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????
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.