strickj

And I thank you for saying your grandmother worked for an asylum. Seriously. People are amazed when you show them that the stories horror movies are made of are truths that went on through the '70s. No one knows a slave. Hardly no one knows someone that was in a Nazi camp anymore. I'd bet that almost everyone in this country knows someone that was either in an asylum or worked for one.

[quote name='RobertNashville' timestamp='1353445069' post='848863'] In fairness and in case anyone hasn’t figured it out yet, my last couple of posts have been intentionally facetious to the point of ridiculousness and it was to make a point. You have beaten me over the head about how the Constitution doesn’t apply to private property and as such, a person has “no rights” when that person is on someone else’s private property. I have found that carrying a stated position to the most extreme possible outcome is a valid way to examine the validity of the position and this “you don’t have any rights when you are on private property” position, carried to its extreme would mean that a property owner could do anything that property owner wanted to any person who happened to be standing on the private property owner’s property (even if the property owner specifically invited that person to be there). When looked at in that way, I think the problem with the position becomes clear. I know you aren't going to agree but maybe, someone else will at least think about it. Obviously, at least I hope it’s obvious, I don’t believe that an employer can control the thoughts of an employee or not even allow that employee to take a breath just because that employee is on the employer’s property nor do I believe you think so. I also don't believe that asylums, private or public, were good things...my grandmother worked in one for many years and I'm VERY familiar with them. My point is, that the position that “you have no rights on someone else’s private property” is simply not true. [/quote] And that is still true. Choice/not a civil right violation - Working someplace willfully and having your right to self defense taken away. Willingly participating in untested and potentially deadly medical procedures and drugs (this is a profitable business). Willingly being locked in a cage and tortured (lots of fetish freaks do this everyday). Not a choice/civil right violations - Being committed against your will to an insane asylum based on race, disability, etc. Unwillingly being subjected to snake doctory. Unwillingly being subjected to torture. Again, it is a choice to work someplace and to carry a gun. That is not can not be compared to civil right laws and violations.

[quote name='RobertNashville' timestamp='1353442595' post='848845'] Well, if the asylums were government owned then what they did was wrong...if they were privately owned and on private property then it's okay because people have no rights on private property (since the Constitution doesn't apply). It follows, then, that the ADA is horribly wrong because it's a [i][b]HUGE[/b][/i] infringement on private property and we all know, private property rights supersede all other. [/quote] People were committed to insane asylums by both the government and citizens. They were operated by bith government and private orgs. We are talking about Nazi camp stuff here. Basic civil rights. [img]http://www.brutalashell.com/images/dullyicepick450.jpg[/img] [img]http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_-atekyrQisw/S8pxy0uYHWI/AAAAAAAAGvE/Q2goEn-d12M/s1600/Utica+Crib.jpg[/img] I am going to tell you to step softly here. I can certainly appreciate sarcasm, even at my expense, but there's a fine line here and you are crossing it. You are using sarcasm at my expense to equate the choice of carrying a gun on private property to the horrid practices of sticking citizens in insane asylums, being locked in cages, lobotomy, isolation and other civil right violations. [quote name='RobertNashville' timestamp='1353442332' post='848843'] Yes; I've changed my stance and I've seen the light!!! [i][b]The Constitution does not apply to private property [/b][/i]and property property rights supersede all others including that pesky "life and liberty" [b]B[/b]ovine [b]S[/b]catoloty!! [/quote] You are known to participate in debates with members, withdrawing from them, while continually pushing the buttons of those that you told to leave you alone. When those members push back, you report their post and complain. You and I have debated in this thread. Nothing personal to me and hopefully to you as well. But you have asked me to leave you alone now. And now you are coming back to mock me while adding nothing to discussion at all.

[quote name='RobertNashville' timestamp='1353441110' post='848830'] Isn't that what I just said... Even when I agree with you, you still want to disagree...sigh. [/quote] I'm sorry. Have you changed your stance on this issue? Do not placate me. Your post is nothing more than a sarcastic attempt to mock my stance.

[quote name='barewoolf' timestamp='1353424179' post='848731'] Your constant claims thats it's offensive offend me, lol. (kidding) I made absolutely NO reference to your physical attributes or limitations. I mean no disrespect to you or anyone else, here or anywhere else, but my argument makes as much sense to me(and at least a few others) as yours does to you. Accept that an keep your emotions out of it. They have no place in a rational discussion. AND, my right to bear arms HAS been infringed, and it was the government that enabled that. Since your brought up the wheelchair, let me ask you another question. Your wheelchair is a tool is it not? A tool that enables you do do something that you may not ordinarily be able to do, or do well, correct? Remember a while back, when wheelchair users were even more severely limited in what they could do in public buildings and spaces? [/quote] Well, yes. A wheelchair is an inanimate object and a tool. But, it is not something I can change nor is it a choice. No more than it's a choice for you to be a white man or a brown woman with down syndrome. Carrying a gun is a choice. No different than wearing a hat or a pair of sunglasses. [quote] Now a few years ago, the ADA act was passed that really changed that. Was THAT wrong? I think it would be by using YOUR logic. After all, the wheelchair is simply an inanimate object, right?[/quote] Since the beginning of this country, people with disabilities of all sorts were crammed into insane asylums. They were not even granted the most basic of rights. ADA was the direct result of the stopping of this practice. Was that wrong?

[quote name='GKar' timestamp='1353421638' post='848717'] Slight, but I think important, correction: the bill as proposed would allow storage of personal property within a vehicle (also personal property) that is "operated or parked in a location WHERE IT IS OTHERWISE PERMITTED TO BE." Seems that language clearly contemplates the owner/entity/possessor has otherwise allowed vehicles access to the location...which may mitigate the "no rights to the property" idea. If, however, you are saying that the employee has no rights WHILE ON an employer's property... [/quote] [quote name='RobertNashville' timestamp='1353429323' post='848761'] Don't you know? Didn't anybody tell you? Isn't it obvious? You have [i][b]NO[/b][/i] rights when you are standing on "private property"...you don't even have the right to be there (even if you were invited to be there) and in fact, you don't even have the right to think or draw breath unless the property owner says it's okay. Property rights supersede all others. Now, that language isn't in the Constitution but I guess that doesn't matter. [/quote] You do not have the right to be on private property nor do you have any rights while on that property. If you have ever worked retail then you have had your basic right to defend yourself removed. "Do not resist. Give them what they want." is going to be the policy of most establishments. If you do fight back, you will be fired. remember, the Constitution only guarantees that your rights will not be taken by the government.

[quote name='Worriedman' timestamp='1353363226' post='848407'] Simply put, Fed Ex, UT Board of Regents and the TN Chamber make this impossible to do. Simplest thing would be to get the Legislature to repeal 39-17-1307, (which is unconstitutional on its face), at which time the Legislature would be required to prove empirically that allowing non felonious Citizens to have possession of their weapons would in fact increase crime, (which they can not do) but Big Business will not allow it. [/quote] Restaurant carry was the same way. Lots of open resistance. One year after GA passed it, TN did. same with park carry. Seems like the smarter move would be to push for removing the criminal aspect of signs than pushing for this bill. Seems most gun owners are supportive and willing to follow every other state on this issue. Gun owners are obviously split on parking lot bill. If you're gonna play poker, might as well play with a loaded deck... [quote name='GKar' timestamp='1353375669' post='848536'] Again - how does "no right to even be on your property" equate to the actual language found in HB3560? [/quote] You have no right to your employer's property. The bill will give you the right to carry a gun onto your employer's property. thence...

[quote name='ttocswob' timestamp='1353354228' post='848292'] Can we secede, then call it the Untied States of America? [/quote] Sorry. Texas took dibs on that name. Good news is that the name will be up for grabs again as soon as Mexico invades them.

[quote name='Chucktshoes' timestamp='1353365764' post='848442'] Who says? I get the same 8 hours of holiday pay whether I work or not. I make nothing extra for working on Turkeyday. In fact, all of the retailers I have worked for were the same way. [/quote] Says me. Dunno... thought most of the retailers paid double. :shrugs: Quick look, looks like even Wally pays double time for paid holidays worked.

[quote name='S&WForty' timestamp='1353358426' post='848337'] That sure is a short sighted statement. Not everyone can hop from job to job especially in this economy. [/quote] All the more reason that you should be happy for the ones working on holidays. They not only have a job in this economy but they are also making double time.

Worriedman, read my post and OS's quote [url="http://www.tngunowners.com/forums/topic/55092-ron-ramsey-on-2013-parking-lot-bill-status/page__st__80#entry848271"]here[/url]. Why not work on getting the sign and car laws changed instead of pushing for a parking lot bill? Specifically the criminal charge of carrying past a sign. By doing that, it will make this whole issue one between an employee and employer instead of a property owner/rights issue. Will virtually accomplish the same thing without removing one's rights. These two things should not be very difficult to get passed. I am asking you this because of your involvement and closeness to this bill. Not trying to further the debate here with this question.

[quote name='RobertNashville' timestamp='1353359900' post='848357'] Yes, seriously It isn't all about "firearms" for me and never has been...it appears that is is all about firearms vs property rights for you and that's fine but it's not about that for me and won't be no matter how much you claim it is. [/quote] Umm.... this bill is about carrying guns onto private property. What else could it be about to you? [quote] With regards to your question; I already answered it when I said... "[i]I care about all rights, not [u][i]JUST [/i][/u]the rights of a property owner; [b]even if I'm the property owner[/b]. Not only do I care but I also understand that society, through the government, has the Constitutional power and I would submit, even the responsibility to regulate property; most especially property used for business purpose. [b]My personal “feelings” about that or whether I “like” the regulations are immaterial[/b]. I'm not in favor of regulation for the sake of regulation but I am in favor of appropriate and needed regulation.[/i] You are fee to not like my answer but that is still my answer. [/quote] No, I asked you a differently similar question. Honestly, I am trying to get you to dig your own hypocrisy hole. How would you feel if the government forced you, as a property owner, to cave to a stranger's wishes, convenience and sense of entitlement? A stranger that has no right to even be on your property is now dictating the rules that you have set for their admittance. Obviously, you would not agree with the circumstance posed if it were your personal property rights at stake. No one would. Yet, you're completely fine with imposing the same restrictions on someone else.

[quote name='Worriedman' timestamp='1353359737' post='848356'] [/quote] Thanks. Not changing my rules.... but maybe I should have asked it differently. I am looking for laws that blanket businesses explicitly while not applying to everyone. Assault and battering laws apply to all businesses, too but that law is not exactly relevant to the discussion as assault and battering laws applies to everyone. Ya can't beat your employees no more than you can beat your wife. This bill, with the exception of farms and residential businesses, will blanket all businesses. No other law does that.

[quote]“Sigh” is right. I can’t help but sigh when you ascribe positions to me I don’t hold and put words in my mouth that I’ve never uttered or make your arguments against legislation based on unsupported emotion and platitudes. I’ve never said I have a right to carry a gun onto private property; if you think I believe I do have that right you are wrong…if you think I’ve ever said I have that right you are equally wrong.[/quote] Seriously? You are supporting and defending a bill that does just that. To give you a special right to carry a gun onto private property. A right that you do not have but so desire. I am not putting words in your mouth. You are doing that yourself. And now, I will ask you agin to answer my last question. After that, I will leave you alone. How would you feel if the government forced you, as a property owner, to cave to a stranger's wishes, convenience and sense of entitlement? A stranger that has no right to even be on your property is now dictating the rules that you have set for their admittance.

Not a big fan. Not a lot of family left these days and what is left, I do not necessarily like. Add to that the inability to go anywhere in Chattanooga for two months makes me despise this time of year. About the only time I have ever liked this time of year was when I was a bag boy as a teen where I would see BIG tips!!! and my last 8-5 which was absolutely dead for two months. Really miss the days of being at "wrok" for 9 hours but only actually working for about an hour a day

[quote name='Worriedman' timestamp='1353327679' post='848081'] The Bill does not apply to Farms, (which are some of the largest business in the country), nor business run out of private residencies. NFPA regs apply to EVERYONE, business and individual private property owners alike. Limits to the amount of flammables and explosives that may be stored on premises, and how they must be contained apply to every single building in the US irrespective of ownership type [/quote] thanks. Why are farms excluded? NFPA Kinda goes hand and hand with wage and tax laws then, since everyone has to comply, not just businesses. Would still like for someone to post a law that blankets all businesses like this bill will. [quote name='barewoolf' timestamp='1353338777' post='848147'] Offensive? I dont think so, and besides...Im not talking about guns here, Im talking about behavior that is mandated, just the same as the laws that mandate behavior to people based on race. I simply do not understand how, if its all about property owners rights. why dont race issues have the same merit? I'll tell you why, its because its wrong, thats why, same as in this case. The big problem here is by banning on property period, the owners are effectively disarming a person, not just at work, but to and from as well. [/quote] Yes, it is offensive. In case you didn't know, I use a wheelchair to get around with. You are comparing[u] what I am [/u]with an inanimate object. I can not change that about me no more than a black woman can change her race and sex. That is why these are protected by laws and your [u]inanimate object and [b]choice [/b]to carry that inanimate object [/u]is not. And no one has removed your inalienable right to defend yourself. A gun is only a tool used for that. Chuck E. Cheese does not remover your ability to walk by requiring you to remove your shoes to enter their ball pit. Same thing here. Please do not compare what I am with an iinanimate object. Thanks.

[quote name='RobertNashville' timestamp='1353305897' post='848047'] So...when I asked you to "[b][i]show how the 10th circuit was wrong in rejecting the Constitutional argument against these laws and to submit reasonable and logical arguments to show why such a law shouldn't be passed Tennessee[/i][/b]" your answer was "[color=#b22222][i]It's wrong because the law violates a person's rights while giving nonexistent rights to someone over convenience.[/i][/color]" I don't understand how that "answer" is supposed to answer either of the two-part question I asked. What person's "rights" does such a law violate? If you mean a company's property rights, the courts have said otherwise...you certainly can believe the courts were wrong but belief doesn't show how the 10th Circuit was wrong which was the question posed and not answered. "Nonexistent rights"? What are these "nonexistent rights" and in what way are they being "given" to someone? [/quote] Sigh. You do not have a right to carry a gun onto private property. A property owner has the right to set his own rules. This law removes the property owner's rights while giving a right to a gun carrier. that is not right in any way, Not good enough? How about a union comparison. If an employee [b]wants [/b]to work somewhere and is not satisfied with company policies, that employee joins a union to bully the company to comply with the employee's wishes, convenience and sense of entitlement. Here y'all are wanting the government to bully companies to comply with the employee's wishes, convenience and sense of entitlement. [quote]I absolutely agree that property owners can dictate any rules they want. But, you keep leaving out something important which is that property owners can dictate rules [i][b]until society, through government action and IAW the Constitution, says otherwise[/b][/i][/quote] . Have never denied that there are rules, laws and regs. Have said that there are no blanket laws that all businesses must follow, as such is your and OS's assertion. They all have lots and lots of laws and regs to follow... so what's one more to the mix. Fact is, there are no additional laws that businesses have to follow. [quote]So you made an assumption and then berated OhShoot for not "[i]keeping up[/i]" with you? That seems a bit inappropriate.[/quote] Yes, I assumed based on the bills' history. Looks like I was almost correct. The bill blankets all businesses with the exception of farms. [quote] My answers in [color=#0000ff][b]blue[/b][/color]... Do you value your property rights? [i][b][color=#0000ff]Absolutely I do[/color][/b][/i] Do you want the government to make you do something with your property simply to satisfy a stranger's convenience and sense of entitlement? [i][b][color=#0000ff]No, but I [u]DO[/u] want the government to regulate property when doing so is for the overall benefit of society; especially when the regulation has little to no actual impact on the property owner (such as these "parking lot" laws).[/color][/b][/i] Care if my bullhorn and I visit your home at 2am tonight? Your property rights mean nothing to me and I have a constitutional right to yell stuffs [i][b][color=#0000ff]Yes, I care[/color][/b][/i][/quote] So, basically, you care about your rights but not others'. How would you feel if the government forced you, as a property owner, to cave to a stranger's wishes, convenience and sense of entitlement? A stranger that has no right to even be on your property is now dictating the rules that you have set for their admittance.

[quote name='OhShoot' timestamp='1353342608' post='848183'] Agree that ideally, best legislation is to repeal ... 1. statute that going armed is a crime 2. statute which makes carrying past a sign a criminal charge Second best to 1. is to extend exception for going armed to vehicle, for everyone, since it is already covered under "castle law" part of self defense statutes ....and let chips fall where they may regarding public facilities and their employees. Since this is still a faraway pipe dream, most agree we must grab the fruit that can be picked at the time. Btw, this law ain't gonna affect me one way or the other, I'm just for expanding gun rights any way possible, including yes, even adding a few more words to TCA, since it's more feasible to do that than take any away right now. - OS [/quote] I think we could all agree to that. And it's not that far of a pipe dream. As I recently stated in another thread, GA currently has both and TN often follows their lead on gun carry laws. If the pushers of the controversial parking lot bill would focus their energy to accomplishing this, then I'd say we could more than likely get it passed this coming year.

[quote name='RobertNashville' timestamp='1353301706' post='848037'] The "so what" is that despite all the time and electrons you've used up with your posts in this thread you still have not offered any argument to show that Tennessee doesn't have the right, under the 5th Amendment, to pass a "parking lot" bill nor have you offered any reasonable or logical arguments to show why Tennessee shouldn't do so. That's the "so what". [/quote] [url="http://www.tngunowners.com/forums/topic/55092-ron-ramsey-on-2013-parking-lot-bill-status/page__st__40#entry847778"]I answered you the last time you asked me that. [/url]You refuse to accept that property owners can dictate rules. And I certainly can not help it that you feel your convenience is more important than property rights. You still haven't answered my questions, BTW. Do you value your property rights? Do you want the government to make you do something with your property simply to satisfy a stranger's convenience and sense of entitlement? Care if my bullhorn and I visit your home at 2am tonight? Your property rights mean nothing to me and I have a constitutional right to yell stuffs [quote name='RobertNashville' timestamp='1353302104' post='848039'] Really...you know this for a fact? I thought we were discussing the possibility of a bill...I didn't realize that a bill has already been written and passed and that you know the specific contents of it. [/quote] Bill has been written and proposed for sever years now. I assume it will be much the same as years past.

[quote name='Chucktshoes' timestamp='1353299007' post='848011'] Why? Are some businesses exempt from ADA requirements? [/quote] Ever seen a line worker in a wheelchair or an armless warehouse picker? And just to head ya off on other discriminatory laws... ever seen a male Hooters waitress or a fat stripper? Ok, that last one might actually exist For hiring, they dp not apply to businesses that have psychical, mental or appearance requirements. Maybe more. For admittance onto business property, they only apply to businesses open to the public and structures built after 1992 (For ADA). [quote name='Worriedman' timestamp='1353299072' post='848013'] NFPA regs. [/quote] I'll admit that I had to look that up. First glance it doesn't appear to apply to everyone. [quote name='RobertNashville' timestamp='1353299917' post='848025'] Your veiled assertion that there is a difference between a regulation that is based on "taxes" or "wages" as opposed to any other regulation is both flawed and immaterial because it entirely misses the point. [/quote] Most certainly does amke a difference. You do not have to have a business, a business license, etc. for wage and tax laws to apply. They apply to everyone. That is why I excluded them. [quote]19 stats have already decided they should regulate "guns in parking lots" and the highest court that has heard the Constitutional arguments that those states cannot so regulate has rejected the arguments so whether society can and whether society should so regulate is not going to change no matter how much you chant "private property...private property".[/quote] So what? How many states have some sort of gun ban or Brady law that has been upheld? [quote name='OhShoot' timestamp='1353299862' post='848024'] Never said all businesses. Single Proprietorships not open to the public are pretty much same as any other non business property. But for businesses with employees.... TN OSHA TN Child Labor Act TN Whistle Blower's Act TN Non Smoker Protection Act TN Illegal Alien Employment License Suspension TN Fire Codes - OS [/quote] This bill will target all businesses.Try to keep up. Out of the ones you mentioned, only the illegal alien laws apply to all businesses. Course, it also applies to everyone doesn't it? [quote].....to name a few obvious ones, and I didn't even mention any federal regs, and certainly not the ADA to which you take such vehement exception for comparison to the current issue.[/quote] .See above. ADA/civil right laws do not apply to everyone.

Try again.

[quote name='RobertNashville' timestamp='1353297312' post='847991'] Private property IS private property but according to society, many, many decades of history, and common sense; what the property is used for has a significant impact on what regulations apply to it. [/quote] Name one non-tax or wage related law that all businesses or "business property" owners must follow.

[quote name='Triggerhappyzach' timestamp='1353273129' post='847765'] You dont really have to "shoulder" the buffer tube, you can "cheek" it. You can rest it on your cheek and its just as steady as having a stock against your shoulder (albeit, mine was a 7.5" pistol so it was pretty light), and very comfortable to boot. [/quote] Odd. Hows the accuracy shooting one that way? Sights are designed to be close to your face. Seems that would really kill the accuracy. [quote name='OhShoot' timestamp='1353266007' post='847714'] Well, first, I simply don't see not having an AR rifle at all, just to have an AR pistol. However, if you start with an AR pistol you can keep a rifle upper and go back and forth, maximizing use of the lower, so in the sense of a convertible "kit" firearm it has been a pretty attractive idea to me, so been thinking about doing exactly that for a while. [/quote] Or just fork out another cnote for a whole rifle.

Dumbest thing I have read today. This takes it.

[quote name='OhShoot' timestamp='1353290306' post='847914'] There's the basic fallacy you refuse to see. There are already [i]many[/i] more regulations on business properties with employees and business properties open to the public than on residential or unimproved rural properties. I won't even begin to iterate them again because you will continue to ignore that regulatory agencies and jurisprudence obviously do [i]not[/i] consider them the same, and keep parroting that mantra. You and JayC need to be sure to collaborate on a strongly worded amicus brief if the thing is finally passed, assuming it ever is indeed challenged in court. - OS [/quote] There is private property and public property. Pick one. [size=2]Hint: Businesses are privately owned in case you didn't know.[/size] Being open to the public doesn't change that. a restaurant having to follow food safety rules doesn't change that. A warehouse with OSHA regs doesn't change that. Being zoned residential or commercial doesn't change that. As a private property owner, you have the right to set the rules for admittance onto that property. Doesn't matter if the property is used for business, personal or residential. The [u]only [/u]exception to that is anti-discriminatory laws when a business is open to the public. [quote]There are already [i]many[/i] more regulations on business [/quote] Show me one non-tax or wage related law that all businesses must follow.