Marswolf

Note also that it doesn't say we can't carry a rifle there. It says a "A short-barrel rifle or shotgun". Short-barrel. Looks to me like it was intended to add a charge for "gangstas" in Memphis or Nashville. I think the intention of the law is clear, but cities like Bristol don't see it that way. Maybe I could let them arrest me, sue them, and retire again.

I'll be interested in how this database evolves. I'll not second-guess the features but wait to see how it goes. Mostly I want to see how we can do searches on things like zip-codes or a region. I too ignore non-legal no carry signs.

I forget about the chat feature. But it is a good system.

Was that in Tennessee?

Now that's a poster I can agree with.

Interesting breakdown, Len. I don't know that I can question your assessment of the degrees of liberalism in the different colleges. My experience is a bit diverse, but not as inclusive as yours. Officially, my fields were engineering, psychology and philosophy with a few interesting minors but I was always researching other stuff in the library. As an engineering student, I probably spent more time in the law library than on engineering. I shall defer to you on the matter. I do have one question about your Business School. How many of the teaching staff there have been business owners? Don't make a research project of it. Just off the top of your head is fine. I'm just curious. Since we are getting the normal "I hate English professor" stories, I'll tell one with a twist. First a little background. When I first went to college as an Electrical Engineering student, I had a Pakistani advisor. He had no clue as to what I should be taking. Never did figure out why a double-E should take honors chemistry. Anyway, after a disastrous quarter of horribly schedule arranged classes, I just asked him if I could just sign his name and make my own class schedule and selection. So I did that throughout my stay at that school. The result was my talking classes out of sequence, which actually worked fine for me except I ended up in my senior year having to take stuff like freshman PE and an English class I had never gotten around to. This is about the English class. I decided to get my credits in an English Literature class. I wasn't big on class attendance. I don't think they let you cut class much these days (nanny state) but I did that a lot. So I went to the first class session. Found out about the midterm exam but didn't take it for some reason. But the professor let me do a makeup mid-term and I made a "B" on it. Part of the requirement was a term paper and I turned in one on an allegorical interpretation of Chaucer's The Knight's Tale. I then heard that if you were happy with your mid-term grade, you didn't have to take the final exam - which suited me fine. So, I had been to one class meeting, did a makeup mid-term and turned in a paper. I decided to go to the last class meeting. The professor stood in front of the room and asked if I was in the class........ ......... Now, ponder that for a second.... ........ I figured out I, and the rest of the students, was about to hear why I failed his class miserably. I sheepishly raised my hand and he turned away. Then he said he taught a graduate level Chaucer class and my paper was the best he had received that quarter. He gave me an "A" for the class. That was my only 4-point quarter in college. Other stuff was always more important than grades. BTW Len, we like a lot of the same things. In my case, chocolate is fine. But basically if it can be classified as candy, I'll go for it. Fortunately I have a high metabolism. Otherwise I'd weigh 500 pounds.

Yeah. Ron doesn't hang around his office much these days. I may have to write him a letter.

We have one guy who is 15.

Heh, heh. I thought that might strike a nerve. From my experience, most professors attain tenure in the same way one becomes a general in the Army. You agree with those who are in a position to put you into that classification. That is - you kiss butt. I call it "playing the game." I find it interesting that a number of tenured professors I know refuse to admit that publicly but if pressed will do so in private. When I figured that out, I decided to not become a professor - or a general. I've been on a couple of college campuses and picked up some degrees along the way, so I don't think I can be accused of being a know-nothing on this topic. I started out a liberal and the more educated I became - mostly education picked up outside of classroom - the more I became an adherent of non-liberal thinking. Not "conservative" thinking in the current meaning of that term, but more a believer in very small government and few government services or interference in the lives of citizens. I know a lot of very smart people who are liberals, but without exception the smartest people I know are not of that persuasion. The false and arrogant perception among many liberals that they are smarter than conservatives is interesting to me psychologically. I have commented among colleagues (some of them liberals) about that trait and have on a couple of occasions put it to good use in impaling smug and self-important snots. Somewhere along the line, I think higher education forgot that it is there to educate - not lead youth to "the truth." Top professors in technical fields tend to be researchers first and teachers as a sideline. In the liberal arts, they tend to promote their social agenda rather than present a balanced view. Education has become secondary for them. I do see clear evidence of an attempt to indoctrinate rather than educate among my college teaching friends. A number of these professors appear to be petty tyrants who will punish students for disagreeing with them. And I've seen students complain and even sue to try to get fair treatment to no avail. I like these people as friends, but they shouldn't be teaching. From my experience, I'd say that the majority of teachers, college and otherwise, should not be in their position for one reason or another. I have tremendous respect and admiration for people who can teach well. I have tremendous contempt for those hold teaching positions and teach poorly or use their position to lord over their students as petty dictators. The first requirement for teaching students in any educational area should be the desire and ability to actually teach. It's surprising how many teachers I know who fail this test. They either want to rule students rather than educate them, or they are just incompetent as a teacher. The second requirement should be the ability to put your political and religious views aside and teach a balanced examination of your subject. If a student can figure out that you are a liberal, conservative, Democrat, Republican, Libertarian, theist or atheist then you aren't doing your job properly. You are there to educate - not indoctrinate. I only partially agree with the poll. Universities, in my experience, do tend to be a bastion of liberal thinking and indoctrination. I don't think this is because smarter people are liberals, but because the teaching profession tends to be a mutual admiration society. Sort of a self-sustaining fantasy land. The liberalism isn't monolithic. There is often a token non-liberal who is well respected in his field, but overall those in higher positions are expected to tow the party line. In that sense, often universities are not strongholds of intellectualism but instead of political conformity. I tend to agree that those who have not been on a college campus as a student or in another capacity have a more difficult time in forming a reasoned opinion on the state of collegiate education. But that doesn't mean they can't come to a sensible conclusion. If attendance at an event was a requirement for sensible conclusions, there would be no field of history. Sometimes outsiders have a better view of reality than those inside a situation. My view is that education at these institutions is neither better nor worse than it was when I was first enrolled, now almost exactly 40 years ago. It's just as bad now as it was when I was a student.

I think I have the liberal view nailed, but I do give the so-called conservatives too much credit. My view is that liberals tent to emote rather than think and reason - although they are unable to see that. And modern "conservatives" aren't conserving the basic principles of the country at all - although they are unable to see that. They are mostly being moralist busybodies. The country was founded on the idea that each person pretty much takes care of himself and his own family and leaves others alone to take care of their family. That's the way it should be, in my opinion. That government is best which governs least. That's the idea I want to conserve.

Robbiev, no offense, but it isn't clear, at least in the sense you mean it, about carrying handguns in parks at all. You left out a very important part of the law. 39-17-1311. Carrying weapons on public parks, playgrounds, civic centers and other public recreational buildings and grounds. - (a) It is an offense for any person to possess or carry, whether openly or concealed, with the intent to go armed, any weapon prohibited by § 39-17-1302(a), not used solely for instructional, display or sanctioned ceremonial purposes, in or on the grounds of any public park, playground, civic center or other building facility, area or property owned, used or operated by any municipal, county or state government, or instrumentality thereof, for recreational purposes. 39-17-1302. Prohibited weapons. - (a) A person commits an offense who intentionally or knowingly possesses, manufactures, transports, repairs or sells: (1) An explosive or an explosive weapon; (2) A device principally designed, made or adapted for delivering or shooting an explosive weapon; (3) A machine gun; (4) A short-barrel rifle or shotgun; (5) A firearm silencer; (6) Hoax device; (7) A switchblade knife or knuckles; or (8) Any other implement for infliction of serious bodily injury or death that has no common lawful purpose. Nothing about handguns in that list, and licensed handgun carry for protection is, IMHO a lawful purpose. It seems fairly obvious that the intention of the lawmakers was to allow licensed handgun carry in city parks. But cities are ignoring the lack of lack of handguns on the 39-17-1302(a) list. That's why we need either an AG ruling or a change in the law. I prefer the AG ruling. I suspect that a law change might not be in our favor.

Humans are far too predictable. You always find them near the source of their money. Most of them are not too bright either.

http://www.zogby.com/news/ReadNews.dbm?ID=1334 Released: July 10, 2007 Zogby Poll: Most Think Political Bias Among College Professors a Serious Problem Four in 10 said the problem is "very serious;" Tenure seen as harmful to teaching quality As legislation is introduced in more than a dozen states across the country to counter political pressure and proselytizing on students in college classrooms, a majority of Americans believe the political bias of college professors is a serious problem, a new Zogby Interactive poll shows. Nearly six in 10 - 58% - said they see it as a serious problem, with 39% saying it was a "very serious" problem. The online survey of 9,464 adult respondents nationwide was conducted July 5-9, 2007, and carries a margin of error of +/- 1.0 percentage points. Predictably, whether political bias is a problem depends greatly on the philosophy of the respondents. While 91% of very conservative adults said the bias is a "serious problem," just 3% of liberals agreed. Conservatives have long held that college campuses are a haven for liberal professors. The activist group Students for Academic Freedom, founded by conservative activist David Horowitz, has promoted state legislation invoking a "Students Bill of Rights" on campuses to protect conservative students from academic reprisals by professors who hold contradictory beliefs. Men were much more likely than women to see the bias of professors as a problem - 64% of men agreed, while 53% of women said the same. Whites were twice as likely to call it a "serious problem" as African Americans, the survey showed. The survey also showed that an overwhelming majority also believe that job security for college professors leaves them less motivated to do a good job than those professors who do not enjoy a tenured status - 65% said they believe non-tenured professors are more motivated to do a good job in the classroom. Asked whether they think the quality of a college education today is better or worse than it was 25 years ago, 46% said they think it is worse, while 29% said it is better. Another 16% said the quality now is about the same as it was a generation ago. Older respondents were much more likely than their younger counterparts to say the education quality has deteriorated: just 21% of those age 70 and older said it was better now, compared to 47% of those age 18 to 24 who said today's education was better. Among women, 30% said it was better, while 43% said it was worse and 17% said it was about the same. Among men, 29% said it was better, 49% said it was worse, and 16% said it was about the same.

Is there any rule about how far in advance of shooting them they have to be warned? Can you just say, "You've been warned" - bang?

They don't smell any brains around Jimmy Naifeh.

Economic situations do impact the crime rate. But that isn't an excuse to feel sorry for the thugs. That's the difference between a liberal and a conservative. The liberals blame society for the bad economic conditions that "drive" people to crime. The conservatives know that thuggery is human nature and scum will do whatever is easiest. Maybe bad economic times are a reason to increase the number of cops - and concealed handguns in the hands of good people.... The drug war is a waste of money and manpower. I do think it's unfortunate that people use drugs. Lots of ruined lives because of that. Buried a good friend last year who got hooked and couldn't get his life straightened out. But liking to get high is part of the human genome and we'll never legislate enjoying, and therefore using, drugs out of existence. The drug laws do little more than fund terrorism and fill our jails with people who should be working members of society. We need to get off of our moral high horse and get realistic about the use of drugs and the true cost of the war on drugs. Back in the 60s, Lenny Bruce joked that marijuana would be legal in 20 years because every law student he knew smoked it. He missed that one. I guess there is more enjoyment for the lawyers in making money from the druggies than in using drugs.

Let me know and I'll join you on the poacher hunt. I can show you how to hide a body so even the cadaver dogs won't find it. I may want to go on a dog and cock fighter hunt too.

All I can tell you is that I've never killed a zombie with a handgun.

As you point out, it is CBS.... Now if it was a news organization, rather than a liberal propaganda organization....

That statute about city parks is really confusing. Something needs to be done about that.

More than you ever wanted to know: http://www.news.com.au/story/0,23599,21244264-2,00.html http://www.smh.com.au/news/film/raid-leaves-sly-with-more-baggage/2007/02/19/1171733684470.html http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2007/03/13/1173722420258.html http://www.smh.com.au/news/people/stallone-pleads-guilty/2007/05/15/1178995135116.html http://www.news.com.au/dailytelegraph/story/0,22049,21766871-5001021,00.html

Len I totally agree. Did you know you just gave a good reason to eliminate the drug laws? Back in the 60s I build my own weapons, like cannons to fire marbles and arrows. I commented at the time that if guns were ever banned, I'd just make my own.

I think Bush should step down and let President Cheney rule for a year. It wouldn't do anything but make some of the liberals apoplectic, but that's a good enough reason.

Ol Sly was arrested when he tried to bring his steroids into Australia earlier this year. Seems like this would keep him from getting his permit.

Dave, lots of people get training for a lot of good reasons. Military people are constantly retrained both by formal training and experience. Lots of LEOs go back and get extra training to give them an edge. But these folks train with people who actually know how to execute the skills and are proven by experience to be able to do so. The military is trained by instructors who always have been in these types of experiences. LEOs generally, although not always, train with people with a lot of real world experience. Lately we have seen some LEO training by "operator wannabes", but that's not the rule and officers who would train with them are not top line people anyway. And it's a waste of their money. You can't train the stupid. In the past few months, I've been exposed to more civilians who want to pretend they are "operators" by getting training from people who have little or no experience themselves in that area than I even knew existed. Nothing wrong with doing that to gain some skills or for fun, but a lot of these students seem to actually think this makes them capable of executing battle plans. That's scary and also pitiful. And we see examples of students and teachers who get themselves into trouble, along with their comrades in arms, by imagining themselves capable of executing special operations. I was talking to a friend in Baghdad a couple of weeks ago who is now a contractor for a major firm. He's retired career Army SF and knows what he is doing. He told me several horror stories about neophyte Rambozos who work for other firms and get themselves and others into jeopardy by their attitude and lack of experience. As I say, there is nothing wrong with this sort of training for the public as long as the instructors make sure the students know this doesn't make them into real soldiers or supermen. But the training field unfortunately has a lot of hypesters who want to bring in the students and their money with glitz and flash and there seem to be plenty of marks willing to fall for it.