Leaderboard

soooo glad I really don't have asshat neighbors, LOL they probably think I am that guy

[quote name='QuietDan' timestamp='1353288392' post='847886'] I've been away from this soap opera for a week or so. Did I miss anything? No? Didn't think so. Anyone convince anyone about anything? No? Didn't think so. [/quote] Actually the OP was just two days ago, and it referenced the fact that we MIGHT have convinced Lt. Gov. Ramsey to back the ability of a permit holder to have his weapon stored in their vehicle while at work on the majority of parking lots, like 19 other States have done... DaveTN convinced me we have no firearms Rights in Tennessee, Life and Law Enforcement of Weakly County, TN (Sheriff's Department and DA) convinced me we have no Private Property Rights.

[quote name='DaveTN' timestamp='1353284209' post='847852'] I worked off duty security for a company that had very large tanks of flammable liquids the grounds. They had several plants, but the one that had those tanks did not allow firearms on the property or in vehicles in the parking lots of that one plant. For you guys that think you have a right to have a gun in a parking lot, how are you going to respond to the companies that claim a very real safety risk of having guns in the vicinity of hazardous/flammable/explosive materials? Are you and your state legislators in better position to determine those risks than the experts that use the products or processes? [/quote] So that weapon in the car out in the parking lot is going set the flammables off without any person pulling the trigger? Denying the legitimate, licensed permit holder the ability to keep a weapon locked up in the parking lot is going to make it more dangerous than the thug that does not abide by the law and has one in their vehicle now?

Does he have a second sign for the other gun grabbing presidential candidate?

If the nutcase purchased the knife at the store how did he get it out of the fiendish packaging to commence his rampage?

[quote name='JayC' timestamp='1353251602' post='847603']I'm sorry but it is a progressive argument that somehow societies 'feelings/whims' trump a persons property rights. I'm not suggesting that progressives haven't been very successful in getting courts to violate those rights for the last few decades, but it doesn't change the fact that property rights are a natural right, the same as the right to own and carry a gun is a natural right, and the government has no legitimate reason to violate either of them. I'm never going to post a business I own, when certain laws were changed a few years back, I got into a number of arguments with progressive leaning members of the family on why we should not post our family owned business... I even had to fire an employee who answered the phone and told a customer we would be posting. (BTW that is the only time I've lost an unemployment claim but that is an entirely different story) But, I should have full control over my business, I should be able to ban carry over the entire property if I so (IMHO incorrectly) choose. Like with any other policy I make, employees who don't like it can find another job... Customers can do business elsewhere if they don't like the policies. Somebody else will come along and cater to those folks, and get their business and labor if they so choose. I use to work for a corporation that prohibited carry for employees, and it was one of the reasons I choose to leave and start my own business. I make less money, but I don't have to disarm everyday to go to work... Nobody is forced to work somewhere they must disarm, they choose to... That is their choice. Again, we should be focused on removing stupid laws, and laws that prohibit carry n government control lands and buildings... because none of us have a choice when it comes to those locations... Not try and tell some business person he must do something he fundamentally disagrees with.[/quote] [size=4][font=arial,helvetica,sans-serif]This is not about feelings or whims; it’s about laws and the good of society at large. Is it “[i]progressive[/i]” of me to want zoning laws in my city so that my next door neighbor can’t suddenly decide to convert his “private property” into a petting zoo or a garbage dump or a half-way house for child molesters? Is it “[i]progressive[/i]” for me to believe that I should be able to control the contents of my vehicle provided the contents are legal to own/have in my vehicle? Is it “[i]progressive[/i]” of me to believe that a restaurant shouldn’t be allowed to refuse to serve a black man or a Chinese woman because of their respective races or to think that a business shouldn't be able to require employees to work 16 or 20 hour days or even force eight year old children to do the same? If the above examples are examples of “[i]progressiveism[/i]” then color me progressive but I suggest that there is nothing libertarian or conservative or patriotic OR Constitutional in allowing anyone/any business/any property owner to do whatever the hell he wants to do on or with his "property" with no regards to anyone else or regards to society at large. Most of the laws we have regulating what property owners and businesses can and can’t do on their “property” or in running their business exist in response to the sometimes idiotic and sometimes even dangerous things that property owners/businesses have done that harmed others/society and while we probably have far too many laws and regulations, on the whole, I say such laws and regulations are a good thing, even “Constitutional”...even conservative. The government certainly can have legitimate reasons for infringing on or even completely taking our rights away, including, among others, the right to keep and bear arms and the right to own property - our founders understood that which is why we have the 5[sup]th[/sup] Amendment. If you believe the courts have blundered in upholding these laws then please explain how they have done so…show specifically how a legal, inert thing, whether it’s a firearm or a set of golf clubs locked inside of a vehicle while parked on a piece of ground provided for the purpose of parking vehicles is a violation of the takings clause.[/font][/size] Until you or someone can do that, I'll remain, "[i]progressive[/i]" and armed. -------------------- I believe we are left with two issues...[list=1] [*]Can the government install such a law without violating the Constitution's takings clause. [*]Should the government install such a law. [/list] I believe the first issue has been addressed sufficiently well by the courts - I think the courts were right. Others can disagree but disagreement doesn't change anything unless others can show how the courts got it wrong. The second issue is, I believe, the only issue that truly matters at this point. The "it's my property and I should be able to do what I want" statement certainly sounds reasonable...it even sounds patriotic but when examined in detail it is, I believe, unconvincing. It's unconvincing because it really just states an opinion....it's unconvincing because it can (and in many cases was) used to justify any manner of abhorrent, disgusting and even dangerous practices and shows absolutely zero concern for anyone or anyone else s rights; including [u][i]their[/i][/u] property rights.

My experience tells me you will draw and fire without thinking about your equipment and you will fire where and how you have trained; chances are you will not have time to do anything else. My training was firing into center body mass without using sights. If you think you will have time to get a sight picture or make a head shot; train that way. If I were a “Shot placement guy” I would be dead.

I'm still waiting for a satellite to fall out of orbit and land on my neighbor's house. They moved in 5 years ago and it has been nothing but trouble since. Police have been involved twice.

[size=4][color=#001320][font=Arial]As a business owner I often choose not to offer our services to some people. That is what is great about living in a free country. We can still choose not to do business with someone. We usually are refusing to buy from someone but it is also refusing to sell to someone. Over the years I have learned a lesson. Bad business is worse than no business. We do not have to subject ourselves to people we do not want to associate with. At the same time no Obama voter has to shop with these guys. It’s still a free country go somewhere else. [/font][/color][/size]

[img]http://sphotos-b.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ash3/61983_420982761300680_254569568_n.png[/img]

I've never understood buying a car. I don't understand why I have to sign 50 documents for a damn car. I've paid cash for a few and just don't get it. If I pay you, why can't you give me the title, a bill of sale and handshake on the way out the door. Should take no more than 15 minutes TOPS.

[quote name='S&WForty' timestamp='1353092365' post='846718']That sure is a good perspective. It's almost like such a law being enacted sets a precedent. What else can the government tell a private person/company what they can/cannot do/allow on their property?[/quote] There is a clear distinction, both in law and in practice, between private property used for private purposes and property used for business purposes and that distinction has been recognized for many, many decades. I agree that the rights of the property owner should be protected but no one right exists in a vacuum; they interact with other...sometimes they conflict with one another and when that happens, a fair balance needs to be sought; a balance that does the most good and least harm. I would suggest that the larger issue that should impact whether "parking lot" legislation is or isn't passed into law is what constitutes the best outcome for society at large. We have a large amount of history/data to show that an armed citizenry is a benefit to society; as such, if we (the government) can promote citizens being armed with little or no infringement on the rights of property owners then it's appropriate to make that possible. Other than the cry of "private property rights" (a cry I believe is misguided), I've not read or heard even one argument that has shown me any measurable, negative impact on a business owner simply because an employee or a customer chooses to have a legally owned and transported firearm in their vehicle while it's parked in a parking lot that is open to the public, and not just "open to" but where the public is invited to be.

[quote name='RobertNashville' timestamp='1353299917' post='848025'] Your veiled assertion that there is a difference between a regulation that is based on "taxes" or "wages" as opposed to any other regulation is both flawed and immaterial because it entirely misses the point....[/quote] Yep. And even Strick's vehement refusal to equate ADA with handgun carry is specious. In the the same vein as your comment, it is simply one more set of regulations, showing just one more precedent for adherence to one more set of regulations. I've certainly never claimed that disability and handgun possession are on any kind of equal status, that is not a valid argument, or does it need to be. And much of this is red herring territory anyway. The parking lot bill is not so much about anything the business owner must [i]do[/i], but simply about something he must [i]not[/i] do. Just like the hundreds of other things he must not do, whether it's to quarter top staff in your home, or commandeer your car. Or in this case, effectively prevent you from self defense while in your own property, something that TN law specifically allows, HCP or not, actually. - OS

[quote name='QuietDan' timestamp='1353295558' post='847971'] ....I have opinions that I believe could convince, but I'm going to hold off until folks settle down a little bit. [/quote] You should have espoused them about a year and a half ago to forestall the last umpteen threads on the matter -- could have reached group consensus if not a complete state of satori. - OS

[quote name='RobertNashville' timestamp='1353292933' post='847938'] You can call it "private property" all you want but society has decided that how a property is used has a bearing on what can and should be regulated with regards to that property. You may not like it...you can ignore it all you wish...you can disagree with it all you wish but the reality is that society, through the government, treats property used for business purposes differently than property used for private purposes and has done so, as best I can tell for at least 130 years and perhaps longer. [/quote] Two of us saying almost exact same thing won't change their minds. It's worse than "2A will not be infringed!", or even "Citizen's arrest, citizen's arrest!" - OS

I've been away from this soap opera for a week or so. Did I miss anything? No? Didn't think so. Anyone convince anyone about anything? No? Didn't think so.

[quote name='strickj' timestamp='1353272288' post='847758'] Do you want the government to make you do something with your property simply to satisfy a stranger's convenience and sense of entitlement? [/quote] Here is what our Constitution has to say about the matter. Article 1 § 8. Deprivation of life, liberty or property under law; due process "That no man shall be taken or imprisoned, or disseized of his freehold, liberties or privileges, or outlawed, or exiled, or in any manner destroyed or deprived of his life, liberty or property, but by the judgment of his peers or the law of the land." Due process allows your peers to decide what is going to be allowed with respect to the subject at hand. I do not see anything that say whatever any single property owner may decide is to rule. That pesky "judgment of his peers" interferes with the absolute enjoyment of whatever one may decide to do on, or with their property, but nevertheless, there it is. That can be the County Commission, a City Government, (or agencies of either) that stand for our peers in legislating or mandating rules and regulations, some good, some not so, but effective none the less. I do not read anything in there that precludes "private property" business or personal from inclusion. Then one has to consider the last part of the Article, where deprivation of ones property may be achieved through the "law of the land." Stepping back to Article 1 § 26. Weapons; right to bear arms "That the citizens of this State have a right to keep and to bear arms for their common defense; but the Legislature shall have power, by law, to regulate the wearing of arms with a view to prevent crime." Therein lies the rub with respect to the issue at hand, the Tennessee Constitution [b]specifically[/b] references how issues related to arms are to be considered. To DaveTN's point, I agree with him that the current TCA code is in fact against the intent and letter of the Constitution, as our ability to bear arms should not be "sold" and it is in fact guaranteed though currently denied except at cost of a permit. (Though I much prefer the system we have to say that of Illinois, where there is no chance to carry) I am all for working to achieve "Constitutional Carry", and believe it is the right (correct) thing to do. Having spent the majority of this summer embroiled with a private property issue involving my 85 year old Father, I have come to the firm conclusion that there are no "private property" Rights in Tennessee. The convicted, and still on probation meth dealer that lives next door to my aged parents strung a barbed wire fence across a major portion of their front yard, taking in the drive way that goes along their dividing line that feed the barn that has been part of my Father's property for over 100 years since the original deed was drawn up. The Sheriff came out and said that even though he knew where the property line lay, he could not make this piece of filth remove the fence until such time as my parents hired a surveyor and filed suit to have the fence removed, as it fell under "adverse possession" standards. We filed the suit, hired a registered surveyor to run the meets and bounds of the deeds, all in all out over $3,000.00 so far in cost. The original incident took place in June of this year and we still have not come to closure. The Sheriff did finally make the interlopers take the first fence down after the points were established, but he next day the guy puts a new one up over 4 feet across the property line, and it took another month to get that one moved. There was a restraining order issued by the Chancery Court Judge against the people next door, saying they were to not harass my parents or to interfere with their enjoyment of their property. The clown would park his truck pointed at my parents bedroom and keep the bright lights turned on, and hit his alarm on the vehicle. We gave video of the acts to the Sheriff, but he said that he or one of his officers would have to witness it. TDEC is doing a Project to remedy a gas tank lead from the neighbors property which used to be a store of sorts (these people purchased from the original owner). It infiltrated my parent's well requiring a tank yank and drilling numerous wells that pump through a huge set of filters. The neighbors threatened the TDEC employees to the point they will not service the filters without a Sheriff's Deputy on site while they are there. (TDEC can make the Department protect them, my parents do not share that weight) A person's property is not his castle it seems.

[quote name='Il Duce' timestamp='1353280212' post='847817'] [img]http://i2.photobucket.com/albums/y45/civicex2k1/IMG_4928.jpg[/img] Sent from my SGH-I747 using Tapatalk 2 [/quote] Thats what its all about

I doubt that he loses much business, if any. If I sold Twinkies... no, bad example. If I sold coal furnaces and coal... oops, 'nother bad example. Ok, ok. If I sold big screen HDTVs and beer, I would consider that a bad business move. But not a gun store. Honestly, I would not sell a gun or ammo to an Obama voter, either. They have clearly demonstrated a considerable lack of judgement.

As a FL fan it saddens me to see him be fired.

[quote name='barewoolf' timestamp='1353250199' post='847588'] Are civil rights allowed to be violated on private property, as in the parking lots of the workplace? How about in restaurants? Is it permissible to discriminate against blacks in these places? Then why is it ok when its the 2nd Amendment that's being violated? [/quote] I am really, really getting tired of seeing these comments. A person's skin color, sex or disability is in no way similar to an inanimate object and comparing them as such is offensive. Gun - inanimate object\ Shoes - inanimate object Hat - inanimate object Ice cream - fun inanimate object Skin color - not an inanimate object Sex - not an inanimate object Disability - not an inanimate object Age - not an inanimate object See the difference?

[quote name='gregintenn' timestamp='1353266467' post='847716'] What is that one thing that, no matter what, UT always does Derrick Dooley? [/quote] They pay off fired coaches

[quote name='barewoolf' timestamp='1353241513' post='847519'] .... If one could only have one AR, I'm kinda thinking that a pistol with the tube might be the way to go. [/quote] Well, first, I simply don't see not having an AR rifle at all, just to have an AR pistol. However, if you start with an AR pistol you can keep a rifle upper and go back and forth, maximizing use of the lower, so in the sense of a convertible "kit" firearm it has been a pretty attractive idea to me, so been thinking about doing exactly that for a while. But really, have just about come to conclusion that with a 6 or 7" (barrel which I would prefer to keep it closer to real pistol) the anemic performance of the round with that length, the noise, and extra length needed for the conventional length buffer tube just aren't worth it to have something kewl. Makes a bit more sense if I wanted to maybe go 10" barrel and later make it SBR too, but that's another genre that just doesn't much appeal to me for whatever reason. Or do it with another caliber, which I don't really wanna jump into either at this point. So all in all, I'm currently thinking this is one of those things I could do but likely won't. As far as having a "battle caliber" pistol only, I've come to understand the ergonomic attraction of the PLR-16 or the Drago, with the latter easily becoming SBR too for those wanting to go that route. - OS

[quote name='DaveTN' timestamp='1353255088' post='847647'] The only legal risk you have is if you are not justified in shooting. [/quote] ... and the fact that you'll probably miss, so the bullet is going to hit something else with full force.

[quote name='6.8 AR' timestamp='1353254850' post='847642'] I think we all must have one of those. My gay(term used loosely) nephew thinks communism is a good thing and doesn't understand the fascination with firearms, but gets behind you if confronted. Little coward will be at Thanksgiving dinner. I will be there, briefly. [/quote] Gets behind you? May wanna tighten up a notch or two on that belt

[quote name='6.8 AR' timestamp='1353253878' post='847630'] The groundhog is neighborly. He eats my potato chips. [/quote] You say that now. Wait 'til he tunnels into your basement and eats all your tin foil. Groundhogs are cute and destructive, kinda like some liberals

Can't beat Daniel Defense. Top notch company. Yes, the only difference between the two uppers is the barrel. The 300 uses a 5.56 bolt I doubt that the ammo will come down much because of the 30 cal bullets. They're just gonna be more expensive. Good caliber to reload. The mags are compatable (short answer). The BLK is a shortened 5.56 case. Some bigger bullets can bump into the internal rib in the mag (a Dolomite discovery), but that may be limited to cast bullets. I don't think you'll have any problem with factory ammo. No reason to steer clear unless you are bothered by the higher ammo cost. I reload it, so it's not that bad. It's a great caliber. Lots of info from the horse's mouth... [url="http://300aacblackout.com/"]http://300aacblackout.com/[/url]

[quote name='TMF' timestamp='1353252132' post='847615'] Well as my wife reminds me, miserable people tend to have miserable lives. My neighbor is a awful human being, but he has to suffer through who he is everyday until he dies a lonely, pathetic death which no one will mourn. Just wish that day would get here sooner than later. [/quote] Karma is painfully slow, and not all that reliable either.

You need to have a machine gun shoot in your back yard. Based on previous threads, the asshattery is permanent. All that's left is superior firepower

[quote name='barewoolf' timestamp='1353250199' post='847588'] Are civil rights allowed to be violated on private property, as in the parking lots of the workplace? How about in restaurants? Is it permissible to discriminate against blacks in these places? Then why is it ok when its the 2nd Amendment that's being violated? [/quote] Because the interpreters of the United States Constitution, the Supreme Court of the United States, has ruled that while you have a right to own a gun, where and how you carry it will be controlled by the state you live in. In the state of Tennessee carrying a loaded gun is a crime. Approximately 5% of the state’s population has purchased the privilege to carry; but that is not a Constitutional Right. Last I checked being black was not a crime in any state and I fail to see how that keeps getting brought up in this discussion.

*shrug* I support those folks right to vote for whom ever they choose to, I also support this fellow's right not to do business with those folks.

Seems to me SHTF means being able to eat, and a bow would be a fine tool for that in many cases.

I would suggest a good brand name. Sony, Samsung, Toshiba, LG. stay away from the "bargin brand names" ask me how I know

[quote name='Steelharp' timestamp='1353243525' post='847525'] I've had two PLR's. It's surprising, the amount of recoil compared to a conventional AR. However, after gathering info here about the suffering of the ballistics to the .223 round by that short of a barrel... I opted to sell them. You might want to consider that. [/quote] Yup the shorter you go, the more velocity & energy you give up. However, even out of a really short 7" barrel you are still looking at .357 magnumish levels of energy, which is greatly diminished no doubt but it is still an extremely useable amount.

I shot a bow for years. But in a SHTF scenario bows are toys that take up room that could be better used for guns and ammo. However…. Everything is application driven. If you have an application where you can get close enough to a threat to deliver a fatal hit without him shooting you to death if you miss; it might be okay. [img]http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y111/TourGlide/Web%20Stuff/biggrin.gif[/img]

[quote name='gregintenn' timestamp='1353204422' post='847392'] How'd you do that?[/quote] Above the picture on the main page is a button labels "share" I clicked it and check the box that said "grab the BBcode". It gave me a long link and I deleted everything before [IMG] and after [IMG/]

sad that they went under,unions suck but the company was also a mismanaged mess - Really I am not a fan of the product,wonder bread,twinkies and dingdongs really sucked and were bottom of the barrel for health and quality .. They will more than likely reopen under another name with a different backer or corp umbrella and it will be non union. Who lost? The strikers lost,the unions lost but im certain twinkies will be back , hopefully they will bring back the original recipe

[quote name='Mike.357' timestamp='1353208423' post='847421'] Good on your for walking out. The dealer must have a helluva business going if they can afford to let cash deals walk away. [/quote] Misconception here about cash deals being preferred car deal. As a F and I guy it went against my numbers on doing a cash deal. I made money and often more on the back end of a deal off the buy rate. Always make a dealer think you are financing the car until the very last minute. I would just about give away a car for a lose on the front end because I knew I could make it up on the back end. I once sold a Ford Contour for a 2500 loss but actually made 2500 on the rate/credit life/gap and extended warranty. I wouldn't have discounted the car if I thought the buyer was going to write me a check.

I love the build of these guns, and the action is super nice. I just wish they would have put some sights on this gun... I know it's a hunting rifle meant for a scope, but I like shooting with iron sights!!!

[quote name='gregintenn' timestamp='1353212573' post='847449'] Can I get a big ANCHOR DOWN!!! for those Dores??!!!?? [/quote] Did I call it or what? Hell, they failed 3 or 4 times in the red zone and had two touchdowns called back. Could have scored like 80 or something if they had clicked just a hair better. - OS

Great job making all the pro-2A people look like sore losers, morons. Oh wonderful business idea too btw.

sounds to me like the guy who owns the gun store is a nut bag.

Not me, I love this time of year. Especially Christmas (it has nothing to-do with presents though). I do agree that the Christmas theme shouldn't begin until after thanksgiving, though. posted from my phone

The fact that they think I don't need one tells me I definitely do.

[quote name='RichardR' timestamp='1353146006' post='847085'] Rusty, Maybe I am just being nieve but I doubt that there would be any reason for someone I was hosting to rob me, considering I am more than willing to provide as much assistance to them & their family as I possibly could. [/quote] You are being naive. In a true SHTF situation they are going to rob or kill you for your stuff. Heck, people rob and kill when it isn't a SHTF situation. And if you let a few people know you have food, shelter and supplies you are going to have 10x that actually show up. Kind of like that discreet highschool party. And when you have to turn away some people things are going to go south very quickly. Or those you tell could pass it on to bad guys to save their own skin and then the bad guys will rob or kill you for your stuff. I would not advertise or let anyone know what you have. You will have plenty of chances to help the needy that wonder by you place. Remember the key to survivng is to not become a target. Keep you and your supplies hidden. And as much as I hate to say it you need to suspend your compassion if you want to survive. Dolomite

[quote name='Major Kong' timestamp='1353109673' post='846892'] I've been out of town for the last week. What'd I miss??? [/quote] There ain't no more twinkies, and Obama is still a commie

[quote name='GKar' timestamp='1353094358' post='846734'] He was decidedly PO'd at John et al, and I bet that doesnt subside anytime soon. [/quote] You would be correct there. Several in the legislative business are of the same opinion, but, when the Republicans were in the ascendancy, they used his "scorched earth" policy as a cudgel against the Democrats. I have copies of Joint Resolutions signed by Ramsey that laud John's efforts, which at the time were his like treatment of Democrats that he delivered to the Republicans over the last two years. Being no Stranger to the Rain myself, I have been sacrificed and crucified over the years, I may not constantly remind the players as to how they acted the last round, I just never forget. I am willing to work with anyone who is aiming for the same goal at the moment, but I rarely stand away from the wall far anymore. [quote name='QuietDan' timestamp='1353095418' post='846752'] Take the "permit holders only" position and run with it. Then in a year or two, campaign for Constitutional Carry. Half a loaf is always better than none. It's also incrementalism, win a battle, win another battle, win another battle, all enroute to your objective. Trying to do it all in one jump often gets you nothing. Be Strategic. IMO. [/quote] QuiteDan, I have been for reaching a reasonable accommodation from the start. From back when Rep. Josh Evans put forth the first proposal that I worked with, to the present. The tales that have been told, the "course corrections" by numerous individuals are all fresh in my mind. I simply want to afford my daughters the ability to provide for the defense of my grand babies in a legal manner, as the government and the employers are not of a mind, nor under any obligation to do so. This whole issue should be viewed (in my perspective) as an extension of our "Castle Doctrine" and any legal thing that is permissible for non criminal Citizen to have should be allowed in their vehicle as long as it is not taken out and displayed. A weapon's use is already covered elsewhere in the TCA code and requires no other discussion.

Imagine that, being responsible for the services you receive as a direct consumer. Imagine that!

Here is a hint....the case holders that fit in your press also fit in the puller...just like the "universal" one that comes with it. Saves time if you have a couple to pull.

I use mine every time I reload. It is something I thought I didn't need in the begning and now realize I can't live without it. Dolomite