On Tuesday, 19 February 2013 22:44:48 UTC-4, JustWaitAFrekinMinute! wrote:
On 2/19/2013 9:23 PM, Meyer wrote:

On 2/19/2013 8:11 PM, True North wrote:

On Tuesday, 19 February 2013 20:29:00 UTC-4, Meyer wrote:

On 2/19/2013 4:55 PM, Salmonbait wrote:



On Tue, 19 Feb 2013 14:19:17 -0500, Meyer wrote:







On 2/19/2013 12:52 PM, True North wrote:



On Tuesday, February 19, 2013 1:37:36 PM UTC-4,

wrote:



On Tue, 19 Feb 2013 08:08:57 -0800, jps wrote:















Why is it considered punishment to limit the number of guns and

ammo







that are owned by the public?















What would be the point?















Is it punishment that I want to own a tank with the capacity to

shell







an area of the desert that wouldn't be affected by my hobby? Why







can't I own surface to air missles so that I can shoot down my own







drones? Why can't I own a mortar setup so I can play with it

when I







want to?















Why am I being punished?















That is a red herring, those things have been illegal for 50 years























I wonder what would happen with the suicide stats if guns were







incapable of shooting the person holding them. Would they find







another way? What percentage? Should we make other, less violent







methods available to suicidal persons?















The lack of guns has not affected the suicide rate in Japan, one of







the left's favorite example of gun control.























Lastly, what do you suppose the percentages of young people

(let's say







under 20) that die in gun related homicides or suicides vs all

those







other maladies? I'm sure a lot die in car accidents but all those







stats above? Not so many.















The ratio of young people who die in cars is pretty close to guns.















Maybe we should ban any car that goes over 70 MPH, put mandatory







breatholizers on the ignition and keep them from running if the seat







belts are not fastened. (they actually tried that in 1974)







That might save more people than banning guns.











Might not be a bad idea...doesn't seem sensible to put autos on

the road capable of double the legal speed...or more.



Some kind of limiter could keep speed down to 75 or so while not

limiting towing capacity.







What's the towing capacity of your Rav 4?







If it's a 2009 with a v6, and he's really full of bravado, he can

tow 2000lbs. That doesn't mean he



can *stop* it though.











Salmonbait











I don't think he has the gutsy V6 His new boat is 3 times the



princecraft. It's hard to believe he can tow that hefty boat with that



pyrite gray devil of a rave 4.





Actually, it's closer to 4X, StinkyOne.

BTW it's pyrite mica... that would be a very pleasing dark bronze when

the sun is shinning.



Didn't realize that the old boat was only 240 lbs You must have got 2

footitis and moved all the way up to 16 feets. Lessee 850 lbs for the

boat. 200 lbs for the engine. 500 lbs for the trlr. 200 lbs of gear and

batteries and you are a tad overloaded. It's not a matter of the engine

pulling it. But , CAN YOU STOP on a moderate downgrade with the car

loaded up with passengers and more gear. I think John already cautioned

you about that.



Assholes like him don't give a **** about "your" family. They always

justify it with **** like "I only tow a little way", etc... In reality

they are just selfish assholes, but you knew that.


You'd better keep an eye out for me on South Windsor streets, MiniMan.