RobertNashville

I think it's a good show, I watch it...I like it.

I try to be precise when talking about such things as "clips" and "magazines". However, I don't really care when the words are used interchangeably...what does bother me is when people who don't know which end of the tube the round comes out of tries to dictate to me what size clip/magazine I "need"!

I just returned last night from spending about three days with my friends in Fort Leonard Wood, Missouri...happy to report that they are doing Ok and things look good for them long term. They are concerned about finances...it took a while for his wife to find a job after moving there and because of the accident she had to quite that job to take care of him (it's amazing how many things you can't do for yourself when you suddenly don't have the use of one hand!). Anyway, she has found a new job that starts in a few weeks so they should be ok, just tight going for now. He is healing pretty well but looking at some possible bone grafting soon. Anyway; I can't think you all enough for your prayers and I hope you'll continue to life he and his wife up from time to time.

I'm not trying to "bog" anything down...just a simple, albeit layman's observation that as I read the Tennessee Constitution; I think any law like this could easily run into a problem.

My apologies up front to the OP for asking a somewhat non-related question but I don't believe the above is factual. To the best of my knowledge (admittedly not perfect <smile>) no on in this country is "required" to have a state issued ID or any ID at all for that matter. I realize that as practical matter and fo many practical reasons we really do need to carry ID but "required"...I don't believe so. I believe that part of the outcry about a "National ID Card" was based, in part, on our freedom to travel around our country without the need to "present our papers".

I believe what is commonly called "Constitutional carry" will eventually be a reality in Tennessee as it now is in Vermont, Arizona and Alaska if memory serves. However, while I do and will support this bill, it seems to me that what really needs to happen to make this a reality is not simply a legislative bill but an actual change to the Tennessee constitution???

I'm heading out to Missouri tomorrow (Friday) to spend the weekend with these folks and I thought I'd give a quick update and another thank you to TGO folks who have offered prayers because they are truly appreciated! My friend is doing well...there is a good possibility of at least one more surgery but overall, the damage to his hand is slight all things considered. They believe that he will lose some dexterity in his left hand (mostly in his ring finger) but at least it's not a "career ending" sort of injury. Thanks again to all!

So very sorry to hear this - I have and will pray for David and for you and your family.

I think most of us feel that way at one time or another...fighting for what is "right" is often a lonely place to be - but I don't think this particular issue is a what is "right" vs what is good for me (and everyone else be dammed as it was put in the post you quoted) issue. I see this issue being about what is/isn't a reasonable accommodation when one entity's "rights" (in this case, employers who provide parking lots for their employees) and the "rights" of another entity (an employee) to be able to retain his right to control what is kept inside his vehicle. I would submit, and I think it correct to say, that no one's "right" to anything automatically supersede the rights of someone else. But, rights do, on occasion, "bump" into each other...when that happens, if the two parties involved can't solve the problem on their own then it will usually fall on "society" to step in and try to find a way to accommodate both parties without unnecessarily trampling on either person's rights. None of the "parking lot bills" currently circulating are perfect but I don't believe any of them present an unnecessary burden or unseasonable curtailment of anyone's "property rights".

Really??? She looks pretty good to me; then again, every year I get older my standards for "beauty" seem to get lower; or maybe it's just my expectations.

I'm ecstatic that another thug who shouldn't have been on the street in the first place is now taking a permanent dirt nap. I'm equally gladdened to read that it was a pink .38 that put him there - seems to show that what caliber you have is ultimately less important than putting the bullet into the right locations. I'm truly fed-up that our "justice system" continuously lets these animals back out on the street where they can terrorize us - I keep wishing that before I take the dirt nap that this country will wake up and start dealing with criminals the way they should be dealt with. However, I'm not optimistic about that. In the interim, I'll continue to carry and train to be prepared for the day that I might have to defend my life the way this beauty queen did and more importantly, defend myself as well as she did! Edit: I do wonder why anyone would open the door to a stranger at that time of the night...I doubt I would and I certainly wouldn't unless I already had a weapon in my hand.

I've said many times that I want a parking lot bill that does not apply only to HCP holders - I want to see a bill with the only limitation being that the person must be legally able to possess and transport the firearm (which is pretty much very law-abiding adult). I also want to see a bill that applies to ALL parking lots; not just limit it to employers/employees and employee parking. However; no purpose at all? Really??? What exactly do you base that assertion on? Do you have inside information to show that the HCP's provision has no purpose? Have you called and spoken with any of the folks who have introduced these bills to ASK why they limited it to HCP holders (if you have, perhaps you could share essential elements of the conversation with us)? I have now spoken to staff of two of the folks who are behind these bills to offer my support...while I had them on the phone, I noted my disagreement with the HCP limitation and that I though we need to address all parking lots, not just "employee" parking lots. I was told that it was believed that the HCP limitation makes the bill more likely to get some legs and get passed. It's a better "sell" to legislators who would otherwise ignore a bill that included everyone and it makes it a better sell to the public at large by automatically deflecting a lot of criticism based on the very good record of HCP holders in how they've conducted themselves with their firearms since the HCP process was adopted. As to the "all parking lots"; pretty much the same thing...they didn't want to ask for everything in one bill. That, unfortunately, is how politics generally work...it's very rare to get to eat the whole apple at one sitting. We can disparage that process all we want but it is what it is. We can (I think) both agree that a bill should not just apply to HCP holders but to say that the HCP limitation serves no functional purpose is simply not correct. Sounds a lot like "can't we all just get along". Unfortunately, we all can't just get along and equally unfortunately, employers don't and aren't working out their own solution. If they were, we wouldn't need a parking lot bill nor would anyone be asking for one. However, in the past 10 years of so, many large employers have made their parking lots "off limits" to firearms; not by legally posting as the law requires any other business to do but by "company policy" and in many cases, they've done this with no warning and no explanation after operating with no such "company policy" for decades (and without having a problem with firearms in the past)...in other words, their "company policy" comes across as arbitrary and capricious. If companies really have good reasons for their policy then perhaps they should explain those reasons...maybe, just maybe, if companies who have this policy (and especially those who suddenly make this policy after not ever having one before) would explain; employees would be more accepting and less likely to look to the legislature to address what many see as an overreach by their employers to control their private lives and their private property.

My apologies...I don't know about you but I was always taught to stand up to bullies...when someone calls me "selfish"; claims I "can't comprehend" or can't discuss things "like an adult" (just to name a few of the insults that have been directed at me) I am not generally going to just let them go unanswered. I suppose I should but it's difficult to just "stand here" (metaphorically speaking of course) and not respond. However, I'm "unsubscribing" from the thread so if he continues to insult I at least won't read them. Have a nice day!

What a you are. ROTFLMAO You need to look in the mirror if you want to see someone with the inability to discuss something like an adult.

You quoted my post but did you read it? I said... I'd say that possibly killing everyone at the facility would probably fall into that "demonstrable negative impact" I was talking about. What "privilege" have I bought? The only right I've talked about is my "right" to control what is in my private property (in this case, my vehicle) - that as long as what I have is not otherwise illegal that it's no one's business what is or isn't in my vehicle - if there is valid suspicion that I do have something illegal then it's a matter for the police to address. I do wonder just how "dangerous" a firearm truly is to your storage tanks while it's sitting inside of a vehicle; probably in a storage compartment and perhaps even unloaded...I mean, firearms don't generally load themselves and pull their own trigger. And, if a negligent discharge in your parking could really kill everyone; what are you going to do about all those cars that drive by that business every day, many of which likely has a firearm inside - it seems like they would present even more of a danger than an firearm that's just sitting in an empty vehicle.

I disagree...we can solve it; we just won't...we have to be willing to do what has to be done. I'm not saying it's easy or inexpensive but it absolutely CAN be done.

I generally like the wording of this - it seems to takes a good bit of the wind out of the sales of the "employer liability" argument. I really do wish they didn't just limit this to HCP holders and just generalize it so that any otherwise legally carried firearm could be stored in the vehicle (i.e. a hunter going hunting after his shift, etc). I suspect, as I said in the other thread, that it's limited to HCP holders to make make it easier to pass/negate some of the arguments against.

I didn't mean it that way...we aren't responsible for Mexico, Mexicans are responsible for what's happened and is happening in Mexico. Our lack of balls is inrefusing to deal with the problem.

Dismissal, yes. Mockery? No; an observation based on past experience with you in other threads

I comprehend quite well (of course you often seem to accuse anyone who doesn't agree with you as having a comprehension problem). ROTFLMAO

It hasn't always been that way nor does it have to stay that way; only our country's lack of balls to address the problem allows it to continue.

NRA is unlikely to support it because they've got their own garbage bill on the table that isn't going to see the light of day.

What's absurd are your arguments. No employer...in fact no ONE has a right to know or control what's in my vehicle...period.

We already tried the amnesty and close the borders - it failed...all we got were a lot of illegals who were suddenly made "legal" while those who were trying to follow the law got screwed. This isn't about whether their wanting to be here is understandable; it is. Of course the border has to be secured. We don't have to "round up" anyone; if they have no work here...no income...no social services to depend on...they'll go home on their own (as well they should). These people may be "nice" people...they may be "good workers"...they may be all that and more but they are first and foremost, criminals...they are criminals by coming here...they are criminals by staying here and they are criminals by working here (and that doesn't even touch the crimes they commit like robbery, rape, drunken driving, and even worse)...the "cost" is in letting them be here and stay here. Either we are a nation of laws or not...a nation is defined by its language, by its culture and by its borders if we aren't going to maintain them then we don't have a "country"; we are simply occupying land - if we continue to tolerate the presence of millions of illegals then all the angst and talk bout "Second Amendment Rights" and the "Constitution" is nothing but dust in the wind.

All illegal aliens should be gone...PERIOD. Easiest way is to truly start enforcing the laws against hiring an illegal...perp-walk a few CEO's/business owners on the 6PM news and I'd bet you would see the jobs drying up...no jobs and I'd be they'll leave on their own (just like they came here on their own). Yes; there would be a significant impact...much less strain on social services, school systems, less crime, less drunk driving, more employment for real citizens.