TMF

Well my questions/concerns have been satisfied. It's easy to find bias when you're looking for it I guess. As much as we could use this opportunity to beat up on a member of the media for the sins of the industry, I think it would be a better investment to use this as an opportunity give insight to our opinions as well as debunk anti-gun myths (using facts, not Johnny Cochranisms) to a member of said industry. I think it would be beneficial to us even if we think the Tennessean is the Great Satan. So let's be constructive with the criticism please and not devolve into what we often claim the gun grabbers of doing by bringing emotion into it.

Oh you jinxed us for sure now!

Oh, I wasn't talking about the guy with the glorious 'stache at the gun store. If I could grow such an awesome face-mane I would. I was referring to the guy all done up in Realtree Camo sporting the shotgun.

Examples: 1. The title (it presupposes there aren't adequate gun laws which is opinion. The only opinions in a news article should be from the people interviewed, not by the news outlet, unless it's a editorial piece). 2. Using Cletus for the featured picture. (It's stereotypical. I get that he wasn't a plant or anything, but it looks like something off peopleofwalmart.com. There are actually normal people that shop there, but when you feature photos of the fringe it presents only one image.) 3. The final quote used in the article attempts to tie the Laughner shooting with this supposed "loophole". The fact is that he had a background check when he purchased his weapon from an actual firearms dealer. I understand that this is a quote and opinion from someone interviewed, but it is fundamentally incorrect. Something so easily debunked from being fact shouldn't be in an article meant to inform. Other than that I thought it represented both sides well. I know that I'm not going to agree with the other side long before I see it in print. But this is a matter of opinion; someone who has a different opinion is just as valid as I. So long as the reasonable argument from both sides is presented I'm not going to cry foul.

I agree, but it's the law right now. I would like to see it changed or at least have some more specific verbage. It seems they kept it vague on purpose for the sake of LE. But since it is lawful for them to temporarily disarm you that shouldn't give them the right to run numbers on your weapon. There is no PC to suspect the weapon is stolen. It seems like Tennessee Code doesn't support it and it's a 4A violation. Any LEOs want to weigh in? I've been wondering this for a while.

Let the TSA bashing begin.

It's still there: TN gun laws, or lack thereof, under attack | The Tennessean | tennessean.com

I didn't think the article overall was biased, with the exception of the final quote used (since it references a situation that evokes emotion and has nothing to do with the actual transfer of firearms between private citizens). The title of the article and the photo of Cletus was what put me off... but maybe I'm wrong... maybe Big Hungry Joe was around for some of the photos and they left him out because it would look too obvious. I dunno, I might be looking too much into it but it smells bad.

Have you checked with USAA?

I would say that it is very likely he didn't come up with the title or have final authority on it as well as the choice of photos used. However, his name is attached to the article so he gets to assume responsibility. Either way, it skews the story from the get-go.

Do you still use VGLI?

The title of the article is quite slanted. It's one thing to have a teaser title, but this one presupposes that there aren't adequate laws, and that Sir is opinion. For an uneducated reader their mind is made up for them before they even read word one of the article. I've been open-minded from the start, and I understand that it's difficult to present seemingly unbiased material when one side of the argument (anti-gun) is populated by loonies that don't have an understanding of how our current gun laws work but want restrictions added which target law-abiders and doesn't address the criminal element. I get that it's not easy to not look biased. I'm sure from the anti-gun side they are reading it as biased for guns (well, maybe not this article but one of the previous ones). With that said, the title of the article alone is so very obvious in regards to bias. The choice of photos was in line with the stereo-type of gun-toting redneck. I mean, I've been to plenty of gun shows and there are lots of people who aren't head-to-toe in Realtree. Nothing against Realtree camo, but this plays directly into the image that liberals present... uneducated backwoods types that shouldn't own guns in the first place. It's what allows them to be so dismissive of 2nd Amendment advocates in the media. As much as I appreciate Mr. Haas' efforts to collect data here in order to provide an unbiased article, I think it is clear that's not what we have. Too bad.

Yeah, I understand how your HCP is tied to your DL and all. I was wondering about running s/n on the weapon you're carrying. If an officer can't take possession of your weapon unless he has reason to then why is it SOP for some officers to take it and run the s/n before giving it back. To me it seems that he would need PC to do it. I've had this happen before when transporting a rifle (legally in a locked case) and the officer helped himself to confiscate it back to his vehicle and run the numbers. He wouldn't let me go until it came back clean.... is this not a violation of the 4th Amendment?

Wow, I missed something apparently.

I know that LEOs do this all the time, but don't they need PC in order to run the numbers? I know, I know... "its illegal to carry in TN and a HCP is a defense to that"... however, code states that LEO can only temporarily disarm you if he believes his/yours/others safety is at risk, so if that criteria isn't met how do LEOs have the right to take your weapon and run the s/n? Isn't that treading close to 4th Amendment?

.

Clarksville has 4 now... ain't we the metropolis?

I abide by the 5-9 rule and haven't been pulled over in about a decade, with the exception of driving in New Jersey, which in my defense is impossible NOT to get pulled over in NJ if you are from a state that makes sense. Still, I haven't been issued a ticket since I was in my teens; they usually just issued a warning. Not that I really care if someone pushes the envelope (so long as it isn't to the point of reckless) of the law, but c'mon; don't get pissed at the cops when they nab ya! You know they're out there, and that's their job, so getting pulled over for speeding is your choice.

Now he said he was going to get views from both sides... there aren't too many people on the other side of the issue that we can find common ground with. EDIT: As opened minded as I try to be I can't help but take notice of the title of the article... "TN gun laws, or lack thereof, under attack" http://www.tennessean.com/article/20120122/NEWS01/301220042/TN-gun-laws-lack-thereof-under-attack?odyssey=tab|topnews|text|News The title itself is suggestive and biased. There are, in fact, gun laws in Tennessee. To title the story this way feeds the reader an opinion as fact before they even read the first line.

Haha, took me a minute to get that one.

Unless something is unsafe or inherently unsound in it's tactics then I'm willing to entertain it. I've seen a broad spectrum of tactics over the years, and I can't say that I've adopted 100% of my tactical shooting SOPs from any one particular source. So long as an instructor can intelligently articulate an answer when questioned on his tactics I'm not going to say it wrong or jacked up. I'll file it away in my tactical knowledge bin and I'll either use it or I won't. I think questions have been answered well so far.

Luckily AFN knows just what I like in the evening. She's been slimming down a lot lately.... I'm hoping she doesn't take it too far and end up losing her assets.

To make dumb people feel safe.

Plus the site says it's a user-submitted database, so there is no link to law enforcement. It's a nice site in theory, but unless someone posted their weapon on there it isn't anywhere close to a good solution.

Get a house anywhere and have a backhoe. Zombies can't climb, so when the zombie hoards decend, just dig a deep trench around your house and torch them as needed.