The Answer Is *NOT* Thug Tactics

[Wingshooter]

I have learned to accept that there are going to be rules I don't like and times that I can't carry my gun. For those who are deadly sure they are going to be attacked as soon as they aren't carrying a gun, don't join the military. I drill every month with the TN State Guard and we cannot carry weapons onto the facility, not even locked up in the trunk. Since I live 87 miles from the base, I have to make the whole trip that day, unarmed. It would be the same for any other Reserve or Guard member.

I EDC but took my gun off and locked it in the COM Safe in the trunk when I ate at Chilis before the law and I guess I'll just do it again. (they weren't posted by the way.) I like the food and I am not going to deprive my wife of eating at one of her favorite restaurants because the law (not Chilis btw) says I can't wear my gun while I eat. I would rather carry my gun but I am not going to go high and right just because of the change. I will continue to support the campaign to allow carrying in restaurants and I hope it does come back, but I will still eat at Chilis. I pick where I eat by the quality of the food and service not what sticker or poster they have in their window.

Before all of the 2dA "militia" jump on me, I am not a Brady supporter, I am an NRA supporter.

I think some of the posters need to get a life that includes other things along with guns. The gun is an important tool but I wasn't born with it attached to my body. It doesn't have to be surgically removed.

Personal preference I guess. I'll choose carrying my gun over eating at Chili's any day. Don't get me wrong, I like Chili's. However, since they took the corn on the cob off of the Guiltless Chicken Platter, I've been disappointed.

There are a lot of places to eat where I live, and I can find one (a good one) that doesn't serve alcohol. What I prefer is dinner at home - I like to know what I am 'really' eating.

I like being able to defend my family if need be, but I also enjoy carrying my gun. I have a lot of hobbies and a life that includes other things. In fact, I usually have better things to do than hang out in a restaurant.

[titan14]

I like being able to defend my family if need be, but I also enjoy carrying my gun. I have a lot of hobbies and a life that includes other things. In fact, I usually have better things to do than hang out in a restaurant.

+10000:up:

[Motasyco]

I just finished eating slow grilled pork tenderloin covered with a blackberry merlot sauce with a side of mashed potatoes and gravy. Pork so tender it melted in my mouth. You can't get something like that in any restaurant around here. And I had my 1911 sitting on the table. There's no place like home.

[extremescene]

My relationship with my fiance (very pro-gun) wouldn't last too long if I deprived her of restaurants such as Chiles, O'Charley's, Red Lobster, the Melting Pot, Ellendales, etc. just because I can't carry there... every date place that exists serves alcohol.

Although it's not preferred, or "fair," I can tolerate being unarmed for a few hours... most wives and girlfriends won't tolerate never being taken on a date to nice restaurant, even if they claim to be OK with it. If you are the exception, great... you will save lots of money in your future by dining at Shoneys and Cracker Barrel. Perhaps my date and I will wait 4% less than we used to at nice restaurants.

edit: she also wouldn't allow my 1911 to sit on the dinner table during supper, the waistband is a different story, but on the table would be a no go!

Edited November 22, 2009 by extremescene

[Guest HexHead]

The most effective way of fighting fire with fire is to do it at the voting booth. If you figure out a way to get people to put their money where their mouth is inside the voting booth, and to motivate their friends to do the same, I'll be your biggest fan.

Do you really think we'd be having this discussion if Tennesseans were motivated enough to fire some of these liberal activist judges and other politicians???

Problem this time around didn't have much to do with politicians. They passed the law we pretty much wanted, and an appointed judge shot it down. Problem here in TN, is we don't really elect judges. We're pretty much just stuck with what we get.

As for getting rid of the liberal politicians, good luck with that. Aside from it being near impossible to unseat incumbents (hence Doug Henry and Jimmy Naifeh or any of the Fords), we have to get rid of liberal voters if you don't want liberals in office. Unfortunately there seem to be more of them each year rather than us.

[Motasyco]

edit: she also wouldn't allow my 1911 to sit on the dinner table during supper, the waistband is a different story, but on the table would be a no go!

Me = King Of The Castle

Actually, I'm very lucky. My wife had her Ruger .357 beside her and she prefers to eat the good stuff at home rather than any restaurant. Now if the grandkids were here, a gun on the table would be a no go here as well.

[Wingshooter]

My relationship with my fiance (very pro-gun) wouldn't last too long if I deprived her of restaurants such as Chiles, O'Charley's, Red Lobster, the Melting Pot, Ellendales, etc. just because I can't carry there... every date place that exists serves alcohol.

Although it's not preferred, or "fair," I can tolerate being unarmed for a few hours... most wives and girlfriends won't tolerate never being taken on a date to nice restaurant, even if they claim to be OK with it. If you are the exception, great... you will save lots of money in your future by dining at Shoneys and Cracker Barrel. Perhaps my date and I will wait 4% less than we used to at nice restaurants.

edit: she also wouldn't allow my 1911 to sit on the dinner table during supper, the waistband is a different story, but on the table would be a no go!

I don't think there is one size fits all when it comes to this. It depends on your priorities and goals at the time. The dating world is vastly different than married for a long time with a bunch of kids. I've been there, done that with the dating scene. Before I was married to my wife, she wouldn't have liked it either if I never took her out to a nice place. Now, she prefers to go home, save the money from a restaurant and enjoy a night at home as much as I do. She doesn't carry (still working on that ), but she likes it that I do. Neither one of us wants to leave a weapon in the car while we go inside. We are both on the same page when it comes to whether or not I will disarm.

She travels with me occationally when I have to for work, and it's usually in a state that understands that guns don't self-destruct when under the same roof as alcohol. That is usually our together without the kids time, and I can still carry legally in whatever restaurant.

[extremescene]

I don't think there is one size fits all when it comes to this. It depends on your priorities and goals at the time. The dating world is vastly different than married for a long time with a bunch of kids. I've been there, done that with the dating scene.

what about your wedding anniversary, valentines day, or some other special occasion? Stay home and boycott?

[Wingshooter]

what about your wedding anniversary, valentines day, or some other special occasion? Stay home and boycott?

Cabin in Gatlinburg

I'm not saying that I will never, under any circumstances disarm to go into a restaurant that serves, but it will be an exception rather than the rule.

Edited November 23, 2009 by Batman

[Semiauto]

Good. Besides posting about it on the Internet, what are you doing to turn the tide?

I don't care to discuss it in a public forum.

[TGO David]

I don't care to discuss it in a public forum.

Well then this conversation isn't going to be very productive, is it?

[Motasyco]

what about your wedding anniversary, valentines day, or some other special occasion? Stay home and boycott?

With my wife and I these are all special meals at home. Why go out for mediocre food and service when I can have the best of everything at home? Eating out is for when there is no other option. Boycott doesn't enter into it.

[Semiauto]

As for getting rid of the liberal politicians, good luck with that. Aside from it being near impossible to unseat incumbents (hence Doug Henry and Jimmy Naifeh or any of the Fords), we have to get rid of liberal voters if you don't want liberals in office. Unfortunately there seem to be more of them each year rather than us.

This is the problem. You cannot expect someone that pays no taxes and receives the fruits of another's labor to be swayed to Constitutionalism. If I get to eat on your dime, why would I vote for someone that will take my free meal away? We should be discussing how to remove the liberal voter, because THEY are the problem. The land-owner requirement to vote was a great tool to remove the chaff.

[Semiauto]

Well then this conversation isn't going to be very productive, is it?

Why yes, I think it will be.

[Guest crotalus01]

Jeez, people. Be realistic. A boycott is never gonna happen, and it would have near zero effect if it did.

The best outcome that could happen from all this is the Legislature gets pissed and comes back in January and passes a non-vague law that says carry is allowed in ALL places that serve with NO opt-out by posting a sign.

THAT would really make Rayburn rue the day he took the original law to court.

[Guest db99wj]

Sent Sen Jackson an email, and of course he had a quick response.

I expect the legislature will quickly make the definition crystal in January. Stay tuned and thanks

Doug Jackson

While it doesn't say the details of the plan, this comment leads me to believe that things are in motion to get this fixed. Hopefully it will be better, and cut down on any confusion. And from previous email correspondence, Sen Jackson doesn't bs it, if he says it will, it will. Wish I could vote for him.

Edited November 24, 2009 by db99wj

[Guest landman08]

This is the problem. You cannot expect someone that pays no taxes and receives the fruits of another's labor to be swayed to Constitutionalism. If I get to eat on your dime, why would I vote for someone that will take my free meal away? We should be discussing how to remove the liberal voter, because THEY are the problem. The land-owner requirement to vote was a great tool to remove the chaff.

So my mother and father in a nursing home, who worked for 40yrs, owned real estate, paid taxes should not be allowed to vote anymore, since they no longer own real estate?

[Mike.357]

. The land-owner requirement to vote was a great tool to remove the chaff.

yeah that makes a lot of sense

There are plenty of productive tax paying citizens who do not own property.

How about some Jim Crowe laws while we are at it.

[Semiauto]

So my mother and father in a nursing home, who worked for 40yrs, owned real estate, paid taxes should not be allowed to vote anymore, since they no longer own real estate?

Who's paying for the nursing home?

My comment was bent towards the wards of the state that live their entire lives (or most of it) from other's labor. Paying federal income taxes is now down to about 56%, so those that don't pay will tend to vote for more "gifts". Tell me, why shouldn't every swinging Richard pay income tax if they earn an income?

[Guest mikedwood]

I said I'd join the boycott and better than I could ever say why Grimel, Motasyco and Batman have summed it up, for me and my reasons to a tee.

BTW, those aren't thug tactics. It's following the law. Are advocating I violate the law and go eat at places that supported us?

Before July I didn't eat at restaurants that served alcohol because I couldn't carry. After July I was able to enjoy eating at restaurants that served alcohol. Now I'm just back where I started. No "thug tactics" intended. It's not my intention to try to put someone out of business nor do I believe my business will make or break a restaurant. I won't leave my gun in the car just so I can eat at a restaurant that serves alcohol and I won't break the law. There are enough places to eat that don't serve alcohol that I have no fear of going hungry. The door was opened to me for a while and now it's been closed again. As a HCP holder I can and do carry. If I have a choice, I don't go where I can't carry. It's as simple as that. I don't see how this makes me a bad guy.

I've yet to experience dining in a Tennessee restaurant that was exceptional enough to make me want to disarm to eat there. The good stuff comes from my kitchen. No, that's not an invitation.

Perhaps some of the differences here come from a generational gap that I've observed within my own family.

When I visit my kids, most meals are restaurant meals. Either we all go to a restaurant or they bring home take out food. To them eating at restaurants seems to be part of the lifestyle. Home cooked meals are rare. Maybe it's because they can't cook but I tend to think it has more to do with not wanting to put forth the effort.

You come to visit me and every meal is home cooked. We take pride in the meals we prepare and much prefer eating at home. And yes, both my wife and I work and have busy schedules. Restaurants for me are only for when a home cooked meal is not possible. My wife and I both had birthdays recently. Our kids would go out to eat to celebrate their birthdays. We celebrate by preparing our favorite meals at home.

For some of us, it's not an issue of supporting or not supporting restaurants. It's just a matter of practicality and necessity. We shouldn't criticize those that want to continue eating out where they can't carry but those of us that don't want to inconvenience ourselves to eat where we can't carry shouldn't be criticized either.

I'm just not going to disarm myself to eat at an Outback or an Applebee's or some other crappy restaurant where the food is mediocre at best.

Anyone who thinks I should eat in places that serve alcohol. It is NOT playing dirty. THEY have the law the way THEY want it. Okay, I'll play THEIR game. THEY can compare their receipts before, during, and after the carry law was passed and overturned. Then THEY can come out for which ever side they prefer come 2010.

You want to disarm, fine, just remember Hooter's. They were properly posted. All the good guys followed the rules. Someone died from gunshot wounds inside the restaurant.

Personal preference I guess. I'll choose carrying my gun over eating at Chili's any day. Don't get me wrong, I like Chili's. However, since they took the corn on the cob off of the Guiltless Chicken Platter, I've been disappointed.

There are a lot of places to eat where I live, and I can find one (a good one) that doesn't serve alcohol. What I prefer is dinner at home - I like to know what I am 'really' eating.

I like being able to defend my family if need be, but I also enjoy carrying my gun. I have a lot of hobbies and a life that includes other things. In fact, I usually have better things to do than hang out in a restaurant.

I just finished eating slow grilled pork tenderloin covered with a blackberry merlot sauce with a side of mashed potatoes and gravy. Pork so tender it melted in my mouth. You can't get something like that in any restaurant around here. And I had my 1911 sitting on the table. There's no place like home.

With my wife and I these are all special meals at home. Why go out for mediocre food and service when I can have the best of everything at home? Eating out is for when there is no other option. Boycott doesn't enter into it.

I'd also like to add that I can understand why Appleby's wants their customers disarmed due to the way they always screw up my steak. I like it medium not burnt and dry. I have never understood the appeal of that place.

I like eating at home a million times more than I like eating at any local resturant. I can go to Krogers and spend $30 and have several great meals. I can take my girlfriend to some resturant and for $30 or so I'm usually disappointed leaving. I'm spoiled I guess but I like my food to at the least be decent.

Have been exactly two resturants in Knoxville I would gladly disarm to eat at but they are both out of business now

So I join the boycott just to keep myself legal because I always carry.

Monday I had a doctors appointment and had to pay my city and county business taxes. I had to disarm three times that day. What a pain in the butt.

Edited November 27, 2009 by mikedwood

[DaveTN]

What does the high road get us when our opponents are using lies and mis-information to defeat us? A "good feeling" while we have to walk around disarmed? F*ck that.

Look at what "playing nice" has gotten us?

As someone that moved here from Illinois 11 years ago I can only say… are you serious?

I can carry a gun in my car, I can carry gun on me in most places. I was arrested in Illinois for no crime other than having a gun in my car.

I am supposed to risk all we have because someone wants to carry a gun where liquor is sold? No way.

So go ahead…. Vote out all the politicians that have given us the privileges we can purchase. But keep in mind that in this economy gun control is way down on the list of issues that voters care about. The worse the economy gets the more liberal democrats will be elected; that is no good for us.

But keep in mind I have absolutely no misconceptions about my rights, where they come from, or how the state of Tennessee feels about them. The state does not recognize the 2nd as an individual right to bear arms and now the SCOTUS has also ruled that way. However…. Buying a privilege is better than the alternative.

Memphis will be the downfall of gun issues in Tennessee just as Chicago is in Illinois.

[Motasyco]

Dang, I can't shut up can i?

[Guest HexHead]

The state does not recognize the 2nd as an individual right to bear arms and now the SCOTUS has also ruled that way. However…. Buying a privilege is better than the alternative. [/size][/font]

Memphis will be the downfall of gun issues in Tennessee just as Chicago is in Illinois.

To quote Steve Buscemi in Armageddon, "Okay, what'd I miss?"

[DaveTN]

To quote Steve Buscemi in Armageddon, "Okay, what'd I miss?"

I guess you missed Heller.

You have a right to keep arms; you do not have a right to bear arms. The regulating of carrying was left up to state and local law. Regulating carry or use is state right; not an individual right.

[Semiauto]

Heller confirmed the individual right to own and carry a firearm in the federal enclave of Washington, D.C. It found the original intent of the 2nd amendment through period writings of the authors. There is continuing litigation regarding the decision and other localities have now seen their laws challenged based on Heller.