strickj

Hyperbole. But, I'd wager that a church wouldn't hire you if you didn't agree to go to their heaven... You don't have any rights while on someone else's property. Simple as that. Show me where you do in the pudding... If it is dependent on the job, then yes and it is completely legal. See Hooters, strip clubs, porn, etc for examples of what you just mentioned. Criminal acts would be.... well, criminal... Not every business needs a "business license". That's certainly more on the tax side of things anyway...

Conditional terms of employment. Yes, that would be their right. On the age\gray hair thing, I am not some 18 YO with a wet tummy here. If you wanna refute my argument simply because I am younger then you then I will start quoting Ted Kennedy's anti-gun BS since he was older then you. You don't know what experience I have or do not have. To my knowledge, no, there are no "business laws" that businesses must abide by just to be in business. No, I said it would not affect me because I could care less what guns are in my driveway. But it still removes my choice to decide for myself, thus it impacts me.This bill as that same impact on every single business. Again, Robert, there are two rights in play here. An employer's right to hire\fire based on conditional terms of employment and their property rights. It's their right as the property owner to refuse admittance onto their property because you carry a gun. It's their right as an employer to impose conditions per your employment. As said, they can tell you not to have a Twitter or Facebook page if they want. That is their right to extend beyond their property. The business' rights are the only rights here. Show me what rights you have in the matter. Show me where you have a right to carry onto private property. Show me where you have a right to not be fired based on a contractual agreement to your employment. See directly above on what rights you do not have. Yes, you have private property rights, which include your car, but that does not give you the right to park your private property(or the property inside your private property) on someone else's private property.And the second part that you seem to not be accepting here is that an employer can dictate what you do off of their property\off the clock as a term of employment. Thus the reasons no ones' rights are coming in conflict here. You have absolutely no rights in the mix. None. Zip. Zero. Did you feel that whoosh over your head? You're completely missing what I'm saying here. This thread and this bill aside, do you want someone taking away any of your rights? That's a rhetorical question as the answer is going to be a given - yes.Why would you want to take away others' rights when you do not want your personal rights taken away? Umm... I guess you've never worked retail? Circle K and Kangaroo (and most other businesses) will tell employees not to resist robberies; ie, removing their right to self defense. Secret Service agents are told to give their life to save the POTUS... So, the answer would be a big yes. To sum this up, show me proof, actual hard proof, that you have these "rights" that are outlined in red above. Until then, I will no reply as I am simply arguing with someone with absolutely no back to support the front.

Wow, you have a BIG house Oh... and don't borrow anymore chainsaws to clean up down trees

Worriedman, if we're going to go by age here as the ultimate in supreme "experience" and superiority... then can we collectivity agree with everything Ted Kennedy said as being the greatest thing ever? He was 21 years your senior... almost as much of an age difference as you and I... You're right. This bill only keeps employer's from firing people. That's totally different then them being forced to allow people onto their property. No, you keep saying that since "all businesses have laws to follow...". No business has any additional laws to follow then you or I. There are laws and codes in place for people serving food, or for structures that have more then xxx people inside, etc. No. In impacts every single business. Doesn't matter if they have a policy against firearms or not. I said that in the other thread. I stated that this was only a "feel good" bill since anyone can be fired for anything, still. That's the problem. No one's rights are colliding here. No one has the right to carry onto someone else's private property. NO ONE. As far as the burden goes, that's not for you to decide. I am deathly afraid of spiders. If you park in my drive way with an aquarium full of spiders, then I'm gonna make you leave. That is my right to make you leave. Those caged spiders will not place any burden on me at all. But that still does not change the fact that I do not want any spiders on my property. BS. That's exactly what you're saying. you're saying that a right that you do not have is more important then a right someone else does have. Not in this thread, no. I'm sure I could look through your posts and find complaints of your 2nd being taken away. I'm saying that it's ironic that you would complain about your rights being taken away but you want to take away other rights' without a second thought. Again, no one's rights are coming in conflict here, therefore no solution needs to be agreed upon. The only selfishness here are the ones who want to take away others' rights. Yes, a firearm is only one tool in the toolbox of self defense... Property rights is only half of it. It's also an employers' right to make employment conditional. If you've ever worked retail, then you know that an employer can even take away your right to self defense all together (ie' "do not fight back against robbery, etc").

Did not know Google Voice had an app. Gonna have to find that one!

Woriedman, I almost forgot. While glancing over the section of my post you quoted above I noticed that I may have unintentionally called you uneducated. If it came across that way, I apologize. Seems that my 'keep it short, sweet and to the point'ism doesn't always translate what I actually want to say very well sometimes. Couple that with these all-nighters (see my weird post times) and long days and well...

I know there have been threads on Tapatalk and another app or two specifically but I don't think there's ever been a thread on apps in general. Let's hear everyone's favorite apps. Include utilities, games, web browser/security, etc. I think my most used would be: SWYPE, Opera, Guitar Hero, and Maps.

Worriedman; thanks for the clarification. I guess I just remember you saying that you worked at a "firm" and I implied law firm. And I agree with you on the "money talks" when it comes to bills. But this bill has more then big money against it. Robert; again, yes, businesses have rules to operate under. But guess what, so do you and I in our very own homes. Rules and laws that violate our property rights. That does not make it OK for a law saying that you or I have to let anyone onto our private property. Nor does it make it OK for businesses to loose that right simply because they have other laws to follow. Your argument on this is just absurd. Further, and this is the absolute last time I'm going to say this considering we debated this to ridiculous amounts in the other thread... there is no one single blanket law that all businesses must abide by. None. Not even "civil rights" laws. This bill is a blanket that all businesses must follow and it infringes on businesses rights. For those two reasons alone, this bill will never go anywhere. "Not putting a burden" on the businesses is irrelevant. What is relevant is the rights of the property owner and employers' right to fire who they want. Ok then... but you are saying that their rights don't matter. I find to be a ridiculous statement coming from someone that doesn't want his 2nd amendment rights taken away. You are fine with others rights being taken away as long as your rights remain intact. That's just a selfish way to see things. Plain, pure and simple.

You're slipping in your old age. I read the plane comment yesterday and didn't know WTF he was talking about. I read your reply to that about 15 minutes ago and thought to myself "WTF did he catch?" I've since realized that yall were referring to that movie.... which apparently it's only two viewers are both TGO members. Small world, eh

Umm.... google "Memphis voter fraud". Yup, right here in good ole' Tennessee.This is a big problem... even if you have never heard of it personally. Obviously you just buzzed through this thread without reading it. This bill has an amendment (1 of 7) that will let the elderly vote on an absentee ballot without photo ID.

No. I never implied that, Robert. This bill removes a real right of a property owner. Yes, it would be nice for employees to be able to carry... but I am not going to remove someone's rights in order for me to do something that I want to do. That is wrong. As for the rest of your post, reread the other thread. I am not going to debate your same flawed arguments here that business do not have rights simply because they have rules to follow. However, if you do come up with some proof other then "business have rules therefore they have no rights", then post back here and I will be happy to pick this back up. Are you a lawyer or a paralegal? I know that you have mentioned working in a law firm... I find in strange that you, a law firm employee, thinks that you have constitutional rights away from the government. Was the constitution not part of your education? As for this thread; I am done with it. You guy's have fun trying to get this bill supported. For me, I am just thankful that Nashville is doing the right thing here, for once.

I hate to say it, but that's kinda selfish, doncha' think? Basically what you're saying is "the hell with you and your rights as long as I get to do what I want". Since you're fine with that, please PM me your address so I can drive up, park in your driveway, and blast my speakers. Even if you do mind me doing that, I do not care since my speakers are in my car and my 1st amendment rights trump your property rights. Eye for an eye, et alii. I do appreciate you explaining to everyone why all of the laws you just mentioned were not liked by the public when presented. But no one here is afraid that there will be blood flowing in the streets with this bill. And those laws never trampled on anyones' rights with their creation. This bill does. It tramples on the rights of every single business owner in this state. All because you want a right to carry on someone's private property. Robert, I'm not going back into that debate with you. Reread the other thread for my rebuttal to your last post. Both your last post and my rebuttals are located there for all to see. I didn't even want to get involved in this thread to begin with. I just couldn't take the "big evil corporate business is running this bill in the ground" comments any longer. Edit; I find it kinda ironic that everyone here as been witnessed to complaining about anti-gun fools taking away our rights. Their motivation behind banning guns is "for the greater good". They say "the hell with your gun rights, this is for the greater good", et alii. Now, here are the same pro-gun proponents that are fed-up with their rights being taken away... wanting to take rights away from others all in the name of "the greater good". Surely I'm not the only one seeing this here...

There is no similarity there, Robert. I don't have to abide by the above laws, at all. I doubt that cmimpsonaudio does either. That is because they are not absolute requirements for businesses to operate under. Your sole choice to carry a gun can not be compared to people getting sick from eating tainted chicken or anti-discriminatory laws. Honestly, I see plenty of good in it as well and I don't see any burdens to businesses in that aspect either. But that doesn't change the fact that this bill will remove rights from business owners.

Thanks for the clarification Sky King. I knew TN was a EAW state but took the terms as being interchangeable. So, since we citizens are restricted access to NFA items... it would be ok for us to be restricted access to all guns? I mean, following logic and all, it's only one more little restriction... And please research ADA, OSHA, DoH-food safety, etc before you compare this bill with those. Since this keeps getting brought back up, I will address it one more time. The Constitution is a document that protects the rights within from being taken away by the government. It does not protect your rights from being taken by anyone else. We are in the information age for goodness sake. Please Google "Constitutional rights". Read. Learn. Read again. Come back to post findings here for all to read.

This is aimed at the poor urban mothers who are afraid of their kids. They want to know how to get guns away from their thug children. That's why the NRA isn't being represented. All of the other get togethers by these urban parents have been small, laughable, and pathetic. I'm afraid that with this douche bag speaking it will bring out all of the bed wetters of the city And the worst part of all is the piece of **** mayor is fanning the flames because he refuses to do anything about Chattanooga's gang problem. Thanks for posting this Jonin. I am going to attend. It's a shame that it will be held at a gun free zone with a majority of attendees being gang parents

Trump is a celebrity. I will not vote for him for that reason alone. Call me what you will for admitting that... but the man is no different the that fat cow Rossie. I don't really like anything he has said politicality either. Seems as soon as he does say something halfway worth wild, he screws it up with something crazy. meh... I swear I laugh at this every time I hear someone say it. People have been having sex without marriage since the beginning of time. Men have been poking each other and women have been rubbing things together long before the teevee was ever invented. The only difference now is we're more open to talking about it. If you want to blame our openness to all things adult, then thank your parents, since you're 28. It was their "free love" generation that opened up all of the taboo 'morility' topics.

No, I've not conducted a scientific study on the matter. This is what we call "a given". There are 6.3 million people in the state on TN. Only 300k have a HCP, (which this bill is written for). How many of those 300k carry daily? How many of those 300k have employers that have posted parking lots? How many of that 300k are actually 100% pro-gun(remember how the "bar bill" split people, even on this very forum)? How many of those 300k follow or stay in contact with their legislators... or ever care about new gun carry laws? Hell, how many of those 300k even give a **** about any new laws at all? You do the math, Robert. This is not only about private property rights. This is two fold. One is indeed about private property. The other is about that whole no right to work thing. I covered that in the other thread. Your employer can impose rules for you to follow on the condition of your employment. Business owners get their right to keep unwanted items and persons away from their property from their private property rights. They can tell anyone to bug off. They get their right to tell you no XYZ, or do not do ABC, etc (even in your own home) because this is not a right to work state. They can fire you if you break their rules.

The 2nd does not apply to businesses, "private industries", or citizens. That is a condition of employment and it is you employer;s right to set those conditions and rules. Your employer can tell you not to have a Facebook account on your home PC if he want's to. If you don't like their condition(s) to your employment, then you are free to find another job. And just for the record here, I do not like, and I will not let, anyone tell me what I can and can not keep in my car, either. And this statement is the problem. You do not have a right to even be on your employer's property. Much less carry a gun onto it. This bill is advancing a right that you never had to begin with and removes a real right from your employer. That is not right in any stretch of the imagination and I am glad that our reps are doing the right thing here, for once.

This photographer took cues from MW2 and applied them to his photography. Full gallery here: Modern Warfare 2: Set 2 - a set on Flickr

So, the only ones who matter are the ones with enough time (or money to send others) to Nashville? Private property is private property. In TN there is no other. You may think that ADA or food safety laws, etc. mean that property owners do not have rights, but you are mistaken. It is not a matter of "trust". I do not care if people that I hire or work with have guns on them or in their cars. This bill does not affect me in the least. It is the simple fact that this bill, as presented, removes businesses\property owners RIGHTS to chose. The "majority of us" would be the people of TN. The pro-gun bill community is just a small fraction of TN residents. Even the "guns in bars" bill had gun owners split down the middle. I am as pro-gun and as pro-gun bill as they come... but some of us value others' rights, too, which is why I, along with many, many other pro-gun people, do not like this bill.

What is this "business lobby"? Is it me, a single, home operated business? Is it Crimpsonaudio who owns his own business? Is it a "mom and pop" gas station, restaurant or hardware store? Or... ? I would say that we are all constituents and that our reps are listening to the majority of us that do not want to loose our real rights to our property to someone who has no right to be on the property at all.

Then you haven't been following it then. You can watch them online or on PBS Tennessee Legislature getting public TV coverage this year | timesfreepress.com That is because of the 24th amendment. It does not give the right to vote, it only states that no taxes shall be charged to voters. Requiring someone to pay for an ID is a "backdoor tax". This is according to SCOTUS rulings and not some liberal looking for an excuse for illegals to vote.The 2nd doesn't say anything about taxes. It may not sound like much us. It's only 10 dollars and we all need photo ID for stuff anyway.... but it is not like that for a lot of people. Think about seniors (the majority of voters) that are on a fixed income, do not drive, and are not required to have photo ID for anything. For others, that 10 dollars may be the difference between eating and not eating, or buying their kid a school book or not. That 10 dollar "backdoor tax" will prevent them from voting. And if you think that no restrictions are put on the 1st then you are highly mistaken. Just off the top of the noggin, google "form 2257A" for one example. Record keeping requirements for that blows the 2243 out of the water.

Think about it. When has there ever been a problem with "hate" crimes against white guys for being white?

You guys are actually wrong. This is not a left vs right issue. It has nothing to do with "finding a way for illegals to vote" either. The Dems are very much for this bill. The only thing the Dems want added is a funding amendment (ie:free ID) so that there will be absolutely no way that it could be struck down as unconstitutional by the SCOTUS like it has in other states. As currently presented, requiring an ID to vote, which voters must pay for, is a form of "backdoor tax". The states where an ID to vote bill was ruled constitutional had funding included within the bill eliminating that "backdoor tax". There are other amendments that have been added to the bill which would exclude the elderly (+65), those with mental or physical disabilities that would otherwise vote by absentee ballot, and active duty military.

There is no 'right to vote'. There are only protections to vote based on discrimination (age,sex,etc) and poll taxes.