CrazyRay

Would it shock you to know I don't agree with the government doing any of that? I appreciate you laying it out like that - and even though I disagree with your conclusion, I'm right there with you on that last line: It can be a real balancing act to keep rights from stepping all over one another.

You're still missing the point. You can defend your life any way you wish - you just have to remove your "life" from the person or persons' property at their request. I will ask again - can you prove by providing text in the Constitution or any other document that lays out your perceived right to force a property owner to allow you to carry a gun on their property?

Fallguy, if you don't mind - can you expand on this view? Particularly, Where in the Constitution do you find justification for the .gov take away those specific property rights? Let me be clear - I don't want the .gov having *any* more power than it absolutely needs. That said, I'd like to see exactly what Constitutional reason is given for the government to have the power to take away property rights, *just* based on a pretty vague definition of "open to the public". Again - don't look at this from a gun rights view, look at this from a standpoint "WHY am I allowing the government to take away rights from someone? Thanks for your input.

Is your right to protect yourself based on the ownership of a gun? Of course not. Neither is your right to property based on the actual ownership of property. Property rights *are* individual rights - even if the property is owned by two people (you and your wife, for instance), or a corporation (a collective group of like-minded INDIVIDUALS). Again - gun rights are necessary to PROTECT property rights (and a whole host of other inalienable rights)... They are a means (protection) to an end (securing OTHER rights). That is not to say they are not important - but their place in the order of rights is pretty clear.

I agree... several different views here and everyone is able to share them in a civil manner. It's a beautiful thing to see in action

I fail to see how I am being "respected" when I tell you not to bring a gun into my house, and you insist you can and WILL. Again - you are not being disarmed... you are simply being told you must go armed SOMEWHERE ELSE. Nobody is disarming anyone. I'm sorry if you misunderstand how the Constitution works... and that line of thinking you have there is very troubling.

I fondled one @ the Cool Springs Academy a few minutes ago... Seems like a decent deal for a budget wheel gun - I already own an older Rossi revolver so I really didn't see the need for another one. Also have a Taurus .40 semi-auto for $299 on sale as well.

I decided instead of just "spreading the word", I coerced/convinced/bribed/cajoled... me wife mom dad cousin cousin's husband so we could all take our HCP class together But I do like the idea of using your HCP for ID requests...

We found out 3 days before Thanksgiving in 08 that we were expecting #3... A full 7 years later than the latest of the other two (who are a mere 20 mo. apart). Trust me - I know what those first few days were like, but now that he's here - it's like it was "right" all along

Muck brand, and never look back. I picked up some this fall for deer season, and was amazed to finally find a pair of rubber boots that were comfortable to wear, walk and move around in. Not the cheapest option, but well made and well worth the money I spent.

I wish more people knew about the cardinal rule of safe gun count: Take the advertised content limit, and divide by 3. My Cannon safe is stated to hold 36 long guns. Yeah, right...

My opinions: 1. As was said - training is the key to making any of them work. 2. Watch the cheap kits - their underground wire generally sucks. Unless you particularly enjoy digging and burying wire - upgrade to some better wire, it's money well spent on the front end.

PM'd you 2 more to add... Thanks for the list.

I recently purchased a Cannon safe for my guns. That said - I also recognize that there are enough tools of mass destruction in my shop that given enough time - that safe isn't very "safe". As has been said, deter and delay are about the best you can hope for out of any "security" measure... To that end - just about anything is better than doing nothing at all.

I like to think of a person in a gun store wearing an Obama shirt as a someone I hope is showing they might just change

Nobody is disarming you. You go unarmed on THEIR property, or you can go armed somewhere else. You go NOT have a God given right to carry a gun on MY property, period. The simple fact is this - my property rights trump your perceived right to cary a gun anywhere you please. The founding fathers would find your view to be not only silly, but insulting to the owner of said property. And in the case of publicly held property, I agree - I should be able to carry there since *I* am one of the collective owners (again - the 2nd is a contract between the people and the gov't).

If so - just make sure you share the audio and video recordings we all *know* are part of the WWKD package

Yep - and everyone's rights get respected

lol... as if my post count has anything to do with a reasonable debate, facts, and logic.

Any other suggestions? I'm gonna try to tinker with it some more this weekend...

You have no right to carry a gun on my property - period. Again - I think you need to brust up on the fact that the Constitution is a contract between YOU and the Government, and the 2nd Amendment does NOT force me to do anything in regards to you. Again, show me where the Constitution gives you the right to carry a gun on anyone's property against their wishes - personal or corporately held. You have a perception issue here. The government is not involved in the least - this is an issue between a property owner and an individual person.YOU are the one wanting the government involved in passing laws to strip away property rights. They (property owners) aren't telling you that you can't protect yourself to and from work - they are simply telling you they don't want guns on their property. It is YOUR (and my) problem how to resolve those two things, not theirs. If it's your employer, I'd suggest a more tactful approach unless you are just itching for a wrongful termination lawsuit

Are you honestly suggesting that the founding fathers would agree with you on taking away property rights just because of the name registered on the title of said property? Are you saying you want to be a part of that process? I thought pro 2nd Amendment people generally abhorred the govenment meddling in our lives in those ways. I disagree, and laid out my suggestion just a post previous. My solutions retains your right to secure your property (no private entity should be able to search your car - EVER), while retaining the property owner's rights to decide what they want or don't want on their property. And just like anything else - a property owner can either allow you to be there with a gun, or ask you to leave if they think have a gun.But since they can't search your car - they better be *real* sure when they ask you to leave, because they will have to defend against that decision in the courts. I think this preserves everyone's rights and is IMHO the best compromise in that regard.

I have no clue what that first sentence means... care to explain? As for your differentiation between corporate held property and private property... What Constitutional grounds do you have for making that distinction? The 2nd Amendment is a contract between YOU and the GOVERNMENT. It states that the GOVERNMENT will not take away your rights. That is NOTHING to do with a private entity - be is personal or proporate - being able to retain THEIR rights to the property they legally own. Again - this is about you wanting to have the government forcible take away property rights... no more, no less. On a side note - since I saw the issue of cars being mentioned, there is a conflict of personal property rights there. IMHO, the most a real property (land) owner should be able to do in that instance is ask you to remove your property (the car) from their property. They should not have a right to search your property simply because it is located on their property. I think you'll find my view on this is pretty consistent as far as retaining rights

A compelling emotional response, but not grounded in logic or the law. Do you agree to take on the real and legal liability to protect - by gun - every person who is on your property (personal, or business)? Of course not - as that goes against the very thing we all believe in - PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY. Let's keep a perspective on what you are advocating: You want the GOVERNMENT to TAKE AWAY property rights, so you can force a property owner to let you carry a gun there. Instead, I want to retain property rights (a right that arguably is the very reason we have the 2nd Amendment) and let the property owner decide what happens on THEIR property. You, then - as a safety minded proponet of personal responsibility - have to decide if it is in your best interest to enter that piece of property, knowing you are unable to carry a weapon there. You can disagree all you want - but this view is 100% in line with the concept of personal responsibility, whereas your view is one that has you FORCING property owners to surrender their rights, by FORCE of the government. Is that really the position we want to be in, as advocated of the Constitution and the freedoms is is supposed to protect?

I guess I have a different take on this... In that I feel property owner rights should trump me wanting to carry a gun on *their* property. Saying that - I really would prefer that no such law were put into place. I know most of you don't see it that way, so I'm sure you'll disagree