RobertNashville

I guess you can refuse to take a flight the would put in in NYC but you can't do anything about a flight that was supposed to go there but gets diverted anyway. As for the boycott...they don't have much of an affect on those, like the Blooming idiot, who has an agenda.

Obviously the real problem here is improper signage. The signs should say something like "Please check your unloaded firearms so that you can be arrested for committing a violent felony and have your life ruined (not to mention have the right to own a firearm taken from you even in states that actually abide by the Constitution".

Maybe they shouldn't be.

There are as well as specifics about how to fly with a firearm - as far as I can tell, he did absolutely nothing wrong except get tangled up with the blooming idiot Michael Bloomburg and his desire to rule the U.S. from the Mayor's office of NYC.

I was thinking of taking Tactical Response's medical course...and I'm interested in this one depending on the date!

Thats great...but what are YOU going to do about it so you don't have to settle?

Getting rid of foreign aid is window dressing and politically expedient rhetoric - I'm not at all sure that we should but even if we should and even if we do, it's a meaningless gesture...it would be like the savings we get from filling our gasoline tank with "regular" instead or "premium" while we don't have the money to pay our rent or the car note. Whatever time it takes is whatever time it takes...as I already said; yes, we should develop our own resources and we need to stop the excuses (but that won't happen as long as Obummer is in office). If it takes 20 years or 10 years or whatever. I'm not an expert on navigable waters or specifically what it takes to make them unnavigable for an oil tanker but I've been in the straights and I don't think it would take very much to shut it down. I also don't think it would be an irrational spike...oil prices rising because someone somewhere thinks their might be a disruption is irrational but if you cut off 35% of the worlds oil flow and it will devastate the world economy. I'm not so worried about what we "tell" them; all I really care about is what we actually do. The best way to protect Israel is for Israel to protect itself and the second best way is if everyone who might attack Israel known that they will have to deal with us as well. My opinion is based on what I've heard him say...that isn't a mischaracterization; it's my opinion based on observation.

While it's true that there are many hurdles to drilling wells, building pipelines and building refineries today that didn't exist "back in the day"; those things do take a significant time to build...I'm sure that removing those hurdles would speed development time up but I"m not sure it would speed it up as much as we might like to think.

For all those who hate the choices you have when you enter the voting booth...get out there and run for office yourself. Short of doing that you will NEVER find a candidate who votes on issues the way YOU do/would. I don't mean to sound mean but I've been hearing this crap for 40 years...people keep complaining about their "choices" of candidate but they seem to think super statesmen are just supposed to drop down from heaven or something...if you want better choices, go out and find someone and convince them to run or run for office yourself...if you aren't willing to do either then you only going to have what you've been having no matter how much you bellyache about it.

I agree that we give out far too much money in foreign aid and often, to countries that hate us and will continue to hate us no matter how much money we give them. As to whether that foreign aid does anything positive for us at all is a matter of opinion - people who are in a much better position that you or I to know have different opinions on that. That said, we could stop all foreign aid tomorrow and forever and it will have absolutely zero impact on our deficit and debt problem because THAT problem is almost completely a problem of entitlement programs…in fact, I think if we did the math we would see that we could pretty much cut out all other spending entirely and our entitlement obligations would still burry us in debt; until we get control of THAT we will never have control. Yeah…we probably could crash the world oil market if we develop the resources we have here…and if we started that today, we could probably do so in about 15-20 years from now…we should develop our own resources but I don’t think that’s the primary problem. Any significant interruption in flow of the world’s oil supply (such as closing down the Straits of Hormuz would have devastating economic effects on the entire world including the U.S. This isn’t the world of 100 years ago; whether we like or not we do now truly have a “world economy†and major economic events/events with economic impact that happen “there†WILL affect us here as well…we can do things to insulate ourselves somewhat but we can not avoid it. That is truly one of our “national interestsâ€. Sometimes, protecting our economy requires us to use our military and/or our economic might. I agree that we don’t need to be doing “nation buildingâ€â€¦I agree that Israel should be (and I think is) free to do what it thinks are in its own best interests but Israel is a friend and an ally and how we treat our friends and allies says a LOT about us as a people…if they need our protection we should give it…period, if not for “national interests†then at least for moral ones. Based on what he has said, RP would put us near isolation…he would wait until our enemies are on our shores before we would respond…we are long past the time when geography (mountain ranges and oceans, etc.) can protect us…we can’t snuggle up to Mad Macmood or other crazies and hope they’ll play nice. Appeasement has never worked…hiding you head in the sand has never worked either…I think RP would have us doing a little of both…I think that’s dangerous.

No "attitude" involved...I"m not even a Romney supporter; I'm just stating my opinion based on experience and what has happened so far. Early primaries today mean far more than they did when RR was running nor was there a "Super Tuesday" to deal with then as there is now...barring a complete upset, this is Romney's race to lose and if he pulls of a sweep of the first four it's effectively (even if not officially/mathematically) over. Just my opinion of course.

You can't "get rid" of Alexander until his seat is up for election...unless I missed it his term isn't up yet. Of course, we shouldn't be voting for Senators anyway but that's another issue (and probably not something that is going to change anytime soon).

That would go a long way but if that's all that was changed, it would still allow businesses (employers or otherwise) to post signage which would make having a firearm on the property a crime. I'll admit that if they can't in any way force a search of the vehicle "who would know" but I would not want to be put in the position where I'd be "breaking the law" by carrying past a sing at the entrance to a parking lot.

Based on things he has said in debates and his history, it doesn't seem to me that RP understands and/or doesn't believe that the interests of the United States extends beyond its borders and that those interests sometimes necessitates that we extend our political, financial and military might to protect those interests. That said, this is pretty much moot anyway because barring something truly unexpected, Romney will almost certainly win South Carolina and likely Florida - if he does, it will all be over but the gnashing of teeth by RP's supporters (or the supporters of any other candidate). Moving one, there is much more at stake in this election than the Presidency because ANY of the viable Republican candidates will be better for the country than Obummer...of more importance, in my opinion, is who we elect to the Senate and the House. Were RP the reincarnation of Jesus he would still be impotent unless we have enough conservatives in Congress to bring legislation to the President. Conversely, if Obummer wins a second term, we need strong conservatives in the Congress to stop his agenda. If we don't have that, then hold onto your hat (and your ass) because Obummer will take the gloves of and it will make the amount of legislation passed during his first two years look like nothing compared to what he'll try to get through in a second term.

Actually, we DO have the RIGHT to go armed...however, we've allowed our legislature in Tennessee to infringe on that right to a significant degree - perhaps that's a distinction without a difference??? In any case, I hope that what we are moving toward is a restoration of the rights we already have as human beings and as recognized in the U.S. Constitution...shame on us (past and present) that we've allowed our state to infringe on our rights for so long. As to the immunity issue, I've not problem with granting immunity except for provable negligence on the part of the employer/business.

I think your post goes to the heart of the matter, especially with regards to the employee/employer situation. What I think most of us want (who do want this) is to be able to carry our legally transported weapons in our vehicles to and from wherever we need to go without fear of being charged with a crime and/or being fired from our employment (at least I know that has been my objective). One reason I want this is simply because I sometimes participate in shooting events during the work week after work and, for logistics purposes, I need to be able to carry the weapon(s) and ammunition I need in order to participate, inside of my vehicle when I leave home in the morning because going home after work and then to where I need to be to participate (skeet shooting, etc.) would make my participation impossible because of the distance/travel time involved. The other reason is that, as an HCP holder, I want to be able to carry my loaded weapon from home to/from wherever I need to go whether that’s the parking lot of an employer or some other business/shopping center, etc. While I do have concerns about being disarmed while INSIDE said business or employer’s offices, I’m more concerned about my commute to/from those places…maybe I’m being overly paranoid or maybe not paranoid enough; I don’t know! Because of the “right to work state†issue/company “policy†issue, I think to make such a law accomplish what I think we want, there will have to be several changes in the law including; but not limited to: “Signage†against firearms must be rendered meaningless with regards to any sort of parking lot/parking space…in other words, a restaurant, for example, can still ban firearms (by policy and/or by signage) from being inside their actual restaurant but not from being inside the vehicle while parked in whatever parking lot their customer might use. Same for employers…they can post signage to ban firearms inside their actual businesses/factories and/or ban them as a matter of policy but not be able to ban then from being inside a vehicle while parked in a parking lot provided for employees, customers, etc. But…this isn’t enough. What I think is also needed is that must be an absolute prohibition against anyone being able to search or compel a search or even ask to search a vehicle of an employee, etc. (except of course by a law enforcement officer who is doing so based on just cause/warrant). In other words, no employer could even legally ask to search a vehicle or demand you “voluntarily†allow vehicle searches as a condition of employment. That is the only way I know of that would truly protect an employee from termination simply because of a company “policy†against firearms…what I mean by that is that a law saying you can’t be fired for having a legally possessed/transported firearm in your vehicle while parked in an employer’s parking lot sounds good but so what? If they can still “request†to search your vehicle and find a firearm they can just fire you later and not even say why so in that case, we haven’t gained anything.

That's fine (and I tend to agree)...the problem is that it's already true in Tennessee that no one, not an individual nor a company (even an employer) has a "right"/"power" to compel a search of a vehicle; only a law enforcement officer can compel a search and only then with proper cause/search warrant. The problem is that employers require employees to "voluntarily" allow a search of the employee's vehicle under threat of termination if they don't "allow" it. So, if this is to be changed, I think the only way to accomplish that is to have legislation that is firearms specific because it's specifically firearms that is at issue...of course, who's to say that tomorrow our employers won't try to control what radio stations we can have the radios in our vehicles tuned to???

I play on PS3 as "RobertNashville" and just for the record, I do "camp" because I want to experience something beyond just running around aimlessly shooting everything/everyone I see hoping that I get them first. I have COD MW 1, 2, 3 and Black Ops although I really didn't spend much time on MW2 because I switched to Black Ops as soon as it came out and I had only bought MW2 a few weeks before that. Since MW3 came out I've been playing it exclusively (when I get a chance to play)!

as i understand it there is an existing bill in the house but it needs a senate sponsor(s). I'm expecting as little or even less movement on ANY firearms related issues as we saw last year...it's VERY clear that this "Republican" controlled state government only concerns itself with firearms issues or firearm owners when they need those voters to elect or re-elect them.

I'm agree. Frankly, the entire concept of "marriage" comes from religion predates the United States by at least a few thousand years and in many countries, it is the "church"; not the government, who defines what is and isn't "marriage" and the church is the only vehicle through which people can marry each other. Government truly does have no place in it and I would submit that the only reason it does is because it's a means of control (through the tax code) and a means of at least some revenue.

I think you are taking things out of proportion here. We have the right to enjoy our homes and be secure in our persons and not be subject to "unreasonable" search and seizure...we do not have the "right" to do anything we want with/to anyone we want just because we do it on our "private property" or in our bedroom for that matter. To continue the example he gave, incest is against the law and for damn good reasons...just because the sex is happening inside my home doesn't protect me from being charged with a crime or from having the police break down my door to arrest me if they have just cause and/or a warrant to do so.

Oh yeah they still do business with WalMart (well, at lest some doe)...those who continue doing business usually survive by supplying substandard merchandise so that they can meet WalMart's ridiculous stipulations. When they do that WalMart makes money; the supplier/manufacturer makes money and the customer gets f**k*d. The other way it usually happens is that the supplier either eventually stops playing WalMart's game or the supplier goes bankrupt. The company I was consulting for was one of the oldest companies in existence...its world-wide name recognition was only slightly below Coke...they went bankrupt trying to meet WalMart's demands. They would provide a $2M order of machines to WalMart and Walmart would deduct $300K from the invoice before paying for garbage issues (order arrived late/order arrived early/wrong color box/upc code an eight of an inch off from required/wrong shipper used, etc. etc. I once got over a $1M back from WalMart for deductions they took for orders arriving late...I got it back because on those orders, WalMart dictated who the shipper had to be (you can't dictate who does the shipping and then cry foul when the shipper screws up). Even then, it took WalMart over 6 months to pay back the money they basically stole from the company I was representing. This aint Sam Walton's WalMart and I don't deal with Rattle Snakes.

Well; all politicians have to have pretty big egos just to put themselves out there but I think RP may be a bit more egocentric than others. I tend to believe that deep down, RP knows he can't win (in fact there was even a recent interview where he stated, and I"m paraphrasing here, that he can't really "see himself in the White House"...seeming to indicate that he doesn't really think he can win). Then there is also his refusal to rule out a third party run. Third party candidates don't win Presidential elections so to me, if you can't win the nomination of your party and given the total failure of a third party bid for the past 100 years or so, about the only logical reasons to run for President third party is either revenge or an ego trip...RP doesn't hit me as a vengeful person so that leaves ego. Of course this is all opinion/observation/supposition...what the hell do I know about it! I wasn't really talking about RP at all with that statement and I applaud him running; rather, I was referring to all the armchair quarterbacks that always moan about not having good choices but do nothing themselves to change it. I have listened to RP...I like his positions on many issues; but not on some big issues (issues big for me that is)...and while he isn't who I support, if he gets the nomination I'd have no problem voting for him. What I find distasteful as those who are so enamored with him that they say they won't vote at all or will vote third party if he doesn't get the nomination...to me me, that is reckless and shows a lack of regard for the country.

Actually, RP will be out of the race long before 10 months go by (unless of course he does run third party to boost his ego). Of course once he is out or once he loses a third party bid for President then all the threads will be about how he wasn't treated fairly by the press, etc., etc. and all the other excuses used over the years for why he never wins the nomination.

Actually I do know that; I was trying to make a joke but just realized that I forget to add smiley face.