tnguy

Maybe it's because I've been through a few rounds of pets but they are expendable to my mind. That probably sounds more callous than it is, our dog is definitely important but not anywhere near my family nor my ability to provide for them.   With that said, the dog sleeps with a member of the family so it's pretty much a wash anyway.

Please consider a fence or other restraint. I'll not get in to a big discussion on this but it's better for your dog and better for the people using property adjoining yours and ultimately, better for you.

This was added in 2010 apparently. Way to ambush legal gun owners. Who should we push to get this language turned back to the original? Since the bill itself was to allow carry in restaurants (basically, on our side), it must have been snuck in by some scumbag.   http://state.tn.us/sos/acts/106/pub/pc1009.pdf‎

    And don't forget this bit:     They can't just put up a little red sticker.   Edit: Oh, apparently they can. When did that get added in?  

  And there is a reason this is very important. It changes the balance of power with the police who are supposed to be citizens given additional powers to help keep the peace into a new class of people with powers over regular citizens.   These are the Peelian principles which were the foundation of modern policing. See how far we've strayed...   The basic mission for which the police exist is to prevent crime and disorder. The ability of the police to perform their duties is dependent upon the public approval of police actions. Police must secure the willing co-operation of the public in voluntary observation of the law to be able to secure and maintain the respect of the public. The degree of co-operation of the public that can be secured diminishes proportionately to the necessity of the use of physical force. Police seek and preserve public favour not by catering to public opinion, but by constantly demonstrating absolute impartial service to the law. Police use physical force to the extent necessary to secure observance of the law or to restore order only when the exercise of persuasion, advice, and warning is found to be insufficient. Police, at all times, should maintain a relationship with the public that gives reality to the historic tradition that the police are the public and the public are the police; the police being only members of the public who are paid to give full-time attention to duties which are incumbent upon every citizen in the interests of community welfare and existence. Police should always direct their action strictly towards their functions, and never appear to usurp the powers of the judiciary. The test of police efficiency is the absence of crime and disorder, not the visible evidence of police action in dealing with it.[2]  

  The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.   Poor ol' Nine. Nobody loves him. :cry:

This guy agrees that authority can't be wrong.

  What about freedom to eat in a restaurant without being shot to death by one of those disgusting gun owners? Better outlaw them for everyone.

My parents never told me anything like that. It seems to be a particularly American fiction.   Driving is merely an action regulated by the government.

Sir, pop up to the National Archives and take a look at the document which is the SUPREME law of the land, which enumerates and restricts the powers of the government and which citizens cannot be coerced to sign away. That contract supersedes any possible "contract" the government can make with its citizens, egregious mistakes by the supreme court notwithstanding.

  I just disagreed with you up to that point but there I have to issue a "Hell, no". Those mofos are crazy and need no extra encouragement.

  Why does the 9th amendment always get ignored? Does it need to change its deodorant? Get a more hip hairstyle? Is it hanging out with the wrong crowd?   Regardless, driving is not a privilege. That's just something anxious parents tell their kids to try and keep them in line then others use to try and justify unconstitutional actions. Even if it is not a right, that it would have to be a right *or* a privilege is a false dichotomy.

  And if you go shooting at random people with your gun, they will take that away too. That doesn't stop the RKBA from being a right and not a privilege.

I suspect it wouldn't have to have been anything like that much of a rise to keep the scalpers down. As you say yourself, the ammo is out there if you're in the right place at the right time so the shortage is not that severe. Less profit for the scalpers means less incentive to be outside Academy at 7am and less profits to reinvest (I suspect there's going to be a lot of scalpers left holding a lot of ammo they just can't sell when this all finally blows over)

  Just imagine what else they could load up in there if it did. No transportation of weapons in vehicles (loaded or unloaded), no transportation of documents that the government disagrees with the content of (OK, the internet makes that mostly irrelevant these days). You could nullify pretty much the whole bill of rights that way and you'd just have to suck it up because for the majority of the population, the ability to drive is a necessity, not a nice-to-have.   Bear in mind that a driving license is not issued at the whim of the state. If you meet their requirements, they have to give you one. In our parlance, that's a "shall issue". I disagree that driving is a privilege and if they tried to make it so, there would be riots in the streets.

I think I just worked out a new method for our glorious leader to attack our gun rights (Ssh, don't tell him). Just pass laws heavily restricting the price of ammo (due to the "shortages" and "gouging"). Should work as well as the price controls on bread did in the USSR.   http://wiki.mises.org/wiki/Price_controls

Incidentally, when I was in the new gun shop in Cool Springs, I noticed they did have quite large stashes of reloaded ammunition. So clearly the demand is opening up new supply lines for regular purchasers (Though the price was not significantly better than regular ammo but there was a lot of it).

  He's adjusted his prices to reflect supply and demand. It's either him or the scalpers and if I need it, I'd rather be able to get it at a regular store than have to chase questionable personages around the internet. Though technically it doesn't make much difference. I do believe he didn't open his business as a 401c

I'm against the DUI checkpoints in the first place but once they have reasonable suspicion to believe you're drunk driving, all bets are off with breathalyzers and blood samples.

Unfortunately, anything if nobody puts a stop to it.

So your chains sit lightly upon you? Nice.

As I understand it, one of the bonuses is no serial number.

  More money for manufacturers == more incentive to produce more ammo.

Most of it I read here:   http://www.victorinc.com/SKS-FAQ.html

  OK. I may be showing my ignorance here but this is how I understand it:   Earlier this year I purchased an SKS. I was interested in putting a tactical stock on it but as I looked into it, I found out that certain SKSs (of which I believe mine to be one) count as "Curios and Relics" and except for certain approved modifications, it is illegal to change out the stock fittings including the stock, the bayonet and the grenade launcher or adding a magazine with some quite nasty penalties. It looked like there were also some quite complex subtleties to the whole thing and in the end, I decided it just wasn't worth messing with (I quite enjoy it in its vanilla state anyway so no biggie).