Locked door? Locked container? Locked WTF?!

[TReischl]

the game you're both playing is called brinkmanship. you want to see how far you can lean over the cliff without falling. that is fine for your life but you have no right to play the game with other people's lives. As for the alcohol content that is why we have legislators. they have studied the problem and determined that .08 seems to be the cut off when people are impaired enough to cause danger to others.

 

[JAYNOSE79]

Show me the study were .08 BAC means I am drunk.

 

[jasons]

Show me the study were .08 BAC means I am drunk.

Hey, we don't need science. We have legislators who have "studied the problem."

 

[drgrant]

When you own guns, you have a responsibility to do your best to safeguard them.

Oh, here we go again...

I can hear the Shoryukens accumulating already. This one is good for a 3 hit combo while Blanka rolling.

-Mike

 

[TReischl]

Xtry51: I have put you on ignore. Have fun playing with yourself.

- - - Updated - - -

Show me the study were .08 BAC means I am drunk.

find it yourself.

 

[drgrant]

Hey, we don't need science. We have legislators who have "studied the problem."

Yes, we all know that all legislators have the highest IQs and are the gods of everything, and always act in society's best interests at heart.

-Mike

 

[jasons]

Yes, we all know that all legislators have the highest IQs and are the gods of everything, and always act in society's best interests at heart.

-Mike

I'm just trying to figure out if this guy is Patience Proper or Prudence Prim.

 

[xtry51]

Xtry51: I have put you on ignore. Have fun playing with yourself.

- - - Updated - - -


find it yourself.

Awesome.

I can't wait till he figures out that when people decide to quote me he'll still have to read it

 

[atmay]

Awesome.

I can't wait till he figures out that when people decide to quote me he'll still have to read it

How long til that happens?

 

[xtry51]

How long til that happens?

Not sure, but I always find it amusing when people bull into a china shop and then can't handle all sides of discussion and whine about it.

 

[TReischl]

Ok, you guys have made me see The Light! I have had an Epiphany!

I understand now that it is a great idea to not have any sort of drunk driving laws, they just don't make any sense. Everyone who drinks should decide for themselves whether or not they are too drunk to drive. Who the heck is the state to decide that any aribitray number like .08 impairs MY ability to drive? I know better, even though all sorts of scientific tests have been performed to show that motor skills and judgement are affected. I don't think mine are at .08 because well, I just know they aren't.

Why should anyone have a drivers license? That is ridiculous! If someone decides his 14 year old kid is mature enough to drive, who the heck am I or the state to say different? While I am at it, those speed limits are just pure B.S., everyone knows you can go much faster than what is posted. THEY just put those up so THEY can make money from us. If a 14 year old who has great reflexes knows he can do 120mph on I-95, I say, GO FOR IT!

Let's get down to brass tacks here, GUNS! I have every right to defend my home, property and life. The 2A says so. So if your 14 y.o. breaks into my home, I just shoot him, no worries. He was going to grow up to be a scumbag anyhow. I don't have to adhere to the same standards a lousy stinking cop has, afterall, I am just a citizen with no training in those matters. And while we are on guns, I should be able to have anything I want, full auto, you name it. NO ONE has any business askin me any questions or checking up on my past. I should be able to park a 105 mm canon in my front yard if I feel like it and can afford it. This is AMERICA by God!

Those guns? I should be able to leave them laying around anywhere I feel like on my property. I might need one at a moments notice, who knows? If someone else does not teach their kid to keep their hands off my stuff, too bad! Unless of course they shoot at me, then I get to shoot them. I am only responsible for something I directly do, not something that results from my actions, I finally get it! If I dig a punji trap in my yard to keep out burglars, that is ok, even if your kid falls in it. Your kid should know better, it is YOUR fault, you did not teach your kid properly. I love this new freedom I have learned! I am gonna have to Google me up some bear traps, darn, they are probably illegal, darn state!

I think I have one more freedom, you guys can correct me if I am wrong, ok?

If one of you does something, like drive drunk and kill my wife in an accident, then I have the RIGHT to summarily execute you. I claim this right because I only answer to myself, not the state, so who else would decide?

Oh, and I have a few other rights too! Since there are no speed limits anymore, and I am retired, I can drive 15 mph down I-95 and really look at the scenery for a change. Of course, I will rent a big honking UHaul truck before I do that.

Thanks guys, I am so happy that you straightened me out, life is going to be a whole lot better now! I don't see why all these great freedoms would be a hard sell to the other residents of this state?

No matter what, I just know now that most everyone else is wrong, and I am right, the state is evil and THEY are trying to wreck my wonderful life!

 

[xtry51]

Someone's been watching too much of the DNC convention

I think we get it freedom and individual choice is bad. Laws and behavioral control are good. Ive read a couple of great books about this utopian society. I believe they were The Giver, Brave New World, Animal Farm, 1984....

 

[MisterHappy]

I'm glad you had your eyes opened.



But you still have not answered the questions that I have asked.

One: Definition of "Proper storage" of a firearm (you can have several scenarios, as in MGLs)
Two: Your definition of Drunk Driving (If you agree with .08, then .07 is fine, yes?)

As for a 14-year old driving, it's legal in some states:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Driver's_license_in_the_United_States

Age-based licenses are silly, IMO. The 87-year-old Gramps that has the reaction time of a three-toed sloth is at least as dangerous as a kid.....but he's old enough to drive. Would you require a skills test at a given interval to maintain a DL, as they do for a pilot's license? If a 13-year old can pass the test is he old enough?

As for speed limits - well, even one who follows the Rule of the Sign can still be busted - you may be doing 30 in a 30 zone, and be cited for "Speed excessive for conditions" - so, in reality, the posted limit is a....guideline, and your judgement as a driver is what counts. As for driving at 15 MPH on a multi lane highway in a u-haul.....go for it. That's what passing lanes are for. Texas is opening a section of road where the limit will be 85 - is that OK with you? It's a posted limit, right?

And yes, if a 14-year old breaks into your house, and you shoot him....fine. He broke into your house. He's probably not there to collect for the Red Cross.


As for summary execution, no. How do you know that your wife is not the one that casued the accident, say, while texting, and the other guy happened to be just over the limit at .081? Put him on trial, and then, if found guilty, take whatever pound of flesh is required by law.

You seem to have the opinion that restrictions on behavior that are less stringent that what you deem propper is akin to anarchy; you use words like "prudent" and "Stupid drunk" as though they were valid metrics. We're asking for you to give a specific, objective benchmark for your ideal restrictions. I'm still waiting for a reply as to what you consider OK for powder, primer and ammo storage....I know that grenades and dynamite are out. Unless it's a setback issue. You mentioned a small lot in a neighborhood....what if Napoleon Dynamite has a 10-acre spread in West Treestump, and no neighbors within 1/2 mile?

Just becasue some don't think that current levels of restrictions are OK, does not mean that they think there should be no restrictions.

 

[atmay]

Someone's been watching too much of the DNC convention

I think we get it freedom and individual choice is bad. Laws and behavioral control are good. Ive read a couple of great books about this utopian society. I believe they were The Giver, Brave New World, Animal Farm, 1984....

Tru dat, homeslice

 

[Rob Boudrie]

A great example of where govt regulation leads:

Anascorp antivenin for the stink of the bark scorpion, made in Mexico - generally requires several vials to treat a sting.

Mexico price - $100 a vial
US price to hospitals - About $3700 a vial
Price to self-pay patients - $8000 to $12000 a vial depending on the hospital

 

[Racenet]

the game you're both playing is called brinkmanship. you want to see how far you can lean over the cliff without falling. that is fine for your life but you have no right to play the game with other people's lives. As for the alcohol content that is why we have legislators. they have studied the problem and determined that .08 seems to be the cut off when people are impaired enough to cause danger to others.

 

[TReischl]

I'm glad you had your eyes opened.



But you still have not answered the questions that I have asked.

One: Definition of "Proper storage" of a firearm (you can have several scenarios, as in MGLs)

Told ya, I have seen "the light". The law needs to go, you should be able to leave your squirrel gun or .50 BMG laying around on your front porch if you feel like it. Handguns are no exception. The way I see it, if the Girl Scouts come up to your front door to sell cookies, their folks should have taught them to keep their grub hooks off your guns. Simple as that.

Two: Your definition of Drunk Driving (If you agree with .08, then .07 is fine, yes?)

We don't NEED a definition of Drunk Driving! Think of the court time this would save! Of course the lawyers and folks who teach all those classes are going to be unhappy as all get out, but to hell with them. If you think you can drive when your BAC is 2.0, hey, who the hell is the state, or me for that matter, to say otherwise. I am sorry that I was questioning your self knowledge and rights. Plus, alchohol sales should go up for those backyard BBQ's, etc. The state will make more money. Wait! What RIGHT does the state have to tax us on those? See, I am getting the hang of this "Rights" stuff!

And while I am at it...who does the state think it is to tell small business owners that people cannot SMOKE in their establishments, like bars and restaurants? And then tax cigarettes too? Oh, you want to use that "Second hand smoke" argument? Baloney, this is a FREE country, that means YOU do not have to work in that establishment and YOU do not have to do business in that place. YOU are FREE to stay out. AM I RIGHT????

As for a 14-year old driving, it's legal in some states:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Driver's_license_in_the_United_States

Well, you are stretching this one a bit, it is mostly for hardship. BUT! With my new enlightment, there would be no need for all this BS "qualifying" for a hardship. Just hand junior or missy the keys and away they go! Your call.

Age-based licenses are silly, IMO. The 87-year-old Gramps that has the reaction time of a three-toed sloth is at least as dangerous as a kid.....but he's old enough to drive. Would you require a skills test at a given interval to maintain a DL, as they do for a pilot's license? If a 13-year old can pass the test is he old enough?

You are soooo right on this one, but the government has no business trampling on anyone's rights to drive, no matter what the form of transportation. (I am aware that the requirement for a pilots license is quite different than a motor vehicle license, age wise). I think we do need one sort of "rule" about driving a vehicle though, they should have to be able to reach the pedals and see over the dashboard?

As for speed limits - well, even one who follows the Rule of the Sign can still be busted - you may be doing 30 in a 30 zone, and be cited for "Speed excessive for conditions" - so, in reality, the posted limit is a....guideline, and your judgement as a driver is what counts. As for driving at 15 MPH on a multi lane highway in a u-haul.....go for it. That's what passing lanes are for. Texas is opening a section of road where the limit will be 85 - is that OK with you? It's a posted limit, right?

Silly me! Now I know why these people have been passing me over the double yellow lines in this state when I am going 10 miles OVER the speed limit. The speed limit AND the double yellow lines are only "GUIDE LINES"! I will make sure I tell an officer that should they ever have the temerity to stop me! Because THAT is reality, as you say.

I don't know about this "speed excessive..." drivel, isn't that my word against his? Who is some trooper, what makes him an expert? He can't even shoot as well as I do.

As for 85 MPH in Texas? Who cares? It is our judgement as drivers that counts! We should be able to do 140 or better if our cars can go that fast and we can react fast enough to go around my 15 MPH UHaul that might be weaving a bit cause I am getting old and senile, but it is MY right to drive anyhow, YOU need to look out for me, because BY GOD, highways are dangerous and YOU knew that when YOU decided to drive on them. See? I am getting the hang of this real good, YOU are always responsible for your actions, me, not so much.

And yes, if a 14-year old breaks into your house, and you shoot him....fine. He broke into your house. He's probably not there to collect for the Red Cross.

Yup, I definitely like this, I do not have to bother to see if he has a weapon or anything, just blast away. Of course, if a cop gets a call that your kid has broken into a store in the middle of the night, he should not shoot until he has determined that his life is in danger, right? After all, the cop is a trained professional in these matters (even though we know they don't shoot so good)

As for summary execution, no. How do you know that your wife is not the one that casued the accident, say, while texting, and the other guy happened to be just over the limit at .081? Put him on trial, and then, if found guilty, take whatever pound of flesh is required by law.

1. My wife NEVER texts while driving.
2. MY rules are that anyone who has ANY alchohol in them is impaired. (I love this new freedom stuff because I can make up my own rules whether or not you like them and then act on them) I base this concept on the FACT that I had an aunt who, if she drank ONE measly glass of wine got all silly and uncoordinated. I don't need anymore proof than that, it was all very scientific.
3. A trial? Are you crazy? Look what the judges and lawyers do in this state!!! They TWIST everything around until the victim becomes the culprit. No thank you. THAT is one of the things I have learned on this forum! (Especially in this thread)

You seem to have the opinion that restrictions on behavior that are less stringent that what you deem propper is akin to anarchy; you use words like "prudent" and "Stupid drunk" as though they were valid metrics. We're asking for you to give a specific, objective benchmark for your ideal restrictions. I'm still waiting for a reply as to what you consider OK for powder, primer and ammo storage....I know that grenades and dynamite are out. Unless it's a setback issue. You mentioned a small lot in a neighborhood....what if Napoleon Dynamite has a 10-acre spread in West Treestump, and no neighbors within 1/2 mile?

Just becasue some don't think that current levels of restrictions are OK, does not mean that they think there should be no restrictions.

[/quote]
Seriously now, no I do not think "less stringent" is akin to anarchy. However, there are some on here who do not seem to stop and think before typing. They view EVERY incident with an eye that is trying to see how the state is violating their rights, how the cops are mistreating them, ad nauseam. YES, this state HAS overstepped its boundaries in my opinion. It needs to be corrected, how that is going to get done remains a mystery.

About Napoleon Dynamite. He can actually have his dynamite, but to protect the rest of us, he has to meet some requirements under the law. I am no expert in those, since I am not interested in owning any dynamite. But I am DAMN happy someone is keeping the guy next door (about 100' away) from just stockpiling a few hundred pounds cause he is paranoid.

 

[TReischl]

A great example of where govt regulation leads:

Anascorp antivenin for the stink of the bark scorpion, made in Mexico - generally requires several vials to treat a sting.

Mexico price - $100 a vial
US price to hospitals - About $3700 a vial
Price to self-pay patients - $8000 to $12000 a vial depending on the hospital

A little more info on this incredibly dangerous little devil:
Though not aggressive, the scorpion's close association with humans makes envenomation relatively common. The sting can be extremely painful. For some, the worst passes in 15–20 minutes, but not uncommon to remain very painful with numbing sensations for 2–3 days. Fatalities are rare, and due to anaphylactic shock rather than the venom itself. Reported direct deaths are controversial. Sting victims should contact poison control.
On 30 June 2011, a man on an Alaska Airlines flight was reportedly stung by a striped bark scorpion. The flight had originated from Austin, Texas, which is where authorities believe the scorpion originated. The man reportedly did not experience any serious medical conditions

It would be nice if you explained how the GOVERNMENT causes the price to escalate, not the hospitals, insurance companies, etc.

 

[xtry51]

Ah now we're all supposed to be Mormons. No drinking at all. Nice.

Maybe we should ban eating turkey and then driving too, bacause tryptophan makes you sleepy and thereby impairs your ability to drive safely. And no driving while sick at all because being sick and having increased immune response also makes you sluggish.

It would be nice if you explained how the GOVERNMENT causes the price to escalate, not the hospitals, insurance companies, etc.

Wow. Someone skipped the drinking of the koolaid and ran straight to eating and snorting the powder straight from the packets. This level of ignorance is really quite astounding.

 

[TReischl]

xtry51

NES Member
This message is hidden because xtry51 is on your ignore list.

Just added Atmay to the Ignore List.

Gotta love that ignore feature!

 

[MisterHappy]

I don't think that you've really seen the light, and are now just trolling.

Before, while I did not agree with some/many of your positions and assertions, I was at least giving you enough respect ( I thought), both here, and in our ex-parte PM, that a reasonable reply to my questions seemed in order.

Now, it seems you're poundig your spoon on your high chair. Too bad.

Since most of your reply to my post is in that vein, let's table that part. The only part that seems to be reasoned is this:

Seriously now, no I do not think "less stringent" is akin to anarchy. However, there are some on here who do not seem to stop and think before typing. They view EVERY incident with an eye that is trying to see how the state is violating their rights, how the cops are mistreating them, ad nauseam. YES, this state HAS overstepped its boundaries in my opinion. It needs to be corrected, how that is going to get done remains a mystery.

The main problem with this is that your standards have not been articulaed, and when asked to do so, you apparently cannot do so. If someone says, "This law is too restrictive" ypu say, "I've seen the light! No Law needed"
Spoon on high chair.

There are some here that do not thnk before typing. Some in this thread. If every incident of (potential) police or governmental misconduct is not discussed, which ones should be? Is Pistol-whipping with ND and conspiracy to conceal evidence OK? How about the Framingham incident where the non-criminal on the floor took a rifle round in the back from a SWAT team member who said he "heard a boom" and his weapon discharged? Are those OK, but searcing a car where an enpty holster is visible not? How about a .30 cal ammo can (that's a toolbox, but who knows- it might be ammo)? If John Law saw that in your car would you consent to a search? Would you consider it probable casue in a car with three less-savory looking people in it?

At least you agree that the State has overstepped its bounds ( I think....perhaps my sarcasm meter is overloaded)....and the way to push back is with bringing the overstepping to light.

Oh....as an aside: BULLSHIT on "stretching" the 14 year-old drivers' licenses - at least 5 states have them. Yes, some are "hardship", but all allow a 14-year old to drive a motor vehicle on public ways, alone. To wit: South Dakota: Under 16 may not drive from 10 p.m. to 3 a.m.
Not much of a hardship.

And as for a Private pilot's license....you can take lessons at 16, and get your License at 17, so that's not too far off of mass. And when you factor in the Junior Operator stuff that restricts you from full license priviledges until 18 here in the PRM, a Pilot's License is less restrictive.

 

[TReischl]

I don't think that you've really seen the light, and are now just trolling.

Before, while I did not agree with some/many of your positions and assertions, I was at least giving you enough respect ( I thought), both here, and in our ex-parte PM, that a reasonable reply to my questions seemed in order.

I believe the respect is mutual, sir. Definitely NOT trolling. The sarcasm was fully intended and has served its purpose very well. It has caused a few to stop and think about WHY we have laws instead of just myopically viewing selected incidents. A simple example is smoking. Many people hate it and want to be able to go anywhere they please without smelling or inhaling it, they feel it is their RIGHT. Well, we know how smokers feel about THEIR rights. I am not taking a stand on this subject. Where do YOU think the law should come down on this subject and why?

Now, it seems you're poundig your spoon on your high chair. Too bad.

Since most of your reply to my post is in that vein, let's table that part. The only part that seems to be reasoned is this:

Seriously now, no I do not think "less stringent" is akin to anarchy. However, there are some on here who do not seem to stop and think before typing. They view EVERY incident with an eye that is trying to see how the state is violating their rights, how the cops are mistreating them, ad nauseam. YES, this state HAS overstepped its boundaries in my opinion. It needs to be corrected, how that is going to get done remains a mystery.

The main problem with this is that your standards have not been articulaed, and when asked to do so, you apparently cannot do so. If someone says, "This law is too restrictive" ypu say, "I've seen the light! No Law needed"
Spoon on high chair.

It never was and never will be about MY standards. We live in a society. I said it a few times in this thread, the Constitution begins with "We the People...", it does not start with "I Joe Citizen...". If WE attempted to run a country, state, county, city or town by getting everyone to agree on a standard, it would never happen. Someone is always bound to go away unhappy. I personally could go away unhappy because the "standard" my be too lax or too restrictive for my liking. It does not matter, what is important is that as a society we find a common ground that WE can all live with, not just cater to the needs of a few radicals, no matter which end of the spectrum those radicals may be on. The Constitution does provide for the right to bear arms, it also provides for state governments to create laws to suit the needs of their citizens. Keep in mind that all governments are "of the people", they are not some separate entity, a "they". It this state, it has come to pass that the liberal minded seem to outweigh the more conservative. The checks and balances of the judicial system are failing in that they are permitting a "tyranny of democracy" over the rights granted by the 2nd ammendment. THAT is the true travesty in Mass.

For those who only read the 2nd ammendment, they need to read the FIRST part of the constitution, not just the Bill of Rights. Yup, I love the BoR too, but there is more to this country than just the BoR. Whether any of us like it or not, the Founders did just that, FOUNDED a country, complete with government, OMG, courts, OMG, legislatures, OMG and all the other stuff a select few on this forum seem to really dislike. Living in this country means you are, yes, like it or not, SUBJECT, to the laws of this country, state,county, town, etc. Until you figure out how to get them changed to your liking.

Now someone or several someone's are going to pick the above apart to show what a simple minded moron I am. Which helps to illustrate why it will continue to be so difficult to change the situation in this state.

There are some here that do not thnk before typing. Some in this thread. If every incident of (potential) police or governmental misconduct is not discussed, which ones should be? Is Pistol-whipping with ND and conspiracy to conceal evidence OK? How about the Framingham incident where the non-criminal on the floor took a rifle round in the back from a SWAT team member who said he "heard a boom" and his weapon discharged? Are those OK, but searcing a car where an enpty holster is visible not? How about a .30 cal ammo can (that's a toolbox, but who knows- it might be ammo)? If John Law saw that in your car would you consent to a search? Would you consider it probable casue in a car with three less-savory looking people in it?

As a matter of policy, I never consent to a search. (airports are a different matter, I have to get somewhere and do not have much choice)

In your paragraph above, there are several different issues, police misconduct(pistol whipping, shooting) are issues that need to be presented to an DA or ADA and resolved (I do not believe these things should be decided from within a police force, but that is just me)

The search issues are matters of case law, give me a break on the "less savory looking", next you will be asking if race should matter. As I said above, I never consent to a search. And yes, I have been asked that question on a simple traffic stop. The result was interesting and took about 15 minutes of intense "conversation" to resolve. There was no search.

At least you agree that the State has overstepped its bounds ( I think....perhaps my sarcasm meter is overloaded)....and the way to push back is with bringing the overstepping to light.

Oh....as an aside: BULLSHIT on "stretching" the 14 year-old drivers' licenses - at least 5 states have them. Yes, some are "hardship", but all allow a 14-year old to drive a motor vehicle on public ways, alone. To wit: South Dakota: Under 16 may not drive from 10 p.m. to 3 a.m.
Not much of a hardship.

You been to South Dakota? You can fire a canon down most of their highways without hitting anything. Besides, most of them learn how to drive a tractor when they are like 8 years old. There are only about 814,180 people in the whole state which is over 7X as large as Mass. Mass has 6,547,629 people.

And as for a Private pilot's license....you can take lessons at 16, and get your License at 17, so that's not too far off of mass. And when you factor in the Junior Operator stuff that restricts you from full license priviledges until 18 here in the PRM, a Pilot's License is less restrictive.

What can I say? Someone thinks the kids here are not very smart or trustworthy enough to drive? Or is it that they don't want their kids killed by the MANIACS on the Mass highways before they reach 18? yanno, this state does not exactly have a great rep for its wonderful, kind, considerate, friendly, let me hug you, drivers.

 

[jasons]

The only thing worse than a troll is a verbose troll.

 

[MisterHappy]

WRT Smoking: Private property, ANY private property....light 'em up. If you don't want to inhale, stay out. Why? Slippery slope - what's next? Government control of what we eat (Tans-fats; sodium; size of drink). It's all for the public good. I do not smoke; were my Club to put it before the membership, I'd say, Smoke on. I loathe cigar smoke. Also peanut butter. But my dilikes should not limit another's enjoyment on private property. The place had smoking when I joined - It was, and continues to be my choice.

RE Standards: Way at the start, ca. post 35, you were asked to define "Tamper resistant"; you also stated that we as gun owners, have a responsibility to keep guns from falling into the wrong hands. I gave you a pick list as to what you thought appropriate. You never responded. Since you were to say that we, as gun owners have the responsibility, it's YOUR responsibility to define how far it goes. If you're going to say that we have a nation of laws, then what is within and without the bounds needs to be defined. "Doing bad things" is not sufficiently precise. And IMO, the reason that the laws in this state are so difficult to change is not due to anything else than the fact that gun owners are a significant minority, and the majority (and therefore the people that they elect) is either apathetic or hostile to gun owners' rights.

I'm glad that you never consent to a search; I'm glad that there is case law WRT what constitutes a legal search; the Somerville incident, were it to become established case law, would mean that the next time you are stopped on the way back from the range, the LEO seeing a holster, case, or enpty casing on the floor could be probable cause to demand your LTC. Now....it was a traffic stop; now it's a weapons investigation. If you present your LTC, and the cop says, "Do you have any weapons in the car?" You, coming from the range, say, "Yes." "I want to see if they're properly secured (Your term, from way back) for transport." Will you let him. If you say no, what will you do when he takes that as suspicious activity, and calls for backup?

Re: south dakota. Yeah, I've been there. They have cities, too. The SD kid's license does not say "Only good in areas where you can fire a cannon down the road" (as far as I know). YOU are the one that brought age into the mix.

Now I will. My kids took their first shots at 5; my younger started "real" Trap (no dad behind him) at about 8; he ran his first 25 straight aat age 9; he has his Distinguished Expert in Trap and Skeet; he has Sharpshooter qualification in Smallbiore rifle, and Marksman in Handgun; He's an NRA Apprentice Instructor in Basic Pistol and Home Firearm Safety. It's not always the age, it's the ability. I'd trust hiim at 14 in South Dakota traffic more than a lot of the locals I see every day.

As for the Pilot's license - I have one. Again, it's about ability, not age. When I was in training, one of the students have over 100 hours at that flight school, and had not soloed. His logbook went back to the same field, and the same time as my dad's - ca. 1946. Most people solo at around 15 hours.

My problem is that you have made numerous assertions that you cannot, or will not, place a concrete definition on - I think that you edited a post where you stated that and BAC over 0.00 was bad (prompting the Mormon comment). I wish you'd left that up - at least it was an objective standard.

You have said that responsible gun owners should store their guns safely. The gov't says, "Tamper resistant" trigger locks are acceptable for storage; if I take my Browning A5 shotgun, put on a trigger lock from Wallyworld, and a 14-year old illegally enters my abode, takes the gun, defeats the lock, and does bad things....is it my fault?

Answer that one, and we can proceed. If it's "Yes" please explain what additional steps I should have taken above the statutory requirements, and why. Not because of the inherent value of the property, but because of my responsibility to society at large

 

[TReischl]

The only thing worse than a troll is a verbose troll.

This type of comment is used by a person:
1) who cannot recognize a legitimate discussion
2) has nothing useful to add
3) is so opinionated they cannot stand to hear another viewpoint

At this juncture, it is time for jasons to join the Ignore Corps. See ya. (and I hate to do that, cause Marines have always been my favorite people)

 

[jasons]

This type of comment is used by a person:
1) who cannot recognize a legitimate discussion
2) has nothing useful to add
3) is so opinionated they cannot stand to hear another viewpoint

At this juncture, it is time for jasons to join the Ignore Corps. See ya. (and I hate to do that, cause Marines have always been my favorite people)

As far as this thread is concerned, I plead guilty on all three counts. Your trolling is neither legitimate, useful, or valid, and no comment can ever make it so. Your shitting in this thread recalls epic trolls of NES past, only unlike them you're not even entertaining. It's only a matter of time before the ban hammer falls on you.

 

[TReischl]

I am going to answer you somewhat out of sequence.

You have noted that I stopped answering your "objective" questions. Eg. "What BAC?" "What do I think is appropriate?"

You have developed either conciously or unconciously what you think is a very useful argument technique, you refer to it as the "slippery slope". Your technique is to get the other person to define a "concrete" parameter, and then you move the parameter slightly. For example, I say .08 BAC is ok, so then you say, "What about .07, aren't some people impaired at that level?" Then you procede to prove your "slippery slope" theory. You attempted to do it by linking smoking laws with what we eat, trans-fats, sodium, size of drink. Most of those I believe coming from the crazy Mayor of NYC. I don't play the "slippery slope" game. The .08 BAC has been around a number of years, I have not heard of any really serious attempts to lower it (I do not consider MADD serious, I used to know the crazy VP of it from Illinois, BTW).

I also stopped because some of the "peanut gallery" on this forum like to quote one line from an answer and offer it up as "proof positive" that someone does not know what they are talking about. They like to ignore entire thoughts just to prove their viewpoints.

The third reason I stopped answering concrete questions is that in our system of government, I NEVER get to vote for a candidate that shares all of my viewpoints. That is probably true for almost every voter, unless they are just pure party animals and believe along the party lines no matter what. So what am I to do? Throw up my hands and not vote? So no, it is NOT up to me to define what is "tamper resistant". It is up to me to vote for someone that I believe will come up with a workable solution that is fair to the majority of the citizens and (this is VERY important) not trample on the rights of small groups of people. We should not be governed by "tyranny of democracy".

Let's move on. Some here have absolutely no clue how government actually works. They actually think that the State legislature without any scientific study just dreamed up the .08 BAC out of thin air. I actually saw scientific tests on TV that showed the results of various BAC on people operating boats and cars. Of course, legislators would not have seen those.

I'm glad that you never consent to a search; I'm glad that there is case law WRT what constitutes a legal search; the Somerville incident, were it to become established case law, would mean that the next time you are stopped on the way back from the range, the LEO seeing a holster, case, or enpty casing on the floor could be probable cause to demand your LTC. Now....it was a traffic stop; now it's a weapons investigation. If you present your LTC, and the cop says, "Do you have any weapons in the car?" You, coming from the range, say, "Yes." "I want to see if they're properly secured (Your term, from way back) for transport." Will you let him. If you say no, what will you do when he takes that as suspicious activity, and calls for backup?

Obviously if the Somerville case goes badly, none of us are going to have any choice, are we? This goes to my point about the real problem in this state is with the judicial system. And I keep saying, the laws need to be changed. But in the meantime, howling at the moon and crying "Foul" and berating others on this forum accomplishes Zippity Doo Dah.

Re: south dakota. Yeah, I've been there. They have cities, too. The SD kid's license does not say "Only good in areas where you can fire a cannon down the road" (as far as I know). YOU are the one that brought age into the mix.

Now I will. My kids took their first shots at 5; my younger started "real" Trap (no dad behind him) at about 8; he ran his first 25 straight aat age 9; he has his Distinguished Expert in Trap and Skeet; he has Sharpshooter qualification in Smallbiore rifle, and Marksman in Handgun; He's an NRA Apprentice Instructor in Basic Pistol and Home Firearm Safety. It's not always the age, it's the ability. I'd trust hiim at 14 in South Dakota traffic more than a lot of the locals I see every day.

As for the Pilot's license - I have one. Again, it's about ability, not age. When I was in training, one of the students have over 100 hours at that flight school, and had not soloed. His logbook went back to the same field, and the same time as my dad's - ca. 1946. Most people solo at around 15 hours.

My problem is that you have made numerous assertions that you cannot, or will not, place a concrete definition on - I think that you edited a post where you stated that and BAC over 0.00 was bad (prompting the Mormon comment). I wish you'd left that up - at least it was an objective standard.

Honestly? I do not recall doing that, usually I only edit my post for grammar and spelling.

You have said that responsible gun owners should store their guns safely. The gov't says, "Tamper resistant" trigger locks are acceptable for storage; if I take my Browning A5 shotgun, put on a trigger lock from Wallyworld, and a 14-year old illegally enters my abode, takes the gun, defeats the lock, and does bad things....is it my fault?

No, I do not need to answer that one, YOU do.

Answer that one, and we can proceed. If it's "Yes" please explain what additional steps I should have taken above the statutory requirements, and why. Not because of the inherent value of the property, but because of my responsibility to society at large

For further consumption by those who THINK that the legislature just dreamed up that .08 BAC (ya, read it):
In 2000, Congress passed the DOT Appropriations Act of FY 2001, adopting .08 BAC as the national illegal limit for impaired driving. The statute provides that States that do not adopt a conforming .08 BAC law by October 1, 2003, will be subject to a withholding 2 percent of certain highway construction funds. Each year, the withholding percentage increases by 2 percent, up to 8 percent in FY 2007 and later. Those states that adopt a conforming .08 BAC law within 4 years of any withholding will be reimbursed for those withheld funds. If a State has not adopted a conforming .08 BAC law by October 1, 2007, portions of its withheld funds shall begin to lapse and will no longer be available to the State

Key Fact
In 2002, 41 percent of the 42,815 motor vehicle deaths were alco-hol-related. This translates to 17,419 alcohol-related motor vehicle deaths during that year, accounting for an average of one alcohol-related fatality every 30 minutes.
■ The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration’s (NHTSA) position on the relationship between blood alcohol concentration and driving is that driving performance degrades with every drink.
■ A comprehensive NHTSA study provides what is perhaps clear evidence of the significant impairment that occurs in the driving-related skills of all drivers with .08 BAC, regardless of age, gender, or drinking history.

■ .08 BAC laws are effective in re-ducing alcohol-related fatal crashes. At least 10 studies, covering many of the States that have enacted .08 BAC laws, have consistently shown that .08 BAC laws are associated with reductions in alcohol-related fatalities, particularly in conjunction with the administrative license revocation (ALR) laws that are present in 41 States.

■ NHTSA has published several comprehensive studies on the effectiveness of .08 BAC laws. These studies found consistent and persuasive evidence that .08 BAC laws are associated with reduced incidence of alcohol-related fatal crashes. A study of the effectiveness of a .08 BAC law implemented in Illinois in 1997, found that the .08 BAC law was associated with a 13.7 percent decline in the number of drinking drivers involved in fatal crashes. The reduction included drivers at both high and low BAC levels. This is significant because critics of .08 BAC laws have often claimed that these laws do not affect the behavior of high BAC drivers. The study also found that there were no major problems reported by local law enforcement or court systems due to the change in the law. An updated analysis of Illinois’s law estimated that 105 lives were saved in the first two calendar years since its implementation.
■ In a comprehensive study of drivers involved in fatal crashes in all 50 states and DC from 1982-1997, it was estimated that .08 BAC laws reduced driver alcohol-related fatal crashes by 8 percent.

The peanut gallery can sit around in this forum typing all their folksy ideas about how things work in the government, but they are dead wrong.

 

[xtry51]

So you and others arent qualified to make laws, we need superior people known as politiicians to make these very tough decisions for us. Also you saw it on TV once and the Feds made states do it so it must be right. Got it.

I disagree Jasons. I think this is hysterical. He's a perfect HuffPo representation of how liberals think and justify laws.

 

[drgrant]

You have noted that I stopped answering your "objective" questions. Eg. "What BAC?" "What do I think is appropriate?"

Without getting specific what the **** is the point, really? You enjoy having laws meet some nebulous standard so the authorities are free to abuse people that they "think" have violated the spirit of the law?

I also stopped because some of the "peanut gallery" on this forum like to quote one line from an answer and offer it up as "proof positive" that someone does not know what they are talking about. They like to ignore entire thoughts just to prove their viewpoints.

Well when you're spewing out one liners the equivalent of "communism is good" would you not expect someone here to call you out on it?

Sometimes a responder might pick one line from your post simply because it ends up being a linchpin that holds your entire argument together. There is no need for them to read the other 85% of the drivel if you give the person a couple of grenades out of 500 pounds of birdseed to throw back at you.

-Mike

 

[TReischl]

Without getting specific what the **** is the point, really? You enjoy having laws meet some nebulous standard so the authorities are free to abuse people that they "think" have violated the spirit of the law?



Well when you're spewing out one liners the equivalent of "communism is good" would you not expect someone here to call you out on it?

Sometimes a responder might pick one line from your post simply because it ends up being a linchpin that holds your entire argument together. There is no need for them to read the other 85% of the drivel if you give the person a couple of grenades out of 500 pounds of birdseed to throw back at you.

-Mike

There is nothing "nebulous" about .08 BAC.

You said it all "There is no need for them to read the other 85%...". Just read to a part you do not like and forget reading the rest, right? Then start throwing out comments and insults. That is what every intelligent person that I know does.
WOW! "Communism is good", do you see one everytime someone has an opposing viewpoint?

The definition of Police "Abuse" seems to be the one of things that is "nebulous" on this forum. The mere existence of police embodies "abuse" to some.