Wheelgunner

@ tennessee - nice kit.  I especially like the signal flare.  Here are some more things you might consider adding:   List of phone numbers of friends, relatives, police, etc. Cash Sunscreen A comfy pair of boots, unless you always wear boots Several maps in zip lock or other waterproof container Extra TN HCP Map of bus routes running in and around Oak Ridge and money/bus pass   I actually keep an extra OWB holster in my Get Home Bag.  I can still cover it easily with an untucked shirt, but it's more comfortable to walk around in than the IWB I usually wear.  Just ideas, though.  Your kit will certainly get the job done - and then some - as it is now.

The whole damn system is broken.     The military branches shouldn't have put dirtbags in important advisory positions.  As things stand, every single service member who separates has to sit through a briefing about how to dupe the system and fraudulently obtain disability benefits.     Additionally, the individuals going through the separation process should have enough moral strength to refuse to compromise their integrity for a monthly disability check.     Finally, we need to thoroughly revamp the evaluation process that results in a PTSD diagnosis.  It makes my blood boil to think how many veterans we have now who simply claim PTSD because it's so easy to do.  I'm not saying we should deny treatment to guys who are truly suffering.  But if it took years of psychiatric treatment, counseling, and documented bureaucracy before being formally, permanently diagnosed with PTSD, I have to assume that very few dirtbags would go to all that trouble just to fake a disability and get paid.

@ jilly - Very cool.  Thanks.

He makes a good point when he says that the only realistic way for the federal government to track person to person firearms sales is through requiring all firearms to be logged in a federal registry. In that way, universal background checks are dangerous to everyone who owns or ever will own a gun. But this "universal background check" (UBC) that's being discussed has even more dire implications. We have been willing to surrender the rights guaranteed by the Second Amendment a little at a time, when the reasoning behind doing so made some degree of sense. But now we're faced with a proposed measure that bears no logical relationship whatever to a reasonable purpose. And according to some recent polls, the majority of this Union is willing and eager to tread down the incredibly dangerous road of uniformly requiring citizens to pass a government investigation of their personal lives before those citizens are permitted to exercise a right that is expressly reserved to each citizen by the U.S. Constitution. If the American people agree to this proposed UBC nonsense, then we will have set a precedent. Which other freedom will be next? It might be equally legitimate to allow police officers to search a house with no warrant - unless the homeowner has passed a background check. The exact same logic tells us that our government might require a man to pass a background check prior to writing a political opinion column for the local newspaper. If you took the time to read all this and don't understand what I mean or disagree, please post and say so. I think it's important that we think about the issue in these terms- not merely "I don't want more gun laws." I may be wrong, but I think "U-B-C" is just a new way to spell " tyranny."

The American Redoubt is looking increasingly appealing.

Myth: the Second Amendment is a danger to public safety. Fact: the Chicago political machine is a danger to American liberty.

He probably also thinks cancer patients should use positive thinking to save their lives instead of chemo.

Having five PhDs sign their names on an article does not cure absurdity in the article's findings. I really hope when I get a graduate degree I don't experience the seemingly automatic loss of I.Q. points that so many doctors of philosophy seem to suffer upon being awarded the degree.

This is deeply troubling.   The supporters of the Missouri bill and others like it are somehow oblivious to the dire consequences of such a measure being enacted.  In the United States, no small number of people are willing to literally fight to defend fundamental rights.

Come on, now y'all. This is a good thing. The way it works is, if enough people break the law then they get amnesty. Once the liberals in Congress get their way and outlaw all firearms, then we'll just all break the law by keeping ours ... and get amnesty too!

What goes in the bag?  I prefer the alternative approach - hear the bogeyman, move from bed to a predetermined defensive position with weapon and light, dial 9-1-1, and wait.  By choosing a defensive position beforehand, you give yourself the benefit of good, hard cover and you can stage your equipment (flashlight, ammo, etc.) where you will need it to be.

OK, I heard on the news today about President Obama restarting funding for CDC research into "gun violence" and thought the story would be a good topic for discussion.  First, I'll give you an opportunity to read the story that I'm referring to:  http://www.npr.org/blogs/health/2013/02/06/170844926/debate-rages-on-even-as-research-ban-on-gun-violence-ends   Now, the last time the CDC had funding to do this kind of research, they found that the safety risks of keeping a firearm in the home outweigh the safety benefits.     In a separate NBC article (found here: http://vitals.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/01/16/16532333-obama-plan-eases-freeze-on-cdc-gun-violence-research?lite) a Dr. Frederick Rivera, editor of the Archives of Pediatrics and Adolescent Medicine, referred to "gun violence" as a "public health problem."  The Health and Human Services Secretary said, "We are committed to re-engaging gun violence research at the [CDC]."   From the outset, I don't understand how the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has any business researching so-called "gun violence."  It seems to me that they already have their hands full with, oh, I don't know... AIDS?  Cancer?  Ebola?  Does it really seem right that they would spend their valuable resources (OUR resources) on "gun violence" instead of focusing on curing and controlling blood borne pathogens or something?   Second, what the hell is "gun violence"?  Violence is violence; the aggressor's instrument of choice is merely incidental.  Does it make sense that the CDC would officially investigate firearms related attacks but not suicide bomb attacks, or domestic violence, etc.?  I happen to think that the popular practice of referring to firearms related crimes as "gun violence" subtly numbs us to the reality that behind every crime there is a morally culpable person who chose to do something reprehensible.    I am astounded by the degree to which we as a society refuse to accept responsibility for our own faults.  I'll concede, there are real problems that have come to light recently.  One is the fact that we abide a media that glamorizes and sensationalizes mass murder.  Another is that we are too lazy to take steps to ensure our own personal safety.  Rather than personally defending ourselves, we would rather rely on the state to do so -- even when it has been firmly established that the state cannot do so.  Finally, we blame our problems on an inanimate object.   What do you guys think?  

What's that medical text that helps you identify pills based on appearance - Physician's Desk Reference?  If you could find something like that on digits it would be a potentially life saving resource.

I have a Midland XT511.  It can run on AA batteries, hand crank, AC adapter, or 12v lighter adapter and comes with all the required hardware.  It is an AM/FM/Weather band receiver and can receive and transmit on GMRS.  It has a little flashlight built in and a USB port so you can charge a cell phone.  It also has an alarm clock.   Great quality.  Hasn't disappointed me yet.  The price probably isn't worth it if you only want a weather radio, but if you want to be able to talk to others it's tough to beat.  I haven't seen many other products like it.   https://midlandusa.com/two-way-radios/product/xt511-base-camp/

I took a stab at it, and this is where I got stumped:   A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.  This Amendment is so worded that its plain meaning is immediately apparent.  Therefore it shall not be subject to judicial interpretation that in any way curtails the rights herein guaranteed or inquires into legislative intent.   See, my main problem with the Second Amendment is not really in the wording of the Amendment itself.  The wording is fine, actually.  My problem is that we have had several U.S. Supreme Court decisions that found it necessary to "interpret" the language of the Amendment.  Any time a judicial power gets into the business of "interpreting" what is fundamentally fairly clear language, you have to worry about what that judge's interpretation will look like.  Frankly, we need a Second Amendment that is immune from such meddling.     That's the rub, though.  If we revised the 2A to look more like my version above, the Supreme Court could say, "that Amendment is now unconstitutional because it is the result of the legislative branch usurping the sovereign power of the judiciary."  Now we're back to square one.

Thanks for the link.  Just sent General Mills notice that their products will not be welcome in my home until they publicly announce a change in their policy of condemning civil rights guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution.

I emailed Senator Bob Corker on 31 December.  Today I got the following response:   Dear [Wheelgunner],     Thank you for taking the time to contact my office regarding the tragic shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary and the issue of gun control. Your input is important to me, and I appreciate the time you took to share your thoughts.   Like any parent, I was heartbroken to hear about this tragedy, and like other Tennesseans, I have the victims and families in my thoughts and prayers. Given such an unspeakable act of violence perpetrated on children, it's appropriate to talk about what we're doing to keep our communities safe, recognizing the issues involved are complex, especially when it comes to identifying and acting upon the warning signs that always seem to precede these incidents.   While I have always believed that it is critical to ensure that firearms are kept out of the hands of those who have lost their constitutional right to firearm possession, the right to own firearms for shooting, hunting, and self-protection is important to me as a Tennessean and as an American. Should legislation dealing with our Second Amendment rights come before the Senate, I will certainly take your concerns into consideration. I also wanted to share the steps I have taken to protect our Second Amendment rights in the attached "Policy Points" document.   Thank you again for your letter. I hope you will continue to share your thoughts with me.     Sincerely,  Bob Corker United States Senator   /end   The "policy points document" contains the same information that is available on his website about his support for the Second Amendment.

Farenheit 451 is one most of us read in school, but it's worth another reading. The Revolution by Ron Paul - The Congressman has provided the people with a guide for making this nation once again the Land of the Free.  The Memoirs of Joseph Plumb Martin - Martin was an American enlisted soldier in the Revolutionary War.  Most military history books are written by generals and discuss broad strategies; this one was written by a private and he deals with such topics as foot blisters from forced marches and going hungry because colonist farmers he was defending refused to share food.

We don't have kids yet so normally everything stays loaded at home. On the rare occasion when we do have kids in the house, I put a padlock through the chamber of everything except my carry gun (which stays on my hip).

Sent a snail mail letter to my state representative two days ago.  I'm gearing up to write a whole new batch that mentions the event on War Memorial Plaza.

Today I celebrated Gun Appreciation Day like several hundred other Tennesseans - by driving into Nashville and attending the pro-Second Amendment rally that took place at War Memorial Plaza.  I know many of our members don't live within easy driving distance of Nashville and have busy schedules, so I thought I would describe what went on for those who were unable to attend.   When I arrived at noon there was a surprisingly large crowd already gathered on the Plaza.  The turnout was inspiring.  There were Liberty Riders (bikers), veterans and representatives from veterans' groups, whole families, and single people.  The crowd was not heavily skewed by one age group - I would say about a quarter of those in attendance were over 60.  The best was seeing how many people brought their whole family, and especially their kids.   There were numerous "Don't Tread on Me" flags, American flags, and some great homemade signs - my favorite was a simple white poster with the following words in black: "Fear the Government that Fears Your Guns."  There were certainly some "amens" throughout, and some clearly riled up people, but the whole bunch was well mannered and respectful throughout.  There were no opposition protesters that I saw.   A man was addressing the crowd by PA system when I showed up.  He shortly introduced John Harris, who I understand is in charge of the Tennessee Firearms Association.  Mr. Harris spoke several times throughout the event and struck me as a confident, capable leader.  The other speakers included State Senator Bill Ketron, and State Representative Joe Carr (who proposed the bill to nullify any new firearm-related promulgation from the Obama administration).  Representative Carr had some very good things to say about the Second Amendment, as well as some stirring remarks on Tennessee and its duty to stand up to federal tyranny.   Perhaps the most moving speaker was a lady Tennessean (I believe her name was Nikki Gosser) whose husband was murdered right in front of her.  She is a HCP holder but was unarmed at the time of the murder because she and her husband were working in a bar (this was several years ago before carry in bars was legal).  Her story obviously drove home the point that the kind of restrictions proposed in Washington only really hurt the good folks who follow the letter of the law.  I really liked that she called out the bias of the media and lamented how unfairly we are treated in the court of public opinion today.   As the event concluded we joined hands and sang a patriotic song.  Standing there looking out over the crowd I actually choked up and couldn't sing.  It was an amazing experience and one I won't soon forget.  I made some new friends today and look forward to attending the next similar rally next month and seeing some familiar faces.  What I saw and heard today reaffirmed my commitment to standing up for our rights and enjoying liberty to the fullest, and it's comforting to know that there are so many others out there who feel the same way.  

@ TNSovereignty - Is it safe to say then that good dissent is composed of certain elements? Say, good dissent requires courage, individual critical thinking, and a solid understanding of the Constitution? Are those the right elements? If so, then knowing those elements could help us identify the flaws in our adversaries' philosophies. That would make it really easy to quickly point out to a misguided individual the flaws in his position and thus begin to win him over with right thinking. E.g. "What you're saying shows that you've read a lot about the purposivist method of constitutional interpretation. And the fact that you're saying your comments here in this debate shows the courage behind your conviction. But good dissent also requires individual work. Tell me about the critical analysis you've done on your own. In other words, why don't you adhere to a different school, like the textual interpretation for example?"

What I'm about to write is unrelated to the comments above (which I agree with) about the purpose of the Second Amendment.  Rather, it's an indictment of the dangerous brand of liberal "logic" seen in the article mentioned above.   I quote Mr. Andrews: "I'm not worried, because I don't own an assault weapon and don't feel the need for one."  And later: "Guns are not going away, because the Second Amendment is sacrosanct."   Mr. Andrews admits that he has no desire to own a liberty rifle.  Then he concedes that firearms generally are here to stay.  Shouldn't it be enough, then, for him simply not to purchase one?  Why will he only be satisfied when no one can purchase one?   I personally don't have any desire to own the morning after pill.  In fact, I am opposed to its use based on my principles.  So what do I do?  How do I deal with my moral aversion to the morning after pill?  Do I attempt to prevent others from having access to it, or rail against it in the media?  No.  I simply don't buy it.   I sincerely regret that Mr. Andrews has psychological problems stemming from his federal military service.  But I can't help but point out that a reasonable national (and local) dialogue - emphasizing logic, history, and law -  about the place of firearms in our society would be much more achievable and productive if those (like Mr. Andrews) with deep seated phobias, emotional scarring, and other mental health problems conscientiously removed themselves from the discussion.     People like Mr. Andrews truly frighten me.  They represent one of the greatest threats to our rights because they cannot be engaged in a mature political debate.  If a liberal has a list of reasons or historical evidence that supports his positions, I can show him the fallacies of his logic, or prove to him that his historical events were anomalous.  I can show him, through reasoning, why he is wrong - and bring him to our side.  But when a man refuses to recognize logical reasoning - like the relationship of cause and effect - and refuses to acknowledge the value of historical analysis - e.g. the fact that we have needed to fight for our freedom in the past - and instead stands solely on emotions and fears...  he's effectively removed himself from the grownup world of discussion.  He has become a zealot, a person beyond the reach of rational adult reasoning.  And we all know what happens when angry people are no longer able to reason.

Yes, Tennessee could do this.  It's called "nullification" and States have used the same technique in the past to check federal power.  The reality is that while the federal law enforcement apparatus is massive, still its resources are finite.  If enough States nullify a federal law, then the federal government will be overburdened with workload and will be unable to enforce that law effectively.  Nullification requires strong State level leaders, though, and consequently is unlikely today.

Letters sent today.