Stability For Our Time

Handgun Carry in a Restaurant

2010-08-30T20:48:49-05:00

Lissa and I ate at Carrabas last weekend and noticed that they have posted a sign regarding handguns. Basically the sign says that they respect the rights of gun owners, but their policy is that guns are not allowed in the restaurant.

Question: Does this sign meet the requirements of Tennessee Law for banning handguns? IN other words, if I carry there, am I in violation of the law?

Answer: No, their sign does not meet the requirements of the law, which states:

(b)(1) Notice of the prohibition permitted by subsection (a) shall be accomplished by displaying one (1) or both of the notices described in subdivision (3) in prominent locations, including all entrances primarily used by persons entering the property, building, or portion of the property or building where weapon possession is prohibited. Either form of notice used shall be of a size that is plainly visible to the average person entering the building, property, or portion of the building or property, posted.
(2) The notice required by this section shall be in English, but a duplicate notice may also be posted in any language used by patrons, customers or persons who frequent the place where weapon possession is prohibited.
(3)(A) If a sign is used as the method of posting, it shall contain language substantially similar to the following:
AS AUTHORIZED BY TCA § 39-17-1359, POSSESSION OF A WEAPON ON POSTED PROPERTY OR IN A POSTED BUILDING IS PROHIBITED AND IS A CRIMINAL OFFENSE.
(B) As used in this section, "language substantially similar to" means the sign contains language plainly stating that:
(i) The property is posted under authority of Tennessee law;
(ii) Weapons or firearms are prohibited on the property, in the building, or on the portion of the property or building that is posted; and
(iii) Possessing a weapon in an area that has been posted is a criminal offense.

Since the Carrabas sign states that it is their policy, not the law, and fails to state that violation of their policy is a criminal offense, their sign does not meet the standard imposed by the law and I would not be in violation if I chose to carry there while eating.

And that brings up the question: If your sign does not meet the requirements of the law, then why post it? My guess is that the management wants to coddle the gun fearing crowd while relying on the fact that those of us who carry are more familiar with the law and will recognize that the sign is basically meaningless.

Nice try, but no dice Carrabas. Just like the places that still have the old signage posted in a similar attempt to ease the groundless fears of the ignorant, you are signalling that you don't want my business.

And I am happy to comply. There are plenty of restaurants that do acknowledge the fact that I am an intelligent, law abiding person with rights that must be respected in deed, not just in words.
...
Link to post

Ground Zero Mosque

2010-08-24T02:27:54-05:00

I haven't written much about it because really, there's no good answer. I believe in free expression of religion, and that Muslims have a right to buy property and to construct a mosque anywhere as long as it complies with local laws. On the other hand, putting a mosque that close to ground zero is like putting a Catholic Cathedral in Mecca.

Insensitive is putting it mildly.

Before we dig too deeply into it, let's get a couple things out of the way. First of all, it is a mosque, and it is at Ground Zero. Some supporters are calling it a community center, and saying that it isn't really at ground Zero; it's two blocks from ground zero. Well, let's look at both claims.

The church I go to has a coffee shop, a warehouse, a picnic pavilion, a bookstore, and there are plans to build a lodge, a school, and a retirement community.

It's still a church.

The Park 57 development is a mosque, plain and simple. It has an Imam, and regular prayer services will be conducted there.

The property is available because the building that used to be there was destroyed on 9/11 by chunks of the WTC.

It's at ground zero.

Second, there are sound reasons to oppose the building of this mosque, reasons that have nothing to do with fear, racism, or hate. The antipathy felt be some towards building a mosque on ground that was covered with the dust of bodies killed in the 9/11 attack is understandable. The juxtaposing of a mosque within a stone's throw of the biggest, costliest terror attack on the US is a provocation, one whose ramifications must be carefully considered. Calling the opposition racist and prejudiced is childish and inane, and signifies a weak mind.

The foolishness is not limited to supporters.

There are people running around claiming that the Imam is a radical that blames the US for 9/11, and that the purpose of putting the mosque at ground zero is to claim victory over the US. While there may or may not be some truth to the latter, the former is very exaggerated. These people rely on tenuous links that would fail the Kevin Bacon test in order to link The Imam is about as moderate as a Muslim can be without getting a fatwa called down on himself, and despite some mildly troubling statements, I don't see him as coddling terrorists. As for the victory claims, well, I think it's safe to say that if this mosque is constructed, there will be Muslim radicals who do see it as a sign of victory, and will be encouraged to more acts of violence. I think you would have to be in complete denial of reality to believe otherwise.

But the question is: "Does our belief that future violent attacks will likely be spurred by the building of this mosque give us the right to deny the Constitutional rights of those who want to build it?"

As a Christian and a conservative, I know how I want to answer, As an American and libertarian, I know how I must answer.

As Americans, we have rights given to us by our Creator. We deemed some of those rights to be important enough that we enumerated them in our Constitution, the document upon which all of our laws should be founded. Among those enumerated rights are both the right to free speech and assembly, and the right to worship in the manner we see fit. If these right are important enough to receive special attention in the Constitution, then they are important enough to outweigh concerns over potential future events. In other words, no matter how offensive and distasteful a mosque at ground zero is to me personally, no matter how much I believe it dishonors the memories of the 3000 innocent Americans slaughtered that day be the followers of Islam, no matter how strong the possibility that building this mosque may encourage other terrorists to act out their violent plans of conquest and oppression, the principles upon which our freedoms rest must not be infringed.

While I understand and sympathize with the protesters and their point of view, and defend their right to protest without being called racists, bigots, or hate-mongers, I have to say that as long as all laws and regulations are followed, the owners of the property have a right to build a mosque there if they so choose.
...
Link to post

New Toy!

2010-08-22T23:52:15-05:00

Lissa and I went to the range for a blogshoot last week, and I got a chance to shoot SayUncle's AR-15 with the .22 conversion kit in it. In a word, sweet!

Lissa shot my AR a couple of times, but the recoil really bothered her neck and shoulder, but shooting Uncle's conversion didn't bother her a bit. While the recoil didn't bother me, My head kept saying "There goes 30 cents" every time I pulled the trigger.

Putting those two things together, it wasn't a hard decision to order a CMMG, Inc ARC-22 AR Conversion Kit, along with a spare magazine.

Installing the conversion is easy, even for a neophyte like me. All you do is remove the rear pin holding the upper to the lower, pull back on the charging handle about halfway, and remove the bolt assembly from the rifle. Slide the conversion bolt assembly in, push the charging handle forward, and then pin the upper and lower together again. It's actually faster to do it than to type about it. After that, load the conversion mag with .22 rounds, and away you go. One of the things I like about the conversion is that it is so fast and easy to swap back and forth, and since I have to use different magazines, that means my defense loads are always ready to go, unlike when I shoot the XDm.

I tested the conversion out with some high velocity ammo, American Eagle 38 grain High Velocity hollow points to be exact, and shot through 2 magazines with no issues at all. The rifle was just as accurate, and my head was much happier saying "There goes a nickel" with each shot. I paid $180 for the conversion kit, and $25 for the spare magazine, so if I save 25 cents per shot, in 820 rounds, the kit will have paid for itself.

As fun as this thing is to shoot, I should do that by next Friday.

...
Link to post

What If?

2010-08-21T20:54:38-05:00

Website:What If The Movie
...
Link to post

What does 5400 rpm look like?

2010-08-04T00:16:28-05:00

...
Link to post

Arizona, Immigration, and the Rule of Law

2010-07-29T03:56:39-05:00

Two men cross the border illegally. One moves far from the border. He gets a job, then a second job, working hard and saving money. He sends some back home to support his parents, but saves the rest. He buys a car. He rents an apartment. Then he uses money he's saved to buy a trailer and rents it out. He uses the rent money to pay for a second trailer where he lives. He continues to work hard, saving his money, and he builds a real life for himself here. The other gets here and also gets a job, only this time, it's peddling drugs and doing small jobs for the local gang. He joins up and becomes one more petty thug among thousands.

Here's my question. Does it make sense that our immigration laws treat both men the same?

On the other hand, we have the federal government. Arizona crafted a state law that virtually mirrored the federal laws on immigration and identification. The only difference between the two was that the Arizona law empowered state and local police to do the job the federal government wouldn't. Now, a federal judge has determined that it is illegal for states to enforce federal laws when the federal government, in this case, the Obama administration, doesn't want them enforced. Think about that just for a moment. The federal government has just declared that it can ignore it's own laws as it wishes, and the people and the states have no legal recourse.

Of course, this is no real surprise to anybody who has been paying attention. The Obama justice department has already shown with the New Black Panthers that they will engage in selective prosecution, enforcing laws only when it benefits them, and ignoring them when they don't. If you don't believe me, then just ask yourself one simple question. If Klansmen in full regalia had engaged in the same acts in, say, Mississippi, as the NBP thugs did in Pennsylvania, would Eric Holder declined to push the case?

Nope, I don't think so. We would have seen the biggest media circus trial since OJ.

So, our federal government has now officially declared that not only are they above the law, they can legally squelch any attempt by the states to hold them accountable for their inaction. Does it sound like we're still living in a representational republic? Or any kind of republic at all?

Laws are effective only when the people have confidence that they will be applied and enforced equally. When the people lose that confidence, they lose respect for the law, and for those who enforce it, and more importantly, begin to reject the legitimacy of the laws and the government which makes them. Folks, this is how revolutions get started. If you're a rancher in Arizona, and you're property has been vandalized repeatedly by illegal aliens over the last 10 years, costing you thousands of dollars, how would you feel if the federal government told you that not only weren't they going to do anything about it, they were going to forbid your state to do anything about it? Would you feel angry and betrayed? Would you maybe decide that if the government refused to do their job, that you might have to do it for yourself? Would you feel like the government represented you fairly? Would you feel like you owed any loyalty to that government?

I don't live on the border so I can't answer any of those questions, but somebody in Washington better start thinking about them pretty quick because I'm willing to bet that there are thousands of people living in Arizona right now that are thinking about those questions every night as they patrol their property, trying to prevent further damage and destruction.

The bottom line is starkly simple: If the federal government is unwilling to do one of the few jobs specifically allocated to it by the Constitution, then what good is it?
...
Link to post

Haslam Lost My Vote

2010-07-27T01:19:30-05:00

It was his until a few days ago when I saw one of his mailers the other day.

Now, I can handle the fact that as mayor of Knoxville, Mr. Haslam decided to join Bloomberg's anti-gun rights group. I can handle that it took him way too long to get out of the group. I can even handle his decision to ban law abiding citizens from legally carrying their handguns in city parks.

I disagree with all of those stands, but he, as mayor, has the duty to follow through on his principles.

What I can't handle is his posturing as a pro gun second amendment supporter by touting his "lifetime membership" in the NRA when the ink on his enrollment check hasn't even had time to dry.

Stand for what you believe in, and even if I disagree with you, I'll respect you. Try to hide your beliefs in order to get elected, and you're just like every Democrat who ever ran for public office. If you'll lie to me to get elected, you'll lie to me after you're elected.

Wamp voted for TARP. Enough said.

Ramsey gets my vote.
...
Link to post

Luke Update, and Then Some

2010-07-20T03:19:59-05:00

First, I apologize to those of you who have been following Luke's story here that can't access Facebook. I admit that possibility never crossed my mind, so while I kept updating the Facebook page, I haven't done anything here. I have a really good excuse though:

LUKE IS HOME!

When I posted last, Luke was off the vent and being considered for Long Tern Acute Critical Care because they thought he wasn't strong enough or well enough for rehab at Patricia Neal. Well, when God works a miracle, he doesn't go half way. Shortly after I wrote the last entry, Luke's respiratory therapist decided to try capping the trach tube to see how well Luke could breathe through his mouth and nose. They expected him to go for 30 minutes to an hour before needing to go back on the trach collar. Eight hours later, when it was about time to go to bed, Luke indicated that he was feeling a little short of breath, and asked for the cap to be pulled for the night. While the cap was off, he talked to us, and let us know that his mind was intact for the most part, although with all of the drugs, it was hard to assess just how much damage there was, if any.

The next day, they capped his trach again and allowed him to breathe in supplemental oxygen through a nasal cannula as needed. He never went back on the trach again. That afternoon, he saw a physical therapist for the first time. I helped with the evaluation. Luke was able to respond to all commands, and while he was very weak, he was able to sit on the side of his bed for ten minutes, working with the therapist. He required significant support, but he was working for the entire rime. After 30 minutes of therapy, the PT looked at me and said "This young man is ready for Patrica Neal!"

I did not cry; I just got a little sweat in my eye.

The Pat Neal rep was a little bit more realistic, and told us that while Luke was too strong for LTACC, he wasn't quite ready for full rehab yet, so they decided to move him to a regular room to get him out of the ICU and let him start gaining some strength. On July 3rd, Luke moved to the 10th floor. His meds were reduced, and he was allowed to have ice chips. We managed to get one popsicle for him, but they didn't want him to take in anything by mouth until they pulled the trach tube. After three days in the room, he was ready to transfer, but there were delays in getting all the doctors and therapists there to sign off on his release and it wasn't until July 9 that he made the transfer to Patricia Neal. At that time, he was cleared to eat solid food, and had his trach tube removed.

During the six days he was on the 10th floor, Luke ws visited by his nurses and a couple of the doctors. They all wanted to see the young man they had worked so hard and long for. Working in a trauma ICU is extremely difficult. The doctors and nurses have to give their patients the best care possible, all the while realizing that most everybody there is facing some pretty long odds. I can't imagine having to go into work each day knowing that the young man or woman that you've been working on so hard is liable to die. Their ability to maintain their focus and their intensity, and their ability to invest a little piece of themselves into each patient they care for is nothing short of heroic. That's why it comes as no surprise that when they have a patient who defies the odds, who not only survives, but recovers fully, and rapidly, they want to celebrate with the patient and the family. They are a part of our family now, and even though Luke doesn't really know them, we will go back and introduce him to the heroes that worked with energy, intelligence and a large helping of prayer and faith to save his life.

Luke went to Patricia Neal on Friday. Saturday morning, they did an assessment. Monday, he met his doctor and began rehab. They asked him to walk 15 steps. He walked 80. On Tuesday, he asked what he had to do to go home by the weekend. The doctor told him to work hard during his therapy sessions, and that it was a realistic goal. On Thursday, he came home!

On June 13th, they told us he was hours from death. On June 20th, they told us he would be in the ICU for weeks, the hospital even longer, then months of inpatient rehab. By June 27th, the smart ones had stopped making predictions. Luke was recovering too quickly, and too fully. God was at work in him, and Luke progressed as quickly as they would let him. Now he's at home, and getting ready to go to his first outpatient rehab class tomorrow. LAst night, he went out to dinner with his family, digging in to lasagna and chicken parmigiana like nothing ever happened.

There are some signs that he was sick. He lost 50 lbs. He walks with a pronounced limp due to a bad bone bruise on his knee. He tires easily, and his hands are shaky. There may be some residual nerve damage from the sedation and paralysis, or it could be related to the anoxia, but in either case, we know it will be healed as well. Luke is working hard to get back to the man he was before the accident, a teenager with a pickup truck, a pretty girlfriend, and a new puppy. It's going to be hard for us to let him be that teenager; we know how close we came to losing him. It's going to be hard to sit back and watch him go his own way again; I'm going to worry about him every time he gets on the road, whether he's driving or not. Then again, I'm worrying more about all of my kids. As a parent, I've been exceptionally lucky. I've raised six kids, and never hd to deal with a really bad illness or injury before. Sure, we've had our crises and our dramas, and many many trips to the emergency room, and one or two scares, but never anything like this. The bubble of invulnerability has been fractured before, but never shattered.

Now it has. Like a teenager finally coming to grips with their own mortality, I've been faced with a parent's worst fear: losing a child. From a distance, I watched my friend Katie as she went through it, and through my own fear and sorrow, I mourned for Henry with her even as I prayed that I would not have to follow her into that grief. And thanks be to God, I didn't have to. But I was forced to confront an aweful truth: my children are not in my hands, but in God's. And my spelling of 'aweful' was deliberate. I released Luke into God's hands, and God gave him back to me. It's an awful thing to have to learn, that you are powerless to save your child; it is an awesome thing to to learn, that God isn't.

As grateful as I am to God for sparing my son, I am left with a question that has no easy answer. Why did Luke live, and not Henry? Katie and her friends and family prayed just as hard and just as earnestly for Henry. A God who works miracle could surely have worked two at the same time. Why did Henry have to die in God's plan?

I know what the Bible says: "Where were you when I laid the foundation of the earth?" In other words, "Who are you to think you can understand My ways?" While I concede the logic of the answer, emotionally, it is unsatisfying and for a grieving parent, it's no help at all. Understanding that God's plan, while working for good, is incomprehensible to the limited mortal mind doesn't help much when you're mourning the loss of your child.It bothers me because part of being a Christian is to love your neighbors, and part of that is trying to bring them comfort when they need it, and right now, I don't know of any comfort I can give except the cold comfort of faith in the goodness of God. How can I convince a grieving mother of the glory of God when I would have a hard time believing it myself? I rejoice today because Luke lives. If one of my children died tomorrow, would I still rejoice and proclaim God's glory? I don't know and I don't want to know. I want to believe that I could still stand in praise like my friend Kathy, who lost her son to cancer, but I just don't know. I'd like to believe I have the faith of the Centurion, but honesty compels me to admit that I only reach that level of faith intermittently, when I'm left with no other choice.

So did God save Luke because I'm a better Christian than Katie? Hardly! I am a Christian, but I am also a sinner, and I'm no better than any other man or woman. Like the bumper sticker says, I'm just forgiven.

So we're left with faith again, but on second thought, maybe faith isn't such a cold comfort after all. Maybe I'm being deceived, even now. When I prayed those nights for the life of my son, when I had to give him up and place him in God's hands, I was comforted, and it was through faith. I believed Luke would be healed and that faith did comfort me even on the darkest night. That faith also allowed me to finally place Luke in God's hands and to let God take him if that was His plan. I can't claim to walk in that level of faith right now, but I did that night, and I'm trying to stay there. Faith doesn't have to be perfect to be effective; it just has to be there. I still don't know why Luke lived and not Henry, and I don't know what I would say to Katie if she asked me that question, but maybe this is one of those times when I don't need to know what to say, but to let the Holy Spirit speak through me..

I'd still like to have a better answer.

...
Link to post

How to Win a New Client: Luke Update

2010-07-01T04:54:42-05:00

Sorry I haven't written in the last few days, but we've been keeping the Facebook page updated. Luke is still doing very well, so well that even doctors are using the "m" word. He's off the ventilator (30 hours as of right now) and handling it fine. He responds to all commands and is able to move his arms, legs, finger, and toes when asked. He's shown a full range of emotions, from anger and sorrow, to humor and love. He's still very groggy due to heavy sedation, and the doctor who examined him yesterday says he sees some signs of brain damage in his motions and posture, bu that he believes that any damage can be corrected by therapy and time.

And that brings me to the point of today's post. Luke is now well enough to leave the ICU, but not well enough to go to a standard room. They used the term LTACC, which stands for Long Term Acute Critical Care. I was not a big fan of that label, as long term sounds very ominous, and not at all in line with what we've seen from Luke, but I was relieved when the doctor explained that in this case, long term means a time measured in weeks instead of days. If they thought he would be ready for Patricia Neal or other full rehab facilities in a few days then they would move him to a floor room, but he believes Luke will need a little more time than that to get his trach out and to be weaned from the high level of sedation he's on. UT no longer maintains beds for transitional patients like Luke, so they're presenting options to the insurance company for the next phase of his care.

I met with representatives from the two facilities in Luke's room today to assess their programs, capabilities, and see how well Luke would fit in.

The rep from Facility A was an RN with 20 years of experience in a hospital setting in various capacities. She was familiar with Luke's history, and had read his chart in full. She was aware of some of the unique features of his stay here at UT, and outlined a multi-pronged strategy to perform rehab on his brain and his lungs, including stimulation of the damaged nuerons. Facility A is located within a hospital setting, with doctors on site 24/7, and is fully capable of handling any contingency in house.

The rep from Facility B was a respiratory technician who looked like he finished his training sometime last week. He didn't know anything about Luke's case, not even basic information, like how long he'd been in the ICU, or the extent of his injuries, or even that there was a brain trauma involved. He said they were very good at weaning patients off of ventilators. I pointed to Luke and said that he was already off the ventilator, and the rep said that was okay, they were good at weaning patients off of trachs as well. Facility B is located in a nursing home. and the rep very proudly assured me that they kept a RN and a respiratory therapist on site 24/7. I asked him how many beds they had and he said 16.

One RN for 16 beds. Luke is too sick to be in a regular hospital room with one nurse to four beds, and some clown wants to send him to a facility with one nurse for 16 beds.

I don't think so.

I asked how they would handle an emergency, and he said they had a doctor on call, but if the emergency were severe, they could call 911.

Let's just say that I know where I want Luke to go, and if the insurance company picks Facility B, there will be a bit of a ruckus. I'll bring him home first.
...
Link to post

Luke is Improving

2010-06-25T06:18:01-05:00

He got his trach and feeding tube on Wednesday,and they started weaning him from the fentanyl and Versed almost immediately. As of 11:30PM Thursday night, he was off the IV drugs. He's tolerated it very well, and tomorrow they'll begin to work him off of the ventilator. The process could take several days, longer if he reacts badly, but since his lungs were in decent shape before putting in the trach tube, I expect he'll regain ground quickly, and really start to show progress. When he's close to getting off the vent, they'll start to eliminate the new sedatives,oxycodone and Adavan and then he'll be waking up for real.

I'm trying to stay patient, but I'm really ready to get my son back.
...
Link to post