Author Topic: ok, so what's the point of this stupid law....  (Read 1188 times)

Offline NUKE

  • Persona Non Grata
  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 8599
      • Arizona Greens
ok, so what's the point of this stupid law....
« Reply #45 on: April 10, 2004, 10:01:51 AM »
Quote
Originally posted by Airhead
For many, it should have been for their parents.


funny, but doesn't sex count as a danger to our health and an increase to our insurance costs?

Why is there no law that requires condoms during sex? Maybe we should apply for a permit  from the government to be able to sex without a condom.

edit: I'm a freaking genius, don't screw with me.

Offline Creamo

  • Parolee
  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 5976
      • http://www.fatchicksinpartyhats.com
ok, so what's the point of this stupid law....
« Reply #46 on: April 10, 2004, 10:05:57 AM »
No simple answer to that Nuke, except, "Not Yet".

Offline Airhead

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3369
      • http://www.ouchytheclown.com
ok, so what's the point of this stupid law....
« Reply #47 on: April 10, 2004, 10:08:08 AM »
Quote
Originally posted by NUKE
funny, but doesn't sex count as a danger to our health and an increase to our insurance costs?

Why is there no law that requires condoms during sex? Maybe we should apply for a permit  from the government to be able to sex without a condom.

edit: I'm a freaking genius, don't screw with me.


HA!!! Actually there IS a law requiring condoms... for HIV Positive males! In fact HIV positive prostitutes have been jailed for continuing to "work."

More "nannying" laws, huh?

Offline NUKE

  • Persona Non Grata
  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 8599
      • Arizona Greens
ok, so what's the point of this stupid law....
« Reply #48 on: April 10, 2004, 10:16:12 AM »
Quote
Originally posted by Airhead
HA!!! Actually there IS a law requiring condoms... for HIV Positive males! In fact HIV positive prostitutes have been jailed for continuing to "work."

More "nannying" laws, huh?


really? Maybe the law is too lax? Why not require all people to use condoms during sex, unless government approved?

Offline Leslie

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2212
ok, so what's the point of this stupid law....
« Reply #49 on: April 10, 2004, 10:22:12 AM »
Quote
Originally posted by GtoRA2
I really need a safe. The good ones are to heavy for someone who does not own their home though. :(




A good safe has to be anchored into a concrete floor, preferably incorporated into the design of a new house or the addition to an existing house.  It must be hidden from sight of a casual observer.  Thieves can just steal the whole safe and open it at their leisure if it's not anchored down.

Had a party one time at my house, and one of my intoxicated guests was working the combination of a small refrigerator I had that looked like a safe...had his ear up to the door and everything.  You shoulda seen the look on his face when I said "excuse me" and opened the refrigerator to retrieve a beer.  He was very confused, almost to the point that I was wondering if he was genuinely interested in opening that "safe."

Far as gun locks go, they are ineffective at preventing children from removing them, so they serve no purpose there.  Imo, it's a law that is designed to help prosecute citizens who use firearms in self defense, that being a stepping stone toward a future requirement that firearms require locks on them at all times.  So, even if you carry, you must first remove the lock if you need to use a firearm.

That's not practical, and everyone knows it.  Probably won't be long before all new firearms have computer chips, with the user having a chip implanted (most extreme case) or more likely a ring or special watch with a chip that enables the weapon.  Of course, pre-chip weapons still would have to use the trigger lock.

I believe that's where all this lock business is leading, though I hope I'm wrong.  If it does get to that point, it will be in the future, but I believe the technology is in place right now for that.

Rpm371 interesting idea, of course, with a smart chip, I suppose those firearms could somehow be disabled at the whim of some central computer operator, or even possibly a hacker. A large EMP (electromagnetic pulse) could also disable.  Not to mention the expense involved, so people without means couldn't afford firearms unless they were resolved to use trigger locks within the future (hypothetical) law. Something to think about.  Dunno.  Doesn't sound like a good idea to me for those reasons.  Besides, I don't see how it could be done without permanent registration of some kind, which is currently not the law of the land.  Firearms registration records must be destroyed by the Feds after a short period (the background check.)






Les



Sorry GTO, kinda used your quote to address Laz's thread topic and rpm's handprint idea.

Offline hawker238

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1563
ok, so what's the point of this stupid law....
« Reply #50 on: April 10, 2004, 10:23:47 AM »
Quote
Originally posted by NUKE

edit: I'm a freaking genius, don't screw with me.


:confused:

Offline Airhead

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3369
      • http://www.ouchytheclown.com
ok, so what's the point of this stupid law....
« Reply #51 on: April 10, 2004, 10:32:08 AM »
Quote
Originally posted by NUKE
really? Maybe the law is too lax? Why not require all people to use condoms during sex, unless government approved?


Why? As long as you aren't spreading diseases it's a non-issue.

Sheesh, man. What kind of a genius are you, anyway? :rolleyes:

Offline NUKE

  • Persona Non Grata
  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 8599
      • Arizona Greens
ok, so what's the point of this stupid law....
« Reply #52 on: April 10, 2004, 10:55:11 AM »
Quote
Originally posted by Airhead
Why? As long as you aren't spreading diseases it's a non-issue.

Sheesh, man. What kind of a genius are you, anyway? :rolleyes:


ever hear of AIDS?

b.t.w. Im an evil, dunk type genuis

Offline Airhead

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3369
      • http://www.ouchytheclown.com
ok, so what's the point of this stupid law....
« Reply #53 on: April 10, 2004, 11:09:12 AM »
Quote
Originally posted by NUKE
ever hear of AIDS?

b.t.w. Im an evil, dunk type genuis



OK, here's how it is- The Government cannot be there to see if you're wearing a condom or not, so your proposed law would be unenforceable (without a complaintant). However, the Government is doing the next best thing- they are educating kids about the hazards of unsafe sex and distributing condoms to our children.

It all makes perfect sense Nuke.

Oh, and the only dunking you do is with a donut and a cup of coffee. You may be a genius but you ain't no basketball genius.

Offline mietla

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2276
ok, so what's the point of this stupid law....
« Reply #54 on: April 10, 2004, 11:13:23 AM »
Quote
Originally posted by NUKE
funny, but doesn't sex count as a danger to our health and an increase to our insurance costs?

Why is there no law that requires condoms during sex? Maybe we should apply for a permit  from the government to be able to sex without a condom.



I vote for a mandatory swallow law.

Offline mietla

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2276
ok, so what's the point of this stupid law....
« Reply #55 on: April 10, 2004, 11:15:09 AM »
Quote
Originally posted by Airhead
In fact HIV positive prostitutes have been jailed for continuing to "work."
 


don;t they get the worker's comp? Injured on a job after all.

Offline Airhead

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3369
      • http://www.ouchytheclown.com
ok, so what's the point of this stupid law....
« Reply #56 on: April 10, 2004, 11:25:22 AM »
Quote
Originally posted by mietla
don;t they get the worker's comp? Injured on a job after all.


BINGO!! Mielta just nailed it. As long as I have to pay for others' accidents through higher health care costs and workers' compensation costs I have every right to legislate your safety.

Offline rpm

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 15661
ok, so what's the point of this stupid law....
« Reply #57 on: April 10, 2004, 04:21:12 PM »
Quote
Originally posted by lazs2
rpm... you did not get a "free" hands free cell phone thingie... the company just raised rates or didn't lower em... they are not eating the cost..  Car manufacturers do not give away seatbelts or safety devices or smog devices it is all factored into the cost of the car..

lazs

My point exactly Laz. The headset was given to me no charge. I'm sure AT&T wrote 100% of the retail value off their taxes, so it WAS paid for. Trigger Lock costs should be added into the cost of a new gun just like seatbelts or safety glass on a new car. Manditory safety equiptment.
I know the "Handprint" safety is a futuristic idea, altho the technology is out there now. How you would get it to work is another thing. I have seen safety devices that incorporated a ring the owner would wear. If you were not wearing the ring, the gun would not fire. James Bond kinda stuff.
Bottom line...
Trigger Lock = Good Idea
No Trigger Lock = Dumb Idea
My mind is a raging torrent, flooded with rivulets of thought cascading into a waterfall of creative alternatives.
Stay thirsty my friends.