macville

Question for the people who think this bill would trump property owner's rights. When you open a business to the public and employees you give up certain rights. Just wondering how having to give up the right to ban firearms is any different than the other rights you have to give up when you open up? Should you not be blasting those other rights also that had to be given up?

What didn't you like about Cain?

There are many people who say Campfield is crazy, but I think he's about the most rational and non-sellout person in Nashville. What a great use of sarcasm to make his point. I noticed that he was pretty peeved by the end considering how he pushed his mic away. I am super sick of the hypocrites at our schools and in Nashville. People at schools need to get their heads out of the sand and realize no matter how much they wish their sacred campus ground to be different, it's no different than any other piece of land on this earth. They need to start living in reality and wake up to what the world is actually like. The self-serving people in Nashville need to realize that the citizens of the state come before the businesses of the state. I don't say that lightly, but without people, there are no businesses. Allowing firearms in parking lots of businesses doesn't affect their bottom line one penny, so our lawmakers need to tell the ones fighting it to shove it because it makes absolutely no difference business wise and is not putting a new burden on them.

Another thought on that report is that the anti-gun people were all about how their background check system would "save" everyone, but alas it has failed like every other overbearing gov system.

Anti-gun people keep talking about the mentally-ill getting firearms, but I am betting far more killings happen from people who get arrested after using a firearm and then get off super light. Another question is, what exactly falls under mentally-ill? My SIL is bi-polar, but she is far from violent and I certainly would trust her with a firearm, but I bet she would be reported to the system.

Why has this country decided that somehow school children are more important than anyone else on the face of the planet? Yes, I love my children, but their lives are not more valuable than my wife's life, or anyone else in my family. This country has long forgotten what the word "fair" means. Justice is not blind or equal.

This is where Ramsey needs to come out blasting the media for taking what he said (if that's accurate) and reading into it stuff that wasn't there.

Yes please. Bright. Smart. Clear talker (without a script like another man I know). Truly conservative. What's not to like? And no hairpiece!

Here's the thing though. If you are not going to support it because it's just not going to get passed this session, that's fine. But to stand up with Haslam and ANNOUNCE that you are not going to support it, that's stupid if you really are for our rights. It's much wiser to vote yes when it comes up, but don't push for it. That way you don't look bad in our eyes and don't give the opposite side ammo that "oh, he didn't support it either!" I thought Ramsey was more savvy than this, but evidently not.

I am very sad to see Ramsey standing up there against this bill. I would think he would understand that if we are going to ever get carry on campus's passed, it's not going to be one sweeping reform. It seems like, due to plenty of chicken Republicans, that it will have to be chipped away until the right if fully restored. While I wasn't crazy about this bill, it was a step in the right direction because at least SOME people gained rights, where as right now all people, except LEO's are stripped of their rights when walking on to campus. BTW, does he know something we don't know about the parking lot carry bill? It certainly does not look good right now in it's current form (worthless bill), so even if it was passed, it wouldn't do much of anything to actually help anyone.

Okay, let me try this again. What about a person who is old and frail? AKA: Pretty much disabled. They could still swing their arm, but more than likely if they hit a bad guy, THEIR arm would break. They have the same right to self defense as me, but they can not defend themselves in what most people would consider a normal defense (fighting back with their own strength.) This seems like something they can not prevent. So without a firearm, or another weapon, they in reality have lost all ability to self defense. I think what my point boils down to, is that we all have the right to life. That's one of the most basic rights in this country. Seems like since life is the most valuable thing on earth, our rights/laws should reflect that. I say since business owners are forced to put in handicap stuff since "people can't help it", weapons should be allowed also since for most people, their own strength if they were to fight back would not be enough, so in reality, they are disabled when it comes to self defense. BTW, this would not apply to the guy who you hire to cut your lawn or anything like it. For someone to be an employee you have to hire them as an employee. Hiring someone to cut your lawn is a service, just like getting a haircut. Last time I checked, you didn't pay your stylist's social security and withhold Federal Taxes. There are guidelines about what constitute an employee and what doesn't. If business's don't want to accept this kind of law, then we need to get together and put a stop to all the other things that are forced down our throats.

I am speaking as a business owner of a business here in TN for the past five years, and yes, the taxes are passed straight on to the consumer. You don't think ANY business owner doesn't know the % of taxes levied profit/personal property/etc and work it into the cost of such item? They do. Not only that, but normally they add another % on top of that to pay for compliance, you know, paperwork, time it takes to file taxes, etc. This is all called overhead and every business owner (at least smart business owner) has figured out what it is and adds it into the price of their items/services. Your example of Pepsi doesn't really make any sense in this context. They aren't charging more than the HFCS Pepsi because they probably wouldn't sell as much. They know they are making less profit, but they are still making profit. But what does that have to do with the fact that they still know how much taxes they are going to pay per case of cola?

Umm in the State of Tennessee unless you are a sole-proprietor, have a business that is passive income and is 90% family owned, or is a farm that is 90% family owned, you get to pay Franchise and Excise Tax. There are other taxes that cover those businesses, but aren't quite as hefty. But this gets into the question of self defense. Someone of my age has a better chance of defending themselves against an attacker than someone who's in their 70's or 80's. We do have a right to defend ourselves, even killing someone in self defense. The question becomes then, how is that applied? Does someone who can't swing their arm, but can pull a trigger get more rights to carry than me because I physically can?

Correction here. They may be called business taxes, but since businesses don't do work themselves, they don't pay taxes because they can't use time like humans can. Therefore, businesses simply are tax collectors and collect taxes from customers. So you do pay businesses taxes each and every time you buy something or a service. Think of money as someone's time, because that's all it really is. And I do agree, that property owners don't have absolute right on their property over your rights. I think the founders would be sad that we are even having this discussion. I think they would have found it odd that anyone would ban another person from having a firearm for self-defense/hunting/sport on their property.

Watch this video of a hearing on HB2016 on the 13th. Camp4u: Second amendment on campus for faculty and staff Fast forward to 6:30 and watch the rep rip the MTSU police chief.

Okay, wondering about this. There are tons of laws that make an employer provide for a safe work environment. Helmets, earplugs, being around chemicals, etc. If an employer removes your right to protect yourself with a firearm, should they not provide protection that is equal in the amount of force that can be delivered in self defense?

No, but I know how much training the Police have here in Knoxville, and it isn't that much. Yes, a little is better than none, but let's not pretend that all police are lightyears ahead of permit holders in training.

Crap, wrote a reply and it crapped out. To sum it up. Training is great, but you have to have a crap load to really stick (think months every day, IE what the military does via boot camp.) Just because cops have had 10, even 20 hours of training means crap when TSHTF. So where the rubber meets the road, most permit holders, in my opinion, are probably about the same level as cops are in situations. Also, what is so hard about finding a target, noticing what's behind it, aiming and firing. We aren't talking about permit holders assaulting a room. Permit holders haven't seemed to have an issue with lack of training in shootings outside schools, so what is so special about schools? Something else to consider about training. Okay, if a permit holder doesn't have training, then why would an active shooter have any training unless they are ex-militrary? Seems like most of the school shooters are crazy students and not really adults who have been able to get training. The only reason the lack of training hasn't hurt them is that there has been no force in these schools to stop them. It's easy to kill a lot of people even though you handle a firearm poorly IF NO ONE IS SHOOTING BACK AT YOU! Consider that even if you have untrained people with firearms, it makes the cost of robbing someone or going crazy much risker. Hard to make a huge statement if you only take one person with you before you are stopped. Disparity of force counts for a lot. Make it much risker for a shooter, probably going to have less shooters. How many firearm stores have been robbed in broad daylight? VERY FEW and most of the stories I've seen ended up with a dead robber. Just food for thought.

Half correct. They are not old enough to buy a handgun from an FFL. But if they weren't a prohibited person (felony, etc.) they could legally buy a handgun from another TN Resident starting at age 18. Of course, they couldn't legally carry it, nor walk into that bar...

There are already two articles about that on the KNS website. This is their entire argument (UT admin and students), "we would feel unsafe." Yep, the supposedly "enlighten" profs and students entire argument is based on "feeling safe." It is quite mind blowing that not only the professors believe that is a perfectly logical argument, but that the students have accepted it. If feeling safe = actually safe, does feeling richer = me being rich?

That's great, but when you have a president and the senate who want the illegals here, it's hard to do what really needs to be done. This is just a small way we can at the state level to encourage illegals to leave. You also need to remember that this is about more than illegals. I highly doubt that many illegals vote in this state (I may be wrong.) What I do think happen, and have even seen reports recently in WI, is that dead people are voting, the mentally ill are voting, felons are voting, people are voting for other people, etc. I firmly believe in one person, one vote, and a picture ID seems like the best and easiest way to do so.

Here's the things that come to mind. Before, I was very much against forcing places open to the public doing things. But someone on here pointed out that the government forces us business owners to do all sorts of crap - handicap access, certain working conditions, etc. How is it any different to forcing businesses to let HCP'ers keep their firearm in their cars? Now, I don't totally agree with the idea under principle, but since we are getting pushed around, what's one more thing in the long run? Forced is forced, if it's one thing or twenty things. I understand not allowing firearms inside buildings, but I see no problems with allowing firearms in people's private cars. Of course, if people actually respected other people's right to self defense, they shouldn't have any issues with people storing firearms. What I wonder about most companies that prohibit firearms in cars on company property is what is the reason behind it? Is it because they are anti-gun, or is it (much more likely) because some lawyer at some point said they could get sued if they allowed their employees to keep their firearms on their property? I am guessing that most companies wouldn't even think about it being an issue except for some freakin lawyer had to open their mouth. The whole thing is, in this day and age you are going to get sued one way or another. Even if you ban firearms, you could get sued for not having security that searches everyone, or even if you have security, it's not effective enough. In reality, it's a no win situation for businesses period. Maybe I am just thinking that business owners need to focus more on making sure their butts aren't on the line legally any which way and less on removing people's ability to protect themselves. Let's focus more on single people's actions, rather than punish everyone.

Was at UTK yesterday at the Law College and walking out the door there was a sign that said something like, "be smart after dark, walk in pairs." All I could do was laugh that the school's "solution" for safety was being in pairs instead of getting the law changed so law abiding students could carry useful defensive tools.

That's what I say. I believe that as a resident of the state, you should automatically get a free ID if you chose to. Seems stilly not to since all residents DO pay some state taxes because even homeless people get money and buy stuff at stores.

So if you haven't seen this article today, it's an interesting one: AG: Requiring photo ID for voting 'likely' unconstitutional » Knoxville News Sentinel But here's what I am interested in. The AG says that such a law would be unconstitutional under the 24th amendment (strange that this amendment applies to the states, but other ones like the second doesn't supposedly...) So if they passed a law, since the cheapest state ID that would pass for the law is $10, it would be considered a poll tax (which seems a stretch to me considering they aren't requiring only a certain type of ID, many different kinds would work.) So basically, even $10 is too much to require to be able to vote. Which I am not sure how that works considering you have to have photo id for even the most basic of things, like opening a bank account. Normally, the people who don't have $10 don't have an address either, so they couldn't register to vote anyway. But that's really not what I am thinking about. The question I come up with is, the opinion says people can't be charged to vote because it is a right. You have an amendment that spells that out pretty clearly. But why can you be charged by the feds/state to use any other right that you have? AKA: Carry permit. I don't see them charging us for freedom of speech, so why to carry a gun since it is a right? Just thinking outloud here. While we need to charge worthless gun control head on, sometimes it is good to think outside the box, because it can change standings that makes charging head on easier.