RobertNashville

It's sounding like your CD drive is either dead or dying. Even if it won't autorun you should be able to navigate to your CD Drive (as mentioned above) and see the files there and manually start one...it could still be a software problem but I'd bet the drive itself.

I did say the question was rhetorical didn't I? And all our "talking" about all that's wrong doesn't do much "walking" either.

I should be tired of Black Ops by March.

Do you have any idea what flashes in my mind when I hear (or read) any one (including myself) pontificate about what the constitution (federal or state) says about something? I think..."if it's really that cut and dried, if it's really so obvious and easy to understand,why do we have to pontificate about it". By that I mean, if, as you maintain, Tennessee's HCP process is truly "unconstitutional" under Tennessee's constitution and obviously so, how did the law get passed in the first place and why hasn't it already been overturned in court? The foregoing is a rhetorical question...I don't want to get into a fight about the constitution as they are laborious and at the end of the day, pretty worthless on an internet forum.

I'm planning to stop by on Sunday

I'm don't see "property rights" as being "man made"; at least no more man made than any other right. U think that we need to remember that it isn't the "property" that has rights; it's the person that owns that property that has rights...I think our founders would say that the concept of property and the ability to own and control what goes on is just as as important as the right to life (and the right to defend it). At least some scholars would argue, I think correctly, that the very basis for the American Revolution was about property rights and a lot of people died in the cause to secure them. I would suggest that all rights, if they are truly a right at all, are equal...that not one is more important than another and that all must be equally cherished and protected or all become nothing but words or vague philosophical concepts.

Some business owners may feel they make more money by catering to those who don't like to be around people who are armed - we may think that's stupid but we may be wrong and the business owner may be right (from a business perspective). That is, after all, part of the free enterprise system.

I just don't any logic behind the (apparent) opinion that a business owner should have to ask an armed person to leave his place of business when he's already "asked" them once to not be there in the first place by virtue of signage. Iif we are going to get on our high-horse about rights why do some seem to think that the have a right to ignore a business owner's stated wishes and ignore the signage and only have to leave if they are asked to leave a second time?

I've said about 10 times (at least) in this thread that I think the current law/punishment is much more harsh that is needs to be or should be...I don't know how to say it any plainer than that. I'm fine with making the crime/punishment a simple "extension" of the "trespassing" statutes already on the books. However, if you've walked past signage that clearly tells you that your with your firearm aren't welcome, that should be enough to trigger (no pun intended) the "crime" because at that point you've knowingly entered property where you know or should have known you weren't welcome (meaning you've already committed a trespass at that point).

Your line of reasoning sounds a bit familiar to me...sort of like "I had to abandon my free market principles in order to save the free market" as stated by our last President. I'm just not going to take that road...the second amendment is not the only right that needs to be protected and respected.

I don't think a business owner should have to ask an armed customer/patron to leave when they've already asked that person not to be there in the first place. If a business owner states, by signage, that you with your weapon are not welcome then you are infringing on that business owner's right if you chose to ignore the sign aren't you?

While I like the goal, I'm not sure that firearm owners/enthusiasts should use such tactics just because we, as a society, have allowed government entities to grossly overstep their boundaries with such idiocy as mandating "smoke free" restaurants or "trans-fat" free oil or making salt illegal. We need to be turning back the clock on this kind or ridiculous and overbearing behavior, not doing anything that goes along with it.

Please don’t put words in my mouth. Could you point out where, in my example, that I used the phrase “significant restrictions†or any phrase that remotely conveys the same meaning as such? If you’ll look closely, you’ll see I actually used the phrase “some restrictions†and that restrictions on rights should not be “capricious or unreasonableâ€â€¦insinuating that I said restrictions can be “significant†is almost 180 degrees opposite of what I actually said. I’m not going to spend time looking for case law…if you are an attorney and/or have resources and time to do so feel free. I simply state that cities/municipalities/government entities can legally and do put restrictions and requirements on groups/people who wish to assemble such as to protest. Of course, if you own a piece of property and want to have the KKK come and hold a rally/protest you don’t really need anyone’s permission for that…try to do the same thing at Legislative Square or Bi-Continental Park or almost any other piece of public property in any city of any size, I’m confident that the KKK would face some restrictions as would the Southern Baptists or a gay rights group. My point was and is that such restrictions don’t mean their right to assemble and to protest is being unnecessarily infringed or restricted. Again, when did I say that they didn’t make mistakes? For that matter, when did I specifically mention the Supreme Court? All I said was that I doubt even conservative judges would fine Tennessee’s permit process unconstitutional…whether such a decision would be “right†or “wrong†is really a different issue (although I don't think it would be a a "wrong" decision). Actually, I don’t think the second amendment deals at all with a person carrying a firearm for their personal protection…we use it that way but I don’t think that was the right the founders were trying to protect. The Constitution isn't hard to understand and, as you noted above, sometimes courts get it "wrong"...sometimes, private citizens get it wrong too. As for Tennessee’s constitution, you my think the HCP process for sure runs afoul of it but I think you are completely wrong. I would suggest that our constitution clearly allows the legislature to place reasonable restrictions on who can possess arms and who can carry arms "in public". While that doesn't in an way require a HCP process, I see nothing in our constitution that would prevent it either and I doubt any court in Tennessee would find out current HCP process to be unconstitutional under Tennessee's constitution.

I like that idea but it doesn't go far enough...I'd say that we should also have a mandate that every person not already pursuing formal education must take at least an annual, high school level class teaching basic English and pass a test before that person is allowed to voice their opinion.

Yes it does but I don't think anyone was trying to say otherwise. The law and history has clearly allowed for at least some restrictions on various rights even in the absence of a crime; at least so long as they aren't capricious or unreasonable...we have the right to peacefully assemble for the purpose of protesting but that doesn't mean a government entity (city, municipality, etc) has to let anyone assemble at any time in any place they might want...they can restrict such activities to some extent without violating your right to assemble. I've said many times that I'm all for "Constitutional carry" but I do not think most judges, even conservative ones, would find either the permit process in general nor the specific requirements of the state of Tennessee (class, background check, etc.) as being either overly burdensome or unconstitutional; inconvenient and irritating, yes.

If I can be there that Saturday I will but I can't say for sure if that date is open for me or not yet...I should know in a few days.

Yeah? Well I've had forum admins working for me!

I think we are confusing each other. Yes, WEP sucks; WPA and really, WPA2 is much better. Of course, with this or any security measure of any kind, nothing is foolproof; all we can do is to use tools that making breaching our "security" as difficult as possible. And in any case, Kim is still hot.

Yeah...I don't think "offensive" systems would be very smart. I think my weakest point is going to be my doors (mostly thinking about "home invasion" type entries here)...making that type of entry much more difficult is high on my "to do" list this year...I think I've got most other things covered about as well as is practical.

I see...said the blind man.

Actually, ...I hold a Master's in IT so I do know one or two things about this stuff (at least I did yesterday) and besides, David, I WAS MAKING A JOKE!

You are arguing a point that I'm not disagreeing with or at least wasn't trying to discuss (I also don't really need you to explain the obvious to me; at least not this time ). Several here, and think that includes you, have either stated directly or at least alluded to the "HCP" process not being "constitutional". I'm simply trying to point out, perhaps poorly, that restricting gun possession to those who aren't convicted felons, etc. isn't in the Constitution (Federal or state) either but we have those restrictions just the same and think most of us probably think that at least some of those restrictions are a good idea. All I'm suggesting here is that the HCP process is simply a logical extension of the process that gave us restrictions on who can't legally possess a firearm. I'm not saying that I like the HCP process; I'm not even saying that I think it's a good idea nor do I think it really does what the politicians want everyone to think it does. I'd like to see us have "constitutional carry" BUT, I think we need the HCP process right now if only for reciprocity purposes. I'm only saying that I don't see a lot of difference between the HCP process/requirements and any other, perhaps more widely accepted (even among the firearm enthusiast community) restrictions that have existed for years. I also simply wanted to make the point that the fact that TN has an HCP process doesn't render us a non-friendly state to firearms as the OP's first post seemed to be implying or at least questioning.

It doesn't but I didn't say it did nor was that my point. All I was trying (apparently poorly) to point out was that we as a society have decided that certain restrictions CAN be place on certain rights. As a society, we've decided that felons, for example,should not be allowed to legally possess a firearm but that restriction isn't in the Constitution, state or federal. The "permit" process isn't much more than an extension of that is it? Whether felons should be restricted or whether we should or shouldn't have a permit process is somewhat of a different argument and in any case, to get back to the OP's original question; I don't think that the fact that we have a permit process means that we aren't a "pro carry" state.

Do you believe that anyone should be able to possess and carry a weapon anytime...anywhere...with no restrictions and no requirements on them (convicted violent felons, wife-beaters, etc. etc)? I could be wrong but I suspect you don't. I suspect that most people agree that people with a violent history or under a certain age can have their right restricted. While I agree in principle that we should all be free to go armed without a "permit", society has decided that, at least after proper adjudication, a person can have their rights suspended either temporarily or permanently; even the right to "life".

Not according to Kim Komando and wile you may or may not be as knowledgeable as her you'll never be that good looking so all things considered, I'll trust her advice