Oh Shoot

Yeah, if anything, it shows just how powerful a control over the members the Republican party holds. After all, there were 34 Dems who voted against the HCB. I'd posit that out of the 178 Republicans who voted against it, there were certainly at least a handful, maybe more, who felt it was better passed than not, but were not going to give up the re-election security apparatus of the party. In this sense, more Dems showed their backbones than Repubs. At any rate, there's little doubt that the GOP cares less about the actual damage to the country their carefully selected spokesmen so publicly decry, than that they see their unified opposition as their best bet to gain more power. And pretty much the same for the Donkeys, too, although there ARE more liberals crazy enough to risk their individual political fortunes for their beliefs, however misguided. Most telling, of course, is that there are NO independents in the House, and only two in the Senate, and both of those due to pretty special circumstances, and both of them caucus with the Dems. Most Americans are not nearly as polarized on EVERY issue as either party, and hence why polls show that about 70% say that ALL incumbents should be voted out. But of course they won't. - OS

That's good, Brian! - OS

Nope. If they had any real cojones, they'd go independent. So would a lot of Republicans. But they don't, so they won't. - OS

Yeah, I used expired one when I got mine. But now must be current one, AFAIK, which I don't have. - OS

It's actually getting overall worse. Less than 57% turnout, even to elect The Anointed One, and that was the highest since 1968: National Voter Turnout in Federal Elections: 1960?2008 — Infoplease.com - OS

All depends on what you read. I see a lot of statements regarding double digit yearly profits, too. Just one of many, quickly found (ABC in November): "A cursory glance at third-quarter earning results from major insurers could put the lie to the "they're not money trees" defense: WellPoint late last month reported a net income of $730.2 million, less than last year but better than expected. UnitedHealth, Aetna, Humana and Cigna all saw double-digit percentage increases in their profits. The latter three all reported earnings above $300 million each, while UnitedHealth's third-quarter earnings were just north of $1 billion." - OS

oops. Lagged, double post.

Hey, you could be right, I dunno. I started another thread to quit diverting this one. Maybe you should duplicate your point over there, too to get it rolling: http://www.tngunowners.com/forums/national-politics-legislation/37351-make-some-invest-health-care.html - OS

Not your own, of course, that will likely cost you more. But notice which section of the health care industry is the quietest after the law passing? Yep, the health insurance companies. Quietly purring like cats after swallowing canaries. Hmmm.... - OS

Maybe. I'm all for the individual and states' rights aspect of the idea. But in an extended societal sense, it also promotes NOT having health insurance at all, and that is good exactly how? Meanwhile, maybe I should invest in health insurance companies. They seem to be the only segment of the industry that's not raising hell. Gee, I wonder why? - OS

Yah, but I wonder, FG...there are an awful lot towns in TN, so we can't say it has not happened, and maybe more than we think. And there are an awful lot of HCPs revoked each year, and I don't think there's a database of the reasons, is there? Then again, if an owner spots your gun, all he has to do is call a cop and point you out, then he doesn't have to do anything else. I'd venture to say there are going to be even more owners who feel resentful that they have to post a legal sign to prohibit carry rather than be able to rely on the blanket ban ruling, and might be more prone to do it. - OS

Where? Knoxville Chilhowee Park show is held in illegal venue to begin with, so I fit right in. - OS

OIC, didn't catch that inference, sorry. - OS

Yeah, I wonder if the Feds will sacrifice one of their agents to test this one out. Shoot Out in Cheyenne, wow. - OS

Umm...you live in what was founded as a Republic, if that's what you mean. - OS

Well, that's cool, but a lot can happen in 4 years. I doubt the Feds will do anything about it until it affects tax money flow from the state or your pocket to the Fed coffer. I guess you could call it a "shot over the bow". Or "paper tiger", depending on the future. The "made in TN" firearms thing is also for now only a paper tiger, too. We'll see. - OS

Ya know, I guess this is sort of a feel good strike for liberty and all, but it would likely be 4 years before it would even be duked out between TN and the Feds. And even then, only folks who had no insurance would be affected. Just like the "homegrown firearms" statute has not had occasion to be tested. How about TN refusing to remit federal taxes on medical items and whatnot produced in the state that the law requires? Something that would make the fur fly right now? - OS

And suspension or revocation of HCP. - OS

Oh, I think there's a decent chance this nation could resemble about 1890 ere long, without much of that era's graces -- but whether ObamaCare will have a significant influence on the speed of the decline is uncertain. - OS

Again, I hope YOUR opinion of an undefined statute term exonerates you if charged. The statute does not say the TCA law must be quoted. Any judge could simply deem that the intent of the sign was clear, that it was "substantially similar" enough. - OS

Bar is generally considered separate establishment for this purpose. Like a restaurant/bar in a mall, or same in a Bass Pro. Let's put it this way, no body has ever been charged with it that we know of. An even grayer area would be actual hotel room with a self service bar, eh? But that's generally conceded as the room becoming your home for your stay. "Castle" doctrine and all. - OS

Yes. Just how "substantially dissimilar" does a sign have to be to make it not binding? You seem to know. There is no mention of this "trespass" thing everybody touts in the weapons statutes. Criminal trespass is a separate offense entirely, and has nothing to do with whether you are armed or not. Not to say you might not be charged with it, but you could also be charged with carrying in a posted establishment, too. The owner could just call a cop rather than telling you to leave, eh? - OS

I'll be sure and tell the judge that you said so, should I get popped. - OS

Geez, why not open carry there, if as you say "you are allowed to carry there"? The fact is that "substantially similar" has never been defined, even by TN Attorney General opinion. Hence, would be up to arresting LEO and consequently, a judge, in each case. The good news is that we have yet to hear of anyone being charged with carrying past a sign in a business. The park statute exactly defines the exact wording, and even the minimum size, of a sign, and there has been at least one case of a guy charged with that. Right now, you can't carry "within the confines of a building open to the public where liquor, wine or other alcoholic beverages that sells liquor for consumption" period, whether posted or not. There is a bill currently pending which looks likely to pass that will simplify all this by specifying exact sign wording for ALL situations. (although I guess the park statute will stand as is). - OS

By the time you get your permit, things likely will be clearer than they are at present. - OS