RobertNashville

This is the second year without my Mom here to celebrate with.   My Mom passed away last year on May 6th...however, my siblings and I were so busy with the funeral and family that "Mother's Day" that year didn't really register; this year I feel it.   Here is something that helped me today that was posted by a friend of mine on FB...   Your Mother is always with you. She's the whisper of the leaves as you walk down the street. She's the smell of certain foods you remember, flowers you pick, the fragrance of life itself. She's the cool hand on your brow when you're not feeling well. She's your breath in the air on a cold winter's day. She is the sound of the rain that lulls you to sleep, the colors of a rainbow; she is Christmas morning. Your Mother lives inside your laughter. She's the place you came from, your first home, and she's the map you follow with every step you take. She's your first love, your first friend, even your first enemy, but nothing on earth can separate you. Not time, not space... not even death.

For what it's worth and it's just my opinion, I'd not wast money on an inexpensive safe - I would wait until I had saved up enough to buy a good one (and while I was very happy with my Browning safe I'd probably go with Liberty).     A good safe costs money for a reason and you truly do get what you pay for and if you buy inexpensive and/or too small you'll end up regretting it.   Just food for thought.   Oh and you can't beat the Safe House (I bought mine from the Safe House in Nashville; I assume it's the same company as in Knoxville). :)

I've heard conflicting information about the EMP effect on a car's system...frankly, considering the amount of computer/electronic circuiterty in modern vehicles I'd be surprised if an EMP wouldn't disable (or at least significantly affect) vehicles.  I would think a solar event as happened with the Carrington Event could do a number on a vehicles' electrical system.

Wow...one of those things you just would never think would happen!  Glad no one was hurt (except the SUV)!  :)

I can't help you with your decision but my did your post bring back some good memories!  My uncle, who was actually only 7 years older that I was, had a German Short haired Pointer named "Blitz" when I was in my early teens...he was a fabulous dog that my uncle trained for hunting (mostly pheasant at that time).  The ARE very energetic dogs and need LOTS of action (which between myself and my uncle we supplied in abundance).   Anyway...good luck with your choice and the new family member (whenever you take the plunge)!  :)

There are things I miss about Ohio as well but I've never once regretted my decision to move to Tennessee (nearly 18 years ago). :)

Isn't it always one or two key details (or even how we handle ourselves after a shooting) that can turn a legitimate self-defense homicide into a homicide that garners the shooter a murder charge?   I was fortunate to attend the free seminar in December (2012) given by Mr. Cain (Cain Law Firm) and I then took Massad Ayoob's two-day class on rules of engagement last year. One of the things I loved about both (and especially Massad's given he had two days) was all the actual examples of cases which really brought home the truth of how quickly and how badly a good SD shooting can go based on one or two little details.  This case seemed pretty much a slam dunk as a murder to me but yeah...change one or two details and it could certainly have gone the other way.

Which is as it should be...we have the right to stop the threat; not kill.  I'm afraid there are more than a few who don't truly understand the difference.

The entire issue of the alleged infringement of property rights of property used for business purposes (i.e a parking lot for customers, employees, etc.) when a state forbids the owner/controller of a parking lot from forbidding the presence of arms in a vehicle parked there really rests on just one issue; is there demonstrable harm to the owner of the parking lot!   To the best of my knowledge, and I've followed this issue for some time now, NO parking lot owner has ever been able to actually show any harm meaning no infringement on their rights to the property. In fact, the excuses I've heard make about as much sense as those gun-grabbers/haters when they start claiming that there will be "wild west shootouts" and "blood in the streets" whenever some expansion of firearm rights are proposed (such as the so-called "guns in bars" bill).   Until someone can show actual harm all these arguments are pointless aside from the intellectual stimulation they provide; not that I don't enjoy them.  ;)

The "good" is that those who can otherwise legally possess and transport arms for their protection (or any other reason) can do so and not have to travel without the protection such arms offer.  Contrast that "good" with the absolute lack of any demonstrable infringement to the entity that owns the parking lot and the logic of laws that protect the contents of a person's vehicle is obvious.  Further, in many states a person's vehicle IS considered as much their "home" as the physical structure they call "home".   As to the "lockers"; there is a difference and an obvious one between a person's vehicle and the vehicle's contents sitting in a public parking lot and vs a "locker" that is both not the individual's property and situated not in a parking lot but (presumably) inside of the business's physical building(s).  The government telling the parking lot owner that they cannot dictate what can be in a person's vehicle is in no way an infringement on the parking lot owner's "right" (which is what the courts have held). The bottom line is that none of the businesses that have sued over this issue of firearms in vehicles in parking lots have ever been able to demonstrate how they are harmed and/or their rights infringed by these laws - I would suggest that is because there simply is no real infringement and if there is no infringement then all the angst about the parking lot owner's "rights" is what my Dad used to call "cat's fur".   That said, I fear this thread is getting far off course...these laws don't even effect those in Tennessee...have a nice day!

Yuup and no employer should have the power to control the contents of a privately owned vehicle any more than the contents of someone's home (or someone's mind).  Further, we aren't just talking about employer's with this issue either...we are talking about parking lots where the public (be they customers or employees) is/are invited to be. Our country has, for at least 100 years or more, treated property used for business purposes differently than property used for private purposes in order to maintain a civil society which is actually one of the few necessary functions of a government. Another of those few functions of government is to seek a balance of rights when there is a conflict; that is, when one "right" (property rights in this case) comes up against the right to arms. In the case of parking lot owners by law, not being able to forbid legally transported arms inside of a vehicle parked in the parking lot owner's lot, there is clearly no infringement on the rights of the parking lot owner (as the courts have consistently found as these laws have been challenged).

I agree.  On a different forum I once had someone call me names I couldn't repeat here just because I wasn't willing to quit my job and throw away a 20 year full pension to "protest" the fact that my employer didn't allow firearms on their property.  There are jobs and there are careers and while the two are similar they aren't necessarily interchangeable...more to the point; each person should do what he/she believe is best for them (which I think that's what liberty is supposed to be about).  ;) 

I love dogs (as you can probably tell from my pic) but you've gotten some good advice here...I strongly suggest you think about your priorities and whether they are aligned correctly.  If you are an adult then it's time to be in your own place and to be blunt, if you can't afford your own place then you really shouldn't be looking for another pet.   I'm sure your dog is lonely but most dogs adapt to their owners being away and getting another dog it no guarantee that they will hit it off and be friends; you may just make the situation worse.

I think suggesting that someone just get a different job is really rather ridiculous. We have more people out of work in this country today than any other time in the country's history - anyone who currently has a job had damn well better keep it. There is nothing wrong with looking around and keeping options open but there is more to a career and finding the right position than whether a company allows firearms on their property.

Some people collect firearms because of their history or mechanical perfection or beauty and/oor various/similar reasons.   Some people own guns only as tools for protection, hunting, etc.   Some people do both - I have enough "tools" and I have no problem selling them or buying them as. I also have a few that I have just for the pleasure of owning them and will likely NEVER sell (and intend to pass them down to family when I take the "long walk" to whatever comes next.

I decided not to answer the poll because none of the choices "fit" my circumstances...I carry as often as I'm able which is most of the time but circumstances (mostly where I'm going to be) often dictate how often that is.   Also, if I'm going someplace where I believe I NEED to be armed then I don't go there! ;)

And in the case of BHO; they aren't prevented from running for or holding office either!!! ;)

I'm a little behind although catching up with my reading now.   I caught up with all the 299 Days series then went back to "Holding Their Own"...as soon as I finish the current book in "Holding Their Own" I'm going to start the Carrington Effect!

Good changes and as I'm currently residing in Savannah GA for a while I'll get to take advantage of the new laws! ;)

The way I see it; if you committed a felony that is serious enough that your right to keep and bear arms is taken away forever then you ought to be locked up forever.  If your crime isn't serious enough to warrant a life sentence then your 2A rights should be fully restored once your sentence has been served!

Can't say I disagree; unfortunately.  :(

The legislature can come back into session specifically to override the veto if I recall correctly...also if I recall correctly that's exactly what happened with the first (or maybe it was the second or both) "guns in bars" bill(s). That said, I rather doubt that the legislature we have now (at least the leadership) cares enough to come back into session.

I am forever thankful that we have an "Easter" to celebrate and for all of God's blessings (even though I can't think of anything I've done to justify receiving them; which I suppose is rather the point isn't it!). :)

While TGO is an obvious exception; many, many forums have simply ceased to be a place where there is much activity any longer...most especially true on fast moving subjects. TFA does most of its communicating through its email distribution list and through Facebook because that tends to be the more efficient way to reach people quickly. I belong to many different forums covering many different subjects that in years past have been extremely active yet probably half or more of them today have extremely low traffic.   The "Republican Leadership" has been and continues to be the problem. I was surprised the bill passed the senate...I was surprised it made it to a vote in the senate at all for that matter and as long as we have this current leadership (Gov, Lt Gov and Speaker) it's unlikely we'll see ANY decent firearm related legislation out of the Tennessee legislature.  The only way I see that we can get permit-less carry, open carry, etc. out of this leadership would be with some massive demonstration such as we had with the horn honkers (that I am proud to say I was a part of).  However, when I look at the discussion in this and related threads and I have doubts that there is enough cohesiveness among firearm enthusiasts to get that sort of demonstration going.

I go around and around in my head with this issue myself...I've hunted with a firearm since I was big enough to fire a 410 shotgun...I've owned my own 12ga since I was 12 (and I think it was still legal then :) )...I've owned and do own many firearms and I believe in training and try to do at least two major classes per year as well as my own training regiment. I really DO understand how important it is for someone to KNOW how to use a firearm properly and safely and how dangerous a person can be to themselves and other innocent people if they DON'T KNOW.   HOWEVER...   I ALSO believe that people have a basic, natural/God-given right to carry ARMS for their own protection and for the protection of other innocents...that includes but is not limited to firearms. Our Constitution recognizes and protects that right and there is nothing in our Constitution that requires "training" to bear arms any more than the Constitution requires a certain level of IQ and/or education before being allowed to exercise (or not exercise) their chosen religion or to engage in free speech. So...I am left to conclude that "permit-less" carry is what our Constitution demands and that ALL laws restricting the right to keep and bear arms IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL.