DRM

Looks like day 2 and it's still going.... anyone catch anything worth catching yet?

Are you expecting her to come back as a bumper?

No. However, you can check http://deals.woot.com and there are often gun and ammo deals posted there from time to time.

I would guess I pocket carry (P3AT in a re-purposed BlackBerry holster) probably 95% of the time, the rest is OC on my hip. Pocket carry has gotten so second nature by now, that the only time I OC is when I will be doing outdoor activities where having it in my pocket is awkward.

There can be a lot of crap, but there are some good deals that pop up in there too...

Woot® : One Day, One Deal If you are into that sort of thing... and if you don't like refreshing, there are half a dozen ways to track when new items show up: Woot-Off Checkers - Woot Wiki Looks like there was a SOG knife earlier this morning... might be some other useful items pop up today as well.

Back in June I made the jump from the Blackberry to an HTC EVO. Despite a few quirks along the way, I can't see myself ever going back to a Blackberry after having an Android phone. I think you'll be very happy once you make the move.

I'm not an attorney - but I am an employer who has hired and fired a few people over the years. And in agreement with Muttling - I see enough red flags there that speaking to a lawyer to at least get a consult is probably a good idea.

Quite a few OHV parks in TN and AL: List of off road parks - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Wooly's and Wheelin' In The Country are both pretty close to MidTn.

Gotcha... and for the record I do think your dad's comment is VERY applicable here.

I guess I don't see the arbitrary definition of 'property" you seem to be applying... re: building vs. parking lot. Oh, and as I made clear - I think a property owner should be able to ask anyone to leave his property for whatever reason... period.

If you want to take that approach, the founding fathers were not even discussing the ability to carry a gun around. I'd about guarantee they would say "duh, of course you could carry a gun around!". On the other hand, the founding fathers would have also had the RESPECT to NOT carry a gun on to the property of someone who wishes no guns to be there. They would have checked them at the door, or kindly left the property and never come back. It is absurd to think the founding fathers would have EVER tried to force a property owner to give up their property rights in this way, and I challenge you to find evidence to the contrary that would support this notion.

I've said all along that is the approach I prefer. You seem to be contradicting yourself, and your dad. Their property is their "nose".

My kids are currently 6 and 8. Both of them have been "trained" so far using airsoft guns. While "playing", I stress the basics as if they were REAL firearms - muzzle direction, attention to what is downrange, attention to what is beyond your target, etc. We've even set up a mock airsoft shooting range in the house and covered the basics of range fire as well (even though I've never been to a range - lol). They have also fired their (yes, their) .22 Cricket single shot bolt action, and will be working with their 7 shot .22 Woodchucker rifle this summer (bolt action). Beyond that - neither are able to pull back the slides on any of my pistols (I have not worked with them on the revolver yet). Nor are they able to hold any of the full size long guns. But as they get older, I'll keep checking both their physical capabilities and mental awareness and judge how to proceed with their education concerning firearms. And based on that education process - as some time they will learn how, when, and where they will have access to weapons in the home if they need to defend themselves, OR if they need to defend us should I or their mother be incapacitated in some way. Probably SEVERAL years in the future for sure. Aside from that - they will also be taught MANY other options to have at their disposal during an emergency situation. Contacting the police/911, knowing when to flee, knowing when to hide, being aware of their surroundings, etc. IMHO most situations that kids would be in reaching for a firearm is probably going to be pretty low on the hierarchy of effecting means of survival for a given situation.

Very nice! I need to get back into some hiking myself, and when my wife saw these pics she could be convinced to as well

Except it's not so easy to just move out of the neighborhood and into a house down the road with no restrictions... Costa Rica is looking better and better...

Amen on that... the less the gov't has to do with my daily life the BETTER! Yes, it is sad. Wish I knew how to fix it

Not sure where you got confused - but I've been dead on consistent in my position so far. Kindly quote where I was inconsistent, and I'll address it. Instead, I think the inconsistencies are with people who keep bringing up "searches", when I have clearly said searches should not be allowed. And some seem unable to talk about the right for a property owner to ask you to remove yourself or your gun - without somehow assuming that a search has to be involved. This isn't the first time I've discussed this issue with gun owners, and generally speaking, gun owners get so wrapped up in in their perceived "right" to "carry a gun anydamnwhere they want", and start blatantly tossing aside other rights in the process. (side note - don't take that as me being against the right to carry, I can almost guarantee my views on that are so far to the right of you that you'll look like nanci Pelosi in comparison ) Like property rights. Or they make excuses that somehow if a business owns a piece of property the owners have less of a right to control what comes on to their property. Or they try diversion type arguments - like the racist angle above - which do nothing bur detract from the issue. Or they toss out blanket statements like "2nd Amendment, baby!", which in no way passes for a discussion on the topic. Plainly put - gun owners (or more specifically in this case - gun CARRIERS) let their passion for carrying a gun cloud their view of the rest of the issues at hand. I can't for the life of me understand why some of you are so adamant about wanting the government MORE entrenched in your daily lives, and why you can't just respect that if a property owner doesn't want your gun (and by extension - one could assume YOU) there, then just RESPECT their wishes and go elsewhere. And since you seem to think I was being inconsistent, I'll sum up my views: -I think any property owners should be able to ask you to remove your gun from their property at any time. -I think it should be illegal for an employer or any other PRIVATE entity to be able to search your property (car), they should only be able to ask you to leave (remove the perceived threat), or they need to call the police if they think a crime has been committed or a crime is about to be committed. -I think it should be illegal for an employer to fire or otherwise punish you for having a gun in your car, UNLESS (and I just added this part) they have informed you not to have it on their property, and are able to confirm that it you have returned with a gun on their property WITHOUT searching your car. Anyway, I think I've explained my position clear enough so far. My main point is that this issue is not a black and white issue... for HCP holders to get their way, you need to realize that you will be TAKING someone else's rights away, AND in the process - you got the GOVERNMENT in the middle of it all... and never forget: As soon as you you give the government the power to say YES, you also gave them the power to say NO. Enjoy

Let me know when you are ready to discuss this based on logic, not emotion. Because I really don't have the time nor the interest to discuss this with people who can't seem to separate the two. Oh, and if you think what I said was about discrimination, you have a perception problem my friend...

That's a shame - and IMHO there should be laws against that kind of retaliation. At most - they should be able to ask you to leave. I do NOT agree with a civilian having the right to search your property. YOu may not feel like you have the right to dictate what is allowed on your porperty, but plenty of the rest of us do. So should we all give up our rights just because you chose not to exercise yours? Some people think you only need guns for hunting, others disagree. YOu better be careful - or one day you'll lose a right you care about because others decided it wasn't all that important to them. Point is - there are prenty of rights I may not chose to exercise, but I dang sure don't want them taken away.

No, I said the comment was "cute" because it was a flippant catch phrase that the poster used to avoid actually discussing the issue. The Parking Lot Carry Bill does exactly that - it removes a property owner's right to ask control what takes place on their property. See, that's not your call to make, is it? You don't get to come on my property, and then tell me what does or does not "threaten me". It is my decision and my call to decide at what point - on my own property - I feel threatened. That could be you pointing a gun at me, or you simply standing there with a gun, or even you having a gun in your car. My property - my call. Just like it is your call to decide if me merely sitting in your driveway holding a shotgun is "threatening" - regardless of whether I say it is threatening or not. Pretty much an apples to oranges comparison, but I'll answer it anyway: Yes, I think a business should be able to serve or refuse service anyone at their leisure. If refusing to serve a segment of the population (gun owners, whites, redheads, whatever) causes their business to prosper - good for them. If it causes their business to fail - well, better luck next time. Either way - FREE people can decide to patronize a FREE business or not... without the government getting in the middle of it. I'm pretty confident that it what the founding fathers had in mind. Me, personally, I'm keeping my business open to anyone who wants our services - gun owners, whites, even crazy redheads - their money all spends the same

Then is it your position that if the Kroger parking lot was owned by DRM, and leased to Kroger - DRM *does* have the right to ask that you not come on my property with a gun, but if DRM and his wife own a piece of property in an LLC, then DRM does *not* have the right to ask you to leave if you have a gun on the property?

So it seems we both agree that "search" is not part of the rights of the property owner. Good. But it seems that you agree that a property owner should be able to say "If you have a gun on my property, please remove the gun from my property", and you should comply. And I would assume that you also agree that if the property owner feels they are being lied to at that point, they should have the right to say "leave my property", and that person should leave, correct?

You seem to have not answered the question...

I think some of you are having some reading comprehension issues, because you continue to confuse the separate issues of "searches" and "asking you to leave".