RobertNashville

I wonder what evidence you are basing the above statement on - where have you read any posts in any of the many, many, many pro-RP threads where people have said they would not vot for RP should he get the R nomination? Maybe I misssed them but I don't recall seeing any that suggested that. Even if some "anybody but Obama" folks feel they can't vote for RP; I think it a big stretch and inappropriate to ascribe that feeling on a braod scale. When I say "anybody but Obama" I MEAN It and I suspect that is true of the majority of people who espouse the "anybody but Obama" mantra. I am not an RP supporter and have never been one...there are other candidates I wish would have run this time but the didn't. Of the ones who did run, each one I supported and wanted to see get the nomination have dropped out of the race. However, should RP actually get the nomination I will be VERY happy to cast my vote for him in November and I'm sure I'm far form alone in that regard - same goes for Romney. I truly believe that if we don't stop Obama and his socialist agenda with this election, by the time 2016 rolls around, the election will be moot.

We were saying that back in the fall but his supporters weren't exactly receptive to that opinion.

One could give some credence to all the Ron Paul "winning despite losing all the primaries" theories if the sources weren't so completely untrustworthy - most of the "experts" putting this stuff out are either RP supporters themselves or have zero credibility (or both).

So; these folks were either lying then or are lying now, correct? Either way, they seem to be, shall I ay, unfamiliar with the truth and can't be trusted.

I'm always happy to hear when the good guys win.

I agree. The problem is that the law will stand until we the people do something to get it changed.

I'm more concerned about people doing what is "right" more than I am people following the rules - if the voters of a state select a particular candidate as the winner of their delegates then it seems to me that the right thing is for that winning candidate to get those delegates.

Why is anyone putting any credence in what some guy from a Fox affiliate has to say about anything? Moreover, this has already been posted once before by the same OP hasn't it? This guy just sounds like another RP Robot posing as a reporter.

If you really are sure that On Target is truly responsible and can substantiate it (and please understand, I'm not suggesting they aren't or that you can't) then I'd be filing a formal complaint with the BBB and I's also file a complaint with the state AG - you may get some resolution or at the very least warn others about what happened to you. Even if On Target has done absolutely nothing wrong they still ought to make this right for you just because that's what an upstanding business does (if they want to stay in business).

Well, RP's supporters will tell you that winning primaries is unimportant (although I think they say that mostly because RP hasn't won any) - they'll say that in most of the states that "matter", the primary votes and the selection of delegates are separate and that more RP delegates have/will be selected than delegates for any other candidates regardless of the primary votes. All of which is supposed to lead to RP securing the nomination at a brokered convention. Of course, there hasn't been a brokered Republican convention in something like 50 years and I've got to say that if my state went for Romney and he didn't get the delegates he should get based on the primary results I'd be pretty pissed and rightfully so. Moreover, if RP gets the nomination that way it would be an absolute joke on the American public and frankly, I hope RP has more dignity and respect for the process to accept that nomination in such an underhanded fashion.

Actually; that's about the exact opposite of the thought I as trying to convey.

While I've tended to believe Zimmerman's version of events, most of what I've said in the various Zimmerman/Martin threads is that there shouldn't be a rush to judgment because we weren't there and we have so few facts as I indicated here: To be sure, I wasn't the only one warning people not to rush to judgment. In any case, that didn't stop some from declaring who was guilty and who was innocent (mostly coming down on the side of Martin) - then again, I suppose some always will rush to judgment no matter what! I think we now see that as actual evidence and facts start to come to light people's views seem to be changing.

I agree, HCP holders shouldn't carry past a properly posted sign so long as the law says they should not. However, anyone who has not lost his/her constitutional rights through proper adjudication should be able to carry their weapon on their person anywhere they are legally allowed to be...their car, their home, their place or employment, a school...ANYWHERE. If I knew ahead of time where I might actually need a firearm to defend myself I'd be happy to only carry it then. If I had 24/7 armed security to protect me, like many of those who advocate a complete ban on firearms, I'd probably not carry. If I had a cop within earshot of me 24/7; same thing as above. If 99.9% of all dangerous criminals stayed locked up until they were too old/infirm to be a danger to society I might feel better about not being armed. However... I don't have a crystal ball that works. I can't afford 24/7 armed security. Cops take 5-10 minutes on average (if I'm lucky) to respond to a 911 call, and Most criminals, if they are caught at all, spend less time locked up than I've spent earning my next Master's degree. That's why I carry - that's why I NEED to carry - that's why I should be allowed to carry anywhere I am required to or allowed or invited to be without my God given right to own and carry arms infringed by worthless politicians, fear mongers and brain-dead bureaucrats and liberals. In fact, using the phrase "allowed to carry" is one that should never need to be spoken as it's repugnant to the meaning of the Second Amendment.

I'm sure some won't agree with you but thanks!

Apparently so! I suppose it's a testament to him that so many supporters absolutely refuse to accept where things stand today.

I have two Crossbreeds and getting ready to order another one so that I have one that can work with all my carry options. Like many of you I have a number of holsters of various designs; all are of high quality and none of them were cheep but my Crossbreed is my favorite holster by far.

After all the evidence is finally examined, I believe the charges against Zimmerman will be dismissed because there was insufficient evidence to sustain them in the first place and that the prosecutor will be investigated for misconduct by bringing those charges and by withholding exculpatory evidence. Almost since the charges were filed this has smelled like another "Duke Lacrosse Team" case - as more evidence has come out, the smell has become almost overwhelming. If this prosecutor is violating FL's laws and/or acting out of political pressure or on a personal vendetta then I hope she winds up just like Mike Nifong (Duke prosecutor).

With regards to your your statement above, after looking at this issue of "property rights" for a while now is that property that the nature of "property" changes once it has been given over to business use where the public/employees are invited (even desired to be) and that is does not have the same rights to enjoyment as does property used for private purposes (such as a residence). Even property used solely for private purposes can and usually does have restrictions about what can and can't be done on the property (and for good reason) including who is allowed to be there and what you can legally do to make them leave. Government bodies can and do regulate what can happen on/with "property"; both private and business (and especially so with regards to business property). As such, I would suggest that the question of whether governments "can" is a question that has been settled a long time ago. The only thing really left to argue about that has any real meaning is what regulations/requirements should be placed on property. All that to say, If my view of property rights (private vs business) is correct, then as a armed citizen wanting to carry my weapon where I go and as recognized and protected by the Second Amendment is not "disrespecting" the rights if a business property owner because the rights many ascribe to property, espeically business property, don't actually exist as a matter of law. Further, I think there is a way to handle this issue without trampling on anyone's rights but we'll never get to that point if we are always stuck on the issue of "property rights" and the, I believe, incorrect understanding of those rights. Actually, unless someone really makes an ass of themselves, they aren’t going to be sobering in a corner; they’ll simply be asked to leave and if they do to, that’s where things will end. If they don’t then the person in control of the property can call law enforcement and have them removed/charged with trespass, etc. Bearing arms is NOT a privilege; it IS a right; a natural right that supersedes any government or bureaucracy. I do agree that Tennessee, as a sovereign state, has a power to institute the HCP process BUT, while Tennessee can have the HCP process without violating someone’s Second Amendment rights, their ability to regulate the wearing of arms in Tennessee is supposed to be limited to doing so only “with a view to prevent crime†but TN does not have the right to violate the U.S. Constitution. I would suggest that the state legislature has taken power it does NOT have when they dictate that no one can carry a firearm UNLESS they have a HCP; that is something that firearm enthusiasts have allowed to happen by their silence and hopefully something that is changed soon so that we have constitutional carry in TN. I heard similar statements/arguments with regards to “parking lot bills†even though the courts have already ruled against the business “property†owners who tried to stop such laws as a violation of their “property rightsâ€. I believe that many people have a fundamental misunderstanding of just what property rights actually exist and they end up assuming many more "rights" than have ever actually existed in the law. In Ramsey Winch Inc. v. Henry, the 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals unanimously ruled that workers in Oklahoma have the constitutional right to keep guns in their vehicles parked on their employers' parking lots and rejected the argument that the property owner's rights were being violated. I realize that the "parking lot" question is not identical to the posting issue but the "property rights" issue is at the heart of both.

Not trying to pick on you here are all so please don't take it that way but.... You can likely find hundreds if not a few thousand posts on TGO of various people complaining about the fact that carrying past a properly posted sign carries a criminal charge in Tennessee. If all those people got involved by joining TFA and/or just consitently (and politely) contacting their representatives/senators in the state legislature about it we MIGHT just see the law get changed. Only the legislature CAN change the law and they aren't going to even consider it an issue unless WE make it an issue. Complaining about in on TGO may make us feel better but that's as much good as the complaining can do!

I think what you are seeing here are politicians being politicians - I'm sure there are a few senators (R or D) who would really like to deal with the budget deficit/deb problem and pass a real budget; but...most of these senators know that there is likely less fallout and voter anger if they don't pass a budget at all and just continue to operate on spending authorizations while concurrently blaming each other for not doing something substantial.

Neither your opinion nor mine is going to change the fact that in Tennessee, it isn't "your or my own personal business" even if it should be. Our ability to legally go armed and where we can go armed is controlled by the legislature - committing a criminal offense by carrying where yo are prohibited from doing so is not how law-abiding people should affect change; in fact, it may have just the opposite outcome.

Well, for the cooking to be "done" he would have had to at least been in the oven...I'm not sure he ever made it out of the refrigerator.

I believe, based on history and logic that there is a HUGE difference between "private property" used for private purposes (i.e. a residence, etc) vs "business property" that is purposely given over to/invites the public to be there. I too don't like leaving my personal safety to others (which is why I carry and why I spend a considerable amount of time/money each year on training). Nevertheless, what you or I believe is immaterial because Tennessee law currently allows business property to be posted and forbid the presence of firearms on the property and until that law is changed, knowingly carrying past a proper posting, no matter how well you conceal, is a criminal offense. I chose to neither break the law or depend on a "mall cop" to protect me - I go somewhere else (and when it makes sense to do so, I let the business know why I'm spending my money somewhere else).

It isn't a "rule"; it's a law and those who chose to knowingly disobey it aren't doing themselves or their fellow armed citizens any good. Disobeying a proper posting discredits the entire notion that citizens who carry are "law-abiding" people; law-abiding people don't purposely disobey the law (we don't just obey the ones we happen to agree with). Perhaps more importantly, when we patronize a business that's posted we are giving our custom to a business that doesn't deserve it! Any business that post doesn't deserve a dime of our money. I understand that circumstances sometimes dictate that we patronize a business that is unfriendly to armed citizens but in those instances, if we are going to give them our custom anyway then we should at least obey the law. At least that's how I see it.

I'm just stunned...well, not that stunned, really.