strickj

[quote name='OhShoot' timestamp='1353276886' post='847795'] Totally specious argument for many reasons, and you know it. - this issue has nothing to do with private residential property - there are public nuisance and disturbing the peace statutes to cover the above latest particular non-sequitur - there are many examples of what you cannot do on your own property, depending on where it is, and many more than that on what you cannot do on business/public property, many of them quite more restrictive than what's allowed in an employee's or customer's vehicle. You seem to have come to see yourself as some sort of philosophical Spartacus regarding this issue but I think Quixotic is more accurate. Starting to worry about ya. - OS [/quote] Private property is private property. There are no sound ordinances in many counties. The comparison stands. But, to satisfy you, I would not be allowed to do the same at a business without being kicked out, either.

It's wrong because the law violates a person's rights while giving nonexistent rights to someone over convenience. Now, answer my questions. 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. Keep calling property rights an empty mantra. When the government infringes on yours, I will laugh at you.

[quote name='RobertNashville' timestamp='1353269541' post='847741'] Wow...lots of the same sentiments against theses "parking lot" laws without any substance offered to support the sentiments. I'm still waiting for someone to submit reasonable data/examples to show how the 10th circuit was wrong in rejecting the Constitutional argument against these laws. [i][b]and...[/b][/i] I'm still waiting for someone to submit reasonable and rational and logical arguments to show why such a law shouldn't be passed Tennessee except for the empty "it's my property" mantra. Bueller....Bueller....??? [/quote] 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.

Does he have a second sign for the other gun grabbing presidential candidate?

[quote name='OhShoot' timestamp='1353210859' post='847436'] Obviously not. Many other states have passed it. TN probably will too, eventually, nothing makes this state any different than others in that regard. I didn't. If you're read the words that are there without warping them to argue your point of view, you'll see I mentioned the protected classes in passing as simply one set of limitations put on private property owners. Many more have nothing to do with protected classes at all. Point is that the legislated list of do's and don't for both residential and commercial property owners is quite long, and even the ownership itself can be legally wrested away. Certainly, allowing folks to keep a legal possession in their vehicles is rather minor as far as any kind of legal precedent. It's a mostly emotional argument. - OS [/quote] "But MOM, all the other kids are doing it!" I do agree with you about the emotional element. I do not like the government removing my rights and dictating my private property and practices. Y'all are fine with that, apparently.

[quote name='RobertNashville' timestamp='1353215011' post='847468'] Actually, it's about whether a specific governmental regulation, in this case, a regulation regarding firearms in vehicles while the vehicle is parked in a parking lot, violates the Constitution. [/quote] The government is not regulating it. Your employer is. Your employer is not violating the Constitution. [quote]Well I think that would be called trespassing and I'm not advocating trespassing so I don't know what debate that ends. Not exactly sure what you mean by that statement...I don't think a gun "magically changes" anything. [/quote] Seems simple enough. If you have no right to be on private property then how can you have a right to carry a gun on private property? [quote]Whether or not Tennessee [u][i][b]should[/b][/i][/u] pass a "parking lot bill" is a debatable issue and one I'm willing to engage in, so, if you have some specific reasons why you think such a law shouldn't be passed then let's talk about them...I see no reason not to have such a law here but I'm not so closed-minded on the issue that I can't change my mind. However, just chanting "property rights"..."property rights" is not debating and it's not a reason to not have such laws; it's just chanting. It's just changing because until you can show how these "parking lot" laws violate the Constitution your chanting is a non-starter because I don't think they do violate the Constitution and the courts don't think so either. If you [i][u][b]can[/b][/u][/i] show how these laws violate the Constitution then I'm sure there are some attorneys who have represented the likes of Whirlpool and ConocoPhillips in these cases who would love to hear from you. [/quote] No, it's not just chanting. Property rights are the issue here. And the law does not have to violate the Constitution for it to be wrong. Smoking bans are wrong. Soda bans are wrong.

[quote name='barewoolf' timestamp='1353250199' post='847588'] Are civil rights allowed to be violated on private property, as in the parking lots of the workplace? How about in restaurants? Is it permissible to discriminate against blacks in these places? Then why is it ok when its the 2nd Amendment that's being violated? [/quote] I am really, really getting tired of seeing these comments. A person's skin color, sex or disability is in no way similar to an inanimate object and comparing them as such is offensive. Gun - inanimate object\ Shoes - inanimate object Hat - inanimate object Ice cream - fun inanimate object Skin color - not an inanimate object Sex - not an inanimate object Disability - not an inanimate object Age - not an inanimate object See the difference?

[quote name='RobertNashville' timestamp='1353205538' post='847404'] While some throw up the "your second amendment right doesn't trump my private property rights" phrase, that statement is a red hearing because it diverts the argument from the real issue. Tthere is no "trumping” of rights" going on; more to the point, no one who has challenged these laws in court has been able to show any harm/infringement on their rights as property owners from a firearm in a parked vehicle. In other words, no violation of the protection of the 5[sup]th[/sup] amendment. Without such demonstrable infringement, these “parking lot” laws do not violate the Constitution. [/quote] It's a property rights vs. no rights thing. You do not have a right to be on private property. Doesn't matter one iota if it's my house or Walmart. Period. End of debate. So why do you think that a gun somehow magically changes that? Because it's mentioned in a document that has no barring on citizens? OS, never thought you would compare the "protected classes with carrying a gun. Remember, you can leave your gun at home if you dislike an employer's rules. You can not take off your age. See difference?

[quote name='Paladin132' timestamp='1353188394' post='847308'] And this we surrender our rights. Am I advocating breaking the law? Absolutely not. Am I advocating adjusting our mindset to push for what we believe? Bet your (insert whatever here). That we do not is how we loose because one fights for what they believe in, not what they would like to have. I just do not see a public business's right trumping my individual right. It is a civil right as defined as being in the constitution. We should work toward recognizing that fact. [/quote] Read it again. The Constitution does not grant you the "right" to carry a gun onto private property no more than it grants you the "right" to yell "fire" in a theater. The Constitution keeps the government from infringing on your rights. Not business owners. Not homeowners. Only the government.

Really slow news day? I did get quite the kick out of this tho [quote]The independent student newspaper at the UNH since 1911[/quote]

[quote]Just need a little wickit and some solder [/quote] I think 2000 Suburbans are the old twist in type? Either way, It only tkes about 5 minutes to take a cluster apart and solder in a new one. I can send you a stepper motor for free if you wanna try it yourself.

What's the logic behind removing open carrying in lieu of carrying a knife? If you want to mimic another state's carry process, look at GA's. It's what TN law makers do. Carry in bars and parks were the last laws TN passed after a years test in GA. GA is very similar to TN in terms of carry but much less restrictive. No criminal offense for carrying past a sign. Can carry any weapon with a permit, including loaded rifles and blades over four inches. Can carry in vehicles without a permit. Permits are issued instantly without the steep tax for application and education. Etc.

[quote name='BrasilNuts' timestamp='1353017044' post='846197'] I think they already have enough of those to take care of business. Edit: On second thought, can you ever have enough nukes? [/quote] Not admittedly?

[quote name='Errokk' timestamp='1352948059' post='845870'] Considering they're using American designed tactical laser guided munitions... I wouldn't expect anything less. Beans and CornBread! [/quote] Seems with our level of government efficiency, we could "accidentally" let a nuke slip into one of their resupply orders.

All 50 states now have petitions up. At least 7 have reached the necessary 25,000 votes needed for a response. Here's hoping that all 50 states are allowed to secede. At which point - and only at that point - will we be able to come together and band a union of sovereign states, pool our monies and resources to provide a collective defense and essential services to the union. I propose that we call this uniting of the states: The Union States of America.

[quote name='mcurrier' timestamp='1352842688' post='845016'] [b] [size=4]A petition against the signers of the petitions for secession. Which group sounds more petty of the two?[/size][/b] [b] Libs Want To Strip the Citizenship from Everyone who Signed a Petition to Secede and Exile Them[/b] [url="https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/strip-citizenship-everyone-who-signed-petition-secede-and-exile-them/ZbMjcwPf"]https://petitions.wh...e-them/ZbMjcwPf[/url] [/quote] Giving them what they asked for? How absurd.

[quote name='vontar' timestamp='1352772676' post='844609'] That game is rigged. I believe they are all guilty of something. [/quote] Yes, all mug shots are actual mug shots. Fun game. 26% 3 streak. I got every domestic violence and possession of narcotics one right. Middle aged drunk white guy and dirty super skinny whore every time.

First trip to the grocery store since all of the holiday goodies came out. My freezer is now well on it's way to being fully stocked with eggnog and holiday flavored cream. That is all.

[quote name='RobertNashville' timestamp='1352582033' post='843271'] I'm a gun owner, Romney has NEVER done anything that restricted MY 2A rights....that shouldn't be a difficult concept to understand nor has he done anything to "us". The only people effected were the voluntary residents of MA and for the most part...with the blessings of the residents of MA. Funny...most people who think our rights are important also think the concept of states' rights is equally important (not that we have much of that today)...I guess a state deciding for itself what it wants to do is only something that should be supported by others only if they decide the "right way". [/quote] True. He didn't do anything to "me" personally.... but the point here is that he still signed the damned thing into law. Everyone wan'ts to trow O under the bus for the bills he voted for and sponsored in IL but they turn a blind eye to what Romney did. If the man has it in him to sign the largest and most sweeping anti-gun bill into law once, then by golly, he will have it in him to do again. Buying an NRA membership and calling his bans and restrictions "pro-gun" will not change that. Hell fur, even a moderate in gun rights would have vetoed it. He signed it, boasted about the resulting NRA rating and did it all with a smile on his face. It took him loosing the 2008 nom and the NRA outing him for his false "NRA approval" for him to start singing the pro-gun tune. Not sure why you mentioned states rights. This is about the 2nd and 14th. They trump states rights..... or at least they were supposed to. Guess you would say it's also ok for you to be arrested w/o cause and have your property unjustly seized as long as local cops did it? The elections are over, he lost and will probably give up on the presidency now. We can stop playing apologist for the man's actions now.

[quote name='mikegideon' timestamp='1352578276' post='843237'] Strick, it doesn't matter WHEN Romney started his pro gun stance. It only matters that he's pro gun now. You hold folks to their current contract, not to one they had with somebody else. If the NRA hadn't vetted him, there would be some room to ponder. At least Obama is starting to prove himself as anti-gun. We may even get a chance to see him top Romney's all time evil. Obama is dealing with a much tougher crowd. [/quote]Most certainly does matter. .For one, simply buying an NRA membership is too little too late. For two, he has never done anything pro-gun. Even his "orp-gun" speeches are laced with comments like "I'm no friend of the NRA", which he has stated as late as a couple of month ago. The man is not now, nor has he [u]ever [/u]been, pro-gun. He simply ran on a pro-gun ticket. Big difference. [quote name='RobertNashville' timestamp='1352581319' post='843265'] Really? He's never done anything that harmed me or my 2A rights and unless you lived or have lived in MA during or after Romney was their governor I fail to see how he did or could ever have done anything to "harm" you/your 2A rights. In the past 30 years or so, I've seen nothing but restoration (slow and modest as it might be) of my 2A rights in the states I've lived in as well as the state I live in now with the exception of, surprise...Illinois. [/quote] I said "us". As in us gun owners. But as far as that sort of logic goes, I guess we can all agree that O is a strong 2nd politician? What is the fed count now? Three pro-gun bills vs zero anti-gun bills?

Here Alex Jones is discussing his cookie conspiracy. [media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dhUFxaauNTE[/media] Seriousness, For me personally, I have never denied what O is and what he want's to do. But when you compare the two men on paper, Romney has done more to harm us than O ever has. One has voted for and sponsored a couple of anti-gun laws. The other signed into law the single largest and most sweeping pieces of anti-gun legislations in history. Both men have spewed the [u]same [/u]comments about their thoughts on guns and their hatred for the NRA. Romney didn't start his "pro-gun" stance until after he lost the nom in 2008.

[quote]f the ACLU is an authoritative source for you then I suggest you s[b]pend much more time studying Jefferson's writing[/b]s and biographies...and in a few years, once you are done with him, there are many more founders worth of real study. [/quote] The ACLU was one of many. [b]The man's won words:[/b] [quote]Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between Man & his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, & not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," thus building a wall of separation between Church & State. [/quote] What did I miss? What did he say contrary to that, that you have failed to provide for us?

Not sure I follow the logic behind reprimanding soldiers for this movie (and video game now?) when the O administration has done nothing but pimp out the seals to hollywood for the past two years. Where was their uproar when O released classified info for the OBL takedown? Where was their uproar when the O Administration [u]forced [/u]seals to cooperate, star in and release classified info for Act Of Valor? [quote name='vontar' timestamp='1352497935' post='842693'] No, the news already spoiled the ending for me. [/quote] best answer yet

Robert; I'm not an Atheist and I'm not looking to remove religious expression. [quote]That letter has been used for decades by those who want no religions input of any kind into public policy;[/quote] You're damn skippy! And why do you think that is? Why do you feel the need to legislate your religious opinion? Your religious opinion is infringing on my rights to not be governed by the church. And, for the question that is always ignored, how would you feel if the law said you could not eat pork or womens had to keep their hair covered? Yeah, that would be considered unconstitutional because it's not your religious opinion that;s being legislated. AK, that is an opinion piece. How about something.... let's say.... legal? I have quoted from Cornell Law, The ACLU, The First Amendment Center in Nashville, and the Britannica Encyclopedia. Not including quoting the First and Jefferson's very own words. Thanks.

[quote name='strickj' timestamp='1352495442' post='842649'] Maybe you should reread it. It doesn't say "establishing a religion". It says "make no law respecting an establishment of religion". Again, 200 years of case law trumps your opinion. Did you click the google search link for the Establishment Clause? [/quote] just to make it easier for you to not read.... [quote] [url="http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/author/firstamendmentcenter"]First Amendment Center[/url] Nashville, Tenn. Friday, September 16, 2011 The first of the First Amendment’s two religion clauses reads: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion … .” Note that the clause is absolute. It allows [i]no[/i] law. It is also noteworthy that the clause forbids more than the establishment of religion by the government. It forbids even laws [i]respecting[/i] an establishment of religion. The establishment clause sets up a line of demarcation between the functions and operations of the institutions of religion and government in our society. It does so because the framers of the First Amendment recognized that when the roles of the government and religion are intertwined, the result too often has been bloodshed or oppression.http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/establishment-clause [/quote] [quote] March 11, 2002 [b] An ACLU Legal Bulletin[/b] [b] The Establishment Clause And Public Schools[/b] These opening words of the First Amendment to the Constitution set forth a dual guarantee of religious liberty. Both the Establishment Clause and the Free Exercise Clause operate to protect the religious liberty and freedom of conscience of all Americans. Quoting Thomas Jefferson, the Supreme Court has stated that the Establishment Clause was intended to accomplish this end by erecting a "wall of separation between Church and State." Everson v. Board of Educ. of Ewing, 330 U.S. 1, 15-16 (1947). It is one of the fundamental principles of the Supreme Court's Establishment Clause jurisprudence that the Constitution forbids not only state practices that "aid one religion . . . or prefer one religion over another," but also those practices that "aid all religions" and thus endorse or prefer religion over nonreligion. Everson, 330 U.S. at 15. See Wallace v. Jaffree, 472 U.S. 38, 53 (1985)("[T]he individual freedom of conscience protected by the First Amendment embraces the right to select any religious faith or none at all"); see also County of Allegheny v. ACLU Greater Pittsburgh Chapter, 492 U.S. 573, 589-94, 598-602 (1989); Texas Monthly, Inc. v. Bullock, 489 U.S. 1, 17 (1989); Torcaso v. Watkins, 367 U.S. 488, 495 (1961). [url="http://www.aclu.org/religion-belief/establishment-clause-and-schools-legal-bulletin"]http://www.aclu.org/...-legal-bulletin[/url] [/quote] [quote] [b] establishment clause[/b] or [b]establishment-of-religion clause[/b] Clause in the 1st Amendment to the U.S. [url="http://encyclopedia2.thefreedictionary.com/Constitution+of+the+United+States"]Constitution[/url] forbidding Congress from establishing a state religion. It prevents the passage of any law that gives preference to or forces belief in any one religion. It is paired with a clause that prohibits limiting the free expression of religion. For more information on [url="http://encyclopedia2.thefreedictionary.com/_/gr.aspx?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.britannica.com%2Fsearch%3Fquery%3Destablishment%2Bclause&source=Britannica"]establishment clause[/url], visit Britannica.com. Britannica Concise Encyclopedia. Copyright © 1994-2008 Encyclopædia Britannica, Inc. [/quote]