Author Topic: Another Disaster Reporter has a Rod Serling Moment (Read 4813 times)

Jackal1 · « **Reply #60 on:** September 13, 2005, 05:21:52 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by lazs2
. the state does not allow you to carry a loaded firearm (anymore) in the vehicle. At one time you could do either of those things but that was decades ago and people are apparently genetically different now than then or.. simply have no idea how to handle freedom anymore

lazs

Texas just got part of an assinine law redone and went into effect Sept. 1st.
Before this, as it stood for years, you could only carry a concealed handgun in the car if you were "traveling" to another county. ( I believe at one time it also read at least 3 county lines crossed) Even then it was a very iffy situation. The way the law read if they so wanted, you could be arrested and it was your responsibility from that point to prove your innocence. In other words a license to jack you up if they didn`t like the way you looked.
The new law changed the definition of "traveling" to read if you are in your vehicle, not involved in criminal activity, etc.
It`s still not perfect, but a step in the right direction for a change.

dmf · « **Reply #61 on:** September 13, 2005, 08:26:49 PM »

I have the bat at home its for me to use at home, I can't go around town carrying it everywhere, besides at work they'd get a little wierded out
As for the home run comment, ever see a batter hit a home run? thats how much power I'm going to put behind the bat when I hit sombody in the head.
Maybe I can do it maybe I can't, but its worth a try, since I can't see myself having a gun in my house.

rabbidrabbit · « **Reply #62 on:** September 13, 2005, 09:09:41 PM »

Thats your call and no one here has a problem with that. The question is why do you have a problem with others using other means?

VOR · « **Reply #63 on:** September 13, 2005, 09:25:16 PM »

Do whatever works for you dmf. You probably will never need so much as a bat, truth be told.

Gunslinger · « **Reply #64 on:** September 13, 2005, 10:10:42 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by dmf
I have the bat at home its for me to use at home, I can't go around town carrying it everywhere, besides at work they'd get a little wierded out
As for the home run comment, ever see a batter hit a home run? thats how much power I'm going to put behind the bat when I hit sombody in the head.
Maybe I can do it maybe I can't, but its worth a try, since I can't see myself having a gun in my house.

If you let even one of them get close enough for you to swing at it's will probably be too late.

Raider179 · « **Reply #65 on:** September 14, 2005, 02:26:22 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by lazs2
raider... in kalifornia that is the law... you can't carry a baseball bat in the car (unlocked) unless there is other baseball parefenallia such as batting gloves or mits... the state does not allow you to carry a loaded firearm (anymore) in the vehicle. At one time you could do either of those things but that was decades ago and people are apparently genetically different now than then or.. simply have no idea how to handle freedom anymore

lazs

What is the charge? I looked through CA law and didn't see it. linky?

Nilsen · « **Reply #66 on:** September 14, 2005, 03:00:32 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by GreenCloud Nilsen..so in this wonderful "civilized " world...is this the place with no hooligans and thugs?..or is this the place where the police show up before a crime is comitted?

hehe

What im saying is why not use all that energy to fight the problem instead of having to defend yourself from the symptoms later?

Isnt it because so many people think guns are cool to own and fondle?

lazs2 · « **Reply #67 on:** September 14, 2005, 09:03:59 AM »

raider... I don't know off hand.. I will ask the cops I know.. It is the same charge tho as having a tire iron or billy club in the car.

I'm off today.. gonna go sight in my M1 garand (that is a WW2 era semi auto rifle in 30-06) with some ammo I reloaded. Will probly see the police out at my facility thursday and will ask em then.

lazs

lazs2 · « **Reply #68 on:** September 14, 2005, 09:06:44 AM »

neilsen... why not do both? wouldn't that be the prudent thing?

I really don't know how you get people to not be violent criminals but am willing to listen to your ideas.... in the mean time... until everyone evolves or we become a police state.... I will do the prudent thing and arm myself against such an eventuality.... if others prefer not to... that is their business.

lazs

Nilsen · « **Reply #69 on:** September 14, 2005, 09:15:02 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by lazs2
neilsen... why not do both? wouldn't that be the prudent thing?

I really don't know how you get people to not be violent criminals but am willing to listen to your ideas.... in the mean time... until everyone evolves or we become a police state.... I will do the prudent thing and arm myself against such an eventuality.... if others prefer not to... that is their business.

lazs

How about rasing the standard of living of the poor people and educate them. Get a sufficent policeforce and justice system that can cope with crime.
Yes, its expencive but it can be done. It has been done here even if its far from perfect and never will be. Nobody needs to arm themselves to be safe here, and even the police dont carry guns on their person.

rabbidrabbit · « **Reply #70 on:** September 14, 2005, 09:17:42 AM »

I don't own firearms because I feel I need them. Protection is a bonus.

The major problem in the US is the criminal justice system not gun ownership by the citizens.

Jackal1 · « **Reply #71 on:** September 14, 2005, 09:49:54 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Nilsen
How about rasing the standard of living of the poor people and educate them. Get a sufficent policeforce and justice system that can cope with crime.

Seeing as how the population difference is so large, I don`t see how the three cops that had to be hired there can compare to the U.S.

Quote

Yes, its expencive but it can be done. It has been done here even if its far from perfect and never will be. Nobody needs to arm themselves to be safe here, and even the police dont carry guns on their person

Well, it doesn`t appear that it has been all ironed out according to this.
------------------------------------------------
"Discovery of oil and gas in adjacent waters in the late 1960s boosted Norway's economic fortunes. The current focus is on containing spending on the extensive welfare system and planning for the time when petroleum reserves are depleted"
-------------------------------------------------

Might want to get it all cleared up there first, then we can see what it will do on a very small scale and work on it from there.l

lazs2 · « **Reply #72 on:** September 14, 2005, 09:58:11 AM »

neilsen... I enjoy firearms in any case and feel that the founding fathers were correct in thinking (as do the swiss) that a nation of riflemen was a good safeguard to freedom...

I agree that criminals should be arrested and tried but that is not happening here. I would agree that poor people should have opportunity to rise but... it is hard if they are not even here legally or speak the language.

In short... We do have a large criminal class with no solutions.

firearms are not causing the social problems we are having and so there is no need to restrict the constitutional rights of gun owners... we allready have 20,000 gun laws on the books and none of em have reduced crime or poverty at all.

Please... name one solution to our problems at a time and we will discuss it's feasability and merits or lack thereof.

I'll start out.... carve out some godless frozen little spot on the planet fit only for vikings and ice bears where criminals wouldn't live and where no illegal in his right mind would sneak across the border of and then abondon the U.S. to anyone who wants it.

lazs

Nilsen · « **Reply #73 on:** September 14, 2005, 10:07:27 AM »

The welfare system is not really a problem, but there will be need for adjustments along the way. That system is not perfect either and it never will be.

Containing the spending is actually a luxury problem. We have two political parties tho that wants to spend and spend all day while the others wants to keep it at a minimum.

What will happen when the oil is gone is anybodys guess, but by the time that happens the petrolium fund will be huge.

The parties that won the election on monday will focus on really prepearing for when its gone. It wont hurt us too bad.

Nilsen · « **Reply #74 on:** September 14, 2005, 10:11:17 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by lazs2
neilsen... I enjoy firearms in any case and feel that the founding fathers were correct in thinking (as do the swiss) that a nation of riflemen was a good safeguard to freedom...

I agree that criminals should be arrested and tried but that is not happening here. I would agree that poor people should have opportunity to rise but... it is hard if they are not even here legally or speak the language.

In short... We do have a large criminal class with no solutions.

firearms are not causing the social problems we are having and so there is no need to restrict the constitutional rights of gun owners... we allready have 20,000 gun laws on the books and none of em have reduced crime or poverty at all.

Please... name one solution to our problems at a time and we will discuss it's feasability and merits or lack thereof.

I'll start out.... carve out some godless frozen little spot on the planet fit only for vikings and ice bears where criminals wouldn't live and where no illegal in his right mind would sneak across the border of and then abondon the U.S. to anyone who wants it.

lazs