you are truly misguided, and apparently very biased. your report leads me to believe that you strongly disagree with your liberal tards who agree that license holders are among the safest and most squeaky clean legal citizens, as well as fbi cleared and tbi cleared, and well certified, not rambo, law abiding citizens. this ruling is no more than politics and mirrors, and only affects law abiding people. how do you plan to protect your family in a mere few seconds when the police ( your heros) are minutes away? because i sure as hell wont save you.

1) You assume that the rest of the world is as hopelessly paranoid as you are.
You should seek treatment.

2) YOU are the nut with a gun in the park that my family needs protection from.

3) I don't need a gun to handle you. Even if you have one.

4) You're not capable of saving anyone because at the first sign of trouble you no-combat-experience, gun toting, John Wayne wannabes are usually the first ones fleeing the scene.


FBI and TBI "cleared"? When you undergo a psychiatric evaluation, an IQ test on which you score no less than 130, and show a copy of your DD214...then maybe I'll reconsider.
Until then you're just another unqualified nut with a gun.

Go complain to those Republican shits in the Legislature. They stabbed you in the back by allowing cities the option.

ignorance welcome oppression with open arms... you really do not know the meaning of the word liberty, do you? with such a naive thought process we should fear you behind the wheel of a motor vehicle you lunatic. 1i need not worry who is paranoid as you ass-umed that i am. 2 nobody needs to be protected from this nut, as i have carried a loaded pistol everywhere i go in Bristol, Tn except for the courthouse of course, for years. 3. real mature, you dont hear any speak of a fight coming from any LICENSED HANDGUN CARRY PERMIT holders, only the punks that probably failed the testing, or the background checks. all we LAW ABIDING citizens speak about is life, and the preservation of it. 4 at the first sign of trouble you no-combat-experience, gun toting, John Wayne wannabes are usually the first ones fleeing the scene... very accurate descripition of the 210,000+ wanna bes out there in tn. especially coming from a computer nerd full of hate. what evidence have you to support such a ludacris accusation? none. because not one part of your libelous remarks represent fact.

your not happy with a federal bureauof investigation background check, or a tennessee bureau of investigation background check?? and want only genious intelligence quotient? and you want a military record report? what kind of crazy counrty do you think we would have before us if your ridiculous wants would have been all along? most likely a tyrranous one with a dictator to your liking.

You can't even spell, punctuate, outline a written statement or even successfully communicate in writing.
And I'm supposed to trust you with a gun in public?
What grade did you complete in school?

Anyway, I'll probably see you in the paper after you shoot some innocent person and wind up in prison.

im sure that holds great relevance on the internet, compared to your invalid; undocumented; biased arguments. ;;:_! i couldnt care less whether or not you trust me. i made a 100 on my written test for my permit and am very capable with me weapon. some pacifist vajayjays shouldnt have the right to speak. how does that revockation of your right feel? lame just like you.

get some facts to support your claim, for it is very empty as of now, with substitutions of attacks, and bias.

il prubublie sea yuo in the oblitituariez az a rezult ov your mouth running to some person who doesnt obide the law.

I do feel for you. It must be tough living in constant fear the way you do.

You're also an idiot and a coward. But that's your problem, not mine.

Captainkona,
you are an idiot.

1. It does not take a genius to serve in the military--all you have to do is be a mindless robot willing to die for oil.

2. Permit holders are not "john wayne wannabes"--that would most likely be you instead.

3. Permit holders are FAR better behaved than most other groups in society--including law enforcement and the military.

4. a DD214 means NOTHING--repeat NOTHING. You can obtain a DD214 by doing anything in the Airforce...So the DD214 is meaningless in terms of it meaning that a person knows how to handle himself.

5. it does not take "combat experience" by being a wannabe member of special forces in order to defend yourself.

6. A coward is someone unwilling to defend themselves, while expecting others to do so for them.

7. You have a bloated opinion of yourself.

yea dont feel for me pothead. feel for yourself. you will end up on your knees the one pissin your pants when someone kills the cashier in front of you then puts the gun to your head.
you should move to amsterdam where pots legal, and crime rates are through the roof.

substantial facts in you entirely bs responses would probably built its credit.
its better to have and not need than need and not have....... again how do you plan to defend your bag of weed at the park when two or three rapist or escaped murderers decide to take it from you? i have no fear im packin and i have the right to... guess what you will be a victim one day, and i will not. leave your mothers basement, and the weed forum, and grow up. your full of opinions, and useless pothead ones at that.... pothead. you are a waisted void in life, and notice i am the only person to dignify your retarted blog with a comment, thats because i am getting a kick out of how moronic people like you really are.... now, come on back with some more bs

no wonder you opose, very ambiguously, pistol protection...... your primary focus is drug related, therefor hazy. and you couldnt carry legally if you wanted to. and if your who i think you are i can guarentee that your gunless combat would rival that of a gimp. and if the councilmen knew they had a drug advocate behind their back they would shuffle you under the carpet.......... dopey

I don't oppose guns. Not hand guns, not rifles, not even assault weapons. I just have a problem with Republican losers, like yourselves, having them.

Just the fact that Beefcake Bo (LOL what a tool) can't even manage to speak/write English like an American is enough to deny him a permit to begin with. Which kinda proves Tennessee's screening methods suspect.

And Jason...

So you insist that all our soldiers are "mindless robots", do you?
Typical.

Permit holders (some new status symbol I take it)
are "better behaved than police and military"?
TN Permit Holder's Arrest Records
Obviously you're wrong about that too.

And I've rendered no opinion of myself at all.

Spoken like a true Republican sweating the fact that he never served his country. It's what's in the DD214 that tells the tale. Not the DD214 it's self.
And a "coward" is someone that thinks they're in danger of being robbed and killed in Anderson park to the point of going armed every day.
Do you realize how ridiculous you people sound?

I mean, listen to this loser, Bo...
"two or three rapist or escaped murderers decide to take it from you?"
This twat lives in a fantasy land. A little world of his own where everyone is out to do him harm. The permit screening method is obviously highly flawed.

I have no problem with genuinely responsible people carrying weapons.
You guys just aren't them.

And BoBerry...any time you want to find out how my gunless defense works, I'll be right here.

TN420 Emporium
1009 Volunteer Pkwy
Bristol, TN

Now you ladies have a nice night cleaning your guns and playing quick draw McGraw in the mirror.

LOL!

where the hell does political party come into play with anything i said.... your the dbag who makes this political... i have no agenda in mind other than peoples safety, including my own. i guess dopeheads cant imagine protecting other peoples. and are you trying to diss south park??? beefcake=weightgain 5000.... like you need that you hippy pos. and my speech and written 'american'/ english. are far different compared to "typing" which is all you have from me, and are real relevant. oooo look an internet puncuation nazi, you live in a head shop loser..... you say im fantasizing? and you think there is no danger around??? with serial killers within driving distance?? and yes tard escaped murderers, twice recently within driving distance??? brutal double murder in gate city??? cop shot in the face?? and idiots like you who think that just because you are allowed to possess a handgun means you can shoot whenever you want, at whatever you want??? idiots think like you. well meaning people get permits.

and wannabes which you seem to know so much about.... are the a holes that want to pick fights and such... people like me know and understand responsibilility, and the LAW regarding firearms.... thats why we have concern for the law and dont break it. all my pothead friends will be referred to catch 22, where common sense prevails

"all my pothead friends will be referred to catch 22"

LOL

You have "pothead friends" yet you insult me for being a pot head?

Heh :D

What country are you from, really?
English is clearly your second language.

It seems you've been to the store. Why don't you have the cohonies to identify yourself?
Again, I have no problem with people owning guns. Just not unstable, uneducated, whack-jobs like yourself.

"diss south park???"
LOL, I just realized that you're a child and do not even have this permit you keep harping about.

Look, dude. Get a job and do something with your life. Running around the internet making a fool of yourself and claiming to have a "permit" you don't even have is not very productive.
Honestly, all kidding aside, I'm genuinely concerned about your mental state.
If you want help I will be glad to help you connect with the right people. I know several prominent Drs. in town and they will help you if you want it.

No bullshit, no snark. I'll be glad to assist you in seeking help. I thought you were just another scumbag conservative like Jason up there but now I realize it runs much deeper than that.
The world is not out to get you. It seems that way sometimes, but it's not.
If you're in a gang, live in a big city, run with the wrong people... you're chances of being victimized are obviously greater. But the fact is that: More than 75 percent of violent crime victims know their offender. (U.S. Department of Justice, National Crime Victimization Survey — September 2004)

Your chances of becoming a victim, especially in this area, are too slim to even calculate unless it's some kind of personal dispute.

I invite you to study the following:
Anthropophobia and Sociophobia.

Don't torture yourself, son. There are far more good people in the world than bad. But watching TV, I can see how that perception might be disrupted. Kingsport, where you live, does have a higher crime rate that Bristol but it's not that much different.

Again, I'll be glad to help if needed.

im craaaaaazzzzzy..... i kill animals and hang em up on the how do you say? lightpost?. my kerosene fumes from my egyptian uncle are getting me high... i think il go shoot my own foot negligently, oops i mean accidentally, how hard is a bullet to take froma bone? do you thinks i needsa scaple? guns are dangerous, yet YOUR hussein and his demokratic majority seem to favor us imaginary license holders enough to sneak a credit amendment under a possession bill... hehe i guess he supports the 210,000+ tennessee paranoid schizophrenics out there. i guess since us almost quarter million paranoids have a license to protect people, we must have social anxiety?>?> good one,,, do police fear social interactions too?? your reasoning is complexed by a drug induced retardation combined with inbreeding. and your a perfect role model for education and work ethic... you work at an 'emporium' and a pizz poor one at that. what is a Drs. by the way?

asfor the lack of violent threat in the area, in regards with the fact that you are likely to know the 'villian' . what dif does that matter, mothers kill children, and children kill mothers. home invasions are becoming more and more common,

i hAPPEN TO HAVE KNOWN SOMEBODY THAT was brutally mudered recently, and it was a close personal friend of my gf and her family....

a family of 7 were murdered on xmas this year leaving 16 orphans,

a mother and father were recently murdered, leaving 17 orphans... there are always the possibility that aviolent attack could happen in a city park.

and wtf do you get off calling some1 a scumbag conservative because they are more informed than you and make you relook like a retarded stoner with a biased naive opinion. only flaming democratic libs turn everything into a political race to demeen their opposition. you voted for an african muslim who is going to destroy what we have left of freedom and you think its political cause you made a bad decision which cant b reversed

Decided to censor myself. But we do have a summary...

Poor, BoBerry.

From the nonsensical banter we were gifted with above we see clearly that much like the dirtbag who shot up the VT campus in one of the worst mass murders (committed by a legal gun owner) in American history, there should be strict requirements aimed at establishing the mental stability of those who wish to own guns. Not to mention have permits to carry them.

It is the position of this blog that the 2nd Amendment is the law of the land. It is also our position that like other amendments, it has certain limitations.
We see from this thread that the threat of A-moral, disturbed people thinking their "permit" is a license to play Wyatt Erp is very real.
If someone lives in Miami, Los Angeles, Detroit, St. Louis.... A gun might be a good idea.
In a Sullivan county Tennessee park where children play and crime is very low, it's an unacceptable danger. A tragedy waiting to happen.

Sure, people with criminal history can't get a permit. But a whacko who just hasn't stepped over the line yet can. And therein lies the problem.

Do you suppose that certain people think that - after they get a drivers license - they have some sort of imaginary 'right' to jump into their vehicle and then to drive up and down inside the local mall or inside Wally World, for example? Those same certain people seem to think that they can get a 'gun license' - like that's a big deal or something - and then carry a deadly weapon into public parks, private businesses and other places in which guns and other weapons of destruction obviously do not mix. Never has! Never will!

The Colbert Report satirical program, this week, poked fun at the State of Tennessee for having politicians who repeatedly vote against the well being of the majority of its citizens and who vote in favor of certain fanatical right wing organizations who give the same politicians money and who thus bribe them into passing ridiculous legislation. Naturally, it was primarily republican politicians who were responsible for the State to be the subject of national ridicule.

The post for the part of The Colbert Report about which I'm referring is:

http://www.colbertnation.com/the-colbert-report-videos/238642/july-15-2009/difference-makers---doug-jackson

IT'S A HOOT!

On the serious side, though, whether or not people who want to carry weapons of destruction into restaurants and other places have some 'license' or whether they don't is totally irrelevant. The practice of carrying weapons into restaurants, bars, other various businesses, baseball fields, football stadiums, basketball courts, soccer fields, public parks, etc. is simply a very, very stupid idea.

It is nothing but an open invitation for everybody to carry a weapon. And how are restaurant owners or park managers or anybody else supposed to be able to tell the difference between a weapon carrier having a government-issued 'license' or not having a 'license'? Are they supposed to ask everybody who wants to enter their establishment: "May I see your gun license please?

And when gunfire breaks out - as it eventually will - what about the innocent victims who will be shot? Do rightwing cowards think having a 'license' is going to exonerate them somehow at their trial because of that lady at the bar, or that old gentleman who wasn't bothering anybody, in the background whom they shot & killed while playing their imaginary video game with a real weapon pretending to battle the so-called 'bad guys'?

Of course there are also the plain dumb drunks. Like that moron up in Virginia who, a while back, shot & killed the mama duck and her ducklings outside the restaurant in view of someone who happened to be photographing the same ducks and also in view of the children inside the restaurant who happened to watching the ducks. His reason for slaughtering the ducks? The restaurant cut him off and would not serve him any MORE alcohol. So he pulled out his substitute for manhood and killed defenseless life forms. Typical rightwing piece of trash, huh?

Then too, there are those spineless rightwingers who think that - if they just carry a substitute for their manhood - that they will magically become an actual man. How absurd! Some genuine men will eventually just bitch slap some of these 'pretend men' a few times, take their weapon and laugh at them - along with the rest of the patrons inside the business establishment - as those 'pretend men' lie on the floor blubbering & weeping & crying out: "But I had a license".

These right wing cowards probably have a picture of Barney Fife over their bed and masturbate to his 'glory' every night, huh?

Could these people be any more pathetic?

Captainkona,

Let's take this point by point. First, paranoia is defined, loosely, as an irrational fear of an unlikely event. One example would be a legal HCP (Handgun Carry Permit) holder in the state of Tennessee shooting an innocent person. Do a little research and you will find that the HCP holders in this country commit violent crime at a rate that is a fraction of the general population. Statistically I have way more to worry about being around you than you have being around me.

Second, any time you resort to name calling, everything else you say is completely ignored. So keep calling law-abiding citizens with respect for the Constitution "nuts" if it makes you feel better, but it adds nothing to your argument.

Next, if you think you can handle someone with a gun while you don't have one, that is your right. I however believe in two things that I was taught in the Army: first, "If you find yourself in a fair fight, you are walking into an ambush" hence the old adage of "victory by superior firepower."

Can you provide some kind of statistics that back up your statement that HCP holders "are usually the first ones fleeing the scene"? There are 1.5 million defensive uses of handguns every year in this country. That doesn't exactly sound like what you described above. And 99% of those result in no shots being fired by the attacker or the victim. Doesn't exactly jive with your "John Wayne wannabe" description, does it?

And as for your elitist statement about someone scoring a 130 on an IQ test, I would like to pose this challenge to you. Show me a law enforcement officer in the state of Tennessee that scored a 130 on a real IQ test. Do that, and I'll show you someone who slipped through the cracks. As far as that goes, can you please show me where an IQ test is required to exercise any of our constitutional rights? I have read it and don't remember seeing any requirement of the sort. I believe that's because our politicians would have trouble spelling IQ, but that's just my opinion.

Any time you want to see my DD214 and where it states that I was honorably discharged, just come on. However, it is also not a requirement to own or carry a firearm, nor is it in any way an indication that I can do anything other than fire an M-16 on a range at pop-up targets. But, since you brought it up, I'm sure you will be the first to call your city council and get me an exemption since I meet all of your requirements and then some. Please let me know when you have made that call so I can arrange to get whatever permit you have just fought so hard to get for me.

I would like to thank you for your list of the literally dozens of permit holders that have been arrested for violent crimes. Can you now provide a list of Tennesseans without HCP's and their arrests for violent crimes? Or do you not have enough hard drive space? That's probably it. The statement is that HCP holders commit violent crimes at a LOWER rate, not a nonexistent one. There is not a single segment of society any way you cut it that can make that claim. Unless you consider dead people a segment, in which case I retract my statement. But the fact is that far less than 1% (in the neighborhood of .01%) have their permits revoked. Many of those are revoked for offenses committed BEFORE the permit was issued. This happens because there is a 90 limit to do a background check or issue a permit. After that, if an offense is found, the permit is revoked, just so you know.

"I have no problem with genuinely responsible people carrying weapons. You guys just aren't them." Again, a statement with no basis in fact, only fear and ignorance. What do you define as "genuinely responsible"? Would it be someone who has never been arrested for a crime? Does not do drugs or abuse alchol? Obeys the myriad laws that already govern the ways and places one may carry a firearm in the state? Maybe has had training in the safe handling of firearms and their legal uses? Or is it only someone who agrees with your views? If the latter, you cannot be reasoned with and you are a zealot. If the former, then you are describing the vast majority of HCP holders and therefore invalidate every other argument you have presented.

You anti-gun people need to start focusing your attention where it needs to be. It's not the law-abiding HCP holders you have to fear. It's the ones who have been carrying in your park for years, are carrying there today, and will be carrying there tomorrow. That's why we don't want our right to carry to be limited. Not because we're paranoid, but because people are attacked every single day and it may happen to me, my family, or you. And if, God forbid, that should ever happen, I am not going to rely on you and your ninja skills on saving me.

Jason,

Thank you for your insightful and heartwarming description of our nation's military. You are correct in your assertion that nobody would possibly serve out of any sort of feelings of patriotism or duty or for any other reason than being a robot who wants to die for oil. I am sure you never miss a chance to spit on a soldier as they pass you buy with crys of "baby killer!" And for the record, it doesn't take a genius to post degrading comments like that on the Internet, either. You have proven that.

LOL!

Vic, that is hilarious and damn close to spot on. Colbert really has a talent for being funny, and accurate, at the same time.

Just look at those clowns that were interviewed. Those are the people who have "permits" in this area. They have more bullets than IQ points.

Thanx. :D


"Of course there are also the plain dumb drunks. Like that moron up in Virginia who, a while back, shot & killed the mama duck and her ducklings outside the restaurant in view of someone who happened to be photographing the same ducks and also in view of the children inside the restaurant who happened to watching the ducks. His reason for slaughtering the ducks? The restaurant cut him off and would not serve him any MORE alcohol. So he pulled out his substitute for manhood and killed defenseless life forms. Typical rightwing piece of trash, huh?"

Yep. The pro-guns for everyone crowd likes to forget the realities that come along with an armed society. Like the coward you pointed out.
They get it in their heads that they're "responsible" because they have a "permit". Trouble is, the responsibility has to be there to begin with. A "permit" is not a magic wand that mysteriously renders it's holder well and qualified.
That is the perception I am getting from the Right and it's a foolish, irresponsible view.

Robert:

Thanx for being an intelligent and well written poster. We get our share of schmucks so anyone who actually attempts to make a point is greatly appreciated.

You do make some valid points and I'll address them with the same courtesy you made them with.

You have an acronym now? HCP? I'm sorry, but you're not some special island unto your selves. You are not a new class of American.
Geeze, next you'll be calling yourselves Firearm Americans and demanding reparations for all the years you couldn't carry guns.

First, When you take, say, 100 people and say they don't commit as many crimes as 1'000'000 people, that's not much of a statistic. Is it? Of course there will be more crime in the 1M. It's the ratio that matters. What percentages.
Contrary to what some would have us believe, a vast majority of the people on welfare in America are white. Why? Because we so dramatically outnumber other races. But when the ratios are observed it's another story.

As far as name calling goes, the "nut" part is specifically aimed at people like BoBerry up there. If it's not you don't claim it.

I'm glad you remember what you learned in Sapper school, but we're talking about Bristol, Tn parks. Not a war zone.

"fleeing the scene" is specifically pointed at those who feel they need to carry guns every waking moment no matter where they are. The ones who won't leave the house without one or leave it in the trunk when they have children around.
You were also taught to assess the threat level of your surroundings and situation. Those who can't differentiate between downtown Chicago and downtown Bristol cannot be trusted to understand the threat level and act accordingly.
Again, this is not directed at "all" those who carry.
I have several friends who do being good liberals with their heads screwed on right, I see them as qualified.
I carried for 14 years in Los Angeles (illegally) when I lived there. I know the difference between threatening enviro and passive. I expect others to observe the same sanity.
There is no reason to carry Bristol, TN. There just isn't unless someone is paranoid and as you pointed out, I have the definition correct.


"What do you define as "genuinely responsible"?"

Lots of criteria. I view those who vote Republican as highly irresponsible people. I view those who are socially conservative as irrational and self-serving.
A genuinely responsible gun toter leaves the thing in the car when they're going to be around a bunch of kids. Genuinely responsible is someone who doesn't feel threatened standing in line at Lilly's Market.
People like Bo up there, who feel they have to carry to get the newspaper out of the lawn are not responsible.

Did you read that clown's ravings, Robert?
Tell me, are you ok with "Bo" being armed around your family? You'd be an "8" if you were.

So no, not anti-gun at all. Anti-idiot-with-gun would be more accurate.
I would prefer to see a psych evaluation and an IQ test be added to the qualifications.

Your point about some cops not scoring 130 is a point I'll have to concede.
You got me there.

You sound a tinge paranoid but perhaps just enough to err on the side of caution.
Other than that, I would consider you responsible judging from your background and obvious stability.
But there are still too many goofballs in the area and permits are far too easy to get.
If a person has yet to commit a violent crime, that doesn't mean they won't. We shouldn't forget that a percentage (however many) of people who carry guns get more aggressive because firearms are absolute power and absolute power often corrupts.

Good talking to you.

Around 375,000 registered gun owners can now carry concealed guns into restaurants and bars in both Tennessee (unless restaurant owners forbid it which PRACTICALLY ALL of them are doing obviously) & Arizona.

(NOTE: Certain right-wing Tennessee politicians PRIMARILY, albeit not totally, of which are republican (AS I HAVE STATED PREVIOUSLY) as Master Mumpower demonstrated earlier this week, are now attempting to enact legislation which would FORCE restaurant owners to provide service to people who bring weapons of destruction into their businesses whether they agree to the 'asking-for-trouble' notion or not. This is what tyranny in fact consists of rather than what certain easy-to-recognize fanatics are attempting to suggest with futility!)

One Tennessee restaurant owner was unsuccessful in his attempt to obtain an injunction, claiming that it would be 'bad for business'. This owner, Randy Rayburn, told one of his local TV reporters:

"I'm not worried about the 99% of gun owners who are permit holders. I'm worried about the 1 or 2% of would-be Dirty Harrys who are going to carry out their attempts at vigilante justice."

During recent months, several Americans have died from guns during sociopathic rampages.

Some argue that amidst these rampages, "citizens should be able to defend themselves in public places".

Others realize & maintain, instead, that "this is the logic of the mad house".

Currently, some national politicians are even attempting to enact legislation which would affect all 50 States regarding the practice of carrying guns into restaurants and/or bars.

A representative for the Brady Campaign To Prevent Gun Violence, a fellow named Peter Lamm, has stated:

"This is ridiculously stupid and a horrible idea. It's bad public policy though as we all know good public policy has little to do with America's gun laws".

Earlier this year, in upstate New York, a Frank Garcia murdered four people during a rampage. In Alabama, Michael McLendon killed ten or eleven people. Two of the dead were a sheriff deputy's wife and 18-month-old child. McLendon injured others including a chief of police named Frankie Lindsey.

During April, Richard Poplawski attacked four police in Pennsylvania, killing three of them. His mother stated afterwards that her son had been "stockpiling guns and ammunition, buying and selling the weapons online because he believed that as a result of economic collapse, the police were no longer able to protect society." As the truth came out, people learned that Poplawski had been in the Marine Corps briefly but had gotten kicked out and had received a DISHONORABLE discharge.

This particular loser was one of those white supremacist types who created imaginary reasons to fear the federal government based on various stereotypical right wing notions of anti-Semitism and racism, especially anti-Black bigotry. Subsequent evidence indicated that he was one of those worshippers of 'stormfront' and similar fanatical right wing web sites.

His mother also said: "He has a few weapons. I know he has a machine gun, I know he has a couple rifles and I know he has a couple handguns…They're RECREATIONAL, AND FOR DEER HUNTING AND FOR EVERYTHING. I mean, he's not a bad kid".

He was just a "kid" with right wing delusions who went around shooting & killing police, huh?


And now, here's something interesting & true.

ALL THREE OF THESE MEN HAD LICENSES TO CARRY CONCEALED GUNS.

Closer to home, so to speak, in Blacksburg back a couple of years ago, Seung-Hui Cho murdered thirty two people and wounded several more before committing suicide. Although he didn't have a government-issued 'license' to carry a concealed weapon, he concealed his weapons anyway before he slaughtered all those people.

Significantly, even the NRA has been unable to get guns allowed on the grounds of educational facilities "such was the revulsion over the massacre" at Virgina Tech. But they have tried. And they will undoubtedly try again until they are unable to do so.

What is important is recognizing that the existence of having government-sanctioned permission to carry a concealed weapon or not having it is merely an academic issue when the result is still dead people.

Encouraging people to carry weapons of destruction into environments intended for families or business patrons effectively is doing nothing more than asking for trouble and INVITING MORE DEATHS caused directly by gun weapons. Why does this blatantly obvious fact seem to go unnoticed by certain types of people?

Is it because THEY DON'T CARE HOW MANY PEOPLE HAVE TO DIE if the only thing that is really of value to them is the imaginary importance of their so-called right to carry a substitue for manhood?

It's a shame, isn't it?

For the sake of clarification, I can add that I am definitely in favor of the practice of OWNING weapons. Weapons to include guns and/or whatever. Everyone should have more than one weapon with which they can utilize in order, for example, to defend their home or business, for example, from actual, demonstrable invaders (as opposed to 'pretend' invaders like people representing different cultures, different religions, different races, whatever).

Significantly too, all Americans should be prepared for the day - if and when it does occur - that certain types of people will attempt to implement their fantasies of dictatorial control of the nation where they can deliberately inflict their 'disease' upon the entire population. If it ever becomes necessary to 'sanitize' certain diseases, then having the appropriate weapons in order to accomplish the 'sanitizing' will be essesntial.

One of the stereotypical fanatical republican types, a Catherine Crabill, a republican politician lusting to be in the Commonwealth's legislature stated a couple of weeks ago:

"If war is evitable, then let it come, I repeat sir, let it come".

"We have the chance to fight this battle at the ballot box before we have to resort to the bullet box. But that's the beauty of our Second Amendment right. I am glad for all of us who enjoy the use of firearms for hunting, but make no mistake, it was not the intent of the Founding Fathers. Our Second Amendment right was to guard against tyranny!".

What a hypocrite!

Certain types obsessing about establishing tyrannical control over everyone and suggesting that those opposed to their dictatorial efforts are themselves somehow magically 'tyrants'. Talk about convoluted and sociopathic thinking! These certain types are nothing but a disease warranting a remedy.

The notion of a 'bullet box' is of course nothing new. Various militia types and other traitors have been using that terminology for several years. Timothy McVeigh demonstrated having the exact same delusions. Their goal has been and continues to be, in their mythological pipedreams, to somehow cause Americans to turn into hysterical mobs and to support an authoritarian government (which they control of course) over the majority of Americans and the best interests of most of the population of the United States.

What should happen to absolutely all of them without exception is the exact same thing that happened to Timothy McVeigh. The exact same thing!

As someone else has already insightfully written elsewhere:

"There is little that makes me more uneasy than glassy-eyed paranoiacs fingering their triggers nervously. Right behind are the republican officials and right-wing pundits who give mainstream legitimacy to their rantings".

Yes, certain signs do suggest, effectively, little more than a disease. A disease which America needs to cure as quickly as possible for the benefit of the majority.

Okay Captain, point by point again.

First, I was talking ratios. The ratio of the 200,000+ HCP (that's what it's called, even LEO's, or Law Enforcement Officers recognize this acronym) to those that have had been convicted of a violent crime while they had a permit is around .01%. Compare that to about 5% of the non-HCP (there's that pesky acronym again) holders and you see why your fear is misplaced.

I'm not sure how "fleeing the scene" and choosing to carry all the time are related, so I'll just leave that comment alone.

And I wouldn't say there's "no reason" to carry in Bristol. Rusty L. Rumley sounds like a reason to me. But it's not a question of whether or not I WILL be attacked today, but rather of whether I COULD be attacked today. I don't care where you live, what the crime rate is like, or who you are, you COULD be attacked today. The old argument of "I'd rather have it and not need than need it and not have it" is exactly why many HCP holders carry almost all of the time. I too live in a relatively safe community of around 3,000 people, so I don't worry too much, but I still carry my gun with me most of the time. But I have never carried illegally, so maybe I should be worried about you, not the other way around.

"I view those who vote Republican as highly irresponsible people." What a bigoted statement. And you probably would not cease in your berating of someone who made a racist statement against (insert any ethnic minority here). I'm more closely aligned with Libertarians, so I don't fall into your grouping of people. But let me say this. Just because somebody doesn't believe that more government and more control over your daily life is a good thing, doesn't make them irresponsible. You are strongly implying that only those who agree with you can be considered responsible. That, my friend, is the height of arrogance. Considering the rest of your response, I find this a troubling statement.

As far as when and where it is "responsible" to carry, that is purely an emotional judgment. Your example of "Lily's Market" (I'm not from Bristol, so forgive my ignorance of the location) implies that people don't get shot in convenience stores, or whatever. I believe the owner of this store would disagree with you:

http://www.timesdispatch.com/rtd/news/local/crime/article/SHOT121_20090711-230802/279571/

I don't know Bo personally, but let me offer this: I know PLENTY of gun owners. And none of the ones I know personally are a risk to you, your family, or your kids. Neither are the vast majority. That's been shown. It's been studied. Permit holders are not hair triggers just waiting to go off at the slightest provocation. If they were, instead of 1.5 million defensive uses of firearms annually resulting in 1,485,000 non-shootings, it would be the other way around. Compare that to the people who are going to be carrying in your parks regardless of this legislation. Feel safer? Well, I don't.

And I gotta tell ya, a psych test is a no-brainer to beat. In my former life, you had to have an extensive psych eval for the purposes of gaining a top secret security clearance, and some of the biggest wack jobs I have ever met passed them. The answers to the test are so completely skewed, any person who has ever had a rational thought can beat them.

Finally, I am in no way paranoid. I don't spend much time at all worrying about when or where I might be attacked, partly because I'm a pretty easy going guy for the most part and partly because I carry most of time when in public. I choose to carry concealed, oddly enough, out of respect of those who fear the very sight of guns. I just don't want it to interrupt my shopping, or my eating, or whatever I happen to be doing at the time.

I would highly suggest you read John Lott's book, "More Guns, Less Crime." In it Lott provides plenty of evidence supporting a pro-gun position. In contrast, there hasn't been a study that isn't easily refuted by a third grader with an Internet connection by even the omniscient Brady Bunch that shows a correlation between gun control and a reduction in crime. Every time I see one of their new - I shudder to use the word - studies, I just laugh. So many of their so called statistics are so far obviously skewed, it makes them look like a bunch of buffoons. But I digress.

The point is, allowing legal carry in your parks does not increase the danger. It's been shown so many times, it's sad that it has to be repeated. And to be honest, your ban doesn't really affect me, except when I'm making travel plans. I will definitely NOT be stopping by Bristol to spend my tourist dollars. And there are plenty who feel the same way. I keep track of restaurants that don't allow firearms since the ban was lifted on July 14th, and I won't eat at them. If a municipality bans me from carrying in their parks, their local restaurants, gas stations, gift shops, and museums, all just lost my business.

Okay Victor, you caught us. You have pointed out the fatal flaw in our arguments. You have uncovered the great lie. Kudos to you my friend.

Nobody ever said that there has never been an instance of someone with a handgun carry permit committing a violent crime. But the rate is very low. Take the state of Florida for example, which has more HCP holders than any other state, at 1.5 million. In the period between 1996 and 2005, 166 of that 1.5 million had theirs revoked. That’s about 0.01%. By comparison, the remainder of the general population commited crime at a rate of over 300 times that of permit holders. So if you want to fear permit holders and ignore those that are way more likely to victimize you, that’s your perogative. But don’t confuse your paranoia and fact.

Tennessee has the following requirements for a handgun carry permit holder:

• They've never been convicted of "any felony offense punishable for a term exceeding one (1) year".
• They've never been convicted of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence.
• They've never been convicted of the offense of stalking.
• They were not under indictment at the time they applied for a CCW.
• They were not the subject of an order of protection at the time they applied for a CCW.
• They haven't had a DUI in the past five years or two or more DUIs in the past 10 years
• They haven't been under treatment for or hospitalized for addiction to drugs or alcohol in the past 10 years.
• They've never been adjudicated as mentally defective.
• They've never been discharged from the military under dishonorable conditions ("dishonorable discharge, bad conduct discharge or other than honorable discharge Chapter 1340-2-5-.02 (5)").
• They've never renounced their U.S. citizenship.
• They've never received social security disability benefits "by reason of alcohol dependence, drug dependence or mental disability."

However, to carry illegally, you don’t have to meet any of those requirements. So fear me if you must, and ignore the drug dealer right down the street. I’m the real menace to society.

“Encouraging people to carry weapons of destruction into environments intended for families or business patrons effectively is doing nothing more than asking for trouble and INVITING MORE DEATHS caused directly by gun weapons. Why does this blatantly obvious fact seem to go unnoticed by certain types of people?”

The reason is because it’s simply not true. If it were, there wouldn’t be 37 states that allow this devistatingly deadly behavior. And more will pass similar legislation because fear mongering has not changed the facts. John Lott states, “"Our most conservative estimates show that by adopting shall-issue laws, states reduced murders by 8.5%, rapes by 5%, aggravated assaults by 7% and robbery by 3%.” And you can discount him as “gun nut” or whatever other derogatory term your obviously brilliant mind can come up with, but know this: that man has forgotten more about the gun issue than either you or I will probably ever know. But I’m sure your emotions trump his years of research on the issue, right?

That’s why you have to resort to name-calling. Yes, my gun, which I own so that if God forbid, the need ever arises I can protect the lives of my family and myself, is a substitute for manhood. Thank you for that well thought out and reasoned statement. It’s exactly that kind of argument that is winning the gun control debate. Well, that and the ever reliable “I know you are but what am I?” and “I’m rubber you’re glue” arguments. Keep up the good fight though. That’s exactly the kind of arguments we of the small dingaling want in response to our silly statistics and proof.

Big shame, Vic.

I still want to know if it's ok to carry a gun in Legislative Plaza in Nashvegas. Surely those politicians who voted for this measure don't mind our friend, Bo, carrying a gun to their offices.

Know what's interesting about that list of requirements, Robert? Ted Bundy could have passed it too.

Again, I don't know how many times I've said it now, no one's saying that "all" people who carry guns are nut cases. The vast majority of those I meet on the internet definitely are, but there are even exceptions there.
But yeah, I have no choice but to laugh and shake my head at anyone who would carry a gun to a church function, a park full of kids or a place of getting drunk.
There's just no reason I can think of other than being scared.

You try to turn it around by saying we "fear" you and your gun. No, we are concerned for the general public when loons like Bo are walking around armed and pissing both legs at the slightest hint of a problem.
I don't fear anything, skippy. Not you, your gun or a punk like Bo.
The fear is yours (gun toters, not necessarily you in particular) because you're displaying the "irrational fear of an unlikely event" depending upon your surroundings.
So if it makes you feel better, carry.
Just don't carry around me and mine and let me find out about it.
Because just as you perceive threats according to you own terms, I reserve the same right.

So Captiankona,
out of 250,000 permit holders in this state you have found a hand full of individuals who made a mistake and committed a crime--or was a criminal and hid the fact when they received their permit? WOW, just wow--250,000+ permit holders and you give a link to less than a dozen examples....

So how about those "police officers" who have also committed crimes? HCP holders are FAR FAR better behaved than other sections of society--and that does include the police and the military.

And it isn't what is in the DD214 that tells the tale...it is a combination of what you did and how you were discharged that tells it. A pilot flying an F18 will have little true experience in real fighting, because they spend all of their time in the cockpit, neither will an ordnance specialist. I stand behind what I said when I called you an idiot.

And yes--to be a soldier today you have to be a mindless robot--follow orders and fight for oil and die for some other poor slobs country because they are unwilling to die for it themselves.

And whether or not I have served is my business. And no--I'm not a republican--again you are wrong.

You are like the rest of the liberal anti-second amendment advocates who seem to think "pass a law and everything becomes automatically better"--here is a bit of information--CRIMINALS DO NOT CARE. Laws affect only the LAW ABIDING person--because only they will comply with the law. Again-you're an idiot.

And you have rendered an opinion of yourself--a highly inflated one.

I realize that crime can happen anywhere-in a park, in a restaurant or in a home. I am all for parks carry, I am all for restaurant carry, I am all for open carry--which is perfectly legal in Tennessee, and I am all for campus carry and hope to one day see post secondary campuses in this state opened up to allow people with permits to carry.

Criminals do not care--parks are not safe havens regardless of how much you want to think so--and the permit holders in this state are by far better behaved than other sections of society...so yes--you are wrong.

I'd just like to point out that HCP owners have saved many more lives than have been lost due to any crime or negligence from any HCP owners. This is the main reason why this program is so successful and growing nationwide.

The only debate here is where a person should be allowed to carry. A frankly, that is irrelevant. One may need to defend themselves in any area where crime may occur. Grocery store, street, park, restaurant. . . I cannot think of a place where we can truly say, "Crime cannot happen here." Maybe the White House?

I'm not sure "paranoia" on either side of this debate is a good word to use. But I'm a firm believer that a little fear is a good thing. With the proper skill-set, fear can save lives. Looking over your shoulder, paying attention to people around you, avoiding blind corners are things that can keep a criminal from picking you as a target, thus eliminating the need to use your sidearm. But in the case where you are targeted, it's good to have it with you as a protective measure. I think it's more about preparation than paranoia. I rarely touch my gun other than to put it on, take it off, and for dry fire practice/target practice/training courses. It's not as though I have my hand on it at all times just waiting for someone to go BOO!

"So if it makes you feel better, carry.
Just don't carry around me and mine and let me find out about it.
Because just as you perceive threats according to you own terms, I reserve the same right."

I'd like to point out that many of my friends have firearms, some carry, and some do neither. Only people who know me well know that I carry and they have no problems with me carrying around them or their children. I always carry concealed and only reveal that I carry to people I think can handle it (mainly people who know me very well). I get inquiries monthly from non-carriers/non-gun owners about buying weapons, going to a gun range, obtaining permits, etc. People are beginning to understand the benefits of owning and/or carrying at a fairly brisk pace. So don't expect the gun owning/carrying population to shrink.

I'd also like to point out that we can all agree to disagree on where a person should carry. One of my best friends would agree with the blogger on restaurant carry. That has done nothing to damage our friendship. It's a small point that we disagree on. And she would be the first to say that she doesn't worry about me, just the 1 or 2 nuts who may do something illegal. Well, I can almost guarantee that she is right. Something bad will happen. But we can't legislate every single crime from existance. We can protect the majority or better yet, allow the majority to protect themselves. And the overwhelming majority of HCP owners will behave as they always have. . . legally and with good judgement.

That's a sensible post, tc.
Thank you.

And again, no one here opposes gun ownership. We have issues with who carries and where.
Those proclivities and our views on it will not change as they are formed by logic and experience.

We do not want to be mistaken for anti 2nd Amendment which we certainly are not and we've stated that in writing long before this discussion ever took place.

Regards,

YOU are the danger to society with your ignorance. If you are going to take the time to write an article and present an argument, do so. However, ignorant biased ramblings do nothing for either side of the issue. Name calling further dilutes your argument. I would speak my mind, but I would be wasting my breath. I hope next time you pose an opinion it is done with some thought, and not nonsensical ramblings.

Well, thanx for playing Den Mother, Concerned Reader.
Did you have anything to offer the discussion? Even most of my detractors at least had a passionate argument. If horribly flawed.

We apologize for our name calling and such, Blog Constable. Forgive us.

:D

Jason:

You're paranoid and need help. Please see a Dr.
And just so you know, there are few things I detest more than a Republican chickenhawk who derides US Military personnel.

I don't ban morons from here even though I probably should. I don't delete posts like yours because they're amusing to other readers.
But when you shit on our service people you shit on us all.
I doubt I'll get much argument from anyone on that.

If you decided not to post here again you won't be missed.

Now,

It's true that the vast majority, according to the statistics offered (and others I've seen), of "permit" people are generally law abiding.

Just a few things to keep in mind...

Law enforcement only solves about half the crimes committed. That makes the margin for error a little wider.
Statistics are valid, but not infallible.

I'll thank a gentleman, spin, at DU for this info:

Thx, Spin

LINK

The incident occurred on July 13. 2008.

CUYAHOGA FALLS -- A judge in Cuyahoga Falls has set bond at $5 million for the man charged in the shooting death of Twinsburg police officer Joshua Miktarian early Sunday morning.

Ashford Thompson, 23, of Twinsburg, is charged with aggravated murder.

According to a published report on cleveland.com Thompson's defense attorney Larry Zukerman claims his client acted in self-defense. Zukerman had asked for a bond of $50,000.

Police say Miktarian had pulled over Thompson for loud music and suspicion of driving under the influence early Sunday morning.

On Monday, the Cuyahoga County Coroner said Miktarian died after being shot four times in the head. His death has been ruled a homicide.

Twinsburg's police chief says Miktarian's gun was still holstered when he was found.

*************snip**************

Thompson reportedly has a Concealed Carry permit but police say it's not clear if the weapon he had the permit for was the one used in the shooting.

In the comments sections to the article was this statement:

Besides sure he had a CCW licence but on the news they said 1 month earlier it was suspended.

I was unable to verify this statement but in another news story about this incident I found...

The indictment included: two counts of aggravated murder; two counts of escape; two counts of resisting arrest; three counts of tampering with evidence; and one count of carrying a concealed weapon.

LINK


In other words, to assume that someone is some sort of angelical being because they have a "permit" is as insane as carrying a gun around a bunch of kids in a park.
Clearly that is not the case.

If I know you and know you well, I might feel better about you carrying a weapon around my family. But in the park on Sunday, I don't know you. So I don't want you armed around my family.
There's an idiot factor, same one we see in Bo and Jason above, that has to be considered.
Some people are just too stupid to be trusted with a weapon. In our area their numbers are decidedly high. Find me a way of knowing who is who and I might take a different view.
Until then, banning guns from our parks is still a damn good idea.

Here also is a PDF FILE illustrating the fact that "permit" holders do commit a wide range of crimes. Some of them minor, some absolutely disgusting.
The following are/were all "permit holders". These are only a few found at the link.

Lubbock, TX • Octber 18, 2008. Tye Burke, 25, was arrested and faces felony charges of
aggravated assault with a deadly weapon after pulling a gun on another parent at a children’s
soccer game. Burke pointed his handgun at the victim’s head.

Uniontown, PA • October 18, 2008. Leroy S. Higinbotham Jr., 39, was arrested while sitting in
his vehicle outside the home of his ex-wife, Jodie Higinbotham. He was charged with two
counts of making terroristic threats for telling the couple’s 16-year-old son that he planned to
shoot Jodie and her boyfriend, Mark Faris, 45. Leroy showed his son a gun at the time he made
the statements and the handgun was found in his car at the time of his arrest.

Pittsburgh, PA • October 12, 2008. Justin Dunlap, 22, was charged with reckless
endangerment, aggravated assault, and discharging a gun in public after investigators said he
fired shots at a 19-year-old man outside a nightclub.

Cleveland, OH • October 7, 2008. A man was pulled over at 12:37 a.m. and the police
computer showed that he had a CCW license and three open driving-under-suspension cases.

Philadelphia, PA • October 5, 2008. Christian Squillaciotti, 33, was charged with two counts of
attempted murder, aggravated assault, and related offenses stemming from a road rage incident.
Squillaciotti, a CCW licensee, fired at least four times toward a vehicle being driven by Thomas
Timko on a Philadelphia expressway. Timko was wounded on the side of his forehead but his
eight-year-old daughter, who was in the vehicle with him, was not injured.

Upper Darby, Pennsylvania • October 5, 2008. Deaone McNeal, a 24-year-old CCW licensee,
was driving with his 7-year-old daughter when he was arrested for pulling a gun on a woman and
her 2-year-old daughter. The victim was turning at an intersection when McNeal ran a red light
and almost hit her. McNeal then chased the victim and tried to run her car off the road; he pulled
up alongside her screaming obscenities and pointed his gun at her. The victim called police and
McNeal was pulled over and found wearing an empty holster, he denied that he had a gun, but
police searched McNeal’s vehicle and found a .45-caliber semiautomatic pistol loaded with 16
hollow-point bullets in an extended clip. McNeal was charged with several misdemeanors,
including assault, stalking and harassment, and endangering the welfare of a child. McNeal was
granted his CCW license about 10 months earlier, in January 2008, and two months after being
granted the license he was arrested in another incident for aggravated assault and simple assault.

Windsor, CO • October 2, 2008. 26-year-old CCW licensee Thomas Krueger was charged with
unlawful carrying of a weapon, having a weapon on school grounds.

It's established that "permit" holders commit relatively few crimes.
But if you're the victim of one that does, statistics probably don't mean much.

Captainkona, all I can say to you is HCP holders are not paranoid, not looking to kill someone (at least none that I know - can't discount a nutjob on any side of this issue). You say that those of us who carry a gun 24/7 are paranoid. Do you have insurance? Homeowners/renters, flood, auto, uninsured motorist, etc? I assume you do, and that you are paranoid that a flood/earthquake/burgler/fire is going to wipe out your possessions...well, not exactly paranoid, but PREPARED JUST IN CASE.
Same thing with HCP holders. We are PREPARED just in case some nut tries to harm us, our families, or even strangers at a PARK, a RESTAURANT (alcohol by the drink or not), a GROCERY STORE or WHEREVER. Criminals are opportunists - they will strike anywhere without warning in most cases.
As far as carrying in the govt buildings, I absolutely think we should be able to, but that is the one area that you and I agree on - no matter how gun friendly the House and Senate are, they will NEVER allow us Serfs to have more power than they do in their own backyard - fucking hypocrites, every last one.

Capainkona,
you are the one who should seek professional help. You have a serious deficiency in the area of common sense and logical reasoning.

The facts are clear--the permit holders in TN are by far more law abiding than any other cross section of society.

Criminals do not obey any law. That also is a fact.

Signage simply does not work--criminals will carry beyond it.

Laws are meant for the law abiding--read LAW ABIDING people who will obey them.

The world is not a safe place and crime can happen anywhere--but I see you really don't care about the innocent people...

You claim to not be an anti-second amendment advocate, and yet your writings state otherwise--for example, you seem to be under the impression that we can have our rights--"as long as we exercise them in a way that makes you happy"....OR we can have a right to keep arms "but not bear them"...

You are as anti-second Amendment as the Brady center is. You see the people as the problem--I see the criminals as the problem.

The law abiding people are not the enemy.

Wake up and go get yourself some common sense and quit swallowing all of that trash that is being shoveled down your throat by groups like Brady.

The CRIMINALS don't care...and laws are only directed at the law abiding person--why is that so hard to understand for people like you?

Some good points, Dan. Some very good...


But again, I do not consider "all" those who carry to be nuts. But it only takes one that is to ruin it for the rest of you.
My main point is that the background checks and other criteria for the permits is simply not enough to insure that some shit head doesn't slip by.

And as you can probably guess if you read any other posts on this blog, I consider voting Republican to be a highly irresponsible activity and I have no choice but to question the intellectual integrity of anyone who does so.
Being that we live in an area with a high ratio of dim wits and whacked out, pseudo-religious Taliban types, I feel the possibility of a larger than usual number of goofs with guns is quite real.

As I stated to Robert above, I don't know you. If you're as responsible as you seem to be, and you know you don't fit the description of "nut", don't claim it. It's not for you.

You can tell much about a person by the skill with which they speak, write, and otherwise express themselves.
Believe me, I understand there is a big difference between you or Robert, and people like Bo and Jason above.

Why do you think I take the time to start these conversations? There's a lot to learn about people through discourse.


Regards.

Sorry, Jason. But my feelings about those who malign our armed forces haven't changes since my last comment on the matter.

Captainkona,
you seem to misunderstand--I really don't care how you feel about the military. I fully believe they are only used to fight others wars while we allow our own infrastructure to go into the crapper...and all because all of these other useless little nations refuse to fight for their own country--and if they are unwilling to fight for their country--why should Americans?

So yes, I fully believe what I have stated about the military--they are a political pawn, misused, abused and thrown aside like they were trash when you are finished with them. In a way they are robots--they are brainwashed to follow any order given to them, regardless of what it is. However, that is the nature of the beast--to brainwash those under its control so that they do as they are told, when they are told and how they are told immediately.

I also find massive fault with this government that would just as soon send any soldier or Marine to his death as look at them-and do so in the name of any little third world country like that useless little speck of opium growing rock we call Afghanistan....

And I am not a republic--you are flat wrong--neither am I a democrat...I am a Constitutionalist.

And Captainkona, I fully stand behind what I said--criminals do NOT care what laws you pass--because laws are only going to be obeyed by the LAW ABIDING people....the criminals do not care. I can prove that by point you to Virginia Tech...32 dead, 14+ wounded and all before the police could even mobilize...and the one thing they all had in common--they were all DEFENSELESS--totally DEFENSELESS...because people like you were willing to put everyone at risk in the name of fear--you are afraid of the people, you are afraid of anyone who does not wear a uniform, and think that the normal, every day person has absolutely no right to carry a gun on their person.

The permit holders in this state are by far better behaved than other sections of society...as are permit holders in other areas--as well as those who can carry without a permit in places like Virginia...Are there anomalies--yes, there are those everywhere.

Think people carrying can't reduce crime? Think again. Think gun control works to reduce crime? Think again--Washington D.C is a fine example of failed gun control, as is Chicago, Illinois...The people have a right to defend themselves--and it is not a right that exists inside the home only...regardless of where you are, you have a right under state law to defend yourself against a violent attack. And you had that right long before we had the Constitution, or Tennessee was a state...

I say again--crime can and does happen anywhere--and when it happens, it does not happen to the police--it happens to the PEOPLE..the normal every day people. Think crime can't happen in a restaurant--look at Lubys in Texas...think it can't happen on a college campus--look at Virginia Tech. Think it can't happen in a park, or in a church, or anywhere else? Criminals DO NOT care where you are or what you are doing--and they don't care about whether or not a sign is posted that says "no guns allowed per Tennessee Code Annotated..."They don't care--laws don't affect criminals--but you already know that--but for some reason you don't care...just as long as you can stop those LAW ABIDING people...who cares about the innocent victims right? Just as long as we make it as easy as we can on the criminals right?

Captain, I know that with your super ninja Remo Williams catch-a-bullet-in-your-teetch powers, you have nothing to worry about from any criminals, hence you fear nothing. But the rest of us mere mortals need a little bit of an equalizer in the face of violent criminals.

And if I do carry around you, legally, and you find out about it what are you going to do? Use those ninja powers to roundhouse kick my head off? If that is the case, you're making a pretty poor argument against me carrying. You have already said you have carried illegally, and now you are implying that you would take violent action against me for carrying LEGALLY. That shows a general disregard for the law, a trait not shared by the vast majority of HCP holders. It kinda leaves any other remark about "nuts" who carry everywhere a bit hard to swallow. Just a little observation of mine.

And your point about the background checks misses the mark. What you are forgetting is that it's the RIGHT to bear arms, not the privilege. But despite that, those of us who choose to carry in Tennessee submit ourselves to training, TBI and FBI background checks, and over $300 of our money to exercise this RIGHT. In addition, we have to always be aware of where we are, which county, which park, which city, etc. to ensure that we aren't breaking the laws of whatever municipality we find ourselves in. I don't care what you do, how many background checks you do, how many restrictions you place, where you "allow" or "disallow" carry, there will always, without a doubt, be those who will get guns, and carry them where they shouldn't. And that's the reason that we law-abiding carriers fight so fervently for the right to carry when and where we want. As Dan pointed out, it's just in case, not paranoia.

And your comments about voting Republican are beyond absurd. It just shows how extremely bigoted, narrow-minded, and wannabe super elite you are. But since you brought it up, voting for Obama is the height of irresponsibility. He comes from the most corrupt political machine in the country, can't even stand up and tell the truth about those with whom he associates, had never sponsored a major piece of legislation in his life, has proven that can't keep his campaign promises, and is driving this country into a socialist hell of debt and government handouts. And that's responsible? Give me a break. You're probably one of those that believes that anybody that didn't vote for the Dali Bama is racist too, which is a laugh coming from someone who makes statements like the one alluded to above.

But I will agree with you about Jason. His statements about our armed forces are asinine. They show that he has probably never had a conscious thought in his life and lead me to wonder if his mother had any children that lived. Though I respect his right to say the things he says, I would certainly like to exercise my ability, if not right, to kick him square in the nuts.

Yeah, Robert. It's sad that folks like Jason don't understand where their 2nd Amendment rights come from and who it is that keeps those for them.
And this illustrates my concern about exactly who is carrying firearms.

Obama isn't perfect. We knew that when we voted for him. But the last thing this country needed was another disgraceful Clinton or a McBush in the driver's seat. My choice is always Dennis Kucinich. Obama ended up the only possible choice.
I hope he becomes more aggressive on the side of progress.
Obama hasn't committed treason like Bush/Cheney did, and he didn't murder 4000+ of our service people by lying them into a war that didn't need to happen.
He has failed to bring our people home and that bothers me. He is failing on not supporting Single Payer health care and that too is a major disappointment.
But in the long term the country will be better off and that's what matters to me.
Maybe a Kucinich/Paul ticket next time.

And no, I don't think that those who didn't vote for Obama are racist.
I see anyone who voted for McBush as having no comprehension of the damage BushCo did to this country.
I'm sorry, but it's more than obvious to anyone with open eyes that Republican leadership is disgracefully incompetent.
The proof is in the economic disaster, 4326 KIAs (1 pending), the Patriot Act, Michael Chertoff's plans to confiscate guns during natural disasters, Billions of our tax dollars going to Halliburton, Blackwater and other such scum etc..
I'd rater give money to the banks. At least it's more likely to stay at home.
Halliburton took the cash and moved to Dubai.

So far, all Obama's done is spend a risky amount of money but you have to spend it to make it.
Other than that he's done well aside from falling short on ending the wars and giving our people health care.

You know, your talking points would have a lot more punch if they weren't pure partisan rhetoric (though I seriously doubt the majority of Democrats would agree with them, either). If you disagree with the war, that's fine. It's obvious even to Republicans that we got more than we bargained for. I don't know of many that would disagree. But to say that Bush murdered 4,000 of our servicemen is as far left as Bo is right. And don't forget that 1) Britain and Russia confirmed the intelligence that 2) the Congress used to vote in favor of the war in Iraq, including all but a few Democrats. So I guess voting Democrat would be completely irresponsible as well.

As far as the current economic situation, don't forget where it started. Even Congress (or was it the Senate?) agreed this month when they released their findings that the current financial crisis started as part of the Community Reinvestment Act, passed in 1977 by Carter and signed into law by the Clinton administration. Bush tried 18 times in his last year in office alone, and several times before that to rein in the reckless loan practices by our banks.

Either way, no matter who is to blame, socialism is not the answer. That's why in England, where they have the National Health System to take care of you, one of the options they offer in the best jobs in the country is to pay for private insurance. And guess what? Those who have that option overwhelmingly take it. And in Sweden, those who have the money will fly out of country whenever they have anything major that needs to be done. And Sarkozy ran with getting rid of socialized medicine as a major part of his platform. So if socialized medicine is the answer, I have to wonder what exactly the question is. Maybe, in the tradition of "Jeopardy" I might say, "What is the worst idea in health care since the frontal lobotomy, Alex?"

Nice try.

"1) Britain and Russia confirmed the intelligence that 2) the Congress used to vote in favor of the war in Iraq, including all but a few Democrats. So I guess voting Democrat would be completely irresponsible as well."

Nope. There was no "conformation" of anything.
The British Intelligence sites only unnamed sources (Israel)
"Butler Report: It is accepted by all parties that Iraqi officials visited Niger in 1999. The British Government had intelligence from several different sources indicating that this visit was for the purpose of acquiring uranium. Since uranium constitutes almost three-quarters of Niger’s exports, the intelligence was credible."

This does not confirm that weapons grade Urainium was passed to Saddam or even that he sought it.

From FactCheck:
"None of the new information suggests Iraq ever nailed down a deal to buy uranium, and the Senate report makes clear that US intelligence analysts have come to doubt whether Iraq was even trying to buy the stuff. In fact, both the White House and the CIA long ago conceded that the 16 words shouldn’t have been part of Bush’s speech".

Congress was lied to as was the nation.

LINK

"Evidence on Iraq’s Aluminum Tubes Misrepresented

The George W. Bush administration's use of faulty intelligence in making its case for war against Iraq drew much attention from the media. One particular case shows that the administration knowingly disregarded scientific analysis of intelligence data that contradicted its case.

In the weeks leading up to the war, senior administration officials repeatedly stated that Iraq had attempted to acquire more than 100,000 high strength aluminum tubes for gas centrifuges to be used for enriching uranium. Highly enriched uranium is one of the two materials that can be used to make nuclear weapons.

This claim was made by National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice, Vice President Dick Cheney, and finally by President Bush on September 12, 2002, in his address to the United Nations (UN) General Assembly. The president repeated this claim on several occasions, including in his State of the Union address to Congress in January 2003. The contention was also featured in Secretary of State Colin Powell’s speech to the UN Security Council on February 5, 2003, regarding Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction.1

The question before the intelligence community was whether these tubes, which in fact never reached Iraq because of a successful U.S. intervention, were meant to be used for centrifuges or for another purpose: motor casings for short-range rockets. The Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) advocated the view that the tubes were intended for centrifuges, and argued that the tight tolerances on the tubes’ dimensions and finish could have no other interpretation.

However, a set of technical experts from the Department of Energy’s (DOE) Oak Ridge, Livermore, and Los Alamos National Laboratories reviewed the CIA analysis and disagreed with this interpretation because the tube dimensions were far from ideal for this purpose. In fact, the dimensions and the aluminum alloy were identical to those of tubes acquired for rockets by Iraq in the 1980s. Furthermore, the Iraqis had developed and tested centrifuges before the first Gulf War that were much more capable than those that could have been built with the imported tubes."

Every bit a lie. Bush takes his orders from Cheney and Cheney wanted contracts and money. That's why he stopped the CIA from using assassins to deal with the Islamic radicals. That would have made the war unnecessary and he and his friends at Halliburton wouldn't have the payday.

The CRA was a solid program until the
Gramm Leach Bliley act of 1999. The new Republican majority at that time wanted dramatic deregulation and Bill Clinton, being the idiot he was, failed to veto the legislation after many experts and Democratic leaders warned of the outcome.

"President Barack Obama believes that the Act directly helped cause the 2007 subprime mortgage financial crisis. Economists Robert Ekelund and Mark Thornton have also criticized the Act as contributing to the crisis. They state that while "in a world regulated by a gold standard, 100% reserve banking, and no FDIC deposit insurance" the Financial Services Modernization Act would have made "perfect sense" as a legitimate act of deregulation, under the present fiat monetary system it "amounts to corporate welfare for financial institutions and a moral hazard that will make taxpayers pay dearly".

Nobel Prize-winning economist Paul Krugman has called Senator Phil Gramm "the father of the financial crisis" due to his sponsorship of the Act. Nobel Prize-winning economist Joseph Stiglitz has also argued that the Act helped to create the crisis. An article in The Nation has made the same argument."

The Supreme Court recently established that BushCo was responsible. With Scalia of all people slamming Bush for it.

LINK

" In a rebuke of the Bush administration, the Supreme Court ruled Monday that a federal bank regulator erred in quashing efforts by New York state to combat the kind of predatory mortgage lending that triggered the nation's financial crisis.

The 5-4 ruling by the high court was unusual. Justice Antonin Scalia, arguably the most conservative jurist, wrote the majority's opinion and was joined by the court's four liberal judges."

I had knee surgery at Nightingale Hospital in London.
Had the best sports injury Dr. in the city. Dr. Churchill Davidson the third. Payed 25 quid because I was a "foreigner".
I now leg press 1000 lbs.
England's health care is fine.

And the fact is, any health care is better than none at all and that's what too many Americas have now. None at all.
I'm one of them, and a small businessman who pays more taxes than the average citizen and a higher percentage than big business.

Capitalism requires just enough dilution with Socialism to keep it under control. The right of the individual to achieve must be protected, but not to the point of letting the ruthless rip people off.
The best corporation is the one with the people's boot on it's neck. With such transparency big companies can do a lot of good.

No Captainkona, you are wrong yet again--I understand well where the "right of the people to keep and bear arms" Amendment came from...The military does not give it to the people.

And as I have been reading through your latest comments Captainkona--I have noticed that you have completely abandoned any attempt to prove that "gun control" will work.

Gun control is a failure. It is a failure in Britain, it is a failure here where it has been tried--D.C and Chicago being the two most prominent places...it has FAILED.

As for Obama--Obama is not the savior everyone thought he would be. He has dragged this country into the sewer even more than Bush--we are now closer to full socialization than ever....

Any time you restrict the rights of the people in the name of some false sense of security--you are only making it easier for the criminals to operate.

It is a fact--gun control does not work. It is a fact that criminals will never obey any laws.
It is a fact that 32 people were killed at Virginia Tech who may not have all died if they had simply had the right to have a firearm on them.
It is a fact--D.C is a failed--FAILED example of gun control.
It is a fact that the permit holders in this state are better behaved than any other section of society. What is so hard to understand--CRIMINALS DO NOT CARE about any law you pass....laws are meant at the law abiding person--because it is only they who will obey it....Wake up and live in reality for a change.


Captainkona why is it that you cannot understand that the people are NOT the enemy. Permit holders are NOT the enemy.
Wake up and live in reality instead of that false reality you have made for yourself...

I would say this-I would like EVERY single person in this state who is eligible to go and take the class, and obtain their permit...I would also like to see more places opened up to carry with NO opportunity for local communities to "opt out"...Parks carry should have never had an "OPT OUT CLAUSE" in it....More people should get a permit--as many as are eligible.

my iq is 135, I have a dd 214 mos 95b and I have had a psychological evaluation and yes I have carry permit" FBI and TBI "cleared"? When you undergo a psychiatric evaluation, an IQ test on which you score no less than 130, and show a copy of your DD214...then maybe I'll reconsider.
Until then you're just another unqualified nut with a gun.

A DD214 again means nothing in the long run. It is a piece of paper with writing on it.

It does not matter to Captainkona--all he is concerned about is spreading more of the anti-carry permit lies that the gun grabbers have been so intent on. They cannot deal with the facts as they are--so they have to make them up as they go along....

the Captain is just another gun grabbing liberal who thinks that the only people who should have a "right" as far as possessing guns is concerned are the police and the military--and the criminals...he does not care about the law abiding person....

Well, Mr. Jones. Sounds like you're a better candidate than some of those who attempted to make points here.
At least you probably know the difference between shooting at an attacker and shooting at a paper target.
Nothing in your post sounds even remotely paranoid.

That's a change for this thread.

The point here has never been that there aren't responsible people carrying guns. The point is that there are irresponsible ones that do.
That's why this thread was started. To bring the nutz out of the woodwork and thus prove the point.

And as is evident from a few posters here, "mission accomplished".

The only thing that was accomplished here captainkona was to prove to everyone how biased you are against permit holders and how you choose to never answer questions that make your position look bad or prove you to wrong--which you have been wrong a LOT in this biased thread.

you are simply a biased individual who thinks that "rights" are something best exercised on paper only, and never in public, and certainly never around you...

If you think that "military service" should be the test to determine to whom the Constitutional rights should apply--then it is you who is nutz--because the founding fathers never made military service the test...

I also have noticed Captainkona that you have made absolutely no attempt to refute the position that gun control is an absolute failure, and that HCP holders are better behaved by and large than other cross sections of society....Or have you simply chosen to not answer the questions that make you and your position look bad?

I stand behind my earlier statements about you--you really are an idiot.

I made no attempt to "refute the position that gun control is an absolute failure" because I agree that it is.

My position is that you're a Republican chickenhawk punk who hates soldiers because you don't have the guts to your gun to Afghanistan and serve your country like the real men are.

Clear enough?

Carry on....

What is clear Captainkona is that you clearly don't understand the issues. I don't recall that I said I hate soldiers--what I said was--soldiers have to by and large be automated robots who are brainwashed to follow every order given to them.

What is clear is that they are not fighting in Afghanistan to protect America...they are protecting the poppy growing Afghan government. I say let them fight on their own or fall. I say the same of Iraq.

The Real men are those who can think for themselves and who don't need a government to tell us what to think or when to think it.

Real men don't fight a war 10000 miles away while our government stands by and allows the borders to be overrun, our rights to be abrogated by fear mongering people who think that only the police or the military or the criminals should be able to carry a gun, while the law abiding people should have to cower in a corner and hide and wait for someone else to come to their rescue and that crime is "something that happens somewhere else."

Real men are not afraid of an armed citizenry...because they know that a well armed society is a polite society. They also know that a well armed society is less likely to be taken over by a tyrannical government.

Real men know--KNOW that a government left alone will eventually become tyrannical in its very nature...and so they know WHY the founding fathers made it perfectly clear that we have the RIGHT to keep and BEAR arms.

Real men don't guard poppy fields, like American soldiers have done. Because they know that the poppies they guard today will be opium tomorrow.

Real men don't believe in fighting for oil, or to protect someone unwilling to fight to protect themselves, while Americans are having their rights abrogated at an alarming rate by a government with a stated agenda of restricting our Constitutionally protected rights in the name of "helping Mexico"....I couldn't give a kitty about Mexico. Let them solve their own problems. We are not to blame.

Real men don't shoot their mouths off trying to prove how smart or manly they are--because a real man has nothing to prove.

got that? Good..now carry on.