RobertNashville

Thanks for the replies, fellows...about 20 years ago I was a volunteer paramedic with our local Fire/EMS (Port Orchard, Washington) so yeah...I do know they can get in...I guess the little bit longer it might take is probably less risk than a home invasion. I've no illusions about "stopping" a home invasion event; just slowing it down enough to allow me to get to one of my weapons....I suspect that even slowing it down from one kick at the door to taking two or three could be the difference between gun in hand and still reaching for it when the bad guys come in.

I've got an additional question for anyone who might have some thoughts to share. In making it more difficult for an intruder to break in through my front or back door (I'm especially thinking of a "home invasion" type of event here)...how difficult might be "too" difficult? By that I mean, as a single man (no wife or children at home to let "good" people in or call for help; if I were to need emergency help (for example - I can "call" for medial or fire or LE through my monitored alarm remote that I keep with me all the time) so EMS, etc. could be summoned but if they can't easily get in because of efforts I've made to secure my doors, could I be placing myself in danger more than if I didn't secure my doors? I know EMS, Fire, Police could eventually get in (through the windows if nothing else) but that will take more time. Maybe this question doesn't really have an answer but I think the issue is worth of some thought and/or discussion.

Single and, apparently, no life to speak of either if you have time to play all those games.

Yes; there is or at least, that's my understanding. I haven't been to the Mufreesboro show since about last October so maybe it's time to stop by again...it's all of five miles from my house!

I don't watch very many commercials as I DVR everything and skip through them but I did happen to catch a commercial for Homefront last night...first one I've seen. The game looks great...I thought they said in stores on March 11th instead of the 8th but either way I'm going to buy it!

I would suspect that those are just part of the problems with a reality show, at least one that involves shooting! You can re-film a lot of sequences when it comes to the extraneous stuff but when they get to the actually challenges they can't just keep running it over and over again until they get the footage they want. They could if it was all fake but I do think the competition part is "real". As for Athena, yeah...it might have been better for her had they shortened the stock but I"m not sure that's even realistic/possible for a Tommy Gun (not that I'm expert with the weapon by any means). Even it that could be done, I'm not sure it's fair to give special accommodations to any one competitor...the whole point of the show is proficiency with weapons of all kinds and from different eras.

I was hoping that the parking lot bill would be discussed at last night's TFA meeting (it was a great meeting) but it was only mentioned in passing except that it is being carried through the senate to acquire a sponsor in the senate and that, with the current legislative makeup, it does have a decent chance of passage. That said, whether this thread is closed or not; it won't stop folks from updating the bill's progress (or lack of progress) as it moves along. That aside, I though OP's could close their own threads - maybe that's only possible in the WTB/WTS sections?

Red team lost and Athena got eliminated...I liked her but she definitely didn't perform well in either of the two challenges. Dodging the paint balls looked like it would be fun but I'm not sure it came across well on TV. Loved the Tommy Guns...got to be about the coolest gun ever made.

Episode Two Tonight...I predict that the Red team will win the challenges and that Blue will once again have to eliminate someone. Drama aside, the previews look like this will be a fun episode to watch!

I use a Hoverround but I change the electric motor for a small-black Chevy - you likely won't trip over it but you may get run over and wonder what happened.

I remember you've said that but I don't agree that business have such rights (for reasons explained in prior posts). Moreover, I'm suggesting that the fact that thousands if not tens of thousands of pages of government rules, regulations, mandates that control what businesses can and cannot do and how they can do it (including rules that affect a business's use of its property) is rather stark evidence that such inalienable rights don't exist for businesses; at least not in a practical way. You've acknowledged that such government rules and regulations exist...you also claim that businesses can "write their own rules"...the acknowledgment and the subsequent claim simply can't both be true. Whatever "rule writing" a business can do STOPS at whatever point the government says it stops. Yes it is a different discussion. Discussions about "should"/"shouldn't" or "right"/"wrong" is entirely different than "can" or "can't". I'm discussing "can" or "can't"; the fact that you want to discuss "right" or "wrong" doesn't make the two discussions identical. I did answer the question but I'll expand it for you...the answer is that government and society treats private property used for private purposes differently than it treats property used for business (and especially so if it's open to the public at large). So yes, that means that I, on my private property used for private purposes can write rules for guests on my private property but no, businesses/business property can only write "rules" until those rules conflict with what the government mandates beyond which point the business's rules are moot. I'm not asking for a "right"...I'm not saying it is a "right"...I simply say that the State of Tennessee has the power and authority to mandate that businesses allow firearms in their employees private vehicles even while those vehicles are parked in the company's parking lots. Do yo deny that the state has that power? Yes..I do want the state to do so because I want to see our (including my) carry opportunities expanded but I haven't said nor have I claimed it's a right. I never claimed that I had a "right" to carry inside a bar/restaurant where alcohol was served but I did want the state to make that possible for HCP holders just as I want to see carry opportunities expanded/restrictions on carry reduced.

Watching them was gay. Watching them and actually liking them is even more gay. However....admitting on this forum that you watched them and liked them took some real b***s so I guess it evens out.

Maybe most businesses have more important things to worry about but I'm not sure that's true of DRM...he seems to be very worried about this issue.

There you go again...calling people selfish...but I suppose you'll deny this occurrence just like you have the others. ROTFLMAO

Proven? You've made that claim but claiming isn't proof...claiming is just claiming. A business is free to do what it wants to do only until the government says "no"...then it's the government's way or the business isn't in business. And as I have stated, private property used for private purposes is treated differently by society and by government. Whether those things are "right" or "wrong" is a different discussion...if the government actually said that theaters must allow in "outside food" then the theater would have to allow outside food; that is no different in concept or application than government banning smoking in most restaurants. I didn't say I had a "right" to be on an employer's property nor did I say I had a "right" to have a gun on their property...what I've said and what I'm saying is that if the State of Tennessee believes it is in the best interest of the public, then is has both the power and the authority to mandate that employers allow its employees to have firearms in their private vehicles while those vehicles are parked in parking lots provided for employees to park in.

Frankly, I have a difficult time understanding how you can correctly acknowledge that government places rules and regulations on businesses and on business property while concurrently claim that businesses can "write the rules" for its property. I would submit; a business can only do all those things you mention and can only "write the rules" until the government tells the business that it can't do those things and the government hands down the rules. I've never said that I have a right to be on a business's property and if you think that's what I've said then maybe I haven't explained myself well. What I've tried to get across is that if the state tells FedEx, for example, that, for the people it employs, it can not deny those employees from keeping their legally carried firearms in their vehicles while those vehicles are parked in FedEx's parking lot; then FedEx has only two or three choices...it could fire all its workers (not very practical), it can move its operations to another state (a long term solution at best and only so long as the state they move to doesn't enact similar legislation) or; it can comply EDIT: Well...I guess it could comply and sue the state to try and have the law ruled unconstitutional but that doesn't seem very practical either.

I think you are misconstruing the argument a bit. I don't believe that folks are arguing that EEOC (or other such laws) laws are directly correlated and/or equal to to laws regarding carrying a weapon...I think the point being made is that governments (local, state and federal) can and do put rules and restrictions and demands on businesses and the property they operate on all the time and in many different ways. And...such government entities do so in spite of any (real or imagined) "private property rights". You can proclaim all day long that businesses have "private property rights" but if governments can legally impose these laws/restrictions, etc. on businesses then it follows that those same government bodies can legally tell a business that it must allow employees to be able to keep their otherwise legally carried firearms in their vehicles even while the vehicle is parked in that business's parking lot. If it is truly not legal (Constitutional) for governments to make such demands on business/business property then it begs the question of why businesses don't challenge these demands and win. For several reasons, I believe that governments do have the power to put demands, rules, laws, restrictions, etc) on businesses...that such power is legal under our Constitution (federal and state). If that is true then the argument should be on whether or not the government "should" put this "parking lot" requirement on businesses...I think any argument about whether a government "can" is moot.

I've been told otherwise by John Harris but perhaps I misunderstood. Of course, whether I misunderstood Mr. Harris or not or whether I understood and Mr. Harris is wrong; there is no denying that DAs can do all sorts of stupid if they want to do so badly enough.

I do have a problem with people who insult me and/or insult others and then deny what they said. As to replying to your posts, well.....

I replied to your PM.

I am not confused...your opinion is not "fact" no matter how often or how loudly you say otherwise. Further, I know an insult when I read one and the examples of your insults in this thread are a few of many spread over several of the threads you've participated in lately. Any of us, if we aren't careful, can slip into the pool of denigrating comments toward those we disagree with...you, however, seem to jump into that pool purposely, often and quite willfully.

No PM needed. I would also point out that you were the one who brought it up!

Well said, but I would expect that such logic is going to be lost on some here. The good news is that this bill (or at least something like it) has a legitimate chance of passage and becoming law despite the pontifications about businesses' "property rights" even to the extent of trying to control the contents of the privately owned vehicles of their employees parked in their parking lots...employees, I might add, who have been requested to work there.

No...I'm not wrong at all...you just don't like what I said. Perhaps you are the one confused at least it would seem that you are if you can't tell the difference between something being "wrong" and someone holding a different position than you hold. You are also apparently a bit forgetful since you earlier called HCP holders selfish than said you didn't and now you are back to calling others selfish again and even lazy. Is your argument so weak that you can't make your argument without insulting people or is insulting people just something you regularly do?

As has been already said multiple times, you don't need a HCP to own firearms and to have them on your property (or to transport them for the most part). More importantly, my understanding of Tennessee law is that inside your home, you have the absolute presumption that an uninvited intruder IS a threat and you can defend yourself with deadly force. I would add, however, that common sense is your friend here...3AM and a guy in dark cloths and a ski mask is different than 3PM and a guy carrying a tool box and wearing what you might expect a plumber to wear.