Welcome to TNGunOwners.com

Register now to gain access to all of our features. Once registered and logged in, you will be able to contribute to this site by submitting your own content or replying to existing content. You'll be able to customize your profile, receive reputation points as a reward for submitting content, while also communicating with other members via your own private inbox, plus much more! This message will be removed once you have signed in.

JAB

Members
  • Content count

    4,143
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    5
  • Feedback

    0%

JAB last won the day on August 12 2016

JAB had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

1,614 Excellent

About JAB

  • Rank
    TGO Senior Member
  • Birthday 06/19/1971

Profile Information

  • Location
    Loudon, TN
  1. They are a pain, especially as there are fewer and fewer places to buy them and none of those places are open early enough for me to be on the bank or pier fishing as early as I want to be, meaning I have to buy them the evening before. That used to not be a problem but now it seems they die off so quickly that by the time morning comes half the ones I bought the evening before are already dead or dying. I have just never had much luck with artificial lures, in general, with exception of a few, rare occasions. I wish I did - it would be a lot easier to do spur of the moment fishing with plastics, etc.
  2. My main point, however, was that Hamilton - in the excerpt you quoted - was speaking only about training, etc. of members of a formal, standing military body. He was not speaking about members of the general public who may or may not, at some point, be needed as part of a more generalized, citizens' militia. In fact, the entire paper was about drawing a distinction between the two as, he felt, the entirety of the citizenry could not be regularly trained, "upon such principles as will really fit them for service in case of need. " Just as not every citizen of the U.S. has to maintain a certain type of haircut, salute military officers or know their rank and serial number so the 'principles' Hamilton speaks of do not apply to every citizen but only to the standing military body for which he is arguing and membership therein. So, then, my point is that Hamilton is making no argument, whatsoever, about training or 'fitness' or anything else pertaining to the general citizenry and that there is no way, in my reading, to take it that he is making any argument about applying the standards for membership in a regular, standing military force to the citizenry as a whole when it comes to 'fitness' to own arms or anything else. Meanwhile, Madison is obviously saying that every, single citizen in the United States has the right to keep and bear arms and that such right is, in his estimation, an effective check against the formal, standing military bodies - such as those of which Hamilton speaks - being used by the federal government to enforce tyranny on the citizenry as a whole. The point of both papers was that the Federalists were arguing in support of the need to have some sort of standing, military body that would ultimately look to the federal government for leadership. Many, remembering the war they had just fought where their former government had used a standing military to attempt to enforce its will against the people, opposed the existence of such formal military bodies and believed that, in times of need, the citizens' militia would be enough. So, Hamilton is arguing that such a militia - with no formal, regular training and no pre-existing structure or established division of labor would not be enough while Madison was arguing that such a formal military body would not be able to stand against the citizens' militia if it came right down to it. Further, Madison is obviously saying that every citizen has the right to arms, period. Not after a background check, not with government permission, not on alternate Saturdays and not as long as they pass the requirements to have a permit. So, based on both papers I would still argue that the 'militia' referred to in the Second Amendment is the citizens' militia, not a formal, standing military body and that 'well-regulated' means that at the time such a militia is formed, if it is formed, officers will be chosen from among their number to act as leaders for the militia as well as liaisons between the militia and those governments, likely local or state governments, which the militia supports. So, then, my reading of the Second Amendment based on these papers and other information is: As the possibility of forming a citizen's militia, which would be beholden to local or state governments and regulated by same via officers chosen from among the citizen's militia, itself, is necessary to the preservation of a free state against encroachment from foreign enemies and an over-reaching, tyrannical federal government alike, the right of every citizen to keep and bear arms is guaranteed and shall not be infringed upon in any way, whatsoever, nor shall there be any restriction or requirement other than being a citizen placed upon the ownership and bearing of arms. Now, would I argue that someone who has a professional, medical diagnosis of being bat-guano crazy in such a manner that he or she is a significant threat to themselves or others should be able to own firearms? No. But I think the powers that be should have to prove that is the case before removing someone's right rather than everyone having to prove that we aren't 'unfit' before being allowed to exercise what is both a natural and a Constitutional right. In other words, under the current system you are 'guilty' until you jump through the hoops, pay the fees (be they background check fees or HCP fees) and so on to prove that you are 'innocent'. That, as they say, is bass-ackwards. And, no, a background check would not be needed to weed out those who had been adjudicated as mentally defective to such a degree that they cannot own arms or had been convicted of crimes which had resulted in firearms ownership rights being suspended. A simple database maintained at the federal level - accessible only to those who have an FFL - would be enough. The FFL types a name and SS number into the computer. A match means further inquiry to authorities is required and the sale is put on hold. No match means sale is good to go. No need for fees, filling out forms or any, other nonsense. This would also make it easier for firearms rights to be restored as there would be a single point from which the individual's name must be removed. Delete the name from that single database and that is all that would be required - no red tape, no contacting multiple levels of authorities, nothing.
  3. To me, that sounds more like a small core of 'minute men'. Further, I do not read 'principles as will really fit them...' as having anything, whatsoever, to do with limiting arms. Instead, that would appear, to me, to mean training some to be members of a cannon team, some to be infantry, some to be cavalry and so on, probably so that if the whole militia need be mobilized there would be a core group that could instruct the irregulars and probably take the leadership roles. At least that is the way I read it based on the excerpt you posted. I will take a look at the entire paper, though. EDIT: I see, also, that Hamilton - unlike Madison - was using the term 'militia' in what was, frankly, an unclear and imprecise manner. In one sentence he will use 'militia' as a term almost interchangeable with 'army', in another he will use it to refer to a formal armed force maintained by each state and in yet another he will use the term 'militia' in the way Madison did, to indicate the whole of the citizenry. So, to begin with, that is how Madison's paper described it better than Hamilton's - because even Hamilton, himself, seemed unsure as to how to use the word. Further, even in Hamilton's paper the terms you cited that he used refers only to the standing militia, not to regulation of private citizens regardless of whether or not said private citizen might be called upon to fight as part of the citizens' militia.
  4. Madison clearly explained what 'well regulated' with regards to a militia means in The Federalist #46. and: So, according to the guy who helped write the Bill of Rights, "militia" means any citizen who is capable of fighting against a tyrannical federal government and in order to 'regulate' that militia officers would be chosen from among the militia by such governing bodies (local governments) to which the militia gives allegiance. Further, those local governments would 'unite and conduct' the actions of the militia. 'Well regulated' has nothing to do with who can and who cannot own arms. It has to do with the structure of a militia should such a militia be necessary in order to resist the over-reach of a tyrannical government.
  5. When I went to Reelfoot once the crappie were biting the heck out of those tube baits. Purple body with pink legs seemed to work best out there. I have never caught a single crappie on one around here, though. Maybe I am just rigging them wrong? I have caught a few crappie on minnows around here and even caught one on a wax worm, once.
  6. And there is the other thing. There is no claim, whatsoever, that the things that were released were untrue. The complaint from the DNC et al is that they couldn't run an effective campaign without being able to lie to the voting public and that by exposing their lies these hackers interfered with their campaign. Wow. What a basis for a complaint that is!
  7. Here is what some people don't seem to understand. I, personally, don't give a tinker's damn if Trump's campaign did work with Russia to take out Hillary's campaign. Seriously. I mean, if the Russians were able to get important info from the DNC either with or without Trump's help then it seems to me that we really dodged a huge bullet. If they can't protect their own info how in the heck would they protect national security info - by putting it on a personal server in their basement? Oh, wait... Just like I didn't give a crap about whether or not Bubba Clinton was getting his knob polished in the oval office I don't give a crap if the Russians helped candidate Trump win. Learn lessons from it to prevent outside interference in elections in the future and move on. People want to talk about the 'sanctity of our elections' or whatever. Most of them are hypocrites who think that 'sanctity' means 'Hillary wins' - regardless of whether or not illegal immigrants and dead people were allowed to vote. You can bet if the Ruskies had helped the Hildebeast then most of the same people that are b*tching and moaning and acting like it is such a big deal would be shrugging their shoulders and saying, "He lost. Get over it," right now. Funny how what he might or might not have done as a candidate is a big deal but the actions to give 'pay per view' access to the office of Secretary of State when Hillary was actually a government official appear to be no, big deal. Honestly, since the left seems to want to play hardball I almost hope Trump is exonerated and then says, "Well, Mr. Special Prosecutor, as long as you are here there is this former Secretary of State and former candidate for president that needs to be investigated," although even that would probably be a waste of time and money at this point, too. As for the 'sharing intel with the Russians' it sounds - based on things that even past advisors to Democrat presidents have said - that what Trump supposedly did is not out of the ordinary. With any, other president it would be a second page story that would read more like, "Oops. Rookie mistake. Live and learn." Because it was Trump, however, people want to act like he wrote down the nuclear launch codes for them. I am not just a vapid Trump supporter and defender. Some of the actions he has taken, already or wants to take in the future (coporate welfare like an extremely low corporate tax rate, for instance) I do not agree with. However, this issue is nothing but smoke and mirrors born from sour grapes.
  8. In other words, because regardless of the rules they are supposed to follow and how clearly those rules are written, the people who can ruin your life and send you to prison think it ought to be that way. Unfortunately.
  9. My thoughts, exactly. I thought it was a waste of time and taxpayer money to investigate stains on a blue dress a little more than two decades ago and I think this is a waste of time and taxpayer money, now.
  10. As I already stated, I'd rather have the long renewal periods and pay ten bucks for the maybe one firearm I buy per year. Even when I was buying more firearms I would have felt the same, I think. Further, if truly explained to them, I think that most permit holders would agree. I am thinking that the majority of permit holders are not TGO members nor are they people who probably buy firearms regularly. For that matter, my WAG would be that a pretty healthy percentage of permit holders may only own the one gun that they carry. On the other end of the spectrum, the 'hardcore' gun buyers and sellers may not care, either, because they might be doing mostly private sales and purchases.
  11. That is actually what I meant - TICS is an extra layer that is unnecessary and really only serves the purpose of allowing TN to charge ten bucks per check. Further, and maybe things have changed, I have had discussions with folks who were in states with NICS only and, according to them, there was no fee for a NICS only background check. Maybe I misunderstood but that was what I came away with and it has been long enough that I don't even remember what state(s) they were in.
  12. Because politicians are just like WWE 'professional wrestlers' in business suits. They yell and scream at each other in the 'squared circle', take turns playing the 'heel' or the 'babyface' and behind the scenes - in the locker room, so to speak - pat each other on the back and congratulate each other on a good show. That is why neither the Dempublicans nor the Repocrats are ever going to fix anything - because with the possible exception of the 'lunatic fringe' there aren't actually two parties. There is actually only one party - the party of the wealthy and powerful - and they put on their little shows to convince us all that they are, somehow, different. They may have different points of view from a philosophical standpoint, sometimes, but when it comes down to brass tacks they all work together to be sure that they keep the power and that all of them make a buck. In other words, there are probably some 'key liberals' making money off the deal, somehow, just like there are likely some 'key conservatives' doing the same. This is why both sides hated Trump so much, at first - they were afraid that he had enough wealth of his own that he wouldn't play ball with their little schemes. I do think that he is playing along a lot more than many of us hoped but still not enough to suit them, apparently, as can be seen by the continued attacks on him from "both" sides of the one party. Unless, of course, he is just playing his role in the political theater of the week, which is entirely possible. I still hope not but it is certainly possible.
  13. I voted 'no' because I plan to do the $200 lifetime the next time I renew so I certainly wouldn't want to have to screw around with 'renewing' every five years just to satisfy that requirement. Also, to be completely honest, I don't buy guns all that often and have reached a point where, with the possible exception of one or two 'wants', I am not likely to purchase too many more so, for me, ten bucks a pop when I am buying fewer than one firearm per year is a lot easier to deal with than having to renew my permit more often. Honestly, though, the real problem - at least as far as I understand it - is that Tennessee has an unnecessary 'extra step' which is just an excuse to charge the ten dollars. TICS isn't necessary and NICS checks would be free, at least to my understanding. TICS is just there as a money making scheme, nothing else.
  14. I have no, real need for another .380 pistol but the factory 'CC' model has always kind of called to me. I don't even know if they are still making the CC model. It was a factory 'dehorned and melted' version of the regular .380 that was designed for easier and more comfortable pocket carry. I never fired one - or any Bersa to my recollection - but I held a new one at Gunny's in Maryville, once and it felt really good in my hand. Bigger and heavier than my P3AT that I have had for years, though. That combat plus sounds interesting, too and looks pretty good as well. I actually like the .380 round. In addition to the P3AT I have a FEG SMC .380 (Walther clone) that my mom bought at a gun show. She gave it to me because every time she shot it she got the infamous 'Walther bite' on her hand. For some reason, although my hands are bigger, I have never had that problem with the pistol. I like it specifically because, while it is still relatively small and light, it is larger and heavier than my P3AT which makes it much easier to shoot. The problem is that I only have one magazine for it and magazines - when you can find them in stock somewhere - are expensive. If a part were to break it would pretty much become a paperweight as replacement parts would likely be hard to find. I have thought about one of the Bersa models specifically because I like the FEG so well and, also being (basically) a Walther clone I figure a Bersa would give me something similar, still at a fairly low cost, but for which it would be much easier to find mags and to have repaired, if needed.

Connect With Us

The Fine Print

Tennessee Gun Owners (TNGunOwners.com) is the premier Community and Discussion Forum for gun owners, firearm enthusiasts, sportsmen and Second Amendment proponents in the state of Tennessee and surrounding region.
TNGunOwners.com (TGO) is a presentation of Enthusiast Productions. The TGO state flag logo and the TGO tri-hole "icon" logo are trademarks of Tennessee Gun Owners. The TGO logos and all content presented on this site may not be reproduced in any form without express written permission. The opinions expressed on TGO are those of their authors and do not necessarily reflect those of the site's owners or staff.
Before engaging in any transaction of goods or services on TGO, all parties involved must know and follow the local, state and Federal laws regarding those transactions. TGO makes no claims, guarantees or assurances regarding any such transactions.