Had to share this story
 

On 10/31/2014 9:34 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 10/31/2014 9:04 PM, wrote:
On Fri, 31 Oct 2014 16:24:27 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

SC only has one plate, mounted on the rear. I don't run a front
"vanity" plate for that very reason.


The cops use your headlights then as their secondary target.

Many years ago Car and Driver did a radar test and they found the
radiator was the biggest target, followed by the headlights.
The corvette was the lowest reflectivity car they tested (fiberglass
body, retracting headlights and a tilted radiator)

These days, if I wanted a laser resistant car, I would get one with
retracting headlights and paint the nose with bed liner material
It would buy you several hundred feet anyway.
They also sell a laser jammer. It basically floods the road in front
of you with IR noise. Again, you get a few hundred feet.



I just drive 65. Max.



I will go 5-7 over.. It's an unwritten but well known fact that the CT
State Police will not tag you for less than ten over on the
interstates... unless there are other circumstances of course.. But in
general you will not get a ticket for 74 in a 65....

Had to share this story
 

On 10/31/2014 10:00 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 10/31/2014 9:40 PM, BAR wrote:
In article ,
says...

On 10/30/2014 10:17 PM, wrote:
On Thu, 30 Oct 2014 20:45:08 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

On 10/30/2014 8:22 PM, Wayne.B wrote:
On Thu, 30 Oct 2014 16:48:03 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"

wrote:

Of course, there are the hard core gun nuts who jump to the claim
that
registration automatically means confiscation someday. I don't
think we
will ever see that happen.

===

Based on the way things seem to be going, I don't think you can rule
it out. Rights are eroded one small step at a time. I don't
consider myself to be a hard core gun nut but do try to read the tea
leaves and check which way the wind is blowing.



I guess I've been reading different tea leaves.

If there has ever been a period for advocates of gun bans and/or
repeal
of the 2A to be successful it was in the recent 18 month period that
involved something like 74 separate mass school shootings.

Can you cite one of those shootings that would have been stopped with
a stronger background check or gun registration? They had no problem
tracking every one of these guns back to a legal buyer, usually the
parent or the shooter himself.


They couldn't even get a universal background check approved.

Why bother to pass an unenforceable law, at least not against the
people you are trying to keep the gun away from.




That's not the point Greg. We were discussing the possibilities or
probabilities of guns being banned or revoking the 2A. My point was
that if there was ever a reason for those who would advocate a ban it
would have been the recent 74 mass school shootings. It wasn't enough
to even get universal background checks supported. That's why I don't
think you'll ever see a general ban of firearms in our lifetime or of
the next two or three generations.

You are approaching this issue with a can of paint and a brush while
standing at the door to a room with your back to the inside of the room.
With every compromise you are taking a step backwards toward the corner
of the room and laying down a swath of wet paint in front of you.

Compromise to Gun Control Advocates is where you do what they say.



One thing is for sure Bar. This discussion has opened my eyes with
regard to how touchy this subject is and how adamant and fundamental
people are about their "gun rights". Even suggesting that maybe some
reasonable controls

and there is the problem. *You* decide what's "reasonable" then decide
who is being touchy... again, coming into a debate with predetermined
judgements, and just assuming everyone else stipulates to your point of
view (before the debate even starts) is arrogant.. and a few other
things I don't need to bother with. You do tend to start discussions
that are already finished in your head.... But that's what dems do....
be considered results in condemnation and ridicule
by some.

But what else is new? If you can't debate the subject ridicule the
opponent.

Had to share this story
 

On 10/31/2014 10:10 PM, KC wrote:
On 10/31/2014 9:34 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 10/31/2014 9:04 PM, wrote:
On Fri, 31 Oct 2014 16:24:27 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

SC only has one plate, mounted on the rear. I don't run a front
"vanity" plate for that very reason.


The cops use your headlights then as their secondary target.

Many years ago Car and Driver did a radar test and they found the
radiator was the biggest target, followed by the headlights.
The corvette was the lowest reflectivity car they tested (fiberglass
body, retracting headlights and a tilted radiator)

These days, if I wanted a laser resistant car, I would get one with
retracting headlights and paint the nose with bed liner material
It would buy you several hundred feet anyway.
They also sell a laser jammer. It basically floods the road in front
of you with IR noise. Again, you get a few hundred feet.



I just drive 65. Max.



I will go 5-7 over.. It's an unwritten but well known fact that the CT
State Police will not tag you for less than ten over on the
interstates... unless there are other circumstances of course.. But in
general you will not get a ticket for 74 in a 65....


I understand. I just don't feel the need to test the limits.

I did a lot of driving a few years ago back and forth from Florida. Made
about 11 or 12 trips, about 1500 miles each way over a period of three
years. Many of the trips included hauling a trailer or a boat.

It took 2 and a half days, regardless of how fast I drove.

Did one trip non-stop other than a 20 minute nap and fuel stops. I'll
never do that again.

Had to share this story
 

On 10/31/2014 10:15 PM, BAR wrote:
In article ,
says...

On 10/31/2014 9:40 PM, BAR wrote:
In article ,
says...

On 10/30/2014 10:17 PM, wrote:
On Thu, 30 Oct 2014 20:45:08 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

On 10/30/2014 8:22 PM, Wayne.B wrote:
On Thu, 30 Oct 2014 16:48:03 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

Of course, there are the hard core gun nuts who jump to the claim that
registration automatically means confiscation someday. I don't think we
will ever see that happen.

===

Based on the way things seem to be going, I don't think you can rule
it out. Rights are eroded one small step at a time. I don't
consider myself to be a hard core gun nut but do try to read the tea
leaves and check which way the wind is blowing.



I guess I've been reading different tea leaves.

If there has ever been a period for advocates of gun bans and/or repeal
of the 2A to be successful it was in the recent 18 month period that
involved something like 74 separate mass school shootings.

Can you cite one of those shootings that would have been stopped with
a stronger background check or gun registration? They had no problem
tracking every one of these guns back to a legal buyer, usually the
parent or the shooter himself.


They couldn't even get a universal background check approved.

Why bother to pass an unenforceable law, at least not against the
people you are trying to keep the gun away from.




That's not the point Greg. We were discussing the possibilities or
probabilities of guns being banned or revoking the 2A. My point was
that if there was ever a reason for those who would advocate a ban it
would have been the recent 74 mass school shootings. It wasn't enough
to even get universal background checks supported. That's why I don't
think you'll ever see a general ban of firearms in our lifetime or of
the next two or three generations.

You are approaching this issue with a can of paint and a brush while
standing at the door to a room with your back to the inside of the room.
With every compromise you are taking a step backwards toward the corner
of the room and laying down a swath of wet paint in front of you.

Compromise to Gun Control Advocates is where you do what they say.



One thing is for sure Bar. This discussion has opened my eyes with
regard to how touchy this subject is and how adamant and fundamental
people are about their "gun rights". Even suggesting that maybe some
reasonable controls be considered results in condemnation and ridicule
by some.

But what else is new? If you can't debate the subject ridicule the
opponent.

We could stop all automobile deaths if we made automobiles illegal.

We could stop all knife deaths if we made knives illegal.


Sure.

Had to share this story
 

On 10/31/2014 10:15 PM, KC wrote:
On 10/31/2014 10:00 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 10/31/2014 9:40 PM, BAR wrote:
In article ,
says...

On 10/30/2014 10:17 PM, wrote:
On Thu, 30 Oct 2014 20:45:08 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

On 10/30/2014 8:22 PM, Wayne.B wrote:
On Thu, 30 Oct 2014 16:48:03 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"

wrote:

Of course, there are the hard core gun nuts who jump to the claim
that
registration automatically means confiscation someday. I don't
think we
will ever see that happen.

===

Based on the way things seem to be going, I don't think you can rule
it out. Rights are eroded one small step at a time. I don't
consider myself to be a hard core gun nut but do try to read the tea
leaves and check which way the wind is blowing.



I guess I've been reading different tea leaves.

If there has ever been a period for advocates of gun bans and/or
repeal
of the 2A to be successful it was in the recent 18 month period that
involved something like 74 separate mass school shootings.

Can you cite one of those shootings that would have been stopped with
a stronger background check or gun registration? They had no problem
tracking every one of these guns back to a legal buyer, usually the
parent or the shooter himself.


They couldn't even get a universal background check approved.

Why bother to pass an unenforceable law, at least not against the
people you are trying to keep the gun away from.




That's not the point Greg. We were discussing the possibilities or
probabilities of guns being banned or revoking the 2A. My point was
that if there was ever a reason for those who would advocate a ban it
would have been the recent 74 mass school shootings. It wasn't enough
to even get universal background checks supported. That's why I don't
think you'll ever see a general ban of firearms in our lifetime or of
the next two or three generations.

You are approaching this issue with a can of paint and a brush while
standing at the door to a room with your back to the inside of the room.
With every compromise you are taking a step backwards toward the corner
of the room and laying down a swath of wet paint in front of you.

Compromise to Gun Control Advocates is where you do what they say.



One thing is for sure Bar. This discussion has opened my eyes with
regard to how touchy this subject is and how adamant and fundamental
people are about their "gun rights". Even suggesting that maybe some
reasonable controls


and there is the problem. *You* decide what's "reasonable" then decide
who is being touchy... again, coming into a debate with predetermined
judgements, and just assuming everyone else stipulates to your point of
view (before the debate even starts) is arrogant.. and a few other
things I don't need to bother with. You do tend to start discussions
that are already finished in your head.... But that's what dems do....
be considered results in condemnation and ridicule
by some.


It was called a discussion Scott, something you are not capable of doing
without getting all puffy and getting your underwear in a bunch.

Just ignore it.

Had to share this story
 

On Friday, October 31, 2014 7:30:25 PM UTC-4, KC wrote:
On 10/31/2014 3:54 PM, wrote:
On Friday, October 31, 2014 3:40:00 PM UTC-4, wrote:
On Fri, 31 Oct 2014 12:29:47 -0700 (PDT), wrote:

On Friday, October 31, 2014 2:36:30 PM UTC-4, wrote:

These days they are pretty useless anyway because all of these cars
with collision avoidance systems trip them.

Not really. The newer detectors are *much* smarter, and the adaptive cruise controls and collision avoidance systems don't even register on them.

This is the one I have:
https://www.escortradar.com/PassportMax2/
Dies it really help that much these days with the triggered guns and
the lasers?
Since I left Maryland, the speed trap capital of the world, I really
have not been paying much attention

Yes and no. With the instant-on or pulse guns, you're depending on it being used on someone traveling in front of you so you get the alert. You have to be pretty close to the gun for it to measure your speed, but the detector can pick it up from a very long distance. Even if they don't clock someone first, if you are quick enough with the brakes you may still knock enough off before it locks in to avoid a ticket.

With laser you're hoping to get a scattered laser signal when they clock someone else. Good news is that they must be stationary and can't shoot you through a closed window. Laser, at least around here, is rare.

So they do work, but you have to be vigilant and pay attention to traffic and your situation. Hey, that sounds like driving, at least what you're supposed to do!

Bottom line, you can't set your speed at 20 over and blindly drive like the old days of X and K band that was always on. Personally, I never go any faster than I'm willing to get caught for. Well, most of the time...


I don't get it.. to me a radar decector means you don't really give a
**** about me or my family, you are gonna' do what ever you want, kind
of like that nurse in Maine who could care less about the quarantine
cause she thinks she is just entitled to put others in danger. Selfish
people use radar detectors to go faster than their elected officials
think they should go to protect themselves and others... and probably
call the cops when somebody speeds by their house, after all, they are
selfish.... lol!

But yet you wrote " I routinely set my cc to 72-73 on the highway when the speed limit is 65". Seems that you have no problem that "you don't really give a **** about me or my family" when you are driving above the limits set by your elected officials.

Fact is, I don't talk on my cell phone when driving, I keep to the right except when passing, I'm courteous to other drivers, and I actually actively participate in driving. I'm far safer than 99.9% of the other drivers on the road, even when speeding at 15 over the limit.

And no, I don't speed in a neighborhood, mine or anyone else's. And it does **** me off when someone does.

It's all about making the right judgment calls Know what I mean?

Had to share this story
 

On 10/31/2014 10:30 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 10/31/2014 10:15 PM, KC wrote:
On 10/31/2014 10:00 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 10/31/2014 9:40 PM, BAR wrote:
In article ,
says...

On 10/30/2014 10:17 PM, wrote:
On Thu, 30 Oct 2014 20:45:08 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"

wrote:

On 10/30/2014 8:22 PM, Wayne.B wrote:
On Thu, 30 Oct 2014 16:48:03 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"

wrote:

Of course, there are the hard core gun nuts who jump to the claim
that
registration automatically means confiscation someday. I don't
think we
will ever see that happen.

===

Based on the way things seem to be going, I don't think you can
rule
it out. Rights are eroded one small step at a time. I don't
consider myself to be a hard core gun nut but do try to read the
tea
leaves and check which way the wind is blowing.



I guess I've been reading different tea leaves.

If there has ever been a period for advocates of gun bans and/or
repeal
of the 2A to be successful it was in the recent 18 month period that
involved something like 74 separate mass school shootings.

Can you cite one of those shootings that would have been stopped with
a stronger background check or gun registration? They had no problem
tracking every one of these guns back to a legal buyer, usually the
parent or the shooter himself.


They couldn't even get a universal background check approved.

Why bother to pass an unenforceable law, at least not against the
people you are trying to keep the gun away from.




That's not the point Greg. We were discussing the possibilities or
probabilities of guns being banned or revoking the 2A. My point was
that if there was ever a reason for those who would advocate a ban it
would have been the recent 74 mass school shootings. It wasn't enough
to even get universal background checks supported. That's why I don't
think you'll ever see a general ban of firearms in our lifetime or of
the next two or three generations.

You are approaching this issue with a can of paint and a brush while
standing at the door to a room with your back to the inside of the
room.
With every compromise you are taking a step backwards toward the corner
of the room and laying down a swath of wet paint in front of you.

Compromise to Gun Control Advocates is where you do what they say.



One thing is for sure Bar. This discussion has opened my eyes with
regard to how touchy this subject is and how adamant and fundamental
people are about their "gun rights". Even suggesting that maybe some
reasonable controls


and there is the problem. *You* decide what's "reasonable" then decide
who is being touchy... again, coming into a debate with predetermined
judgements, and just assuming everyone else stipulates to your point of
view (before the debate even starts) is arrogant.. and a few other
things I don't need to bother with. You do tend to start discussions
that are already finished in your head.... But that's what dems do....
be considered results in condemnation and ridicule
by some.


It was called a discussion Scott, something you are not capable of doing
without getting all puffy and getting your underwear in a bunch.

Just ignore it.





You are incredible... lol...

Had to share this story
 

On 10/31/2014 10:33 PM, wrote:
On Friday, October 31, 2014 7:30:25 PM UTC-4, KC wrote:
On 10/31/2014 3:54 PM, wrote:
On Friday, October 31, 2014 3:40:00 PM UTC-4, wrote:
On Fri, 31 Oct 2014 12:29:47 -0700 (PDT), wrote:

On Friday, October 31, 2014 2:36:30 PM UTC-4, wrote:

These days they are pretty useless anyway because all of these cars
with collision avoidance systems trip them.

Not really. The newer detectors are *much* smarter, and the adaptive cruise controls and collision avoidance systems don't even register on them.

This is the one I have:
https://www.escortradar.com/PassportMax2/
Dies it really help that much these days with the triggered guns and
the lasers?
Since I left Maryland, the speed trap capital of the world, I really
have not been paying much attention

Yes and no. With the instant-on or pulse guns, you're depending on it being used on someone traveling in front of you so you get the alert. You have to be pretty close to the gun for it to measure your speed, but the detector can pick it up from a very long distance. Even if they don't clock someone first, if you are quick enough with the brakes you may still knock enough off before it locks in to avoid a ticket.

With laser you're hoping to get a scattered laser signal when they clock someone else. Good news is that they must be stationary and can't shoot you through a closed window. Laser, at least around here, is rare.

So they do work, but you have to be vigilant and pay attention to traffic and your situation. Hey, that sounds like driving, at least what you're supposed to do!

Bottom line, you can't set your speed at 20 over and blindly drive like the old days of X and K band that was always on. Personally, I never go any faster than I'm willing to get caught for. Well, most of the time...


I don't get it.. to me a radar decector means you don't really give a
**** about me or my family, you are gonna' do what ever you want, kind
of like that nurse in Maine who could care less about the quarantine
cause she thinks she is just entitled to put others in danger. Selfish
people use radar detectors to go faster than their elected officials
think they should go to protect themselves and others... and probably
call the cops when somebody speeds by their house, after all, they are
selfish.... lol!

But yet you wrote " I routinely set my cc to 72-73 on the highway when the speed limit is 65". Seems that you have no problem that "you don't really give a **** about me or my family" when you are driving above the limits set by your elected officials.

Fact is, I don't talk on my cell phone when driving, I keep to the right except when passing, I'm courteous to other drivers, and I actually actively participate in driving. I'm far safer than 99.9% of the other drivers on the road, even when speeding at 15 over the limit.

And no, I don't speed in a neighborhood, mine or anyone else's. And it does **** me off when someone does.

It's all about making the right judgment calls Know what I mean?


I don't really think 5 mph over is all that bad, and neither do the cops
or the state... Folks that use radar dectectors do it so they can go
insanly over the speed limit and don't tell me different, if they
didn't, they wouldn't have any need for a detector.. that's why I don't
need one...

Had to share this story
 

On 10/31/2014 10:25 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 10/31/2014 10:10 PM, KC wrote:
On 10/31/2014 9:34 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 10/31/2014 9:04 PM, wrote:
On Fri, 31 Oct 2014 16:24:27 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

SC only has one plate, mounted on the rear. I don't run a front
"vanity" plate for that very reason.


The cops use your headlights then as their secondary target.

Many years ago Car and Driver did a radar test and they found the
radiator was the biggest target, followed by the headlights.
The corvette was the lowest reflectivity car they tested (fiberglass
body, retracting headlights and a tilted radiator)

These days, if I wanted a laser resistant car, I would get one with
retracting headlights and paint the nose with bed liner material
It would buy you several hundred feet anyway.
They also sell a laser jammer. It basically floods the road in front
of you with IR noise. Again, you get a few hundred feet.



I just drive 65. Max.



I will go 5-7 over.. It's an unwritten but well known fact that the CT
State Police will not tag you for less than ten over on the
interstates... unless there are other circumstances of course.. But in
general you will not get a ticket for 74 in a 65....


I understand. I just don't feel the need to test the limits.

I did a lot of driving a few years ago back and forth from Florida. Made
about 11 or 12 trips, about 1500 miles each way over a period of three
years. Many of the trips included hauling a trailer or a boat.

It took 2 and a half days, regardless of how fast I drove.

Did one trip non-stop other than a 20 minute nap and fuel stops. I'll
never do that again.





I did the same thing in the 80's. St Pete to CT in 24 hours, 1300 miles
but I only took two sleep stops and set my trips to travel mostly at
night in the NE corridor. I did not break any speed limits then though,
it was not my truck...

Had to share this story
 

On Thu, 30 Oct 2014 19:05:28 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

Gun control and it's related issues are a big deal in today's society.
We shouldn't bury our heads in the sand and ignore it while clinging to
the 2A and interpretations of what "infringement" means. Eventually it
may be interpreted in a way that gun nuts won't like. Better to
reason, negotiate and find ways to keep 2A rights while satisfying those
who would like to revoke it entirely. This is the 21st century.

===

History has repeatedly shown that a policy of appeasement is the wrong
strategy against an intractable foe. The NRA is frequently criticzed
for their hard ball, "my way or the highway," no compromise tactics
but I think they appreciate that every inch of ground lost will be
twice as difficult to regain. A lot of the political hysteria is a
result of the mostly liberal media flogging every incident for all
it's worth. Meanwhile, the real issue statistically, black-on-black
murder, seems to get very little media attention unless an NFL
football player is involved.