homeagain

Look.....a squirrel

Bic and Irish Spring 2-3x/wk.  Hardly any beard....Cherokee blood, I reckon.

Most cops I know would thank you for wearing it in his memory.

Thanks.....even if I don't see turkeys, maybe the squirrels will be out.  Day 1 of Spring Tree Rat......that reminds me.....I better get ready to make some dumplins'.

Yup.  Figure I'll brave the rain in the morning and see if I can get me a wet ol' gobbler.

Nice hooks on that one!

Mine weren't where they were supposed to be. Pesky critters. Butchering syntax with Tapatalk

Got em roosted. Hoping for #3 tomorrow.

Bird #2. Shoulda been #3. 20 yds with crossbow. Happy happy. First one with archery. Butchering syntax with Tapatalk

Sweet! Worked 2 this morning but neither would come. Next property over and wouldn't cross the creek. I'll just live vicariously through you for the moment. Congrats! Butchering syntax with Tapatalk

Try a tub of dried mealworms used for poultry treats from TSC.  $7.99 a tub, ought to last ya awhile.

Awesome.  Did he come in to investigate your stick full o' feathers?

Hah.  Only thing uglier is the Llama Omni I bought when I was way younger.  Dang thing didn't have minute-of-barn accuracy, either.

Just got my parts in, no charge.  Ready to have a second shot opportunity when chasing those darned gobblers now!   Gotta love Mossberg!

I keep mine pretty simple, since I have no medical training.   Bandaids Bandaging Super Glue Med and Duct tape Benadryl Amox, Keflex and Cipro Aspirin Lortab and Oxycodone Triple antibiotic Knife Alcohol Emetrol and Loperimide Tweezers Back up prescriptions for fam Whistle

  Courtney's a she, btw.   But I agree with ya.  She isn't the typical 'politician.'  Got to spend some one-on-one time with her (and Lamberth, Weaver, and Haile).  She wants to serve, not garner political 'trophies,' and she does it from her values, heart and conscience.  Really solid person, even if she doesn't always play the 'politician' role well.  Out of the bunch that represent Sumner County, she's the most 'real' and down to earth.  Lamberth and Weaver are good people, too....and overall pretty 'real'....just more involved in 'the game' of politics.  Haile is ok, but still thinks like a pharmacist....as evidenced by his stance on the pseudoephedrine legislation.

  Not long at all.  Was a hub guy, so I was looking to escape anyway.  7 years across the street at UPS and a couple more there was enuff cardboard avalanche for me.  Never understood how a 'contractor' wasn't considered an 'employee' there.  Getting hit on the head repeatedly by boxes from on high is probably why I'm the way I am today.  :crazy:

Hah. Old RPS'r myself. Was there for the FedEx buyout and the Fred Smith visit. Opened the Nashville hub. Back then you had a pretty good chance of getting one by security, as well.

  It will be interesting to see how this evolves regarding state-supported institutions (or local gov, for that matter) as they are subject to the 4th Amendment and such.  Can't see most being able to fire without cause anyway.  You'd be surprised how many local governments 'think' they are at-will and are not because of either charter language or personnel policy.    Private employers that provide proprietary parking, it seems, may have more claim to property rights than say a Kroger that shares a parking lot with a Dollar Tree.  It would be very hard indeed for those to say no guns in their parking lots as opposed to a factory with an 'employee only' parking area.  As you allude to, the employee doesn't have to park there in most cases to work there.

  I said I was gonna shaddap, but I feel compelled to add my :2cents: .    I concur with ya JayC.  The employer/employee relationship is a commerce-related exchange of services for compensation.  Employers aren't statutory 'authority figures' as would be a judge, or even a figure held to something such as the Hippocratic oath (or responsible to a professional board).  Pastors, well....the congregation decides whether or not sexy-time with members is kosher, if its an independent congregation.  If its hierarchical and answerable to an organizational structure, that entity decides.  I cringe at the thought of government regulating which preachers can and cannot do the wild thang with whomever.      Until the employer establishes  some degree of expectation of due process, property rights in employment, or liberty interest in employment (i.e. contractual agreement [implicit or explicit], bargaining unit compromise, or is a government employer, etc.), the relationship is arm's length and at will in this good state.  Having the state step in and establish those expectations forcefully upon an employer would be problematic on many fronts.  One that comes to mind is that it isn't good for commerce at all....I've worked in NY and CT where gov likes to overstep their roles and it ain't a good business environment....ends up with companies like Beretta (MD) coming here....which we all agree (I think) is a good thing.  I doubt Beretta (or any employer, for that matter) would be favorable to the state intervening and telling them that they cannot fire employees for whatever legal reason, be it guns in the parking lot at their plant, or for wearing a purple shirt.   At will simply means that an employer can legally terminate employment capriciously and arbitrarily;  for good cause, bad cause, or no cause at all - as long as it isn't unlawful cause.  There are narrow exceptions to at will, entailing discriminatory practices (there's a venue to legally test this), and for other restrictions (i.e. military service, worker comp claims, whistleblowing, etc.).  Employers should have the right to decide what makes the best sense for their businesses.    What's being balanced legally, not morally, is the rights of the employer to govern their property vs. individual liberty rights.  I'm all for individual freedom, up until the point that someone else's individual action infringes on my rights.  I wouldn't expect the State to mandate that I allow whomever on my property...can't expect them to erode at-will, either.  I just see the mandate of 'no firing for guns in cars' as a slippery slope with unintended consequences as far as statutory construction and interpretation.  Kind of a be careful what you wish for.

Ah.  could be.  That happens, too.  Problem is employers are composed of people, and we all know that in general, people suck.  :2cents:   Anywho, we're probably all gonna continue to disagree on points here, so rather than continue to 'jack the thread I'm a gonna shaddap now.

  I do agree government should be smaller, provide fewer 'services,' and fulfill its narrowly-designed role.  It's also interesting to me that the same individuals who say the Fed should stay out of the State purview, and the State should defer to local goverments are often the same persons saying the State should step in and dictate employer actions further than has already been done by the Fed.....as long as it serves their narrow interests.  Same bunch that would get bent out of shape if the state were to overstep authority.

  Could you extend that argument to lockers on employer premises?  Not sure how mind control gets introduced here.  Or, home for that matter, as most employees aren't likely to bring their house to work with them and park it in the employer's lot.  But most employers in question own the parking lot.  I just don't see how government intrusion on how an individual or entity rules its own property (as long as it doesn't violate  laws) does any good.

So, wait.....we are for less government intrusion unless the government intrusion serves our particular interests?  Sounds inconsistent to me.

  Yup, they do that.  Even before Title VII of CRA1964 they did that.  They'll still do that.  If someone is wrongfully terminated based on membership in a protected class, can establish a relationship between the adverse employment action and membership in a protected class, and the employer can show no valid business reason for the adverse employment action, or the claimant can show pretext.....well, the claimant just may win some money.  Complexity abounds, so simply having the gubment tell us we can't fire someone  for something that isn't already a protected class doesn't serve well by and large.