published Sunday, February 17th, 2013

The Parking Lot

about Clay Bennett...

The son of a career army officer, Bennett led a nomadic life, attending ten different schools before graduating in 1980 from the University of North Alabama with degrees in Art and History. After brief stints as a staff artist at the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette and the Fayetteville (NC) Times, he went on to serve as the editorial cartoonist for the St. Petersburg Times (1981-1994) and The Christian Science Monitor (1997-2007), before joining the staff of the ...

169
Comments do not represent the opinions of the Chattanooga Times Free Press, nor does it review every comment. Profanities, slurs and libelous remarks are prohibited. For more information you can view our Terms & Conditions and/or Ethics policy.
nucanuck said...

Out-of-control gun rights make perfect sense in a country gripped by fear. Now a better topic would be, does widespread gun ownership make a better country?

February 17, 2013 at 12:19 a.m.
Salsa said...

I hear a sheep bleating.

February 17, 2013 at 12:40 a.m.
AndrewLohr said...

"More Guns Less Crime" answers nucanuck's question, judging by its reviews (I haven't read it). Marietta is safer than Chicago.

But if Clay's point is that groups which want to ban guns should be allowed to, I agree with him. (?!!) So does the Free Press editor, as I recall. Since almost all US gun massacres have taken place in gun-free zones--the Aurora joker drove past bigger and closer movie theaters to shoot up one that banned guns--antigun groupings are running risks. Don't pretend they're not. Of course guns carry risks too. So do cars: how many Chicago cheerleaders have died in cars lately?

But a free country is one that lets people and groups of people do what many others consider less than the best. A government that tries to make sure we have, or can get, accurate info about risks may be serving us. A government that chooses risks for us--Senator Kennedy, drive Volkswagons: they float!--shows contempt for us as it babysits us.

Y'all remember to bring your loaded assault rifles to the Church of St Oliver Cromwell the Great this morning.

February 17, 2013 at 1:03 a.m.
AndrewLohr said...

I'm not keen on big civil penalties either way the laws go, but ideally let gun-free groups police themselves--boss can fire worker for bringing gun to work, or for failing to do so, or lesser internal penalties--and if the civil penalties are against gun-free wannabees that hassle gunholders, I hope the fines or whatever aren't bad. Marietta requires guns but doesn't crack down much.

February 17, 2013 at 1:12 a.m.
nucanuck said...

Since the US is already predisposed towards violence for conflict resolution, it only makes sense that as gun ownwership saturation numbers rise, so will the violence numbers. Universal access to weapons can't mix well with the substantial percentages of people with personality defects that can easily be set-off.

Hand guns and assault rifles are however, effective for population reduction.

February 17, 2013 at 1:37 a.m.
alprova said...

There is a simple solution to Tennessee's short-sighted legislation, if a property or business owner does not desire guns on his or her property.

Employers may institute a strict no-gun policy that includes a right to search any and all motor vehicles on the property and that makes having a gun in one's vehicle a firing offense.

Then it comes down to which is more important to a person...their job or their "right" to carry a gun in their motor vehicle.

February 17, 2013 at 1:38 a.m.
alprova said...

Look for Volkswagen to institute strict anti-gun rules if the bill passes the Tennessee House and if Haslem signs it.

February 17, 2013 at 1:48 a.m.
Easy123 said...

AndrewLohr,

"More Guns Less Crime"

That's simply not true.

"Marietta is safer than Chicago."

Japan (very few guns) is much safer than the U.S. (lots of guns).

"the Aurora joker drove past bigger and closer movie theaters to shoot up one that banned guns"

No, he didn't. The closest theater was called Cinema Latino de Aurora. Let me translate: Aurora Latino Cinema. It was not bigger and I highly doubt the deranged Caucasian killer had ever been there. There was also a dinner-and-a-movie type establishment closer as well. But it was not bigger either. The Aurora killer went to the place where he could kill the most people. Concealed carry laws likely didn't play a part in his thinking.

Your lies are easily found out, Lohr.

http://johnrlott.blogspot.com/2012/08/so-are-movie-theaters-in-aurora.html

"antigun groupings are running risks. Don't pretend they're not."

They aren't.

"So do cars"

And cars are heavily regulated unlike guns.

"A government that chooses risks for us--Senator Kennedy, drive Volkswagons: they float!--shows contempt for us as it babysits us."

You're obviously too ignorant and deceitful to make the proper choices.

February 17, 2013 at 1:52 a.m.
alprova said...

AndrewLohr wrote: "More Guns Less Crime" answers nucanuck's question, judging by its reviews (I haven't read it). Marietta is safer than Chicago."

What does Marietta, Georgia have to do with anything? The city that passed the ordinance requiring every homeowner to have a firearm was Kennesaw, Georgia.

Kennesaw and Chicago have as much in common with each other as Cleveland, Ohio and Cleveland, Tennessee do.

"Since almost all US gun massacres have taken place in gun-free zones--the Aurora joker drove past bigger and closer movie theaters to shoot up one that banned guns."

Sounds like an NRA statistic, and one that cannot begin to be proven.

"how many Chicago cheerleaders have died in cars lately?"

Why is it that people find it necessary to compare apples to watermelons?

"But a free country is one that lets people and groups of people do what many others consider less than the best."

Hoo boy...I see you're hitting the wine bottle this morning.

"A government that tries to make sure we have, or can get, accurate info about risks may be serving us."

Huh?

"A government that chooses risks for us--Senator Kennedy, drive Volkswagons: they float!--shows contempt for us as it babysits us."

A Volkswagen doesn't float any better that any other motorized vehicle containing metal. And since the man is now dead, don't you think it's time to drop the Kennedy jokes?

"Y'all remember to bring your loaded assault rifles to the Church of St Oliver Cromwell the Great this morning."

I have suspected for quite some time that you were a member of some weird cult. Yikes....

February 17, 2013 at 2:07 a.m.
alprova said...

AndrewLohr wrote: "Marietta requires guns but doesn't crack down much."

Thou shalt not lie. The city that passed the ordinance requiring homeowners to have at least one gun in 1982, that indeed is not enforced, was Kennesaw, Georgia.

Kennesaw city ordiance: [Sec 34-21]

(a) In order to provide for the emergency management of the city, and further in order to provide for and protect the safety, security and general welfare of the city and its inhabitants, every head of household residing in the city limits is required to maintain a firearm, together with ammunition therefore.

(b)Exempt from the effect of this section are those heads of households who suffer a physical or mental disability which would prohibit them from using such a firearm. Further exempt from the effect of this section are those heads of households who are paupers or who conscientiously oppose maintaining firearms as a result of beliefs or religious doctrine, or persons convicted of a felony.

February 17, 2013 at 2:15 a.m.
Reardon said...

Dear God I agree with Al for once.

February 17, 2013 at 5:24 a.m.
patriot1 said...

We must begin with the premise that HCP holders have rights and in this case that happens to be the right to possess a firearm. Does that right end when the permit holder (in this case the employee) enters the private property of another (in this case the employer)?

I see a parallel with a gun owners rights being denied here, in the same way a minority was denied rights at lunch counters back in the day. The same crowd yelling "property rights" would no doubt have been defending that lunch counter owner as he chose to deny seating for some in his "private" restaurant. After all that parking lot and lunch counter belonged to him, did it not?

February 17, 2013 at 5:37 a.m.
fairmon said...

The employer property owner should have the right to ban fire arms on said property. Did this brilliant law exempt the employer from any liability resulting from some nut discharging a fire arm on the property or other mayhem that may result? There is nothing that requires a person to be on or around the property, they can opt to not work there.

February 17, 2013 at 6:03 a.m.
mountainlaurel said...

Tennessee's legislation should be called the Gun Owners’ Bully Law. It denies businesses and other property owners the right to establish safety rules, which help to protect their visitors and employees from gun violence. It essentially says the rights of any gun owner - both the crazy and non-crazy - are more important than the rights of any property owner.

February 17, 2013 at 7:04 a.m.

andrew-braindead-lohr writes "More Guns Less Crime" ...

her in Germany we are closely following the gun-debate and we are left with shaking heads and being reassured how dumb the rural population of United Stupids of America is. But what can be expected from a country where 25 percent of the population thinks that god had his hands in the outcome of the superbowl...

And Andrew is the posterboy of this society. And Andrew you are already famous among my colleagues, since whenever the discussion about the US heats up in our department I show the guys your comments and we have a big laugh and the definite proof that stupidity can be infinite...

More guns in a paranoid uneven society where most of the people are on meds just means an increase of family tragedies and suicides. The presence of guns makes it far more likely that heated discussions ends with a bullet whereas normaly a broken bone is the ultimate end of a struggle in my neighborhood (in Germany) where gladly nobody has a gun... But of course, guns dont kill, but people kill, as the NRA wants you to believe. But humans tend to overreact in many situations in particular when they are under stress because of being overworked or other problems arising in an unjust society like the US...

.. so buy more guns and hide behind your paranoid walls being prepared for ultimate showdown with whoever comes to your house...

February 17, 2013 at 7:12 a.m.
jesse said...

Hey Austrian,Germany ain't doin too bad in the gun ownership dept.

You ain't been around in a while BUT you are still full of crap! http://www.gunpolicy.org/firearms/region/germany

February 17, 2013 at 7:31 a.m.
conservative said...

Things Liberals never knew:

People, especially those with carry permits have always had their guns locked in their cars at work or concealed on their person.

February 17, 2013 at 7:44 a.m.
fairmon said...

patriot1 said..

I see a parallel with a gun owners rights being denied here, in the same way a minority was denied rights at lunch counters back in the day. The same crowd yelling "property rights" would no doubt have been defending that lunch counter owner as he chose to deny seating for some in his "private" restaurant. After all that parking lot and lunch counter belonged to him, did it not?

Actually not a valid comparison, employers are not a retail food establishment open to and serving the public. Restaurant owners can still ban guns including those with permits by posting a sign saying no guns allowed.

February 17, 2013 at 8:23 a.m.
fairmon said...

Business friendly Tennessee does it again. To potential employers, come on in, don't worry about your policies, if we don't like them we will just pass a law that requires you to change or not enforce them. You can ask Amazon about our credibility, They will assure you it is good until you are in operation.

BTW...I own several guns and have a permit but I don't think that gives me the right to ignore or supersede the rights of others.

February 17, 2013 at 8:31 a.m.
patriot1 said...

fairmon said: Restaurant owners can still ban guns including those with permits by posting a sign saying no guns allowed.

Try to set aside your bias and emotions as it relates to guns and think of owning a gun as a civil right, after all it is precisely that. Restaurant owners should NOT have a choice about whether or not to ban guns carried by law abiding citizens, a choice was not extended to that lunch counter owner (and rightfully so) as to who he could serve.

February 17, 2013 at 8:38 a.m.

jesse, did you read the statistics about gun death per year: It is 900 - 32000 !!!!!

I know that your highest number to imagine is 10000 (years) which is the beginning of your limited universe.

However, I doubt the number of gun owners reported in this article. I know nobody having a gun ...

February 17, 2013 at 8:58 a.m.
fairmon said...

patriot1...

I agree an owner soliciting the business of the public should not be allowed to refuse service based on race. However, I think they should have the right to ban guns since people have the choice of not patronizing a business with the premise of if they ban guns or if they do not ban guns. Employers are held liable by workers comp laws for any injury on their property, including parking and other common use areas so why should they not be able to minimize the exposure? Legislatures cannot pass a law giving something to anyone without taking something from someone else, in this case the owners right to control potentially bad behavior on their property.

February 17, 2013 at 9:01 a.m.
GameOn said...

Gun laws only deter law abiding citizens.

February 17, 2013 at 9:08 a.m.
patriot1 said...

alpo says: "..institute a strict no gun policy that includes a right to search any and all motor vehicles on the property and that makes having a gun in one's vehicle a firing offense."

First, as I mentioned in an earlier post, you have to first accept the fact that gun ownnership and a right to carry exists, irregardless of your emotions and biased beliefs.

Let's assume you live in Ringgold Ga and work at Volkswagen. If your employer has the ability to search your vehicle and fire you for having a firearm in your car, HIS "right" exists not only in his parking lot, but extends to your doorstep in Ringgold, GA. What is a gun owner supposed to do with his weapon when he gets to work? It seems to me he is conceding a lot by locking it in his vehicle.

February 17, 2013 at 9:10 a.m.
DJHBRAINERD said...

As consevative has pointed out I have had my weapon locked in my vehicle for years while I am at work. Untill this legislation came up I was under the impression my car was my private property as well and since it is legal for me to carry I never even thought it was anyone's business what was in my parked car. But then I read Alpo's comment......Employers may institute a strict no-gun policy that includes a right to search any and all motor vehicles on the property and that makes having a gun in one's vehicle a firing offense.

Then it comes down to which is more important to a person...their job or their "right" to carry a gun in their motor vehicle.... and I wonder where all this is heading. Have we really come so far as to be afraid of everything? Is it the old prove a negative, If it just saves one life type of thinking that leads us to distrust our co workers? How will we know if this just saves one life? And when I am a victim of a carjacking/robbery on the way to my car from my house will you count me as a victim of your desire to control the caos that is our morality? Three times this month the police have responded to shots fired on my block and I read on here about searching my car and firing me because I carry a permitted weapon in my personal vehicle. Do any of you know what it is like to have to walk to your car at night with drug dealers and wanna b ganbangers wooping it up on the corner? Well I do and I will not be an unarmed victim on my way to work so that you can pat yourselves on the back and congradulate each other on stopping an imaginary crime not being commited by a law abiding citizen.

February 17, 2013 at 9:23 a.m.
just_wondering said...

I guess alprova is ready to give up his right to privacy to the same evil corporations that liberals hate so much. Now he wants to give them policing rights that even the sworn law officers don't have. Search every car? what gives them the right to invade my personal private property? What's next? Want to let them come to your house and look for a gun? Gotta make sure that we don't have people working for us that might go home and get a gun and come back! Talk about a corporataucracy. I don't believe a corporation has any more right to violate my civil rights than the police.

February 17, 2013 at 10:10 a.m.
nucanuck said...

It would seem that almost every gun owner envisions the possibility that he/she might use their weapon against another human. If that ia a fair assessment, how can anyone believe that guns make our society better? Rather than argue about rights, how about aguing about what makes us a better society.

As long as people believe that guns aren't harmful to a society, we will be faced with gun use aftermath. Like all trends, we will eventually reach a tipping point where there will be public revulsion at the carnage.

In the meantime we can look forward to the new BRA...Bi-polar Rifle Association.

February 17, 2013 at 10:12 a.m.
DJHBRAINERD said...

NUCANUCK...It would seem that almost every gun owner envisions the possibility that he/she might use their weapon against another human.......Other than the pitbull that gets off its chain I could not imagine using my gun on anything else. And I am sorry for feeling that way but with noone having a gun how do I stop 4 or 5 guys who want to do me harm, snitches get stiches you know. So nucanuck I'm curious as to what you think the world without guns would be like and how would a pettie female or an elderly person fare in this gunless utopia you pine for? I'll even make a deal with anyone out there , come rent my house I'll move to the suburbs and leave my guns behind. You can choose to walk around the neighborhood unarmed if you like but at least I am willing to give you the choice, Why will you not give me the same?

February 17, 2013 at 10:27 a.m.
BigRidgePatriot said...

nucanuck said... "Since the US is already predisposed towards violence for conflict resolution"

I get so tired of hearing these kinds of general characterisations. In areas of the US where legal gun ownership is highest gun related crimes are on par with Canada and Europe. Urban centres with a violent underground economy created by the prohibition on drugs are completely skewing the numbers for the US overall.

America's violence problem cannot be solved through gun regulation.

February 17, 2013 at 10:49 a.m.
Reardon said...

Guys.

Your company owns your employment.

You are an employee. You are bound to a contract you signed.

In effect, the employment opportunity is the property of the employer.

The corporation has rights, as do you.

Bottom line, in my opinion, if you have a problem with said company who employs you regarding their firearm rules, find another job.

When you walk on their premises, that they pay taxes for and bought the rights to, you are or should be obligated to respect their rights.

If the company does not want you bringing your guns on premises, especially if detailed contractually, adhere or risk termination.

February 17, 2013 at 10:50 a.m.

GameOn said

"Gun laws only deter law abiding citizens."

GameOn, also law abiding citizens can overreact, freak out, get depressed, etc.. and then it would be better if there is no gun at hand....

February 17, 2013 at 10:53 a.m.
dude_abides said...

Perhaps the companies could register, even inspect, the guns brought in by employees. They could set aside a small amount of time for the employees to bring their weapons in for this purpose, like maybe in conjunction with performance reviews!

February 17, 2013 at 11:06 a.m.
DJHBRAINERD said...

Bigridge makes a wonderful point. All my problems stem from the war on drugs and the nusence of the street people who sell them. The distrust it fosters with the police and the citizens who are being stoped and frisked only adds to the problem. Nobody saw nuthin and the police cannot do anything without witnesses. So it feeds on itsself until entire population groups refuse to cooperate with law enforcement thus skewing the violent statistics upward.

February 17, 2013 at 11:06 a.m.
DJHBRAINERD said...

Maybe we could just have a don't ask don't tell policy toward firearms in private vehicles! It's been working for me the last few years. But car searches..... come on man really.....

February 17, 2013 at 11:11 a.m.
fairmon said...

Companies could have a rule that a gun and ammunition are to be locked in separate locations in a vehicle.

February 17, 2013 at 11:25 a.m.
DJHBRAINERD said...

Reardon.....If the company does not want you bringing your guns on premises, especially if detailed contractually, adhere or risk termination. Can you give me any other example of a company prohibiting a legal posession from being stored in a personal vehicle on thier private property. By your reasoning can Volkswagon require the employees to only park volkswagons on thier private lot thus forcing the employees to aquire thier product for the right to work there?

February 17, 2013 at 11:26 a.m.
mountainlaurel said...

DHBrainard says: “Three times this month the police have responded to shots fired on my block and I read on here about searching my car and firing me because I carry a permitted weapon in my personal vehicle. Do any of you know what it is like to have to walk to your car at night with drug dealers and wanna b ganbangers wooping it up on the corner?”

Has it occurred to you the reason that businesses, schools and colleges are opting to set up these gun-free rules is because they want to do everything possible to make their property a safe place for visitors, students, and their employees – in other words, they don’t want their parking lots to become little arsenals and environments like the neighborhood you described.

February 17, 2013 at 11:28 a.m.
DJHBRAINERD said...

Mountain.... Have you read about the shootings at howard and brainerd bball games? That gun free zone has worked really well for the bangers. Do you think for a minute these younge people with guns have a permit? Most are not even old enough to own a gun legally. Now I am not making an arguement that any private business or school should be forced to allow weapons to be carried on the property. But by advicating car searches for the right to work strips me of my ability to walk to and from my car at home while exersising my right to carry. To me that is stretching property rights just a bit. Like Fairmon stated.....Companies could have a rule that a gun and ammunition are to be locked in separate locations in a vehicle.... sounds like a good start to me. I have no problem locking the ammo in the trunk while I am at work. I just want to be able to carry walking to and from my car on my property.

February 17, 2013 at 11:47 a.m.
alprova said...

Patriot1 wrote: "Try to set aside your bias and emotions as it relates to guns and think of owning a gun as a civil right, after all it is precisely that."

Oh please. Your comparison is utterly ridiculous. You are extremely likely to lose nothing at all by leaving your firearm locked up in a gun safe at home while you work, eat, or play outside of your home.

On the other hand, if your car is broken into while there is a gun in it, that puts another gun into a criminal's hands, because as far as I can tell, your gun is powerless to protect itself from theft.

"Restaurant owners should NOT have a choice about whether or not to ban guns carried by law abiding citizens, a choice was not extended to that lunch counter owner (and rightfully so) as to who he could serve."

I seriously doubt that there are many restaurant owners who pay very much attention as to whether or not their patrons are packing.

Employers, especially those with many employees, do not want a parking lot full of guns, even IF these people have cleared all kinds of background checks.

People who feel the need to pack a gun where ever they go are guilty of a exhibiting a certain amount of paranoia as it is.

Folks, we live in or near Chattanooga, Tennessee...not New York, Chicago, New Orleans, or Washington D.C.

I have never, and I do mean never, felt the need to have a gun at my side when driving on any street in this city day or night in my entire life.

Random crime is still a rare occurrence in this area.

February 17, 2013 at 11:52 a.m.
Maximus said...

Easy 123....I don't know about comparing Japan to the U.S., kind of an apples to oranges thing but I do know the Japs have been kind of gun shy ever since President Harry Truman kicked that ass with two A-bombs to end WWII. Now that's funny! It has always amazed me that it took two! We dropped the first one vaporizing an entire city and they still did not surrender. Give them credit, that's pretty strong. I do know the Japs have one of the highest suicide rates in the world and they don't have many guns. What can you do, outlaw steak knives, swords, belts, and rope? Another Japan vs. U.S. in WWII story is that after their successful attack on Pearl Harbor they were thinking of invading the California coast but realized they would face massive resistance from American gun owners and percentage wise there were more gun owners back then in California than there are now. Cali would have gone all gangster thug on the Japs...."Say hello to my little friend!"

February 17, 2013 at 11:56 a.m.
Maximus said...

Ever since the good ole U.S. of A. dropped two A-bombs on the Japs they have been afraid of anything that goes.....BOOM! I don't care what anybody says....now thats funny!

February 17, 2013 at 11:59 a.m.
alprova said...

patriot1 wrote: "First, as I mentioned in an earlier post, you have to first accept the fact that gun ownnership and a right to carry exists, irregardless of your emotions and biased beliefs."

patriot, I have a conceal/carry permit right here in my wallet. So let's not get holier than thou when it comes to goun ownership. I have no preconceived emotions or beliefs.

When I make treks to the bank with deposits into my business account, I carry. Outside of that, I have never felt the need.

I have a pistol stashed in my business for the off-chance that someone comes in with evil intent. I have several firearms in my home for protection.

If there is a difference between yourself and I, it is that I do not live in a state of paranoia, believing that the criminal world is out to get me all the time. I know that my chances of being victim to a crime are extremely low, living in the Chattanooga area, and especially in North Georgia.

"Let's assume you live in Ringgold Ga and work at Volkswagen. If your employer has the ability to search your vehicle and fire you for having a firearm in your car, HIS "right" exists not only in his parking lot, but extends to your doorstep in Ringgold, GA."

And as we know, people are accosted by criminals all the time between Volkswagen Drive and Ringgold every day of the week.

"What is a gun owner supposed to do with his weapon when he gets to work?"

Don't bring the gun to work...period.

"It seems to me he is conceding a lot by locking it in his vehicle."

By that, I suppose, your paranoia is so extensive, that you apparently fear for your safety while on the job too.

February 17, 2013 at 12:15 p.m.
DJHBRAINERD said...

Alpo's comment......Employers may institute a strict no-gun policy that includes a right to search any and all motor vehicles on the property and that makes having a gun in one's vehicle a firing offense...........When I make treks to the bank with deposits into my business account, I carry. Outside of that, I have never felt the need.

I have a pistol stashed in my business for the off-chance that someone comes in with evil intent. I have several firearms in my home for protection.......So at 0138 you advicate the right to fire based on legal personal property stored in private vehicles then at 1215 you state that as the business owner you carry when you feel the need and keep a weapon for protection inside your place of employment. Well I get it now, it is do as I say not as I do. But you are the owner so you do not have a conflict because you have both the property rights and the individual rights. Do you search your employee's cars as a condition of employment at your firm or is this something you are hoping to be able to do? And since you don't feel the need to carry while driving around most of the time the rest of us are simply victims of our own paranoia. Do you get a tingling feeling in your leg when danger is near?

February 17, 2013 at 12:34 p.m.
Easy123 said...

Maximusty,

"I don't know about comparing Japan to the U.S., kind of an apples to oranges thing"

How is comparing two countries "an apples to oranges thing"? I don't see you using that argument when people compare any other city to Chicago.

"but I do know the Japs have been kind of gun shy ever since President Harry Truman kicked that ass with two A-bombs to end WWII."

You're a moron.

"I do know the Japs have one of the highest suicide rates in the world and they don't have many guns."

Apples to oranges, remember?

"What can you do, outlaw steak knives, swords, belts, and rope?"

Fallacious.

"Another Japan vs. U.S. in WWII story is that after their successful attack on Pearl Harbor they were thinking of invading the California coast but realized they would face massive resistance from American gun owners and percentage wise there were more gun owners back then in California than there are now."

Do you really think people believe the bullsh!t that emanates from your posts?

"Ever since the good ole U.S. of A. dropped two A-bombs on the Japs they have been afraid of anything that goes.....BOOM! I don't care what anybody says....now thats funny!"

I really think you're MR. You give me no reason to think otherwise.

February 17, 2013 at 12:38 p.m.
alprova said...

just_wondering wrote: "I guess alprova is ready to give up his right to privacy to the same evil corporations that liberals hate so much."

I don't know whether to keep reading your post or not after such a stupid statement.

"Now he wants to give them policing rights that even the sworn law officers don't have."

Clearly, you haven't worked for an employer that does retain such rights, for they are many such employers who do retain that right and you sign in agreement with the policy or you work elsewhere.

"Search every car? what gives them the right to invade my personal private property?"

I'm not suggesting that such searches are routine, nor conducted without cause, but I am aware of several such employers. Your private property rights, with the exception of a right to retrieve your vehicle at the end of the working day, end when your private property is parked on theirs.

"What's next? Want to let them come to your house and look for a gun?"

Now isn't that just plain silly?

"Gotta make sure that we don't have people working for us that might go home and get a gun and come back! Talk about a corporataucracy. I don't believe a corporation has any more right to violate my civil rights than the police."

Here's a test for you to take on the issue of what a duly sworn officer has a right to do or not do. The next time you are out and about on the Interstate, take your gun out and wave it around a bit when you are passing a line of cars. Don't forget to point it directly at a couple of people too.

When you are pulled over, try arguing that the police doesn't have a right to search your vehicle for that gun. You are going to be arguing that point from the back seat of a police car in handcuffs.

Here in this anonymous setting, we're witnessing a form of confession. Some admit to stashing guns in their cars. The way I see it, the most responsible gun stashers never, ever let another soul know there is a gun in that car.

The Tennessee legislature, in their infinite wisdom or stupidity, depending on how one looks at it, has just assured that strict anti-gun policies will be going up all over the place throughout the state by employers.

February 17, 2013 at 12:40 p.m.
alprova said...

BRP wrote: "America's violence problem cannot be solved through gun regulation."

Some of it can.

February 17, 2013 at 12:43 p.m.
patriot1 said...

Alpo's says: "I have never, and I do mean never, felt the need to have a gun at my side when driving on any street in this city day or night, in my entire life."

In his next retort: "When I make treks to the bank with deposits into my business account, I carry." Well, which is it?

Alpo, your response addresses what you think are the "needs" of someone commuting to work, or the thing(s) an employer may not "want" but says nothing about the rights of a gun owner and his/her liberty to exercise those rights. You are an example of the type person I mentioned in an earlier post that, years ago, would be coming to the defense of that lunch counter owner who refused to serve someone of color. After all, he doesn't "need" to be here causing trouble, he could go somewhere else to eat, or just as easily sit at the back table. It's about rights, alpo....let's talk rights for once.

February 17, 2013 at 12:47 p.m.
alprova said...

DJHBRAINERD wrote: "Maybe we could just have a don't ask don't tell policy toward firearms in private vehicles! It's been working for me the last few years. But car searches..... come on man really...."

Let me clarify what prompts a search by companies with such a policy in place.

Two co-workers have some sort of a dispute while working. After their shift ends, the dispute spills over to the parking lot. One follows the other to their car. He reaches into the car and pulls a gun to stop the impending assault.

Several people witness the incident.

The gun puller is well within his right to protect his body from harm, but he is in violation of the company policy to not have any firearms on the company property.

Security is alerted. Security arrives and hands the gun puller a copy of the policy that each employee signs, allowing security personnel the right to search their vehicle for prohibited items, with cause.

The gun puller can refuse the search, but a refusal can be grounds for firing in and of itself, if the policy is written that way.

Either way, although he has successfully protected his body from harm, the gun puller has pretty much just lost his job.

I am not advocating a policy that allows a search of every employees car, every day of the week. If one feels they have the need to conceal and carry in their car, keeping it under their hat is probably going to serve them best, and they had better only pull that gun out, off of company property.

February 17, 2013 at 1:02 p.m.
alprova said...

DJHBRAINERD wrote: "But by advicating car searches for the right to work strips me of my ability to walk to and from my car at home while exersising my right to carry. To me that is stretching property rights just a bit."

Not to nitpick, but you admit to walking to and from your car into work without a gun, so what good is that gun doing you if you are accosted between your car and work?

Once one is in their car, with the ability to lock their doors, the chances of them being victim to any crime, in the worst neighborhoods in Chattanooga, are slim to none. It just doesn't happen.

February 17, 2013 at 1:11 p.m.
DJHBRAINERD said...

Alpo... thank you for the clarification. Works for me just like probable cause for drug testing. I misunderstood and thought you would be for allowing random searches of private vehicles. And you are correct on another point and that is if you knew who I was I would not be talking openly about my carry habits and or status.

February 17, 2013 at 1:12 p.m.
mountainlaurel said...

DHBrainard asks: “Have you read about the shootings at howard and brainerd bball games? That gun free zone has worked really well for the bangers. Do you think for a minute these younge people with guns have a permit? Most are not even old enough to own a gun legally.”

I’m not sure I understand your point here, DH. We have traffic safety laws, but some drivers opt to ignore them. Surely you’re not suggesting that our traffic laws don't work or should be eliminated because some drivers don’t abide by them?

DHBrainard says: “I am not making an arguement that any private business or school should be forced to allow weapons to be carried on the property.”

But this is exactly what you’ve been doing. Everything you’ve said so far says that property owners have to accommodate your alleged needs, and I disagree. I believe it’s the right of the property owner to establish the circumstances that a person may or may not come onto their property – the same right that allows them to post a “no trespassing” sign on their property.

February 17, 2013 at 1:17 p.m.
DJHBRAINERD said...

Alpo.... my concern has always been getting to and from my front door and my vehicle and back again. Make no mistake I wish I hadn't bought a house because I would have left long ago. But since the economy of the last several years more and more of my block has gone sec 8 rental. And with a large percentage of renters the since of ownership in an area deminishes and is followed by drugs and crime. That is where I am now. Held hostage in a neighborhood I no longer recognize and I do feel a need to carry to and from my front door and vehicle. Even walking the dog I carry. But when I get to work it is well lit and we have armed security patrolling the parking lot. And again I know that my right to carry can be curtailed on private property I just want to be able to come and go from my property with my weapon

February 17, 2013 at 1:20 p.m.
Rickaroo said...

"Ever since the good ole U.S. of A. dropped two A-bombs on the Japs they have been afraid of anything that goes.....BOOM! I don't care what anybody says....now thats funny!"n - Maximus

You, sir, are a hopelessly pathetic, despicable jackass. There is nothing the least bit funny about what you just said. Your arrogance and egotism make me want to puke. No amount of passing of time takes away the horror of that event. There is a valid debate as to whether what we did was merited or not. Maybe it really did end the war sooner and it spared the lives of our own soldiers, keeping us from having to put boots on the ground and engage in conventional warfare, or maybe it was just a vain desire to show off the newly discovered might of our military. But either way, we annihilated tens of thousands of innocent people (non-combatants) instantaneously and brought excruciating pain and lifetime disfigurement to tens of thousands more. There is not anything remotely funny - not even today, 67 years later - about the sad and horrific event that took place in Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Only a shallow, conceited fool such as you would try to make a joke out of it.

February 17, 2013 at 1:24 p.m.
DJHBRAINERD said...

Mountain....The term I used was Carry on private property. Meaning to carry on my person. I respect the property owners wishes and I leave my weapon behind at many establishments. But when you say I cannot park my car and lock my weapon in it I believe that has gone to far. U say I don't have to work there or don't have to go there and so forth seems to be more of an agenda based argument than one based on property rights. You have made your position clear and wish to see all weapons removed from the puplic and I respect that . I just don't see how we can get criminals to obey the law. Do you follow that. Do you have any idea how to get criminals to stop being criminals?

February 17, 2013 at 1:43 p.m.
alprova said...

DJHBRAINERD wrote regarding my comments: "I have a pistol stashed in my business for the off-chance that someone comes in with evil intent. I have several firearms in my home for protection......."

Correct.

"So at 0138 you advicate the right to fire based on legal personal property stored in private vehicles then at 1215 you state that as the business owner you carry when you feel the need and keep a weapon for protection inside your place of employment."

I'm not advocating anything other than an employer has the right to put such a policy in place, if they have such a desire. Thus, if one values their job, they have a choice to make. Job...or risk losing it.

It's my business...my policy. I personally don't care if any one of my employees packs a gun, with the exception that it probably would put off more than a few of my customers, so they don't, nor has any of them asked to be allowed to. They all have equal access to my pistol.

"Well I get it now, it is do as I say not as I do."

Your highly misinterpreting my comments. All I have done is expose a deep loophole that employers will rush to fill, the minute that Tennessee makes it legal for gun owners to conceal and carry in their automobiles.

"But you are the owner so you do not have a conflict because you have both the property rights and the individual rights."

It comes with ownership of a business, I suppose.

"Do you search your employee's cars as a condition of employment at your firm or is this something you are hoping to be able to do?"

Neither.

"And since you don't feel the need to carry while driving around most of the time the rest of us are simply victims of our own paranoia. Do you get a tingling feeling in your leg when danger is near?"

Twice in my life, I have been robbed at gunpoint. Years ago, I drove a truck for a living. I was robbed in New York City and in Hialeah, Florida in the late 80's. Both times, I was robbed of all cash I had and a portion of the cargo I was hauling.

Prior to those two incidents, I was rather naive about dangerous neighborhoods. Since those incidents, I have indeed developed a sixth sense and am keenly aware of my surroundings at all times and am able to sense danger.

I can tell you one thing; I firmly believe that had I pulled a gun during the course of either one of those two incidents, I would have likely died. I had one with me too. I was surrounded by several criminals, both times. My brief cooperation deprived of some of my property, but I lived to be able to tell you about it today.

Living in this area is a piece of cake, compared to some areas of the country I have been in. I don't quite understand some of the paranoia by some people who live here.

I mean it's not as if your corner drug dealer branches out and if business is slow, that they turn to robbing people walking to and from their car at work. They pretty much stick to dealing with their customers.

February 17, 2013 at 1:53 p.m.
conservative said...

alprova, regarding your words :

"It grieves me not for one minute that you consider yourself to be a better Christian than I"

It also grieves you not for one minute that you are often a blasphemous liar when you write such as:

"The idea that we are to accept a mass-murderer as an object of worship doesn't reflect well upon Christians at all. If he murdered nearly every human on the planet, God is far more heinous than Hitler. Yet Christians are to willfully worship him without question. Why?"

February 17, 2013 at 1:57 p.m.
Easy123 said...

Here we go again...

February 17, 2013 at 2:08 p.m.
jesse said...

All this religious rhetoric just makes my arz TIRED!!

Politics is O.K. since this is supposed to be about a political cartoon,maybe if Bennett did a toon on Jesus con man would stroke out!

February 17, 2013 at 2:21 p.m.
DJHBRAINERD said...

Alpo your clarification at 1302 was sufficent and I am sorry I misunderstood your intent. And I think we are comming close to a consenses on this issue. I will carry in secret as I always have done and you won't set up check points comming and going from work to search for weapons. But again at 1353 you end with.....I mean it's not as if your corner drug dealer branches out and if business is slow, that they turn to robbing people walking to and from their car at work.... the corner drug dealer doesn't do the robbing it is the customers who are jonesing that break into sheds and commit the burgleries. And again I am not worried about getting robbed at work. At home its been 4 times that I have been burglerized. Got deadbolts, alarm system , outside lighting.... They just wait for me to leave then throw a brick in the window! Nobody ever sees nothin. One guy hauled my stuff 2 doors down in a BFI garbage can in middle of day but nobody saw nothin untill my next door neighbor came home and scared him off then the people that live where he dropped off my things said they didn't know who was staying at thier house It really is amazing. I have been fortunate as well living where I do to not suffer bodily harm but I have pulled my weapon twice to deter would be assailants. Both times comming home and leaving on my property. That is the main reason I have been posting today is to try to find balance between my private business, as in comming and going, and public policy. I do not claim to have the answers but leaving my weapon in my house is not an option for me.

February 17, 2013 at 2:25 p.m.
alprova said...

patriot1 wrote: "Alpo's says: "I have never, and I do mean never, felt the need to have a gun at my side when driving on any street in this city day or night, in my entire life."

"In his next retort: "When I make treks to the bank with deposits into my business account, I carry." Well, which is it?"

The compelling factor involved is the amount of cash I have that someone might want to deprive me of.

I am ever mindful that my chances of being robbed are slim to none in this area, but I am like some people, in that I simply feel safer with a gun when I am en-route to the bank.

That is the ONLY time that I carry a gun with me in a vehicle.

"Alpo, your response addresses what you think are the "needs" of someone commuting to work, or the thing(s) an employer may not "want" but says nothing about the rights of a gun owner and his/her liberty to exercise those rights."

I'm sorry, but we're just going to have to agree to disagree on this one. I'm sure if we put our heads together, we could come up with all kinds of "rights" that overlap and conflict one another.

"You are an example of the type person I mentioned in an earlier post that, years ago, would be coming to the defense of that lunch counter owner who refused to serve someone of color."

If you truly believe that, then you don't know me at all. When one opens a business that serves the public, they in essence agree to serve all of the public.

Private property rights end when one's private property is on someone else's private property, if they choose to enforce their private property rights.

You have a right to own a pet. You have a right to put that pet in your car and ride around all day long. Do you think you have a right to park your car in any parking lot, public or private, anywhere in this nation, in 95 degree weather with all the windows rolled up, for any amount of time? It's your pet. It's in your privately owned auto.

"After all, he doesn't "need" to be here causing trouble, he could go somewhere else to eat, or just as easily sit at the back table. It's about rights, alpo....let's talk rights for once."

For some reason, you are stuck on restaurants. I really don't think that there are going to be very many, if any at all, owners of restaurants who will care if their patrons are packing.

Employers of several to many, are going to be the group of people who will likely respond to this attempt to make it legal to pack heat in cars, by passing company policies prohibiting it.

I'm merely pointing out a reality that is probably coming to pass.

Any provision in the law, that exempts companies from complicity or lawsuits in the event of gun incidents on their property is rather innocuous.

I am betting my left arm that as we ponder this issue, there are companies all over the state of Tennessee that are preparing a policy forbidding firearms on their property. Bring a gun to work and if caught, it's bye bye.

February 17, 2013 at 2:34 p.m.
Rickaroo said...

Con-man, I'm not going to try to begin an endless and pointless debate on Christianity with you. I have better things to do than to get caught up in some back-and-forth mental tug of war with a blind-faith nitwit such as yourself. But I will say this much:

As to that quote from alprova....where is the blasphemy? Where is the lie? No truer words were ever spoken. I'm wondering, how do you go about reading that Bible of yours? With blinders on? Do they selectively block out the many parts of the Old Testament where your God indiscriminately slaughters and annihilates people, even little children, for no more of a sin than not being his "chosen?" Oftentimes his own Israelites committed sins as bad as or worse than those of the unchosen people but they got a mere slap on the wrist or no punishment at all.

You need to give some serious thought as to what sort of God you worship. But then, you dare not engage in serious thought, do you? That would mean you would have to give up your blind faith. And what good little Christian would dare to think for himself? Your "loving" God would never allow such a thing, would he?

February 17, 2013 at 2:36 p.m.
DJHBRAINERD said...

I haven't seen much namecalling today but it is early. Thank you for your thoughts but I have a few things to attend to and arguing over religion is not going to be one of them. And besides..... I'm sure they all had it comming to them. dwindlinginunbelief.blogspot.com/. God 2,476,633 Satan 10 (made on a bet with God)

February 17, 2013 at 2:37 p.m.
patriot1 said...

alpo says: "For some reason you are stuck on restaurants"

alpo, this whole issue is about RIGHTS....not a cat in the car or a cat in the hat or whatever, but about RIGHTS!!!! The right to sit at a lunch counter, the right to sit at the front of the bus, and the right to keep and bear arms and a right for a law abiding citizen to possess that firearm is no different. That's the comparsion and parallel I was making. Tennessee is a right to work state which means a person can be let go from their job without cause anyway, however that does not mean discrimination is permitted. Depriving one of their civil rights just might be some interesting litigation.

February 17, 2013 at 3:01 p.m.
Rickaroo said...

Damn the second amendment. Guess what... I said that and I didn't get zapped by a lightning bolt from God. You gun nuts who think you have a "God-given right" to carry a gun wherever and whenever you want need to just hop in your time machine and go take up residence somewhere in the 18th and 19th centuries where you would fit in a little better. The second amendment is not some sacrosanct commandment from God. It was written at a time when it served its purpose well, but in case you haven't noticed, we have had a few slight changes in this country since then. It's time we revised it and made it something workable and practical for today.

Whether owning a gun should be considered a right or a privilege is a matter of opinion, but either way, it comes with serious responsibilities, and as such, one should have to pass a thorough background check and be tested for competency, just like we have to pass a test, purchase insurance, and register our cars before we can drive them on the roads.

Having said that, I do not consider anybody who owns a gun a “gun nut.” I own a gun myself and I am not opposed to gun ownership. But I do not understand the number of people raising such a ruckus over merely enforcing thorough background checks and closing the existing loopholes where so many psychos and felons fall through the cracks. Austria_in_alabama made an excellent point when he said this:” More guns in a paranoid uneven society where most of the people are on meds just means an increase of family tragedies and suicides. The presence of guns makes it far more likely that heated discussions ends with a bullet…” We live in a crazy society and it only makes sense to do whatever we can to at least try to keep the guns out of the hands of the crazies. Of course gun regulation won’t stop all gun crimes but neither do laws against murder or drunk driving stop all murders or drunk driving. However, nobody can argue that they certainly help.

February 17, 2013 at 3:04 p.m.
alprova said...

conservative wrote: "It grieves me not for one minute that you consider yourself to be a better Christian than I"

"It also grieves you not for one minute that you are often a blasphemous liar when you write such as:"

Sir, you really need to get a grip on the biblical definition of the word blasphemy. I do not curse God. I question him all the time.

"The idea that we are to accept a mass-murderer as an object of worship doesn't reflect well upon Christians at all. If he murdered nearly every human on the planet, God is far more heinous than Hitler. Yet Christians are to willfully worship him without question. Why?"

Is it not a fact that if the Bible is taken literally, that God wiped out all but the lives of one family and numerous pairs of the animal kingdom?

How you justify it, I have no idea, nor would I care to read any justification you would conjure up. You probably believe that every man, woman, and child who perished, that is if the incident actually occurred as it is written, deserved to die.

You see, I have many questions for God, which I think are most justified, if he once emptied Earth of millions of lives for any reason whatsoever. You believe, I'm sure, that he can take each of our lives in an instant.

Why are evil men allowed to live their lives to their natural conclusion, while innocent children are often taken so young with horrible diseases?

How many people would walk the straight and narrow, if one were to die of an immediate heart attack if they were to hop into bed with that pretty young thing? Heaven forbid two men hook up. Goodness knows what fate you would consider befitting of such a sin.

God gave me a brain to use to think, to question, to reason, to discover truths, realities, and facts.

I use mine to its fullest potential, most days anyway.

Clearly, you don't.

Your problems are not my problems. I rejected your brand of Christianity years ago. Nothing is going to change that.

If you believe the Bible to be 100% accurate in all regards, then you by default believe God to be a mass-murderer.

I'm sorry if you have a problem with such a statement. I'd love to be convinced, with reason and a little intellect that is, that my statement is not true.

February 17, 2013 at 3:10 p.m.
alprova said...

"Alpo your clarification at 1302 was sufficent and I am sorry I misunderstood your intent. And I think we are comming close to a consenses on this issue."

Yes we are.

"I will carry in secret as I always have done and you won't set up check points comming and going from work to search for weapons."

No...I won't.

"But again at 1353 you end with.....I mean it's not as if your corner drug dealer branches out and if business is slow, that they turn to robbing people walking to and from their car at work.... the corner drug dealer doesn't do the robbing it is the customers who are jonesing that break into sheds and commit the burgleries."

Point well received and very relevant.

"And again I am not worried about getting robbed at work. At home its been 4 times that I have been burglerized. Got deadbolts, alarm system , outside lighting.... They just wait for me to leave then throw a brick in the window! Nobody ever sees nothin. One guy hauled my stuff 2 doors down in a BFI garbage can in middle of day but nobody saw nothin untill my next door neighbor came home and scared him off then the people that live where he dropped off my things said they didn't know who was staying at thier house It really is amazing."

I am sorry to read this. I suppose that I am a bit out of touch with the conditions some people live in in this area. 4 times? That's bad...

"I have been fortunate as well living where I do to not suffer bodily harm but I have pulled my weapon twice to deter would be assailants. Both times comming home and leaving on my property. That is the main reason I have been posting today is to try to find balance between my private business, as in comming and going, and public policy. I do not claim to have the answers but leaving my weapon in my house is not an option for me."

In light of that, I have to agree with you, that you need to conceal and carry. The thing is, no one should have to live like that. I hope that one day that you find your way out of that mess.

February 17, 2013 at 3:19 p.m.
jesse said...

Doggone D J. if the hood where you live is that bad what about your family there all day while your gone to work!!A BIG ol bad dog might be in order!!

February 17, 2013 at 3:28 p.m.
alprova said...

patriot1 wrote: "alpo, this whole issue is about RIGHTS....not a cat in the car or a cat in the hat or whatever, but about RIGHTS!!!!"

I understand that. The thing is, if one works for an employer that does not want guns in car of employees who work there, then that employee has a problem. Either they feel their job or that gun is more important.

I don't write this to aggravate you. It is the reality of the situation. A side note to this is that if one chooses the gun and they do so secretly at all times, then they will probably get away with it.

"The right to sit at a lunch counter, the right to sit at the front of the bus, and the right to keep and bear arms and a right for a law abiding citizen to possess that firearm is no different."

There are fundamental differences and you know it. The prohibition of guns on private property does not include discrimination involving race, creed, or culture, nor are some served and others not.

"That's the comparsion and parallel I was making. Tennessee is a right to work state which means a person can be let go from their job without cause anyway, however that does not mean discrimination is permitted."

Yes...and?

"Depriving one of their civil rights just might be some interesting litigation."

Indeed it would, and I'm betting that out there, somewhere, there are a few lawyers just itching to make a case.

Why go to all that trouble? If you work for an employer that now or in the future has an anti-gun policy, put it in the glove box or your trunk, if you must, but tell no one about it. Problem solved.

February 17, 2013 at 3:34 p.m.
Reardon said...

DJH -- correct.

This is why I don't agree with components of the Civil Rights Act.

Your property is YOUR property. You should be able to use it as you see fit, as long as you do not violate others' rights.

Even the racists. They should be allowed to be racially-discriminating if they choose to. Let the market determine its ultimate end.

February 17, 2013 at 4:39 p.m.
Rickaroo said...

"...this whole issue is about RIGHTS....not a cat in the car or a cat in the hat or whatever, but about RIGHTS!!!!" - patriot1

Rights. Baloney. You keep on wailing about the "freedom" we have in this country to bear arms. We're the only country in the world that elevates that "right" to something on the same level as breathing, as if we are born into the world with the "right" to pick up a gun like picking fruit off of a tree. And we're the only country in the world that has 10,000 deaths per year attributed to guns, whether it's suicide, homicides, or accidental deaths. Our "freedom " to indulge in that "right" is killing us.

February 17, 2013 at 4:41 p.m.
Reardon said...

Logical fallacy, Rick.

That's like saying we've eliminated the drug problem and the violence associated with it, with the War on Drugs.

Try again.

February 17, 2013 at 4:55 p.m.
Rickaroo said...

Reardon, you're full of crap in what you just said (previous post, 4:41). There are certain rights that supersede the right to discriminate against people based on color. In society anyone who abides by the law has a right to be served by any business. When you open a business you are operating in the public domain and must serve the needs of the public equitably. It is not like your house, where you can turn anyone away as you see fit. If you don't want to serve the public at large, then don't go into business. To deny anyone their right to be served would infringe on their own right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. States' rights and business owners' rights and even individual rights' end where others' rights begin. You sound like a libertarian. Libertarians are simpletons who don't quite have the intelligence to understand that society does not revolve solely around them. Fallacy on your part. Try again.

February 17, 2013 at 4:56 p.m.
whatsnottaken said...

On the beautiful Northern Plains, we're all packing and all our vehicles are loaded to the gills. And very very very few people (mostly out of staters like y'all here to work the oil field) shoot anybody else. In chatt town, gang bangers pack and carry, and bleeding hearts like Tooney and his ilk run for cover and pray (to whatever their dirty might be) every day. Statitistics show how that's working. Pack, carry and defend yourselves. There's not enough police to do it for you.

February 17, 2013 at 5:24 p.m.
alprova said...

Reardon wrote: "Your property is YOUR property. You should be able to use it as you see fit, as long as you do not violate others' rights."

"Even the racists. They should be allowed to be racially-discriminating if they choose to. Let the market determine its ultimate end."

The end would not be what you or others would hope it to be. All it would create is a bunch of businesses where one race or another would not be welcome customers.

Sorry, but all the closet bigots and racists are just going to have to put up with each other when they patronize an establishment open to the public.

Pining for days gone by is not going to result in it ever becoming reality again.

Civil rights is one thing Congress did right and it will always remain so.

February 17, 2013 at 5:43 p.m.
conservative said...

alprova, regarding your words :

"It grieves me not for one minute that you consider yourself to be a better Christian than I"

You would have to be a Christian to make that comparison. You have obviously eliminated yourself with your own blasphemous words :

"The idea that we are to accept a mass-murderer as an object of worship doesn't reflect well upon Christians at all. If he murdered nearly every human on the planet, God is far more heinous than Hitler. Yet Christians are to willfully worship him without question. Why?"

February 17, 2013 at 5:44 p.m.
Reardon said...

Rick, nice job sidestepping my point. Not that I'd expect you to engage in a constructive attempt to defend yourself.

Al -- I agree. I would hope that Society-at-Large would stop buying product or service from racists institutions, and put them out of business. Naturally, I could be wrong. But at least I would know where I wouldn't spend my dollars.

Rick -- I am obligated to serve someone whom I don't want to, for whatever reason? That doesn't sound like freedom to me -- more like slavery.

February 17, 2013 at 6:26 p.m.
Easy123 said...

Reardon,

"Rick, nice job sidestepping my point. Not that I'd expect you to engage in a constructive attempt to defend yourself."

What was the fallacy Rickaroo used? What was fallacious about his statement?

You can't just throw stuff out and act like people are obligated to defend themselves.

"I am obligated to serve someone whom I don't want to, for whatever reason? That doesn't sound like freedom to me -- more like slavery."

You seem to have a comprehension problem. This is what Rickaroo said: "In society anyone who abides by the law has a right to be served by any business. When you open a business you are operating in the public domain and must serve the needs of the public equitably."

That is the American free market. If you consider that slavery, you might need to find a good neurologist to go to.

February 17, 2013 at 6:46 p.m.
patriot1 said...

Rickydoodoo says: "....as if we were born into this world with the right to pick up a gun..."

Uh, yeah, I think we were!!

February 17, 2013 at 7:01 p.m.
Easy123 said...

patriot1,

"Uh, yeah, I think we were!!"

You obviously take that "endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights" pretty far. Where is that in the Bible exactly? Which part of "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" does having guns fall under?

February 17, 2013 at 7:08 p.m.
patriot1 said...

Easy....I think you mean "inalienable rights" and I had no idea it was in the Bible.

February 17, 2013 at 7:15 p.m.
dude_abides said...

whatnotsmistaken said... "On the beautiful Northern Plains, we're all packing and all our vehicles are loaded to the gills."

Sounds like you're the one who is running and praying! LOL What are you posting here for? No newspapers up there?

February 17, 2013 at 7:19 p.m.
dude_abides said...

"English has changed since the founders of the United States used unalienable in the signed final draft of their 1776 Declaration of Independence (some earlier drafts and later copies have inalienable). Inalienable, which means exactly the same thing—both mean incapable of being transferred to another or others—is now the preferred form. Unalienable mainly appears in quotes of or references to the Declaration. Inalienable prevails everywhere else."

http://grammarist.com/usage/inalienable-unalienable/

February 17, 2013 at 7:27 p.m.
Easy123 said...

patiot1,

"I think you mean "inalienable rights""

You thought wrong. I meant precisely what I said.

"and I had no idea it was in the Bible."

You're a dense one, aren't you? That was my point, Sherlock, it isn't in the Bible nor is gun ownership a natural right.

February 17, 2013 at 7:29 p.m.
alprova said...

conservative wrote: "You would have to be a Christian to make that comparison. You have obviously eliminated yourself with your own blasphemous words..."

How many times have you been hit in the head with a two by four? Something has to explain why it is that you have the ability to go through life, but your brain seems to be a step or two behind.

I'm so shocked to discover that you don't find me to be a Christian. I guess you finally gave up waiting for me to make a formal declaration to you, so that you could take pleasure in shooting me down in flames.

Read the following until it sinks in...

You have claimed that the Bible is the word of God. Contained in every Bible is the event known as the great flood, which God claims he did due to mankind's evil deeds. Noah's immediate family and pairs of animals were spared. Thus, if the Bible is accurate, every single person alive today is descendants of Noah.

Of course, this does not explain how it is that we have different races, creeds, or cultures, but that's another topic for another day.

Presumably, every other man, woman, child, and animal was drowned...on purpose when God flooded the world. To meet the test of murder, the person will have willfully, deliberately, and with premeditation kills another person.

In Genesis, we read that God created man in his own image, so it's reasonable to assume that God shares some human traits.

If the Bible accurately reflects something that actually happened, as you believe it does, God most certainly pre-planned his intent to take the lives of all of mankind but for one nuclear family.

Were all the men evil? Maybe...maybe not. Were all the women evil? Probably not. How about the children who are alleged to have perished? Were they evil? Maybe they were all brats. The animals? That's the one that makes the least sense of all. Only two were allowed to be saved of each species? HHhmmmmm....

Face the truth for once in your life. God is a murderer and a mass-murderer at that...IF THE BIBLE IS ACCURATE.

You can't have it both ways. Either the Bible is correct and designed to be taken literal through and through, or it is a book full of metaphors, literature, and fiction from some of the greatest minds that spanned many, many years in the making.

Your belief in the Bible as a literal work of God locks you into the belief that God is a mass-murder, whether you admit it or not. My belief that the Bible is not the word of God, and instead is the work of many men, frees me from that belief.

I suspect that this post will be a complete waste of my time, for you will probably repost the same thing before the night is over, thus putting us at square one all over again.

But I sure gave it the old college try...

February 17, 2013 at 7:52 p.m.
Rickaroo said...

"Rick -- I am obligated to serve someone whom I don't want to, for whatever reason? That doesn't sound like freedom to me -- more like slavery." - Reardon

Actually, if you go into business in this country, yes, you are obligated to serve anyone for whatever reason...as long as they are obeying the law. That is pretty much what civil rights are all about. We had this debate back in the 60s and we came up with this thing called the Civil Rights Act. If you weren't there at the time, didn't you at least read about it? It was a pivotal time in our nation's history. I suggest you read up on it sometime. You might learn something.

It's funny how you think of business owners as the ones being enslaved for having to abide by laws of respect and equality and thereby imply that it would have been better to let real slavery, discrimination, and segregation remain in place rather than force those poor old business owners to have to serve people of a different color. OMG! The horror of it all! What a tyrannical government we have!

You know, you can't drive 110 mph on the interstate and you can't walk up to a girl on the street and pinch her on the butt and you can't yell "fire" in a crowded theater, so does that mean you're not free? Most of our laws are based on an understanding that living in society entails some compromises. We cannot do exactly what we want any time we want; we have to forego some of our more self-centered freedoms in order to peacefully co-exist. You have such a simplistic, half-baked, immature notion of what freedom is, it boggles my mind.

February 17, 2013 at 8:05 p.m.
patriot1 said...

Easy...why do you feel like this "in your face" style of yours is necessary? You seem to have some real issues.

February 17, 2013 at 9 p.m.
Easy123 said...

patriot1,

"why do you feel like this "in your face" style of yours is necessary?"

What exactly was "in your face" about anything I said? You tried to correct me and you were wrong. You either misunderstood my next statement or you are very dense. I simply pointed that out and, apparently, you didn't like it.

"You seem to have some real issues."

No, I don't. You're just butt-hurt about looking dumb so you're trying to baselessly attack me. I've dealt with it before from your ilk. It's easily discernible to anyone here.

Try again.

February 17, 2013 at 9:18 p.m.
Easy123 said...

joepulitzer,

Per your article:

"They shoot up schools, universities, malls and public places where their victims cannot shoot back."

They would no longer be victims if they could shoot back. Not everyone has a gun and everyone that does own a gun doesn't take it to the mall, schools, universities, or public places. Even still, being able to use a gun properly when your adrenaline is flowing is even harder. This argument is assuming anyone with a gun would act properly in a life or death situation. That's assuming there is someone with a gun in these gun zones.

Aren't these the same Republicans that are calling the United States a police state? What is it called when everyone carries a gun? A gun state?

"Perhaps "gun-free zones" would be better named "defenseless victim zones."

There are people without guns in places that don't ban guns. Actually, the majority of people in those areas wouldn't have guns. Just because it is a gun zone doesn't mean everyone that goes there has a gun. Hell, Chris Kyle, the U.S. most deadly sniper, was murdered AT A GUN RANGE.

"If we're going to have a national debate about guns, it should be acknowledged that guns, in the hands of qualified and trained individuals subject to background checks, prevent crime and improve public safety."

That is exactly what everyone is debating. The NRA doesn't want comprehensive background checks. And the majority of people aren't qualified or trained in gun safety.

February 17, 2013 at 9:57 p.m.
joepulitzer said...

God is the creator of the universe, the beginning and the end, the alpha and omega, the judge and the jury. Anti-Christians/atheists can't stand the idea that there is anyone more intelligent and more powerful than themselves. If they did, it would, in their own minds, remove them from the universal exalted position that only God occupies. That would also mean they would be accountable to a Supreme Being for their words and works. And they want none of that! If I were not a Bible-believing Christian saved by the grace of God, I would be completely dumbfounded why He would send "His only begotten Son" to die for someone like alprova. But He did.

February 17, 2013 at 10:04 p.m.
joepulitzer said...

Easy123, you sound like the type of person who would carry a knife to a gunfight. Which is why I don't carry a knife. By the way, did you notice that article was posted in you liberals' sacred cow - CNN?

February 17, 2013 at 10:09 p.m.
Easy123 said...

joepulitzer,

"God is the creator of the universe, the beginning and the end, the alpha and omega, the judge and the jury."

Prove it.

"Anti-Christians/atheists can't stand the idea that there is anyone more intelligent and more powerful than themselves."

You mean "than humans". But that's because there is no evidence that would point to the contrary.

"If they did, it would, in their own minds, remove them from the universal exalted position that only God occupies."

Strawman argument. No atheist believes they are in a "universal exalted position".

"That would also mean they would be accountable to a Supreme Being for their words and works. And they want none of that!"

Prove that you or anyone is accountable to any Supreme Being.

"If I were not a Bible-believing Christian saved by the grace of God, I would be completely dumbfounded why He would send "His only begotten Son" to die for someone like alprova."

You're already dumbfounded, you just don't know it. You assume what you're obligated to prove. You ignore science, logic, and reason and replace it with Bronze-age barbarism. I'll take science, logic and reason over a 2,000 year old book any day.

February 17, 2013 at 10:11 p.m.
Easy123 said...

joepulitzer,

"Easy123, you sound like the type of person who would carry a knife to a gunfight. Which is why I don't carry a knife."

You sound like a paranoid coward that has to carry a gun. Why do you need a gun when you have your god on your side? No weapon formed against you shall prosper, remember?

February 17, 2013 at 10:12 p.m.
joepulitzer said...

Sorry, Easy, I should have said you sound like someone who would carry a pea shooter to a gun fight. Please don't ever join the U.S. military.

February 17, 2013 at 10:16 p.m.
Easy123 said...

joepulitzer,

"Sorry, Easy, I should have said you sound like someone who would carry a pea shooter to a gun fight. Please don't ever join the U.S. military."

You still sound like a paranoid coward that has to carry a gun. Why do you need a gun when you have your god on your side? No weapon formed against you shall prosper, remember? I guess you don't really believe your god in that instance, right?

How many gun fights have you been in, joe?

February 17, 2013 at 10:21 p.m.
joepulitzer said...

Easy, Easy, Easy, you're beginning to look like alprova in drag.

February 17, 2013 at 10:24 p.m.
Easy123 said...

joepulitzer,

"Easy, Easy, Easy, you're beginning to look like alprova in drag."

You're just talking out of your ass, joe.

February 17, 2013 at 10:25 p.m.
joepulitzer said...

Good night, Easy, don't forget to load your water gun before going to bed.

February 17, 2013 at 10:30 p.m.
Easy123 said...

joepulitzer,

"Good night, Easy, don't forget to load your water gun before going to bed."

Say a prayer to your sky daddy before you go to bed. You won't even need that gun under your mattress as long as you have him, right? Oh wait...

February 17, 2013 at 10:32 p.m.
Easy123 said...

sTUpid,

"Victim status is not determined by the means to defend ones self or not it is just the status of the loser"

Thus, both parties have the potential to be the victim if both parties have a gun. If only one party has a gun... surely you get it by now? However, the "victim" label tends to be placed on the innocent/helpless person.

"You know ... like you … LMFaO !!"

Projection at it's lamest.

"B.S. Strawmen !! I’ve read no posts where anyone is stating otherwise to these childishly obvious realities."

You have no clue what a strawman is. Read the article, you dumb bitch.

"It is a practical impossibility that everyone would or could carry a gun but if it was so it would be preferable."

It absolutely WOULD NOT be preferable.

"Again with the childishly simple B.S. truisms…. LMFaO !!"

Is that the best you have? I guess your non-childish ass laughing is noteworthy, correct?! You're a sad little thing.

February 17, 2013 at 10:55 p.m.
Easy123 said...

sTUpid Gags,

"If you want a good comeback go wipe it off your Mom's face.... LMFaO !!"

If you'd like one, just scrape it off your tongue. Pumping your stomach just wouldn't be feasible. LMFAO!

February 17, 2013 at 11:24 p.m.
Maximus said...

EAsy and Rickaroo...you guys are such sensitive girly men! The two A-bombs dropped on Japan was simply a way to end the war quickly and achieve a military victory. Many in this country, especially girly men like you two do not understand that the U.S. military is meant for one thing and one thing only....not meals on wheels or social engineering, to kill people and break things. In the immortal words of General George T. Sherman of the Union Army and a guy that rode through Chatt on the way to burning Atlanta to the ground....."War is hell." Of course it could be said that our use of the A-bomb was yet another example of American exceptionalism that we can all be proud of. I know my own Father who is a WWII veteran sure does love the fact that after the A-bombs were dropped he got to fly home from Europe, marry and start a family instead of climbing aboard a ship to the Pacific to fight the Japs. To this day, my Dad loves former President Harry S. Truman. A leader that makes our current president look like a teenager. Rickaroo, your emotional diatribe regarding our use of the A-bombs to end WWII made me feel really, really, sorry for you. What a weak little Roo man.

February 18, 2013 at 12:38 a.m.
Easy123 said...

Maximusty,

You're truly a delusional ignoramus and a pathological liar to boot.

February 18, 2013 at 1:20 a.m.
alprova said...

While Maximus recants his second hand war stories, I can't help but imagine him masturbating while doing it. Had he actually been involved in any war, he might feel different.

Thankfully, his words will likely never be read by anyone who will be offended by them.

Maximus, you're a real piece of work. WWII was a bad time for most of the world, which by the way, has put those differences well behind us. Dropping those two bombs may have effectively ended the war, but a great many innocent lives were taken to do it.

I just love it when some of the most pro-life people immortalize actions by our military that cause the greatest loss of innocent life. It exposes their hypocrisy every time.

Sorry Maximus, but after reading your contribution today, I have the need to take an extra shower.

You really should be ashamed, but I doubt you are capable of feeling shame. Pathological liars rarely feel shame.

February 18, 2013 at 1:46 a.m.

Joepulitzer wrote "God is the creator of the universe, the beginning and the end, the alpha and omega, the judge and the jury. Anti-Christians/atheists can't stand the idea that there is anyone more intelligent and more powerful than themselves."

Joe, first reading your comment, I thought that members of the Taliban are participating in the conversation.

But reading further I realized that I was unfair towards the Taliban... Even they cannot be that dumb ...

How, the hell, can you have a permit to own a gun. I thought mentally ill people have to pass a background-check...???

February 18, 2013 at 5:32 a.m.
fairmon said...

Pistol packing preachers seems to be popular here.

Employers are not likely to search a vehicle without good cause such as threats or concerns of other employees regarding another employees behaviour or indicated instability. They could have random searches similar to random drug screenings. Intelligent employers objective is a safe, orderly, productive and improving work place without distractions and disruptions.

February 18, 2013 at 7:12 a.m.
carlB said...

The "Capitalist" objectives would continue to force more people into poverty and then their policies/principles are against using our Government in helping the people with their existence. Yet, why are there many voters going along with voting against their best interest by voting for the Republican Party after they have told them what their objectives are against the workers and the people with the help of this global economy. Another great depression could create the conditions of having "Anarchy" to occur in the USA and even to occur world wide. From all of the indications, there are many people who think they can "govern with GUNS would prefer to live in a world wide "Anarchy" than to live in a balanced "Republic" with laws and a government strong enough to keep the balanced conditions needed for a Republic. My opinion about this gun issue is to follow the money. We have seen the real side effects/affects of the "war weapons" getting in the wrong hands, but still the agents for the "money makers" do not want to give up their definition of the 2nd Amendment rights of not having any restrictions on what they want to sell to the group of people who "are out there" just waiting for a chance to say, "the Government has over stepped it's role.
There is also another scenario: The public actions of obstructionism by the Republicans/ (enemies for the good of this Republic) alone should be called a "treasonous act" against the "Commander IN Chief" for if he had completely failed during his first term, then what would HAVE HAPPENED TO prevent this Republic from falling into another great depression? Is this the failure that the Republicans were wanting to cause? What would be the effects of this Nation having to go through another great depression?

February 18, 2013 at 7:41 a.m.
Maximus said...

Easy and Alprova, once again with the Marxist name calling. America did drop the A-bombs on Japan to end the war and in fact, with the Marshall Plan, the United States helped rebuild Japan after the war. We are a strong country and a gracious country and that is something to be proud of. I am not ssure what you two are referring to about being a liar, my Dad is a 90 year old WWII vet and of course with my net worth, I could buy out both of you losers several times over. Rickaroo, Alprova, and EAsy it's feminine, soft, weak, socialist, girly men like you that are ruining this country, the number one being, Barry The Welfare Thug Obama. You "give peace a chance, Jane Fonda pansies" have a nice day. Real men don't feel sorry for the enemy after war, they move on to the next objective, making peace. "If you want peace, stay prepared for war." Caesar

February 18, 2013 at 8:50 a.m.
joneses said...

Be careful Bennett not to mention how much Hussein Obama's gas prices are under his regime.

February 18, 2013 at 8:51 a.m.
Leaf said...

I think that the NRA is NOT on the side of regular gun owners.

Consider this: All was good, nobody worried much about the firearms in people's cars until the NRA decided to throw it's weight around and make the GOP pass this silly law. Now we're talking about businesses maybe searching our cars.

The NRA is out of control. It doesn't represent hunters or normal people any more. It's not your father's NRA. It's now an extremist organization on a power trip with a scary agenda.

It used to be that the NRA was an organization for sportsmen. They advocated gun safety and taking game with respect. They weren't spokesmen for yahoos that need a dozen rounds to kill a deer and they sure never advocated that everybody be armed all the time.

February 18, 2013 at 9:08 a.m.
joepulitzer said...

Good morning Spongebob, Patrick and Squidward. You, too, Moe, Larry and Curly.

February 18, 2013 at 9:28 a.m.
joneses said...

leaf,

You are using a typical liberal strategy to demonize something you are opposed to by spreading lies about the true agenda of the NRA. You are just another liberal who supports total government control of every aspect of our lives. Stop being such a chickensh!t and admit the agenda you support. The NRA supports the right for citizens to keep and bare arms per the Constitution of the USA. It is that simple. You are very gullible to think if the government confiscates all the firearms in America that crime by firearms will decrease. You are a liar.

February 18, 2013 at 9:30 a.m.
mountainlaurel said...

DJHBrainerd said: ”when you say I cannot park my car and lock my weapon in it I believe that has gone to far.”

Personally, I appreciate employers who want to create safer environments for their employees and fully understand why they might want to establish a rule in regard to guns.

DJHBrainerd says: “U say I don't have to work there or don't have to go there and so forth seems to be more of an agenda based argument than one based on property rights.”

Actually, I’m not the one who said this to you, but I agree with the perspective. As for agendas, I don’t think my views in regard to property ownership are unusual. I think they're common.

The only people that I feel have questionable agendas are organizations like the NRA. Their primary purpose is to help gun dealers sell more of their wares, and they know a lot of guns are sold in parking lots – including parking lots owned by private businesses.

DJHBrainerd says: I just don't see how we can get criminals to obey the law. Do you follow that. Do you have any idea how to get criminals to stop being criminals?”

Clearly, human history has demonstrated to us over and over again there is always going to be people who don’t obey laws. As to how to reduce crime, I think the solution depends on the type of crime that you’re trying to stop. Bernie Madoff is a white-collar criminal who defrauded thousands of investors of billions of dollars. The best way to stop criminals like Madoff is through effective laws, regulations, and due diligence on the part of the agencies responsible for enforcing our federal securities laws and regulating the securities industry.

As to the type of crimes you said were occurring in your neighborhood, I have an elderly relative who experienced similar problems in his neighbor, and his children took their concerns to the tenant’s landlord. As I understand it, there is a criterion and performance requirements tied to these U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development Section 8 Housing contracts, and landlords can be motivated to address the type of problems that you’ve described. In the case involving my elderly relative, the tenants were gone within a week.

February 18, 2013 at 9:33 a.m.
alprova said...

Maximus wrote: "Easy and Alprova, I am not ssure what you two are referring to about being a liar, my Dad is a 90 year old WWII vet and of course with my net worth, I could buy out both of you losers several times over."

No you couldn't, because unlike yourself, my soul, nor a thing I own, is for sale. But feel free to return to your own little Monopoly game.

"Real men don't feel sorry for the enemy after war, they move on to the next objective, making peace."

Pardon me if I refuse to take such a supercilious simpleton serious, who claims to be something more every time he posts.

February 18, 2013 at 9:36 a.m.
conservative said...

alprova, regarding your words :

"It grieves me not for one minute that you consider yourself to be a better Christian than I"

So now you claim to be a Christian after all of the anti Christian things you have written! Who are you fooling?

There are tenets/doctrines of Christianity that must be believed in order for one to call himself a Christian.

You have denied some of these tenets/doctrines by some of your anti Christian ranting. Why the charade?

February 18, 2013 at 10:28 a.m.
mountainlaurel said...

Joneses said to Leaf: “You are using a typical liberal strategy to demonize something you are opposed to by spreading lies about the true agenda of the NRA. . . The NRA supports the right for citizens to keep and bare arms per the Constitution of the USA. It is that simple."

No, Leaf is right about the NRA. There are lots of people who have become fed up with the NRA’s extremist views, and it's not limited to those you claim to be liberals. In fact, I read just recently that former president George H.W. Bush resigned from the organization in 1995 after an NRA fundraising letter described some federal agents as "jack-booted thugs":

“I was outraged when, even in the wake of the Oklahoma City tragedy, Mr. Wayne LaPierre, executive vice president of N.R.A., defended his attack on federal agents as "jack-booted thugs." To attack Secret Service agents or A.T.F. people or any government law enforcement people as "wearing Nazi bucket helmets and black storm trooper uniforms" wanting to "attack law abiding citizens" is a vicious slander on good people.

. . . I am a gun owner and an avid hunter. Over the years I have agreed with most of N.R.A.'s objectives, particularly your educational and training efforts, and your fundamental stance in favor of owning guns.

However, your broadside against Federal agents deeply offends my own sense of decency and honor; and it offends my concept of service to country. It indirectly slanders a wide array of government law enforcement officials, who are out there, day and night, laying their lives on the line for all of us.

You have not repudiated Mr. LaPierre's unwarranted attack. Therefore, I resign as a Life Member of N.R.A., said resignation to be effective upon your receipt of this letter. Please remove my name from your membership list.” [George H.W. Bush]

http://www.nytimes.com/1995/05/11/us/letter-of-resignation-sent-by-bush-to-rifle-association.html?pagewanted=print&src=pm

February 18, 2013 at 10:31 a.m.
jesse said...

After Waco and Ruby Ridge?? I think he was dead right!

If the D.E.A. ain't Jack booted thugs then their has never been such an animal!!

http://www.drugwar.com/pninjashame.shtm

February 18, 2013 at 11:26 a.m.
carlB said...

SOOOOO! what would be the MANY 100'S OF MILLIONS "Die Hard" 2nd Amendment Right peoples' "weapon of choice" if they had the opportunity to protect or to decided they had enough of "BIG GOVERNMENT"? OR THAT THEY had to protect their food and property from the 100's of million of "TAKERS" IF another great depression occurred and the our Government did not help the "hungry masses"?

The problems that the landowners are having on the Southern Border has been occurring for decades. Is this just another negative complaint against President Obama? Where are the local Law Enforcements? The Federal and the local authorities should be working together to help the landowners out.

February 18, 2013 at 11:31 a.m.
Rickaroo said...

Maximus, if the pen is sharper and mightier than the sword you must be writing with a dull, fat crayon, or pecking at your keyboard with all thumbs. I get the impression that you're trying to put me down but instead of feeling put down I just chuckle at your feeble attempts. "Men" like you who have to boast of their possessions, wealth, machismo, and self-importance are obviously compensating for a lack of self esteem. Whether you are telling the truth about yourself or you're making it all up, I don't care in the least. Either way you are a very sad little man with a gargantuan head wrapped around a miniscule mind. Go spread your tail feathers for somebody who might give a rat's ass how magnificent and manly you THINK you are.

February 18, 2013 at 12:08 p.m.
Leaf said...

Anyone who doesn't realize the NRA has fundamentally changed in the last few years isn't paying attention; be they liberal, conservative, or moderate.

February 18, 2013 at 12:42 p.m.
prairie_dog said...

Here's a simple question: How does making me leave my gun at home if I have to take someone to the Emergency Room at Erlanger in the middle of the night protect me from the gangs, robbers, rapists and murderers I have to get past in order to reach the hospital? Read the paper and look at the mugshots. That's real.

I don't need to take a weapon inside the hospital. I just need to get there, and back home, alive. Should I have to die because I had a flat tire on the way there?

February 18, 2013 at 1:17 p.m.
Leaf said...

prarie_dog, you should take your gun into the hospital too. Statistically, you are much more likely to die in a hospital than while changing a flat. Joking!

February 18, 2013 at 1:24 p.m.
just_wondering said...

But prairie_dog haven't you heard? There are no gangs, robbers, rapists and murderers around the hospitals.

February 18, 2013 at 1:57 p.m.
Easy123 said...

prairie_dog,

"How does making me leave my gun at home if I have to take someone to the Emergency Room at Erlanger in the middle of the night protect me from the gangs, robbers, rapists and murderers I have to get past in order to reach the hospital?"

Is there a gauntlet you have to run to get to the hospital? Do you think these people are waiting on you or something? How paranoid can you possibly be?

"I don't need to take a weapon inside the hospital. I just need to get there, and back home, alive."

Millions of people have done that very thing without the need for a gun.

"Should I have to die because I had a flat tire on the way there?"

Do they have spike strips on the way to the hospital too?

February 18, 2013 at 2:56 p.m.
timbo said...

I agree with you liberals...no guns in the parking lot.

MY EMPLOYEES CAN BRING THEM IN THE BUILDING.

This whole thing is another attempt by liberals to water down the second amendment. I have a company full of hunters and country people. I am glad that they are armed.

You have absolutely no right to tell me what I need. The government has even less right. We need our guns for the very reasons that I read every day from liberals on this page. You liberals and Obama are a threat to our liberty.

They want incremental gun control to finally reach the point of confiscation. That is where they are headed no matter how much they deny it. They are lying like dogs.

February 18, 2013 at 3:40 p.m.
Easy123 said...

timboner,

"This whole thing is another attempt by liberals to water down the second amendment."

There should be regulations to the 2nd Amendment. There are regulations and guidelines for the 1st Amendment. Why not the 2nd? You have no clue how the government or the Constitution works.

"You have absolutely no right to tell me what I need. The government has even less right."

False. The government has a right to set guidelines to the Constitution you hold so dear. The government actually created the Constitution. The government is the only entity that has a right to tell you what to do. They are called laws.

"You liberals and Obama are a threat to our liberty."

You're DELUSIONAL!

"They want incremental gun control to finally reach the point of confiscation."

That's a strawman argument. It's a slippery slope argument. It's a baseless conspiracy theory. It's complete and utter bullsh!t. The Supreme Court has affirmed the 2nd Amendment again and again. Confiscation is all but impossible. Subverting the 2nd Amendment is all but impossible. You have no clue how the government or the Constitution work.

"That is where they are headed no matter how much they deny it."

It doesn't matter how much you say that, it will never be true.

"They are lying like dogs."

No. YOU are the liar. YOU are the one spreading lies, deceit and misinformation. YOU are the one spewing WingNut propaganda. YOU are the one living in a fantasy world. It does not matter how much you believe it. It doesn't matter how hard to stomp your feet. It doesn't matter how much you bitch and moan. The truth will always escape you.

February 18, 2013 at 4:04 p.m.
patriot1 said...

Easy, Easy.....calm dowwwwwn, it's all good

February 18, 2013 at 4:18 p.m.
Easy123 said...

patriot1,

Come on, dude. Get real. That crap doesn't work.

You can't falsely characterize my emotions to me. Try again.

February 18, 2013 at 4:29 p.m.
timbo said...

slEasy321....What in the hell does "regulations to the 2nd Amendment" mean? That diatribe shows why you people concern me.

I guess you mean that there have been judicial restrictions decided by the courts that somewhat limit the right to bear arms. That is true, but most of those are agreed to by almost the whole population. No tanks, nuclear weapons, hand grenades, automatic weapons, etc. that are extreme arms. Whoever, that is where it stops. The 2nd amendment sole purpose was to make sure that an armed populace had the ability to curtail a runaway government and the tyranny of the minority.

How the constitution works? The 2nd amendment is in the Bill of Rights you dumb ass.

By the way, "In 2008 and 2010, the Supreme Court issued two landmark decisions officially establishing this interpretation. In District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008), the Court ruled that the Second Amendment protects an individual's right to possess a firearm, unconnected to service in a militia[1][2] and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home within many longstanding prohibitions and restrictions on firearms possession listed by the Court as being consistent with the Second Amendment.[3] In McDonald v. Chicago, 561 U.S. 3025 (2010), the Court ruled that the Second Amendment limits state and local governments to the same extent that it limits the federal government."

As you can see your constitutional expertise is limited. These were the only two rulings that defined the 2nd amendment. It was not as you said, "The Supreme Court has affirmed the 2nd Amendment again and again." Furthermore, it might only last a little while if Obama gets more liberals on the court to "reevaluate" the 2nd amendment.

You are also wrong, in your sophomoric fashion, that , " The government has a right to set guidelines to the Constitution you hold so dear." A quaint notion but incorrect. The "government" as you call it, has no rights that aren't given to it by the people. I guess you mean by the "government" the congress and president. Well, they are only 2/3 of the three branches of the "government." The court is the other part and they interpret if laws passed are constitutional. YOU MUST HAVE MISSED THAT PART IN CIVICS CLASS.

In closing most of what you wrote is ABSURD but I am going to quote you on one important part that applies to people like you.

"You have no clue how the government or the Constitution work." (Your bad grammar, not mine)

February 18, 2013 at 4:34 p.m.
Easy123 said...

timboner,

"What in the hell does "regulations to the 2nd Amendment" mean?"

Are you that ignorant?

"That is true, but most of those are agreed to by almost the whole population."

Most of the population agrees with gun regulation too.

http://www.pollingreport.com/guns.htm

"Whoever, that is where it stops."

False.

"The 2nd amendment sole purpose was to make sure that an armed populace had the ability to curtail a runaway government and the tyranny of the minority."

It's not 1776 anymore.

"The 2nd amendment is in the Bill of Rights you dumb ass."

You're the king of idiots. The Bill of Rights are the amendments TO THE CONSTITUTION, you moron.

"As you can see your constitutional expertise is limited."

I mentioned that, idiot. Remember this: "The Supreme Court has affirmed the 2nd Amendment again and again."

"These were the only two rulings that defined the 2nd amendment. It was not as you said"

It was exactly as I said. Notice I put two "again"'s.

"Furthermore, it might only last a little while if Obama gets more liberals on the court to "reevaluate" the 2nd amendment."

How did you put it? "As you can see your constitutional expertise is limited.". You truly have no clue what you're talking about. You have no clue how the government, Supreme Court or the Constitution works.

"You are also wrong, in your sophomoric fashion, that...A quaint notion but incorrect. The "government" as you call it, has no rights that aren't given to it by the people."

Those rights were given to the government when they were elected. YOU'RE wrong. Again, the government has a right to tell you what to do. They are called laws.

"I guess you mean by the "government" the congress and president. Well, they are only 2/3 of the three branches of the "government." The court is the other part and they interpret if laws passed are constitutional. YOU MUST HAVE MISSED THAT PART IN CIVIC CLASS."

The judicial branch IS PART OF THE GOVERNMENT, you idiot! That's the third branch of government. You said it yourself! When I said "government", I meant the whole thing. How can someone be as dumb as you?

"In closing most of what you wrote is ABSURD but I am going to quote you on one important part that applies to people like you."

Everything I said is factually correct. Everything YOU typed is utterly moronic, incorrect, and contradictory.

I'll do you one better.

"Whoever, that is where it stops." (Your poor spelling, not mine.)

It is truly amazing to me how someone can be as ignorant as you and still try to argue based on that ignorance. You just can't help but shove your foot in your mouth.

February 18, 2013 at 4:54 p.m.
prairie_dog said...

Ha ha. Very funny. Spike strips. I guess you're right, though. There probably ARE more gun murders between Missionary Ridge and the Tennessee River than there are flat tires in any given year.

I suppose you did not hear about the incident where all the roofing nails were spilled on one of the downtown streets last year.

Here's the link. http://www.timesfreepress.com/news/20...

February 18, 2013 at 5:39 p.m.
Easy123 said...

prairie_dog,

"There probably ARE more gun murders between Missionary Ridge and the Tennessee River than there are flat tires in any given year."

How many in the Erlanger parking lot? How many people were murdered that stopped to fix a flat tire?

"I suppose you did not hear about the incident where all the roofing nails were spilled on one of the downtown streets last year."

How many of those people that got flat tires didn't make it out alive?

February 18, 2013 at 5:45 p.m.
timbo said...

slEasy321... I surrender to your total and absolute and utter stupidity. I give up.

February 18, 2013 at 5:52 p.m.
Easy123 said...

timboner,

"I surrender to your total and absolute and utter stupidity. I give up."

You're surrendering to your own "total and absolute and utter stupidity". You give up because you realize how ignorant and moronic everything you said was. You're giving up because you don't have an intelligent rebuttal. You can deflect and project all you want, but it is very obvious who is emanating stupidity in this debate and it ain't me, sweetheart. You have been bested and you are fully aware of it. That is why you're "surrendering".

Your ignorance, misinformation, fallacious arguments, and illogical rhetoric will not fly around here. Get used to it.

February 18, 2013 at 6:05 p.m.
rick1 said...

Of course we ll believe it was a mistake this was placed into a gun bill in the State of Washington.

“In order to continue to possess an assault weapon that was legally possessed on the effective date of this section, the person possessing shall ... safely and securely store the assault weapon. The sheriff of the county may, no more than once per year, conduct an inspection to ensure compliance with this subsection.”

In other words, come into homes without a warrant to poke around. Failure to comply could get you up to a year in jail.

Sen. Adam Kline, D-Seattle, said “I made a mistake, I frankly should have vetted this more closely.”

http://seattletimes.com/html/localnews/2020373291_westneat17xml.html

February 18, 2013 at 6:29 p.m.
alprova said...

conservative wrote: "So now you claim to be a Christian after all of the anti Christian things you have written! Who are you fooling?"

I claim nothing to you at all.

"There are tenets/doctrines of Christianity that must be believed in order for one to call himself a Christian."

Does believing God to be a mass-murderer count?

"You have denied some of these tenets/doctrines by some of your anti Christian ranting. Why the charade?"

Your opinion that I have engaged in "anti-Christian ranting" is patently false. You Sir, are bearing false witness.

You're not going to simply move on with your life, are you? If I keep responding, you're going to keep attacking, right?

Hey...I'm game. I don't care what you consider me to be or think of me. But keep those posts a comin'

February 18, 2013 at 7:06 p.m.
alprova said...

Timbo wrote: "MY EMPLOYEES CAN BRING THEM IN THE BUILDING."

Good luck with that one, and when someone melts down one day, I hope that some industrious Attorney doesn't clean you out, because that is a disaster just waiting to happen.

"This whole thing is another attempt by liberals to water down the second amendment. I have a company full of hunters and country people. I am glad that they are armed."

It's really hard to take someone serious and to have a meaningful discussion, when the gun nuts refuse to deal with the issue honestly.

If you have proof that Liberals are attempting to "water down the 2nd Amendment," please submit one item of proof.

"You have absolutely no right to tell me what I need."

You have absolutely no right to military grade weapons.

"The government has even less right."

Sorry, but you'll just have to learn the truth the hard way.

"We need our guns for the very reasons that I read every day from liberals on this page. You liberals and Obama are a threat to our liberty."

For the umpteenth time. Nobody with the power to do it, is attempting to take away gun ownership from so much as one soul who legally qualifies to own a gun.

"They want incremental gun control to finally reach the point of confiscation."

Sorry, but that is a contemptible lie. Where is a scintilla of proof?

"That is where they are headed no matter how much they deny it. They are lying like dogs."

Proof?

February 18, 2013 at 7:16 p.m.
carlB said...

Maximus, You said many things that were surprising to me,in your attitude and how your judgment is applied toward other people whom you must have had some association for earning all of the money you apparently have, thinking people will envy you for it and look up to you for all the hard work you did to earn that money? More Power to you.

February 18, 2013 at 7:16 p.m.
alprova said...

Timbo wrote: "No tanks, nuclear weapons, hand grenades, automatic weapons, etc. that are extreme arms. Whoever, that is where it stops."

Really? Assault weapons were banned from 1994 until 2004, consisting of a list very much like the one being proposed as we speak. Did the Liberals attempt to come for the rest of the guns during that ten year stretch?

A proposal to outlaw 2,200 very specific weapons is in the works. There are people, with the power to do it, who are committed to banning those 2,200 weapons from civilian possession.

Hope you haven't laid out a wad of cash on some of those proposed weapons. I seriously doubt that anyone is going to reimburse current owners who have them now, if they outlaw them.

"The 2nd amendment sole purpose was to make sure that an armed populace had the ability to curtail a runaway government and the tyranny of the minority."

Do you really think for one second, if the Gov't were to truly become tyrannical, that you could stop them? Paranoia runs deep with some of you people, and the more you type it, the more silly you look.

"How the constitution works? The 2nd amendment is in the Bill of Rights you dumb ass."

Timbo...you used to make a little sense when you typed. I think you need to do a little research to see the error in your statement above. The Bill of Rights do not contain one word about guns.

"By the way, "In 2008 and 2010, the Supreme Court issued two landmark decisions officially establishing this interpretation."

Both of the cases you cited were filed in response to cities that attempted to ban guns within their respective city limits. Of course such an attempt was wrong. The Supreme Court ruled it correctly too.

"it might only last a little while if Obama gets more liberals on the court to "reevaluate" the 2nd amendment."

No such attempt is in the works, and President Obama has repeatedly and publicly declared that he is for gun ownership. He, like many others, are actively behind the movement to ban military style weapons from civilian ownership, and the previous ban should never have been allowed to expire.

February 18, 2013 at 7:45 p.m.
alprova said...

prairie_dog wrote: "I suppose you did not hear about the incident where all the roofing nails were spilled on one of the downtown streets last year."

Yes...and what a tragedy it was to read about all those white people who were murdered by the street thugs while changing their flat tires.

Where's the link to that story?

February 18, 2013 at 7:48 p.m.
patriot1 said...

The Supreme Court also issued a ruling known as "Dred Scott" so don't tell me they always get it right.

February 18, 2013 at 7:59 p.m.
Easy123 said...

patriot1,

Actually, if you're looking at the Dred Scott decision based on Constitutionality, then the Supreme Court did get it right. The 14th Amendment didn't pass until years after the Dred Scott ruling.

Might want to do some more research before you go popping off at the mouth.

February 18, 2013 at 8:27 p.m.
patriot1 said...

There is nothing in the constitution that forbids a black person from being a citizen, and neither was there anything in 1857. The Supreme Court could have easy as 123 ruled the other way. In fact, in some states blacks were even voting at that time. The 14th was passed, in part, to reverse the Dred Scott decision.

February 18, 2013 at 9:57 p.m.
Easy123 said...

patriot1,

"There is nothing in the constitution that forbids a black person from being a citizen, and neither was there anything in 1857."

Wrong again. The Three-Fifths Compromise was pretty clear. So was the Privileges and Immunities Clause.

"The Supreme Court could have easy as 123 ruled the other way"

The could not just as easily ruled the other way. I don't know what you think was going on back then but it wasn't exactly conducive to slaves having rights of any kind. You're delusional if you think the Supreme Court at that time would have voted in favor of Dred Scott. That doesn't make it moral but they did have the Constitution on their side.

"In fact, in some states blacks were even voting at that time."

Yet, they didn't even get a full vote and THEY WERE STILL SLAVES.

"The 14th was passed, in part, to reverse the Dred Scott decision."

I already mentioned that.

Your initial premise is still wrong. You just took the round-a-bout way to be incorrect a second time. Try again.

February 18, 2013 at 10:09 p.m.
patriot1 said...

It's easy as 1-2-3

February 18, 2013 at 10:24 p.m.
Easy123 said...

patriot1,

"It's easy as 1-2-3"

To prove you wrong? Calm down, patriot. Relax! It's ok to be wrong sometimes.

February 18, 2013 at 10:27 p.m.
BigRidgePatriot said...

Voter fraud does not exist...

http://video.foxnews.com/v/2172194502001/ohio-voter-fraud-investigation/?playlist_id=940325739001

Nothing to see here, move along...

February 18, 2013 at 10:45 p.m.
Easy123 said...

BRP,

"Voter fraud does not exist..."

No one ever said it doesn't exist. However, it is almost non-existant. I wonder if you would be saying the same thing if the woman said she voted twice for Romney? Would it even make Fox News if that were the case?

You come up with one instance of alleged voter fraud and act like it's a problem?

"Nothing to see here, move along..."

Take both votes away. How much does Romney lose by?

February 18, 2013 at 10:50 p.m.
BigRidgePatriot said...

Easy, you are an idiot.

February 18, 2013 at 11:01 p.m.
nowfedup said...

Couple things might get interesting here. What happens when, as with birth control a church or religious business decides "no guns on property as they offend our religious beliefs? What happens when religious based schools/colleges etc feel "no guns on property as it violates our beliefs?

So it would seem odd to me that so many gunnies who find Canadian gun rules objectionable, state the ole worn out version of "Love it leave it (if one objected to actions by USA) to "well if Canada so great move there". Then we might move things about a bit if your employee does not want guns on property they own, pay taxes, maintain, etc, what if they tell the gunnies, in bests effort of right wingers, "Like your job, love your gun, well love it(gun) or leave it (job)

February 18, 2013 at 11:07 p.m.
Easy123 said...

BRP,

You are an ignoramus and a hypocrite to boot! I knew you wouldn't have a rebuttal. That "honest, intelligent conversation" spiel is bullsh!t. I've known it all along. You've just confirmed it.

Shove your Fox News clip up your libertarian ass. But don't forget to have a nice night!

:-)

February 18, 2013 at 11:12 p.m.
please login to post a comment

videos »         

photos »         

e-edition »

advertisement
advertisement

Find a Business

400 East 11th St., Chattanooga, TN 37403
General Information (423) 756-6900
Copyright, Permissions, Terms & Conditions, Privacy Policy, Ethics policy - Copyright ©2014, Chattanooga Publishing Company, Inc. All rights reserved.
This document may not be reprinted without the express written permission of Chattanooga Publishing Company, Inc.