no intent to drive at all. I've done it, many of the people I have worked with have done it, many of my friends have done it, and none of us suddenly went insane and caused a flaming car crash or experienced the driver suddenly losing control of their own behavior and drinking while driving. You have started the classic bleeding heart argument against anything seen as potentially harmful in order to "protect the kids." The open container laws for passengers are an all-or-nothing assumption that it will make a difference between someone making the decision whether or not to drink and drive. In my 10 years of policing, I can't think of any incident where the open container law made any difference in the driver's decision to drink and drive. If they wanted to drink and drive, they did it. This is like saying that because a driver should text on their cell phone while driving, we need to outlaw all passengers from texting as well. This is coming from a traffic homicide investigator and DUI SFST instructor who has seen his fair share of fatal crashes and drunk drivers. Laws have been around for thousands of years and we have always had people who ignore them. "One of the greatest delusions in the world is the hope that the evils in this world are to be cured by legislation." - Thomas B. Reed (1886) "Can our form of government, our system of justice, survive if one can be denied a freedom because he might abuse it?" – Harlon Carter
-
Firefighters let man's home burn down over $75 fee.
East_TN_Patriot replied to Punisher84's topic in General Chat
I think the latter part of your statement is the real point here. The guy said he would pay. I think they should have put the fire out, sent him a bill, and then taken him to civil court if he didn't pay. I am a full believer in the free-market, but basic emergency services are a touchy area for me. That said, the guy knew the requirements, he gambled, and he lost. In this particular case, I think the fire department was in the right, but it's clear that they probably need to rethink the policy. -
Doctor pulled a gun on protesters.
East_TN_Patriot replied to Fivestring63's topic in Handgun Carry and Self Defense
I respectfully disagree with you on that point. As a former cop, I am a firm believer that people should exercise their right to remain silent. Nothing good comes from the accused giving a statement without the advice of their attorney. The police will ask the questions that give them the evidence they need and not the questions that could be exculpatory in nature. The media will cherry pick parts of the statement to paint the picture they want to portray. Then you are tried in the court of public opinion and there is no justice for the accused. If I was in this situation, I would say nothing more than the very basic account of events, ask for my attorney, and then keep my mouth shut. Regardless, the fact remains that it was a 3 on 1 encounter and that alone is enough for me to lean towards the side of the doctor. Heck, if I was being approached by 3 people, I would be on edge (perhaps not enough to draw my weapon, but enough to be very much on guard). The facts will come out. -
I find it interesting that the author is trying to put forth the impression that he has done a very insightful and objective analysis of the TEA Party movement, but bases his entire hypothesis on a single rally and uses a few choice comments to discount the entire movement as millions of people who are all stupid and "full of ****." That said, he does make a very valid point about many of these folks: They don't realize how hypocritical they are being. Just like the author pointed out, many of the people complaining about government spending are regularly accepting government benefits and don't see themselves as part of the problem. It's like all those flipping powerchair commercials that talk about how you can get your "free" powerchair. And folks act like they deserve that "free" item, but then complain about government spending and high insurance costs. In any case, I attended a TEA party rally here in Knoxville once. I found there to be a pretty wide variety of people that included many very intelligent people to some serious whack-jobs. I am 100% certain I would find the same at most other political rallies regardless of the political views held by the attendees. Yes, the TEA Party is doomed to be a short-lived phenomenon, just like all other political movements since the Civil War from the Populists to the radical left-wing movements of the 1960s. We can only hope they are able to make some positive changes in government before they go.
-
Hmmm... sounds like a good program. I think I will check that one out and see if they have any matches locally.
-
And I think with this single concise statement, Spurhunter has summarized this whole debate. Only the facts will reveal what happened and if the Trooper did act unlawfully, it would not be too difficult to find a lawyer chomping at the bit to get their hands on the civil case.
-
You folks are echoing the exact arguments I am having in my own mind. I am very familiar with Glocks from my years in policing as a firearms instructor, and I know I can shoot them as well as the XDM. I went through this debate in my mind before I got the Springfield. I bought the Springfield due to the grip safety, chamber loaded indicator, and the ease of disassembly. I do agree that the thing does feel a little unbalanced, but I like the look of it and it is a great shooter. I do like the availability of parts for the Glock that you don't get for the XD. The ability to interchange mags is a plus, but I agree it should not be the only consideration. I guess I just need to ease over to the gun store and fiddle with one of the Glocks to get a better feel for it, see what kind of deal I can get, and decide from there. Or better yet, maybe I can hit the Powerball and just buy a Glock too!
-
Well, I have a Springfield XDM in .40S&W that is pretty much like new. I love it. I recently purchased a Kel Tec Sub 2000 in .40S&W that uses the Glock 22 mags. It would be sweet to have a Glock 22 so the mags would be interchangeable. I can't get the Glock without trading the Springfield. So the question is: should I make the trade for a NIB Glock 22 or keep the Springfield?
-
I was down that way last week and stopped in. It's still open, but I would say "barely." I hadn't stopped by for a while since I live in Knoxville, but was pretty shocked when I got there. When I was there, the parking lot was virtually empty, which was a huge change from days in the past. Also, the selection was virtually zero compared to when they opened. If I was guessing, I would estimate their entire inventory of firearms was 50 or less and about half of those were Glocks and only half a dozen long guns. All of the police patches were gone from the cases and the entire atmosphere was different. I won't be back unless I hear things have changed. I shot on their range once and was not particularly impressed. Like the OP said, it was dark, hot, and seemed poorly maintained. I have a membership at ORSA and lurk at other area gun stores for my gun fix.
-
This is coming from a former LEO and police firearms instructor with lots of experience on the range and carrying firearms. I pocket carry 99% of the time and I carry a Seecamp .32ACP in a front pocket holster for most of it with my S&W 642 .38 revolver on a few occasions. Why would a street wise former cop carry a mouse gun? Because the facts just don't demonstrate the requirement for carrying a cannon for civilian defensive carry. Most homicides are committed with small caliber handguns (with the majority being .38 cal, .25, and .22 - if you are in doubt about the effectiveness of a .22, Google the Trooper Mark Coates shooting). Most of the time, the bad guy can't shoot worth a flip. In virtually all cases of defensive gun use, police and civilian, the distance of the shooting is less than 6 feet. Time and again it has been shown that shot placement is more important than caliber (a .22 at center mass is much more effective than a .45ACP in the arm). And finally, the best gun is the one you always have with you. For me, the chances of needing my CCW is so minute and the conditions would be so up close and personal that I don't feel the need to tote around a larger handgun. When I was a LEO, I typically carried my Sig P229 .40SW and/or a Smith & Wesson 642 with .38 +P rounds, but of course that was a different situation for me. If I ever get the opportunity to return to policing, I will likely resume carrying a larger handgun since cops are under different obligations for engaging bad guys than civilians. I am not critical of those who choose to carry a larger frame firearm at all; it just doesn't fit my needs.
-
Latest Haslem commercial
East_TN_Patriot replied to Northface's topic in 2A Legislation and Politics
Since Haslam is the topic, let me give my personal experience with him since I am in the Knoxville area. When the city was debating the CCW in parks ordinance, I sent an e-mail to every commissioner and Mayor Haslam. Of the entire group, only 2 commissioners responded as did Mayor Haslam. From that point onward, Haslam was the only one to continue to send me personal e-mails keeping me informed on the progress of the debate and ordinance voting. He was very respectful and honest about his stance on the issue, which is where he and I disagree. He supported keeping the ban on carry in city parks, and I obviously did not. I supplied a summary of about a dozen peer-reviewed studies on concealed carry and all but 1 showed that CCW holders are not a risk at all and actually deter crime. He took the approach of a left-winger in my opinion, basically saying that all the research is fine, but he just doesn't think that parks (and hence kids) and guns together are a good thing. No amount of logic would sway him. Again, I highly appreciated his candor and his effort in keeping me informed, but his politics on guns stinks. I think he smacks of Charlie Crist (and I can say that having been a Florida resident until a couple of years ago and having voted for that RINO political hack). I will vote for Haslam unless there is a viable alternative, but just as I did with Crist, I will do it while holding my nose. -
Hopefully things are getting better because when I was a LEO from 1997 - 2007, it was a major hassle every single time I tried to check my firearm. One time, I had an airline ticket agent tell me it was illegal to even have the firearm on airport property much less in my checked luggage. Another time, a ticket agent told me I could not check the ammo in my luggage because the ammo would explode if the luggage compartment lost pressure. Another called the airport police when I tried to declare the firearm. A TSA rep about had a coronary when I told him there was a firearm in my luggage. He told me in a very loud and forceful tone to put the bag down and step away from it slowly. The only time I didn't get a hassle was when I checked it on the return flight from Las Vegas. It got to the point when I just quit fooling with it. I always kept it locked in a metal case with an extra padlock on the case and a cable lock through the firearm. I kept the ammunition in a separate container. From the responses I see above, I may have been very unlucky the few times I tried to do it.
-
This may or may not be true. When I worked in law enforcement, anytime a contact resulted in a criminal charge we also had to do a written report to go along with the citation/charging document. I have seen agencies that did not require it for misdemeanors and I admit that I don't know anything about the policies of THP, so you could be 100% correct. I also find it very odd that the original story teller says that he took a large amount of ammo for his AK just in case something happened at the rally he was attending. Really? Is this guy serious? Yes, I know that he has every legal right to do that and a firearm is virtually useless without the ammo, but that whole statement just sounds screwy to me. He was expecting an armed shootout at a pro-Constitution rally and felt the need to load up his car with a pile of 7.62 x 39 ammo just in case? The statement and the fact that he openly told this to the cop screams that this guy is not the totally normal and innocent guy portrayed. Having been a cop for a decade, I can almost see this scenario in my head. This guy likely got belligerent, probably had the weapons loaded, started talking all sorts of nutty BS about shootouts with people, and the cop did what he thought was legal and necessary. Granted, officers can do things that are a little shady or outright illegal, but that is definitely the exception to the rule.
-
anyone use belt sander for sharpening
East_TN_Patriot replied to Tnscooter63's topic in Knives, Lights, EDC Gear
As a fellow who dabbled in knife making for a while under the instruction of a semi-retired career knife maker, I offer my 2 cents worth. When we made knives, we would use belt grinders for the rough edge and then hone it down using a specially made buffing wheel and then a ceramic sharpening rod. This gave us a razor edge. The only time you should need to use anything as aggressive as a belt sander to sharpen is when your blade is completely trashed. The goal of keeping a knife sharp is to MAINTAIN the cutting edge using a ceramic rod or a strop on a regular basis (think about a chef who hits the blade on a steel almost every time he gets ready to use it or a barber who runs the straight razor over a strop before each shave). This keeps the edge from dulling and is usually all you need for keeping an excellent edge on your knife under normal conditions. You should only need to hit your knife on a stone very rarely. Even when the blade is totally trashed, my teacher recommended the use of a metal cutting file and then progressively finer stones for general sharpening. If you do feel the need to use the sander, I will give a couple of serious warnings. First, it is very easy to screw up a perfectly good blade. I worked on a sheath for a guy who paid several hundred dollars on a knife and thought it would be a good idea to grind it on a bench grinder. He screwed the blade up really badly and asked the knife maker to regrind it for him. Second, you need to keep a container of water next to the grinder and dip the blade frequently. It is easy to get the blade too hot and ruin the heat treating, and thus the blade. Grind a bit, then dip, grind some more, then dip. For those needing a good sharpening setup, I use a Smith's diamond stone set with a coarse and a fine side, a ceramic sharpening rod (aka croc stick), and a strop. Since I have started using the croc stick on a regular basis, I almost never pull out the diamond stone. -
Why? Because people lie, especially if they have an axe to grind. When I was a LEO, my father would regularly concoct all sorts of BS about how the police harassed him. Listening to him, he was pulled over by a crooked cop at least twice a week. IF this actually happened as the original complainant says, the Troopers involved either intentionally disregarded the statute on unlawful carry or they are so inept that they didn't know the law or even consider looking it up. The statute (39-17-1307) specifies that a firearm locked up and unloaded in a private vehicle is not illegal. It also notes that those with a carry permit are exempt (I believe the Colorado is recognized in TN). I have a sneaky suspicion that there is a lot more to this story than what the original account says. That there is no other follow-up information on the incident that took place 5 months ago is a big red flag for me.
-
Hello from Knoxville!
East_TN_Patriot replied to East_TN_Patriot's topic in New Member Introductions
Now that's the truth! I have spent quite a bit of time debating with my fellow grad students and a couple of professors about gun control and Constitutional issues. GAH!!! -
Hello from Knoxville!
East_TN_Patriot replied to East_TN_Patriot's topic in New Member Introductions
Anytime. I taught for a year at a community college in Florida before moving here. Now I teach it here while I finish my grad degree in criminology. -
The absolute worst gun I ever owned was a Colt Detective Special that I got when they re-released it in the late 1990s. I got one of the first out from the factory and it was complete and total junk! From the factory and using regular pressure factory ammo, I basically got 3 or 4 rounds out of it before it completely locked up due to internal parts that bent and broke. The gunsmith I worked for at the time fixed it and off to the range I went again. A few more rounds and the thing locked up again. When I was inspecting it, I noticed that the barrel was loose as well. Gunsmith looked at it again and found that the threads on the barrel were all screwed up and he said that he would refund my money and return the gun to Colt. He told me later that Colt had tried to call back the guns from the wholesalers when they had a bunch of problems with them, but some still went out and I got one of them. Since then, we always joked about the "Defective Special" I had. The next worst was an FEG .380 and I literally got 1 round out of it before the small parts bent and broke inside of it. The gunsmith looked at it and said it was obvious they hadn't heat treated the parts and let me trade it at full-price on something else.
-
When I worked in law enforcement, our department issued Ruger Police Carbines in .40 S&W and they were excellent little rifles. I have been considering the Kel Tec Sub2000 myself and I have read good things about it. If I could find a reasonable price for one around my neck of the woods, I'd pick one up.