RinTN

Welcome to TGO. It's good to see young intelligent people joining our ranks.

At the moment, the top of my list is the Glock 26 and M&P 9c - the Glock 19 is just behind these two. You hit on my concern about the Glocks - I prefer a handgun with an external safety. The Glock doens't have one, but you can get the M&P with one. So, what does it take to add a thumb safety to a Glock?

I looked at the XD 9 subcompact and wanted to like it, but it just didn't feel good in my hand.

If anyone is interested, I just got a notification that Midway has: Ultramax Remanufactured Ammunition 380 ACP 115 Grain Lead Round Nose Box of 50 - $11.99/box of 50 MidwayUSA - Ultramax Remanufactured Ammunition 380 ACP 115 Grain Lead Round Nose Box of 50

I was going to take a few minutes and point out several of the problems with the article. Then I realized that in the comments section there are several good posts that explain the fallacies and misrepresentations. It would be singing to the choir here anyway.

Is Beale Street privately owned? I would have thought it was a public street. If it is indeed a public street, then I don't see how this could be legal. Of course, the individual businesses could still post.

I'm still giving some consideration to the M&P 9c. The problem is finding one locally so I can see how it actually feels in my hand.

I usually go to the range in Unicoi myself. I've heard some good things about Unaka Rod and Gun Club (Unaka Rod and Gun Club), but I've never actually been there myself.

For the class? We aren't going this Saturday, it's actually the session in July that we'll be at. I wish it were this one, but I've got another commitment.

Actually, at this point, that may well be the answer. I'm planning on going to see the guys at Tri-Cities Gun Depot and likely getting either a Glock 19 or 26.

Thanks for your effort! I don't know that we'll ever change her mind, but our best hope is as you mentioned - polite contact about our position.

This is pretty much exactly what I said when the issue came up from the Nashville commission. It's VERY nice to see it stated as an official opinion by the AG!

Woo Hoo! Thanks for mentioning this.

OK, I don't have the actual flyer, but evidently I did write down two names and phone numbers that were on it: Steve: 426-1590 (I'm pretty sure this is who I called) Sgt. D. Wines: 753-1053 The dates that I know were on the sheet include 6/20 and 7/25. There were other dates beyond that, but I didn't really pay attention to them. IIRC, there is a copy of the flyer posted in the sporting goods area of the Wal-Mart on Market St.

I don't seem to have any of the information here at work, but I'm 99% sure that I've got it at home. I'll check and report back shortly.

Hmmm, maybe that isn't the one that I signed my wife up for. The one that she's supposed to be going to is the one illumina mentioned. It meets at the Senior Citizens Center (at least for the classroom part, I don't know where they shoot) and is free! Actually, I signed up for it too. I figured the Mrs would appreciate that psychological support of having someone she knew there.

I'm trying to get my wife to do that class. If she goes through with it, she'll be shooting a .22.

According to my math, it's probably closer to 3.5%. Wikipedia has the 2008 population for TN at 6,214,888. One of the articles in the CA about the restaurant carry bill said there were about 220,000 people in the state with permits. With that said, it looks like it depends on the area you are in as well. I saw an article yesterday (Carry Concealed) that claimed Sullivan county had issued over 15,000 in the previous three year period. Assuming those numbers are correct, that would be about 10% - not counting those who had permits from previous years that had not yet come up for renewal (two more years worth, based on the five year validity of the permit). So, this would imply that Sullivan county could be 15%+ of total population. If we were to factor out those under 21, we might even be talking about 20% of adults in the county having their permit!

FWIW, I've met her in passing, and she didn't actually strike me that way. I think that a lot of the problem, both with these and commissioners in other areas, is that they have been fed a heaping helping of FUD from the Anti's. So, I think we should take the opportunity to give informed, logical explanations about the fallacies and help them understand the realities related to legal gun carry. I'm going to try to come up with a letter to her - and one for each of the other commissioners - later today or tomorrow. I would appreciate it if any of the rest of you who are good at writing this type of note would consider doing the same.

That's a reasonable guess too. To me that still means that "Tygard's claim about *why* these businesses are pushing for this change is full of :poop:".

Some carefully thought out notes/calls to the JC Commissioners might be in order here. Mentioned by name as opposing restaurant carry are Jane Myron, Marcy Walker, and Phil Carriger. Pete Peterson is mentioned, but appears to only be pointing out that the city already has a law against local park carry. Mayor Jane Myron: (423) 434-2665 - JANESLUNCHBOX@AOL.COM Vice Mayor Jeff Banyas: (423) 283-0954 - jeffdds4@aol.com Commissioners: Stephen Darden: (423) 283-6300 - sdarden@hsdlaw.com Marcy Walker: (423) 612-1396 - mewalker@cvtsurg.com Phil Carriger: Note - I'm not sure what the situation is with Phil Carriger. He is not listed on the commission page, but is on JC Wikipedia page. City Manager: M. Denis (Pete) Peterson: (423) 434-6002 - citymgr@johnsoncitytn.org ------------------- JohnsonCityPress.com - Local News - Johnson City, TN "City commissioners uncomfortable with Tennessee ‘guns in bars’ bill Johnson City Mayor and owner of Jane’s Lunch Box restaurant, Jane Myron, said she feels the recently passed bill allowing carry permit holders to bring guns into restaurants, including those serving alcohol, could compromise the safety of restaurant patrons. “In my restaurant, there’s no need to be armed,†she said. “I would not feel comfortable and would probably ask them to give me the gun until they leave.†The bill, also referred to as the “guns in bars†bill, would allow Tennessee carry permit holders to bring weapons into restaurants that serve alcohol. According to Associated Press reports, the controversial legislation, which passed the House and Senate, was vetoed in late May by Gov. Phil Bredesen, but the veto was later overridden by the House and Senate. The bill is set to take effect on July 14. “It’s a bad mix,†Myron said of guns and alcohol. “It’s like oil and vinegar.†Myron’s stance on the issue appears to be the consensus among those serving on the Johnson City Commission. Commissioner Phil Carriger said he would support any steps the city could take to keep guns out of restaurants that serve alcohol and anticipates the legislation may soon be discussed among commissioners. “I think that question will be asked the next time the commission meets, the next time the commission gets together,†he said. “ ‘What can we do, if anything, to keep guns out of bars?’’’ However, municipalities may not have a say when it comes to the guns in restaurants bill, as state law would trump those of municipalities, Myron said. According to Associated Press reports, Nashville council members had been looking at a proposal to use its local beer ordinance to keep guns out of establishments by adding restrictions that would keep businesses with beer permits from allowing guns inside. Commissioner Marcy Walker is among the more than 200,000 carry permit holders in Tennessee. Still, she said the allowance of firearms in restaurants that serve alcohol is “asking for trouble†and feels two bills relating to firearms would put the weapons in places they do not belong. “I would never carry my gun into a park or restaurant,†she said. “I just don’t think it’s an appropriate place for that.†According to the Associated Press, Bredesen signed a measure Friday that would allow carry permit holders to carry weapons into parks, including local parks, throughout the state. Municipalities can opt out of this legislation, though, as was addressed at the last meeting of the city commissioners. At that meeting, Johnson City Manager Pete Peterson said the city already has an ordinance in place that prohibits weapons in city parks and such information is posted at the entrance to each park. “We have an existing ordinance in place which prohibits weapons from our parks and the parks are already posted,†he said at that meeting. Although cities may be unable to get around the guns in restaurants legislation, owners of the establishments can prohibit guns from their businesses by posting signs at the entrances saying that firearms are not allowed on the premises, according to the Associated Press. Also, those who bring firearms into restaurants where alcohol is served are prohibited from drinking any alcohol themselves. Still, Myron said she is unsure how this could be properly policed. “How do you do that?†Myron said, adding that keeping someone stationed by a restaurant door to help enforce the legislation would be an additional cost. Walker said she would much rather see lawmakers take aim at what she considers some of the state’s more important issues, such as child abuse and the budget. “I just wish that legislators would keep an eye on some of the more pressing issues we have in this state,†she said. Though she is apprehensive about the legislation, Myron said she would still like to get citizen feedback on it." -------------------

In most situations, that sounds pretty reasonable to me - with the one caveat that I do believe there could be situations where someone in the US would be subject to military law. If a member of a foreign military took action against the US on our own soil and was captured, it would seem reasonable for them to be treated as a military concern as opposed to a civilian one. This sounds pretty reasonable to me, though it seems that there is little agreement to exactly what constitutes "torture". You might disagree, but I have a hard time considering the stupid stuff like putting underwear on someone's head to be torture. It wasn't appropriate, but I don't think it was torture either.

In the late 1700's, under the terms of the Constitution as written: Did Women have the same rights as men? Did blacks have the same protections at whites? Where the poor viewed the same under the law as the wealthy land owner? I'm sure you know that the answer to each of these is a resounding NO. I'm not saying that it was a good thing, but when the founding fathers said "all", it's pretty clear that they said it with a wink and a nod. I don't know if I would say I "approve", but I wouldn't say I'm bothered by it either. Actually, I don't think I've given an opinion at all on how people should be treated. I've just pointed out why your examples didn't really match one particular statement, and why your opinions seemed to come from a basis that's not quite the same as most of the other people posting in this thread.

Ah, but their claim isn't that they don't want us in other places. Instead, their claim is that they don't want to have to put up a sign because it will make people worry that their business isn't safe. But, simply forcing it on others doesn't change the fact that they'll have to post a sign. Thus, if their actual concern is the sign, their businesses are still going to look unsafe. Ultimately what I'm getting at is that I think Tygard's claim about *why* these businesses are pushing for this change is full of . Instead, their true reason for trying to find a way to circumvent the law is as you said - they are Anti-2A and want to force their position on others. In doing so, they just wanted to come up with a smoke screen to try and obscure their true position.

While this may be true, it sure doesn't make any sense. He's saying that some places don't want to have to post for image reason, so those places are trying to get the city to make everyone post. But, that means the places that didn't want to post for image reasons would still have to post - thus giving the exact effect they are claiming they want to avoid??