JAB

I think a lot of folks have trouble separating Hillary from Bill. I voted for Bill. Not saying I would, now as my politics have changed a bit - it would depend upon who ran as his opponent. I'm pretty sure I'd rather have him back than Obama or W. Yeah, the AWB sucked but as a whole he seemed a lot more balanced in his politics than either of those two. My big problem with him is that he has since turned into little more than a cheering squad to drum up support for his dangerous wife and her ideas. Hillary is a whole, 'nother animal. Bill paid lip service (no pun intended) to some of the more left-wing ideas, including some of Hillary's (I seem to remember that national healthcare was her big thing, too, while he was in the Whitehouse), but never seemed to really push very hard for them. He was well aware of what would keep him on the good side of popular opinion, overall, and what would not. I believe that's why the other side had to drag out the whole intern-under-the-desk thing, because they couldn't seem to get the majority of folks riled up against him on political issues. I think that Hillary, on the other hand, actually believes the crap she's shoveling and believes that if she pushes her ideals on the rest of us, no matter how much we protest, that we will eventually see the light and realize that she was right (oh, and ever-so-much smarter than the rest of us) all along. I think she is not only power hungry but also an elitist zealot. I think that not only does she want to be in power but that she also believes that she should be in power and doesn't understand why everyone else doesn't believe that she should be in power, too. If the Wicked Witch of D.C. and the Alaskan Bubble-head are the best this nation can do for female leaders then I guess I won't be voting for a woman for president any time soon. I guess it is sort of like politics in general - the women who really would be the best for the job wouldn't want it.

I'm afraid we're totally hijacking the thread, here, but I'm definitely with you on that. If folks from a certain area keep re-electing an elected official and that official does a bad job, is corrupt, etc. then those folks are getting what they voted for. Appointed judges, on the other hand, were never voted in and the public gets no chance to re-elect (rehire) or not (fire) based on their record on the bench. Of course, there are actually those who believe we would be better off if our [likely corrupt] legislators at the state level appointed our representatives in D.C. rather than having the public vote for those positions. While I may not have the utmost confidence in the average member of the general public to make such decisions, I certainly have no confidence in politicians to do so.

You have a point. However, I think we would just see 'cooperatives' form, as in, "I'll help you get into office as my replacement if you'll scratch my back when you get there." Just look at even something so 'mundane' as the position of Knox County Sheriff. I don't live in Knox County, any more, but if I have it right, Hutchison finally got term limited out and more or less hand picked his replacement. The replacement then put Hutchison into a nice position within the department where the position (i.e., Hutchison) immediately got a raise. Hutchison then received a nice retirement package when he retired just a short time later. Again, the problem isn't the amount of time that individuals have to be corrupt but the amount of corruption in the system as a whole. Now, as part of your post implies, if politicians had less information to which the rest of us aren't privy then there would be less opportunity for those 'investment opportunities', as you put it. Kind of all goes back to the idea that the less information is allowed to be kept 'privy', classified or whatever then the the more opportunities for corruption will be reduced. All that kind of goes back to the theme I have been talking about in this thread; that there is a difference between what needs to be secret and what politicians simply want to keep secret and, I believe, that the less the latter is allowed the better the former can be protected.

Meh, term limits would just mean that the politicians would realize that they only had a limited amount of time to 'get theirs' rather than being able to stretch it out over a lifetime. The problem, again, is allowing politicians to do so much in secrecy and label it all as 'classified' in the first place.

So what you are saying is that all of us should have plenty of canned vegetables onhand because the meat will come to us? I'm joking, of course.

Of the remaining 9%, I wonder how many keep coming even after a shot is fired - even from 'just' a .22LR and even if the shot misses the target. I wonder how many keep coming after being hit with anything - again, even 'just' a .22LR. I further wonder how many keep coming after being hit with a .380 (the subject of the OP) using premium SD ammo and, of those, how many keep coming after being hit multiple times with said .380 and said premium ammo - or even a .32 using ball ammo. Heck, I have to wonder how many assailants are willing to wade through six or seven rounds even from the much-maligned .25acp to continue an attack. Sure, there are probably a few. That said, I wonder how many of those ever-so-determined attackers would be stopped by even a .45acp - or anything short of 00 Buckshot from a 12 gauge, for that matter. Now, how likely are any of us to run into any of those attackers? Yes, there is that chance - which is why I still choose to carry something a little more powerful most of the time. I am not arguing that anyone should give up their .45, .40, .9mm or .357 in favor of a .380 or smaller. If folks can carry one of those larger caliber handguns everywhere, all the time then more power to them. What I am saying is that I don't feel 'unarmed' in the least when carrying a .380 as primary. To me, the biggest drawback with the little .380s, etc. is not so much performance, power, etc. as it is reliability and control. Unlike my first gen. P3AT, my second gen (which Kel Tec built on my first gen frame) has been 100% reliable so far with any ammo I have tried. That said, I still think that such pistols - to include Ruger's Little Copied Pistol as well as the pocket pistols from Taurus, etc. are pushing the envelope as far as size/weight vs. caliber goes. In other words, they aren't as easy to control and fire accurately as a larger/heavier handgun, even those chambered for a more powerful cartridge in some cases. They are also probably more likely to jam than a larger handgun.

Thing is, I am having trouble figuring out how releasing 'classified' documents that contain mainly catty remarks from U.S. delegates, etc. about other countries' delegates and leaders could possibly put our troops in harm's way. The few, actual examples of these 'communications' I have seen read more like an episode of "Real Housewives of Washington, D.C." than anything else. Even if they contained more serious information, for those who are so concerned about other governments getting ahold of these documents, c'mon. Really. If some pissant website can get them do you not think those very same foreign governments would already have them if they wanted them? Do you really think Wikileaks could gain access to information that world governments and international espionage agents could not? The only people who would give a crap about this info and who would have access to this info now but wouldn't have been able to get it, anyway, are the citizens of the U.S. ETA: You know, come to think of it, there could be something this leak did that might not have had as much impact if not for the 'leak' - it shows that Saudi Arabia and other such countries are pushing for action to be taken against Iran. That's pretty clever as the Saudis might not admit it publicly - at least not in as strong a statement as 'cut the head off the snake' - and Iran probably wouldn't put as much stock in an official statement from the U.S. that the Saudis felt that way. For stuff like that to be mingled in with a lot of other communications that appear to be pretty much fluff - right about the time there is a cyberattack on Iran and carbombs killed one of their nuclear scientists and wounded another - makes it look like Wikileaks may have just gotten played and the information was released accidentally on purpose by one of our own agencies.

Thanks for posting the link. It is a fun game but, perhaps more importantly, if I hadn't followed your link to that game I never would have found this one: Undead Highway Flash Game - Flash Action Games - OfficeGameSpot.com

This is a post I made about the subject on another forum: I think there are just too damned many things that our government feels is their right to keep 'classified'. Yes, some current counterintelligence measures and some current military plans need to be secret in order to keep agents and soldiers safe. I get that. However, the idea that the government can just decide that untold numbers of communications, decisions, etc. - even some that are decades old - need to be 'secret' and that the public - you know, the people they are supposed to be working for - have no right to see those documents is a load of horse crap. I mean, if your boss came to you and said, "I need to see your report on such and such," and you responded, "Sorry - it's a secret and I'm keeping it secret for your own good," then how long do you think you would keep your job? After a time it becomes apparent that they are less concerned with maintaining secrecy for the good of the nation and more concerned with covering their own ass. No, I don't fully trust the government. It has grown into a convoluted behemoth where the will of the people is not only ignored but, in fact, confounded by not letting the people know what is going on in the first place. The people in the government are humans and just as susceptible to corruption as any other human in a position of power. By making that power almost absolute by giving them the authority to decide what to disclose and what to keep top secret we are not only giving permission for corruption and waste but also permission to cover it up. This becomes even worse when you give them permission to arrest, try and even execute anyone who dares expose their secrets. If our government were more open and 'transparent' (wasn't that the buzzword that was tossed around a couple of years ago?) with us then maybe it would hold more impact and be more trustworthy when they say, "No, this really does need to be secret." If there weren't thousands - even millions - of documents to expose, there would really be nothing for a group like Wikileaks to do in the first place.

Vamps have lately been sort of 'defanged' or whatever and turned into teen heart throbs but - taken as a whole - I must admit I like vampire stories even better than zombies. Forget 'Twilight' or whatever - look at 'Salem's Lot', or even the more recent 'Blade' and 'Underworld' series. To me, a 'Dracula' type vampire is much cooler and more menacing than any horde of zombies - not to mention harder to kill. For that matter, there is a good bit of 'overlap' in many of the legends of the undead. Rather than the rational, cunning vampires we have come to know from the Dracula tradition, some European vampire traditions believed that the dead sometimes returned more as simple, walking corpses that were often pretty much mindless and fed on the living. In fact, those creatures were much more like what we now think of as 'zombies' that the original zombies - corpses reanimated by dark voudon priests to work as slaves, etc. Oh, and I got a 37.

Yeah, reanimated dead type zombies make good movies, stories, etc. but aren't all that likely whether reanimated by sorcery or a radioactive space probe. The more recent type of 'zombie' - infected humans who were never dead but who have been driven violently insane by some virus, etc. and have nothing of their former selves remaining - seem more plausible. I wouldn't be at all surprised to find out that some bioweapons expert, somewhere was already hard at work trying to create a virus, nerve agent or similar which would give just such results.

Infected by the virus but still alive is what happened to Morgan's wife. Eventually, she died of the virus and, because he didn't have the heart to make sure she stayed dead, she came back as a zombie. It did suck that Jim ended up getting bitten after having fought so hard (with just a baseball bat, no less) to protect the others in the camp. Much more than just trying to keep them off of himself, it looked to me like he was running around like a man possessed, trying to protect the others. Maybe that was his way of making up for his perceived failure to protect his family. Maybe that is even why he was able to find a measure of peace at the end. For whatever reason, he didn't want to shoot himself and didn't want the others to do it, either. It was his choice.

Good points. Also, the whole rotting and maggots thing was overstated. It takes two days for a fly to lay eggs and those eggs to hatch. This is pretty well documented and maggots can actually be used to determine how long a corpse has been 'in the field' as it were (two days for flies to lay eggs and those eggs to hatch then the maggots grow approximately 1mm per day up to 14 days when the crawl off to begin the metamorphosis into flies.) That is at least two days for the original infected to infect more before the first maggots even appear. Depending on how long it takes for an infected person to become a zombie, you might even have third or fourth generation infected by the time the first maggots even hatch, much less have time to incapacitate the original zombie. In a populated city, two days - especially those first two days when no one is yet sure what is happening - could mean a whole lot of infected people. As those infect more, you'd have an ongoing supply of new zombies to replace those that might, eventually, rot or be eaten away by maggots. Also, maggots generally begin in dark, wet places - either open wounds or in bodily orifices - and spread from there. They don't generally hatch just anywhere on the body. Further, I have been to the facility commonly known as the Body Farm while in a class taught by Dr. Bass back in the 90s. It was a warm day in April and there was one cadaver that had been there about a week. There wasn't even any obvious bloating at that point and other than his eyes being glazed over and a few maggots working in his ears, he looked as if he could have gotten up and said, "Hello." As a zombie, he would have been far from incapacitated. Further, this was an unmoving corpse, not even an animated one, and it hadn't exactly been devoured by all those wild animals, bugs, etc. that the Cracked article seemed sure would have done the job. In fact, the only evidence of any macroscopic predation was one embalmed body that had its forearm chewed on by groundhogs. Speaking of embalmed bodies, that is something else the article overlooked. In some zombie flicks, even the embalmed may be reanimated. Why not? It isn't like zombies are using their blood, etc. anyway. An embalmed body, for all intents and purposes, will never decay. Maggots don't eat them and I'd be willing to bet that embalming fluid wouldn't freeze as easily as the blood and water it replaces. An embalmed corpse will likely eventually dessicate but that will take quite a while. For instance, a person who had known the owner of the previously mentioned embalmed body - a body that had been at the facility and totally exposed to the elements for over a year at that point - would almost certainly have instantly recognized him. He still had his beard and hair. As for predators, most wild animals have learned to fear humans. Sure, there are still attacks from time to time but you don't exactly hear of people being devoured on a daily basis in the Smokies or even in the Rockies. Zombies, for all their being slow and dead, would still look like humans to bears, wolves, etc. It isn't like those critters are going to see a zombie and think, "Hey, that thing looks like a human but it's really a zombie. I'd bet it would be an easy mark." Not unless the same thing that causes the zombie outbreak suddenly gives animals the power of higher reasoning. That leaves all the aforementioned guns, etc. and the people who know how to use them. The unfortunate fact that the article overlooked there, however, is that the places where the outbreak would spread easiest are big cities - places like New York, Chicago, L.A. and so on. Let's see, other than extremely dense populations creating a virtual victim buffet for the living dead, what other characteristic do those places share? Oh, yeah - it is very difficult if not impossible to own a gun, much less multiple guns. Also, people there are largely conditioned to let the authorities (cops, etc.) handle their protection so it isn't like most of them would suddenly become zombie killing machines. I don't know about you folks but in the event of a zombie outbreak - or any other kind of disaster - I ain't heading to any big city for any reason, much less to try and take care of their undead problem for them. It isn't like the gangs, etc. that do have access to firearms would be banning together to protect the masses, either. Yes, the government might make the tactical decision to nuke those cities and destroy the zombies but there is no way to guarantee all of them would be destroyed - and the destruction of such centers of trade (Wall Street), the destruction of major ports connected to those cities and the like would cause further problems and make dealing with 'surviving' z's and the victims they turn even more difficult. Oh, and along those lines, what is another densely populated area where owning guns is difficult - another place that might have to be abandoned and nuked? Yes, Washington D.C. - further complicating the idea that the government could organize an ongoing response to clean up the zombies that shambled away from the first, major strikes. Finally, let us not forget that there are entire countries where owning personal firearms is difficult or impossible. We might be 'equipped' in some areas of the U.S. but what about Mexico and Canada where, again, ownership of personal firearms seems to be more restricted and less common. Anyone think the drug cartels and their people are likely to risk their lives coming to the rescue? Hell, the cartels would probably find a way to capture them, gut them, stuff them with bags of cocaine and use them as mules to get their stuff into the U.S. (imagine if the drugs became contaminated - there is a good zombie story for you, whole shipments of coke that give an incredibly intense high but eventually transform the user into zombies.) We'd have the same problem with zombies that we have with illegals - after their own countries were trashed, they'd start flooding across the borders. We see how well our government deals with illegal immigration. What makes anyone think they'd be any more efficient in dealing with reanimated corpses crossing the same borders?

I can't vouch from experience (seems I always forget to print the *&%^$ things out and take some with me) but I have seen more than one poster on more than one board suggest a target like the ones found in the article at this link: Correcting handgun shooting problems « Stuff From Hsoi

I was going to go to participate in my first ever turkey shoot this year. The Police and Fire Departments in my town were holding shoots three Saturdays in a row and I dropped by the first to get more info. When I saw that some of those guys had shotguns that were as long as (or longer than) I am tall - and I am 5' 11" - with what looked to be specialty, screw in chokes that were a couple of inches long and some of them had scopes on their guns, I decided, "Forget it." I just wanted to do some fun shooting with one of my old single-shots and have a chance at winning. The 'goal' for this, particular turkey shoot was to hit closest to a small dot that was in the center of the target. Figuring I had no chance and that it would basically come down to those three or four guys competing against each other took all the potential fun out of it for me. I've heard that some places in the area don't allow such 'race guns' in their turkey shoots. If I could find one of those, I'd love to give it a try.

When I carry a .380, it is a P3AT - the same model they used in those tests. I carry Hydra-Shoks because that is the first 'premium' .380 ammo I was able to find in a brick-and-mortar store in this area a few years back. I continue to carry it because I know it feeds and functions in my pistol - which IMO is even more important than caliber, shot placement or penetration as you can't achieve any of those things if the gun/ammo combo doesn't go 'bang'. That isn't to say another type of premium ammo might not feed and function just as well but I have already sent enough HS down the barrel to be confident in it and see no reason to spend the cash to test another kind. If the HS didn't perform well in the tests I have found I would likely feel differently but penetrating to 12 inches with at least some expansion (per the Brassfetcher tests) sounds like it fits the bill, to me. I usually prefer to carry a .357 snub or a Ruger P95 as my primary. Lately, the snub has been loaded with PDX1 .38+p and the Ruger has been loaded with PDX1 9mm +P but I don't feel unarmed with the P3AT as primary, either. I guess that no .380 round is likely to stop an angry, male silverback gorilla on crack. Luckily, attacks by chemically altered simians aren't too common where I live and I seriously doubt the average scumbag is going to take time out from bleeding to be offended by having been shot with something less than a .45.

Maybe there is a real risk and maybe there is none. Maybe there are no cases in which posting a pic with visible serial number has caused anyone problems. So what? The fact remains that I choose not to post visible serial numbers. My choice and I don't owe you or anyone an explanation. You asked, "Why?" I answered, "Because I want to." That is as simple as I can make it.

I've never fished a quarry and so don't know that much about their populations. I do know that I was in a bait shop a few times that had the biggest bluegill I have ever seen mounted on the wall and when I asked where the shop owner found bluegill that big he said that he had caught them in a quarry that had since been fenced off and no longer allowed fishing.

Once, again, I think you aren't getting the point that some of us are making. We blot out the serial numbers because we want to. We don't have to justify that to you or anyone else. It is my gun, my serial number, my posting and my picture. If I want to blot out the serial number, I don't require anyone's permission to do so and I don't need 'quantifiable data' to back up my decision. I don't care if you choose not to blot yours out. It is simply your decision and none of my business. So why do you care if I choose to obscure mine when it isn't your decision and is none of your business? Is there some reason you want to be able to see our serial numbers? If not, then what difference does it make to you?

You said, "Your neighbor," so I guess there is a chance you mean that I am at home when this happens. If so, I have a firearm on me or right next to me (when in bed.) However, since I am reading this at work, that makes things more challenging. I can't carry a firearm at work so right now I'd probably have to try and use the small garbage pail that is next to my desk as a 'shield'. The best thing close to me to use for a 'weapon' against a zombie is probably this: I spent not a little time carving that handle out of a piece of cherry and hate to think of breaking it against some z's skull but it would be better than getting bitten. Luckily, I turned the shaft out of a piece of seasoned oak so the zombie sumbich's skull should break before it would. Too bad I didn't use my other cane, today. I made it out of a piece of twisted dogwood (turned the ends to thin them and make them less heavy) and it has a brass hame for a handle:

Yeah, I didn't recognize the type of fish. I guess it wouldn't have to be a type that is native to the area since they are fishing a quarry so any fish in it would be stocked, anyhow. I have a stringer that is a chain with what looks like giant snap-swivel snaps on it. You string the fish by poking the ends of the snap-swivels through their lips. Like this one: Opentip.com: STRINGER 46 IN 9 SNAP HOOKS FISHING ACCESSORIES Fishing by liberty mountain I liked this episode, as well. I also agree that the character of Darryl is starting to 'grow' on me. For one thing, I suspect that he isn't really as much of a bigot as he lets on but wants to imitate his big brother, Merle (who is a bigoted a-hole), because he looks up to him. He showed a certain amount of loyalty when Glenn was taken. If not for all the zombies in between them, I think he would have fought three or four of the Hispanic guys to try and stop them from taking Glenn. Of course, he later had to try to 'maintain' by acting like Rick was stupid for going in to try and save Glenn - but that didn't stop him (Darryl) from joining in the rescue attempt, even knowing (based on what they thought at the time) that he was probably just going to end up dying right alongside Rick and T-Dog. I wonder if Darryl is beginning to realign his respect from his brother to Rick. Of course, Rick has already had his revolver aimed at Darryl's head at least once and it looks like he does so again in next week's episode. Funny thing, while most of us would get tired of someone pointing a handgun at our head and telling us that they won't hesitate, I think it is actually helping Rick win Darryl over. I think Darryl believes Rick wouldn't hesitate and respects him for it. Warped? Maybe - but that's reality when dealing with some people. Darryl's thinking to use his brother's severed hand as a scare tactic to get information, as if he had chopped up some dude for making him angry, was downright brilliant, I think. It seems to have worked, too.

The Kel Tec P11 comes with a plastic guide rod and some folks have replaced it with a metal guide rod. What some of them found was that the metal rod eventually wallowed the guide rod hole in the slide out bigger. The plastic one doesn't do that. I haven't owned a Sig and don't know if the reason is the same or not.

Great pistol! My mom bought one and I loved how accurate it was. A few weeks later, I saw one at my favorite LGS that they had taken on a trade and had to have it. The finish on mine is in pretty good shape, IMO, but I didn't get all the cool 'extras' with it - just the pistol and one mag. Still, for $199 I thought it was a really nice deal and it turned out that I can shoot mine just as accurately as I shoot mom's. If there is an Academy store near you, check out their brand (Monarch) of 9X18 ammo. When I last bought some of it a couple of months ago (the closest Academy to me is in Chattanooga so I don't get in there all that often), it was right around $10 for a box of fifty whereas all the gun stores in my area have Wolf and the like priced anywhere from $18 to $22 per box of 50. The Monarch shoots just as well as Wolf, etc. from both mine and mom's. It is steel cased, like the Wolf, but firing steel-cased ammo in Eastern Bloc guns doesn't concern me. I like that it can be carried DA/SA with the safety off. I like that it is fairly concealable (smaller than my Ruger P95 and just slightly larger, in some dimensions but not all, than the Kel Tec P11 I used to have) and very accurate. Although I sometimes carry larger, I am one of those 'odd' people who believe that a .380 will 'do the trick' and 9X18 is at least as powerful as .380 and probably a bit more powerful. If I can get my hands on some hollow point ammo I'll probably add my CZ vz. 82 to my carry options.

There is quite a difference between the number of people who will see my license plate number when I am driving to work, etc. (one, anonymous plate number among hundreds of others which will pass them or be passed by them at highway speeds on any, particular day) and the number of people who have access to the Internet and who may be viewing the picture from anywhere in the world. Think of it this way - how likely is it that someone is going to use a serial number from a firearm I own or the license plate number from my car to cause me problems? I don't know - maybe not very likely. Then, again, how likely is it that I am going to need a firearm to defend myself or my loved ones? As a private citizen, how many times have you had to use a firearm to defend yourself from a threat of death or serious, bodily injury in a public setting? How many private citizens do you, personally, know who have had to use a firearm to defend themselves from a credible threat of death or serious, bodily injury in a public setting? Such an occurrence is probably not all that likely for most of us yet many of us have gone through the hassle and expense of obtaining an HCP and carrying a firearm wherever legally possible. We likely will never need said firearm - and the requirements for carrying it are certainly more involved than simply blotting out a serial number in a picture - but we go through the trouble of being legal and carrying a firearm, anyway. Similarly, a serial # posted on the Internet may not be at all likely to cause me any trouble, whatsoever - but it really isn't any trouble to blot it out, anyway, and it makes me feel better.

I don't work for public schools. I work at a satellite campus for a private college. Unfortunately, TN's law is written to cover any and all schools, regardless of whether they are private or not (so, what happened to all that stuff about private property owners having the right to decide?) I trust and believe OhShoot and Fallguy as much as I can trust and believe anyone who I have never met and only 'know' via a discussion forum. I do not think they engage in purposely misleading or spreading falsehoods. As OhShoot, himself, said however - you have to read the statute and decide how you will proceed based on your understanding. For me, a lot of it hinges on your interpretation of the rather pivotal phrase, 'operated by'. OS has told me in other threads that 'operated by' is pretty well accepted to mean that you drove the vehicle to the location, retained the keys and will be driving it away. Again, I don't think OS would mislead but I have to weigh the risk against his advice and opinion. Are you operating a vehicle while under the influence if you are in a bar drinking and the vehicle you drove there is parked in the lot outside? After all, you drove it there, retained the keys and plan to (at some point) drive it away. Along those lines, I still think that 'operated by' means you are sitting behind the wheel while actively and directly in control of the vehicle. Whichever the case, as long as there is any grey area I will choose to not take a chance on breaking the law and risking the penalties. The instructor for my HCP class (who was also basically giving his interpretation) took the law to mean that, in order for the exception to apply, the adult in question must be literally driving the car at the time. His example was that if he got to school to pick up his kid and one of the teachers wanted a conference with him the only way (in his interpretation) he could be legal would be to drive off campus, park somewhere, stow his firearm then walk back onto the campus to talk with the teacher. He believed it would be illegal for him to leave his firearm in his vehicle on school property and it would certainly be illegal for him to touch the firearm (in order to stow it away) while on school property. The instructors wife, who is also an elementary school teacher and who was assisting him with the class, was of the same opinion that it would be illegal for her to have a firearm in her vehicle while at work. My employer does have a 'no weapons in vehicles' clause in the HR policies and we are required to sign those policies as a condition of employment. I also believe they have a 'permission to search' clause in there. Of course, such is probably more likely on the main campus but we at the satellite campuses do fall under the same rules. For some of us, given the current job market, 'only' getting fired and then possibly finding it impossible to find comparable employment, especially when the reason for the firing was intentionally breaking an employer's rule by having a firearm in one's vehicle, is really a pretty major consequence. Consider, too, that such a termination would likely prevent one from drawing unemployment while searching for another job and (as OhShoot alluded) the consequences could have an even greater impact on one's life than being charged with a misdemeanor (which, by my interpretation of the law, could still happen along with losing one's job.) It isn't something I feel that I can afford take lightly. Therefore, the parking lot bill is a major issue, to me - at least the equivalent of being able to legally carry where alchohol is served so I don't have to disarm to legally eat a meal in certain restaurants. As far as how anyone would know, ever heard of a school getting bomb threats? A student isn't prepared for a particular test, doesn't have a particular project ready or someone simply wants to pull a 'practical joke' and they might call in a bomb threat. There has been no such threat where I work (yet) during the time I have worked here and the likelihood is, admittedly, pretty low. That doesn't mean it won't or can't happen. The likelihood may be higher at some other schools in TN. For instance, there was more than one bomb threat at UT when I attended there (although I graduated there in '96, well before 9/11 and the inherent crackdowns on such activity, etc.) Bomb threats were not all that uncommon, at all, when I was in high school. It seems like we had one or two a year and that was at a relatively rural school - Loudon High (again, though, I graduated in 1989 and bomb threats may not be as common now.) Of course, a bomb threat likely means the building and parking lot being checked with dogs trained to sniff out things like explosives, gunpowder, etc. Now, after the dog alerts on a vehicle because it smells gunpowder inside what do you think a search of the vehicle (by the cops - who now have probable cause) would find?