RobertNashville

If you are going to quote me then at least quote ME! Please don't quote something that someone else said and put my name in place of theirs...in other words, none of the stuff you attributed to me in your post was ever said by me. You and I both know that I say more than enough things you don't agree with that there is simply no need to attribute things to me that someone else said just so you can disagree with me!

No...that's your opinion.

Please provide an actual example of a job the must and can only be done by one race but cannot be done by another. ROTFLAO

The 2nd Annual Spring Cruise and Clay Pigeon Shoot is almost here! The weather gods seem to have smiled on us once again and it looks like Saturday is going to be a perfect day. If you have any questions at all; need to clear up any details PLEASE don't be afraid to ask - I'll be checking for PMs here through early tomorrow monring. For those joining up for breakfast: Cracker Barrel Old Country Store (just off I-40) 6941 Charlotte Pike Nashville, TN 37209 If you want to eat breakfast, I’d suggest being there no later than 08:30AM. Plan to be at our start point by 9:45AM so that we can leave promptly at 10:00AM. We'll actually be forming up across the street from the Cracker Barrel. For those who don't know me, I'll be in a Black 370 NISMO Z. If you have an FRS/GMRS radio, please bring them...I'll have my two there and it helps keep everyone together! Finally...don't forget...BRING YOUR OLD, UNUSED CELL PHONES. Cell Phones for Soldiers will turn them into free phone cards given to our deployed military - it's an effortless way to really help our men and women in uniform far from home stay in touch with family and loved ones.

The 2nd Annual Spring Cruise and Clay Pigeon Shoot is almost here! The weather gods seem to have smiled on us once again and it looks like Saturday is going to be a perfect day. If you have any questions at all; need to clear up any details PLEASE don't be afraid to ask - I'll be checking for PMs here through early tomorrow monring. For those joining up for breakfast: Cracker Barrel Old Country Store (just off I-40) 6941 Charlotte Pike Nashville, TN 37209 If you want to eat breakfast, I’d suggest being there no later than 08:30AM. Plan to be at our start point by 9:45AM so that we can leave promptly at 10:00AM. We'll actually be forming up across the street from the Cracker Barrel. For those who don't know me, I'll be in a Black 370 NISMO Z. If you have an FRS/GMRS radio, please bring them...I'll have my two there and it helps keep everyone together! Finally...don't forget...BRING YOUR OLD, UNUSED CELL PHONES. Cell Phones for Soldiers will turn them into free phone cards given to our deployed military - it's an effortless way to really help our men and women in uniform far from home stay in touch with family and loved ones.

I think macville understands the broad concept and I don't think that he sees it the way you protray is as "tax of X%" is "passed on to the consumer" as if it's an immediate, dollar for dollar process. The principal is that a business has no money to pay taxes except out of its profits...profits, in one way or another, comes, at least primarily, from that business' customers...ultimately, then, taxes are indirectly paid by the business' customers who buy its products. It's not an issue of increasing a business' tax burden by $X and the additional burden is automatically passed onto customers...it's more of a philosophical and a political issue. Politicians who want to raise taxes like to do so by raising them on businesses because such increases tend to become invisible to consumers (and there are a lot of people out there who seem to forget where a business' money comes from). Ultimately, however, higher taxes on business will result in higher prices to customers because that's where the majority of the money to pay the taxes has to come from. Certainly, a business' product cost/pricing structure has many, many variables in it...it should also be obvious that we are looking at this in the long-term here...Washington putting a new excise tax on businesses today doesn't mean the customers will see exactly that much increase in prices tomorrow. But, eventually a business has to pass their costs, including their tax burden onto consumers. They may be able to absorb (accept reduced profits) some tax increases for a time - they might even absorb some of them permanently, but they can't do so with every tax increase forever because if they do, they'll eventually have no profits or be in business at all for that matter! Personally, I'd like to see all tax burdens on business reduced to ZERO and every individual be charged enough tax to pay for everything that we need the government to do for us...maybe that's an income tax...maybe it's a pure sales tax or something in between but it would certainly be better than the convoluted, manipulative system we have now.

No...we dont'...remember that according to strickj individuals have absolutely no rights if they are standing on someone else's property; not even the right to defend their life.

Really...who exactly has to pay a "business tax" that isn't in/operating a business? What tax would that be? I'm not surprised that your aren't aware of one and I don't know of one either but no one here said that there was "one coverall business tax". If you are speaking of a federal tax ID; yeah...they are easy to get and I suppose "anyone can get one" but so what? What does that have to do with anything?? Having one doesn't make you a "business" but most businesses, if they pay any sort of business taxes at all will likely have to get one...I don't know why anyone would want one who doesn't need one. I though we had a right to keep and bear arms...oh...wait...never mind. Really...a business can fire someone because they are black or a woman, etc. and get away with it???

I do understand the subtltly of taxes, this is at least one area I do have some actual, practical and professional knowledge of. My point was, regardless of how a business obtains the money to pay taxes, the type, plethora of and basis for the various taxes a "business" pays is quite different than those an individual pays (with some overlap of course). I don't know what the founders would think; people having weapons on them almost everywhere they went was so ingrained in society that I doubt that anyone would even have thought about it....that's probably why they didn't bother to mention "hunting" or "self defense" in the Bill of Rights; the threat they saw and wanted to protect us from was an out of control government taking weapons away from the people in order to force its will on them.

I'm not an attorney...I just copied that from a State site. Maybe it's wrong...maybe it's dated.

I am being serious and just taking you at your word. If I have no rights on someone else's property then I have no rights...if you tell me I have "no rights" then I assume they mean no as in none as in, to coin a phrase "None. Zip. Zero" (that should sound familiar to you; see post No.123). If a property owner has absolute property rights (as you've been declaring in post after post) and I, the lowly individual have "no rights" (as you've also declared in post after post) why can't the property owner kill me if he chooses...doesn't he have a right to do whatever he wants...you've already said an employer can take away my right to defend my life...is his actively taking my life that much different? To imply that he can't...to call that murder implies that I have a right to not be murdered doesn't it? But how can I have such a right to not be murdered if I have no rights when I'm on someone else's property. I pay taxes; but I don't pay business taxes. Business pay business taxes. They are called business taxes because they apply to businesses and on business activities that individuals don't have. Yes, they are all taxes but there are types of taxes that businesses pay that an individual never will.

Well...no firearms are allowed on company property so there can't there be any shooting. Maybe the termination of employment happens in the "exit interview" (which just happens to take place in a chamber filled with lethal gas).

Hyperbole? I don't know about that...you've already said an employer can even take away my right to defend my life...what's so hyperbolisitc about taking the next step and dictating the eternal resting place of my soul? You've spent countless posts telling all and sundry that individuals have no rights in this issue - apparently in your world an employer can require anything of anyone at any time in any place and the individual has no rights....given the unlimited power of businesses over the individual I expect that very soon, employers I don't even work for will be telling me what I can have in my house and my car. You've already rejected my argument...what is it that you want me to show you? Anyway, I didn't know we were talking about pudding - I thought we were talking about parking lots. If I have don't have "any rights" while on someone's else's property I would assume, then, that would include the right to life as well, right? I mean...it's as simple as that. After all, no rights means no rights...that gives a whole new meaning to the word "termination of employment" doesn't it. Yeah...not every one, just 99% of businesses need one....there are exceptions but not all that many. Of course, lot's of people ignore the law just as there are a lot of people who call themselves "businesses" that aren't much of a business. Anyway, last time I checked, tax laws were...well...laws and there are certain tax laws that only apply to business...oh wait, silly me...that can't possible be true because you've already stated that there aren't any laws that apply to businesses that don't apply to individuals.

That can't be what the argument revolves around because according to stickj individuals don't have any rights; only businesses do.

Ah...so I have rights but I don't have rights...thanks for clearing that up. Obviously you also think that my employer can tell my soul where it can spend eternity too...I'll have to ask our CEO what he's decided for me next chance I get since I like to avoid uncertainty.

No, it doesn’t keep them from firing people; it does keep them from dictating that a certain legally possessed item can or cannot be in a private vehicle. Do you really purport that there a no laws that apply only to businesses and do not apply to individuals??? I don't believe it would be all that difficult to come up with numerous examples of laws that apply to businesses that do not apply to individuals. Sorry but that's just absurd…if a business has no policy and/or no posting against firearms then they are already in compliance with the proposed law and the law has ZERO impact on them. I believe you even said in an earlier post that that this parking lot bill would have no impact on your business. What no one should have is the ability to dictate what is held inside my private property provided what is held there isn't illegal. If there is something illegal (stolen property, drugs, etc) that's a matter that law enforcement should be called to address. Ignoring that rights are in conflict makes it easy to cling to the businesses' “private property rights†argument - after all, it make sense to think that if the businesses' rights are the only "rights" involved than they should obviously prevail. However, they aren't the only party with "rights" here...businesses’ “private property rights†are in direct conflict with the individual’s private property rights to control legally possessed items kept inside his private vehicle. There is ZERO reason why anyone should be able to dictate what is inside my vehicle if so long as what is inside is legally possessed and remain inside my vehicle. I didn't say it was but it is for me to decide what I think about the matter - it’s my opinion; an opinion you, in fact, agreed with a few posts back. I think it worth noting, as Josh Edwards did last night, that many of the businesses who are most vocally opposed to this TN bill are and have been operating in states where such "parking lot bills" have been the law for some time now...to me, that makes the protestations of these businesses ring more than a bit hollow. What right don't I have? Are you saying that only businesses have property rights and individuals do not? I would suggest that if private property rights exist then I do have a right to control what I keep in my private property. You've said (I'm paraphrasing here, not quoting) that businesses have a right to control what they keep (or allow to be on) their private property…those rights are in conflict with my private property rights. I’ve never said one is “more important†than the other; I've said they are in conflict. When rights are in conflict then it makes sense to seek a reasonable accommodation that doesn't overly burden either side nor allow one side's "rights" to run roughshod over the other side's rights. I do not believe I’ve said, in this or any other thread, that this is a “Second Amendment†issue vs Property Rights issue - you can believe otherwise but unless you can supply an example to support your belief, it's just an unsupported assertion. More importantly, while not being unarmed is a concern of mine, I don't think this is or need to be a "Second Amendment" issue...I don't believe an employer should be able to tell me what I can or can't have in my vehicle any more than they have a right to dictate what music I'm allowed to listen to while I'm in my vehicle. Yes, two groups rights are in conflict here and if my position that a businesses' right to control "their" private property stops at the door jam of my private property then color me selfish if you wish but it seems to me that the truly selfish position here is the one that says my rights don't matter. And for some, it’s the ONLY effective tool they can have. So an employer can make ANY condition they want…no restrictions at all of any kind...no exceptions whatsoever including the condition that I must forfeit my life…I suppose they also get to set the condition of where my soul spends eternity as well.

I've had it with both parties...I stopped calling myself a Republican about 20 years or so ago...I still vote Republican most of the time but that's only because most conservatives are, or at least run as Republicans. I'd say no one should be allowed to spend more than 8-12 years in local/state office and no more than another 8 years at the Federal level (if they reach that level) - the whole concept of a "career politician" is an insult to folks with real jobs.

Well; I'm not trying to put words into anyone's mouth here but I would suggest that those who oppose these parking lot bills want to keep the discussion centered on "property rights". Taking such things as a person's right of self defense or what impact their policies might have on a person being able to defend themselves effectively is probably they see as a side issue (assuming they are willing ti acknowledge it as an issue at all). I think they would say, somewhat correctly, that your right of self-defense is not dependent only on having or not having a firearm (ignoring the simple truth that a firearm is often the single best tool a person can have for self-defense and that for some, such as the elderly or infirm, it might well be the only viable means of providing for our own self-defense). To put it another way, I would say that businesses are willing to fight for their "private property rights" but are a bit reluctant to take on responsibilities for the impact their policies can have - policies that that they claim their "property rights" allow them to have. Part of what i find odd in this whole discussion is that, apparently, it's okay for society to tell restaurants what kind of oil they are allowed to use in their fryers (assuming fryers are allowed) and we can tell businesses hat they can't discriminate based on certain attributes of their customers but telling a business that their private property rights stops at the door jam of a person's vehicle...that they can't control what items are in a person's vehicle while that vehicle is parked on the businesses' parking lot is going to far.

Putting aside for the moment the simple fact that no free citizen should need government "permission" to sell his/her private property; this perhaps might make sense if background checks were actually effective in keeping firearms out of the hands of criminals, but they are not. Even the BATF says that the primary sources of guns used in crimes are such things as straw purchases, disreputable FFL dealers and other such activities that (very) effectively circumvent the background system...then, of course, there is the problem of weapons stolen by criminals and then kept and used in future crimes or sold illegally. Forcing more people thorough a broken system could only make sense to someone with little to no sense and will only, as with virtually all "gun laws", impact the law-abiding while leaving the criminals free continue as always. I wonder if this country, and more specifically, perhaps well-intentioned but nevertheless clueless legislators will ever start focusing on the actual problem (crime and criminals) rather than focusing on the tools they use to ply their trade???

If I were actually making that argument it would be absurd. But, I’m not making that argument nor do these proposed parking lot bills say that you have to “let anyone onto your property”. That’s great that you aren’t going to say it again. Of course, I can’t figure out why you’ve felt the need to say it in the first place since I’ve never once said anywhere that there is “one single blanket law that all businesses must abide by”. I guess it’s possible someone else here said that but I haven’t. This bill may not go anywhere this year but if so, I suspect it will have absolutely nothing to do with either the broadness of its application or that it (extremely mildly) infringes on businesses’ “rights”. Also, it doesn’t impact “all businesses”; it would only impact businesses that have policies and/or postings against firearms in parking lots and that provide parking lots for employees - we both know that not “all businesses” provide parking lots for employees nor do “all businesses” that do provide parking lots have policies and/or postings against firearms in their parking lots. Wow...how terrible...if we remove "firearms" from the list of reasons to fire someone it only leaves them with about 10,000,000 others reasons...that is a horrible imposition. Of course the burden matters. This is not the first time that the rights of one “group” have come into conflict with the rights of another group and when that happens; someone’s rights will be infringed upon…who's rights will be infringed upon and how much the infringement will be…how much or little of a “burden” is created is most certainly relevant to how such a conflict should be resolved. In this case, there is no burden on the business “group” and much benefit to thousands of people and society at large. The claim that a “parking lot bill” is a violation of the businesses’ property rights rings hollow because at most, the “violation” is philosophical but the reality is that the burden has no measurable impact. No…I’m not saying that nor have I ever said it nor do I think it. I don't believe I've mentioned the “2nd amendment” or implied that those rights were being taken away; I'm not even sure the 2nd amendment is what's applicable here. In this situation, the rights of two different groups are in conflict. When that happens, I believe that society has an obligation to find a solution to the conflict in a way that is the most beneficial to both groups and to society at large (and while we can argue about how well they've done it, society certainly has a track record of doing so). Your position seems to be that no solutions is needed and/or that the only solution is one in which one group’s rights should be allowed to trample on the other group’s rights (in this case, the "property rights" of businesses)…to me, that position is the one that is actually “selfish”; especially when there is a viable solution available that only mildly impacts the rights of both groups.

On a serious note, congratulations and good shooting...I own three Glocks (a G20 and two G31s) - they are great firearms.

I'm sorry.

I think you guys should be restricted to pepper spray and zip ties like Dog the Bounty Hunter. After all; it's for the children

What a absurd statement - I never said or implied that "because businesses have rules they have no rights" - I haven't said that in this thread or in any other thread and if you think I have then you need to re-read my posts because I neither said or implied anything of the kind. The similarity between the existence of rules already placed on businesses (and there are many including Federal State and local) and this proposed rule placed on businesses is obvious except to those who refuse to see it and it has nothing to do with the concept of whether or not businesses have rights or don't have rights. What it does have to do with is that these existing rules show that society CAN and HAS placed rules and regulations on businesses and I would argue that there are times when such rules and regulations need to be placed on businesses even if they violate a businesses' "property rights". It it seems that you believe a business owner's right's, especially his "property rights" should never be violated or infringed...if so, if a businesses' "rights" are to be held so high...so inviolate...then I would assume that you believe that none of the laws, rules and regulations already placed on businesses should exist, correct? If so and given your unceasing vocal opposition to this proposed rule, I can't help but wonder if you were this vocal in your opposition to the plethora of other rules already placed on businesses that impact their "rights"? Were you out protesting at the State House when they decreed that a restaurant could not allow even if the restaurant wanted to do so; even if they knew that most of their customers wanted to be able to smoke there? That measure certainly infringed the "right" of the restaurant owner to control what happened on his own property and may well have had a negative financial impact as well. How about the recent change in Tennessee law regarding carry in places that served alcohol; did you protest that as well? If you are going to be consistent in your position about "protecting businesses' private property rights" then you should have been as vocally opposed to that change in the rules as you are to this one because that change "infringed" on some businesses' property rights as well. Places like Randy Rayburn's restaurants had to go out and buy signage if they wanted to disallow HCP holders from carrying in his restaurant. That certainly placed a new burden on such businesses. Many if not most of the rules and regulations placed on businesses not only infringe on businesses' "rights" but have a financial impact as well yet this is a proposed rule that by your own admission places no burden on businesses and I can't think of a single financial impact on them either, at least no negative impact. Yet, somehow, this rule is apparently "going to far" for some folks to handle. I don't get the logic...maybe someone can explain it to me??? These proposed "parking lot bills" place no burden on businesses at all while concurrently do a lot of good for society. Whatever "rights" businesses have, those "rights" can and have been restrained/impacted...sometimes they NEED to be impacted. In my opinion, this is one of those times they need to be impacted.

One week away folks, I hope some of you can come! If so, please send me PM so I know to expect you and/or if you have any questions at all!