|
Had to share this story
On 10/31/2014 11:10 AM, True North wrote:
On Friday, 31 October 2014 11:10:55 UTC-3, John H. wrote: On Fri, 31 Oct 2014 10:05:19 -0400, Harrold wrote: On 10/31/2014 9:57 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote: On 10/31/2014 9:25 AM, Harrold wrote: On 10/31/2014 8:25 AM, Poco Loco wrote: On Fri, 31 Oct 2014 08:15:44 -0400, "Mr. Luddite" wrote: On 10/31/2014 7:43 AM, Poco Loco wrote: On Thu, 30 Oct 2014 21:25:17 -0400, wrote: On Thu, 30 Oct 2014 19:52:02 -0400, "Mr. Luddite" wrote: I think sometimes we forget that the majority of Americans do *not* own guns and that majority is growing. BTW I am not really sure that is true. I think we may have the Nancy Reagan syndrome working here. When a pollster asks if people have a gun, they just say no. I will not divulge gun ownership for any survey. Why let myself be put on someone's list? Hell, Harry's database is enough. You don't have to divulge anything. You've broadcasted every gun you own and what future guns you might buy all over the Internet. No, no, no....only here! :) What goes on in rec.boats doesn't necessarily stay in rec.boats. That's why I cautioned you, some time ago, not to broadcast your travel plans. ;-) What goes on in rec.boats is copied and distributed to who knows how many web based forums and websites. You need to assume that anything you say is available to anyone, anywhere who may have interest in what you do and where you are. So Harry might be completely justified in keeping himself walled up in his little fortress. Right? No, Harry's the one with the 'interest' in anything one says, does, or where the are, or any other personal information he can glean. Of course, Don White is right behind. Note how he uses 'adoption' as a slam against a person. My, my JohnnyMop..... you're on the verge of getting hysterical about this adoption thing. My comment was in reply to one of your Moppetts trying to belittle another poster by inferring that he has a 'baby brother' complex. quote: "Gettin' real personal.. .guess I am hitting a nerve... Like I said before, it's the baby brother syndrome, nobody ever told you no... " I simply pointed out that your Moppett was more likely to have been catered to and spoiled because he was an only child and an adopted one at that.... That is.. his adoptive parents WANTED him rather than his conception being an accident. That they got a defective unit isn't the issue...... or maybe it was..mmmm. It's obvious that your medical expertise was obtained from Harry. |
Had to share this story
|
Had to share this story
|
Had to share this story
|
Had to share this story
On Friday, 31 October 2014 13:24:25 UTC-3, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 10/31/2014 12:07 PM, True North wrote: On Friday, 31 October 2014 12:54:33 UTC-3, wrote: On Fri, 31 Oct 2014 09:27:38 -0400, "Mr. Luddite" wrote: No matter. My firearms are registered with the state. According to some here I should be expecting the police to come knocking on my door any day now to confiscate them. More likely is they would just start taxing you on them. It won't take long before someone points out how much maintaining all of those records costs the tax payer and they will want you to pay for it. I still have not heard of a single crime that was prevented by having some of the guns registered. The way they presented here was that it was a safety thing for police. If they were called to your house, they could quickly check the registry to see if and what kind of firearms you had. It was supposed to cost $50.00 for five years, no matter how many guns. Then they made a time limited offer of dropping the price to $10.00 for the five years to draw people in. Note: there were supposed to be serious penalties for anyone caught with an unregistered firearm. When the 5 years were up they offered free renewals but we had to get our wives to sign a form saying it was ok for us to have firearms in the house. The current conservative government killed that law. I guess the prudent thing would be to buy up shotguns etc now before a liberal government gets back in and re-instates the law. BTW we still do have to have a permit to buy guns. The "permission by the wife" cracks me up. Yeah..it got me to. I had to make nice and convince her I still needed a shotgun and a 22semi-auto rifle that I haven't used in about 30 years. Good thing was that she had given me the 20 ga single shot Remington as a Christmas present while we were courting, many moons ago. |
Had to share this story
On Fri, 31 Oct 2014 12:46:41 -0400, Harrold wrote:
On 10/31/2014 11:49 AM, wrote: On Fri, 31 Oct 2014 09:14:56 -0400, Harrold wrote: On 10/31/2014 7:33 AM, Poco Loco wrote: All of that looks like any given month in Chicago, which has some of the most restrictive laws in the country. Why don't the cops use those laws to confiscate guns from criminals? Because the criminals do not register them. Don't they know who the bad guys are? === They absolutely do but if they stop them without probable cause then they are racist profilers. It's a no win situation. |
Had to share this story
On Fri, 31 Oct 2014 12:24:23 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote: The way they presented here was that it was a safety thing for police. If they were called to your house, they could quickly check the registry to see if and what kind of firearms you had. It was supposed to cost $50.00 for five years, no matter how many guns. Then they made a time limited offer of dropping the price to $10.00 for the five years to draw people in. Note: there were supposed to be serious penalties for anyone caught with an unregistered firearm. When the 5 years were up they offered free renewals but we had to get our wives to sign a form saying it was ok for us to have firearms in the house. The current conservative government killed that law. I guess the prudent thing would be to buy up shotguns etc now before a liberal government gets back in and re-instates the law. BTW we still do have to have a permit to buy guns. The "permission by the wife" cracks me up. === Yes but unfortunately it actually happened, at least for a while. |
Had to share this story
On 10/31/2014 1:19 PM, Wayne.B wrote:
On Fri, 31 Oct 2014 12:24:23 -0400, "Mr. Luddite" wrote: The way they presented here was that it was a safety thing for police. If they were called to your house, they could quickly check the registry to see if and what kind of firearms you had. It was supposed to cost $50.00 for five years, no matter how many guns. Then they made a time limited offer of dropping the price to $10.00 for the five years to draw people in. Note: there were supposed to be serious penalties for anyone caught with an unregistered firearm. When the 5 years were up they offered free renewals but we had to get our wives to sign a form saying it was ok for us to have firearms in the house. The current conservative government killed that law. I guess the prudent thing would be to buy up shotguns etc now before a liberal government gets back in and re-instates the law. BTW we still do have to have a permit to buy guns. The "permission by the wife" cracks me up. === Yes but unfortunately it actually happened, at least for a while. I used to get a kick out of the guys who bought guitars but had to either justify another one to the wife or somehow sneak it in. Wives have an uncanny ability to be around watching you at the worst possible times. My buddy and I jokingly provided "consultation" services for this. Our best advice was to leave the house carrying an empty guitar case from another guitar known to her from their guitar "arsenal". Tell the wife you are going to a gig with friends or are bringing it in for a set up at the shop. Put the new guitar in the old case and go home. Pick up the case for the new one sometime when you are sure she's not going to be around. |
Had to share this story
On 10/31/2014 2:36 PM, wrote:
On Fri, 31 Oct 2014 11:57:26 -0400, "Mr. Luddite" wrote: On 10/31/2014 11:17 AM, wrote: On Fri, 31 Oct 2014 09:52:28 -0400, Wayne.B wrote: On Fri, 31 Oct 2014 04:16:42 -0400, "Mr. Luddite" wrote: I understand where you are coming from but I guess I just don't see a big threat to my freedom and rights. I am 65 and have never experienced any form of this kind of harassment. Maybe I live a boring life. === When I was young and driving old beat up cars, I used to experience a fair number of trumped up harassment stops. When I was able to afford newer cars it stopped. I suspect it also happens a lot with minority drivers because cops believe there is an increased likelihood of finding something amiss. A lot of these profile stops happen to minority drivers but in some places they will harass everyone. (within 100 miles of the Mexican border) Rich looking white people, driving around in "normal" hours, generally are left alone When I was working 3d shift, I was stopped a lot for pretty much nothing until all of the Monkey County cops got to know me. Back in the mid 1980's four of us dressed in business suits were traveling on I-95 in a dark blue Lincoln Town Car that was owned by my boss. I've forgotten if it was in New York or New Jersey. We were on our way to a business meeting with a customer. A State cop pulled us over, peered at all of us, asked my boss for his license and registration and went back to his car to "run" the plate and license info. He then came up to the car, handed the license and registration back, pointed at the windshield rear view mirror and told my boss that he pulled us over because of a device he saw on it. He said he thought it was a radar detector (apparently illegal in whatever state we were in). It was actually a sensor for a automatic headlight dimming system. I thought DC and Virginia were the only states near there with a radar detector ban but who knows? These days they are pretty useless anyway because all of these cars with collision avoidance systems trip them. It was in the mid 1980's. I don't know what the laws are now. For giggles and something to play with, I just bought a 1988 Lincoln Town Car. It's in very good condition with 90K miles. I bought it for cheap bucks because the seller said it had an issue with the anti-theft system that shut down the ignition and electrical systems every once in a while when you went to start it. He had one of those battery disconnect switches on the negative terminal and told me that when it happens to just loosen the knob to disconnect the battery and then turn it back in. He said it "reset" the system. Turns out it had nothing to do with the anti-theft system at all. The disconnect switch contact areas were completely pitted and corroded so electrical contact was minimal. Loosening and tightening it again would temporarily re-establish the connection but after a few starts it would oxidize and die again. Took the disconnect switch apart, cleaned it up and burnished it. Haven't had a problem since. Car is a boat. It's like driving a couch down the road. Talk about extremes. Going back and forth from a F-250 Super Duty to the Town Car boat takes some adjustment. |
Had to share this story
On 10/31/2014 2:38 PM, wrote:
On Fri, 31 Oct 2014 12:04:14 -0400, "Mr. Luddite" wrote: On 10/31/2014 11:54 AM, wrote: On Fri, 31 Oct 2014 09:27:38 -0400, "Mr. Luddite" wrote: No matter. My firearms are registered with the state. According to some here I should be expecting the police to come knocking on my door any day now to confiscate them. More likely is they would just start taxing you on them. It won't take long before someone points out how much maintaining all of those records costs the tax payer and they will want you to pay for it. I still have not heard of a single crime that was prevented by having some of the guns registered. Heh. What do you expect to hear? CNN Breaking News! Joe Blow of Bum**** Arkansas acknowledged to police today that he decided *not* to shoot his nagging mother-in-law. When asked why he reached that decision, Mr. Blow stated that his gun was registered. Thanks for making my point. In every one of these school shootings the gun was traced back to the shooter or the shooter's family and they all had passed background checks. And the fact that they could be traced is a good thing. |
Had to share this story
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/ |
Had to share this story
On Friday, October 31, 2014 3:01:56 PM UTC-4, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 10/31/2014 2:38 PM, wrote: Thanks for making my point. In every one of these school shootings the gun was traced back to the shooter or the shooter's family and they all had passed background checks. And the fact that they could be traced is a good thing. How so? How would the outcome be any different if the guns were untraceable? |
Had to share this story
On 10/31/2014 3:24 PM, wrote:
On Fri, 31 Oct 2014 12:22:51 -0400, "Mr. Luddite" wrote: On 10/31/2014 12:06 PM, wrote: On Fri, 31 Oct 2014 06:26:44 -0700 (PDT), wrote: On Friday, October 31, 2014 9:18:35 AM UTC-4, Mr. Luddite wrote: On 10/31/2014 9:02 AM, Poco Loco wrote: I've not seen a whole lot of fighting over background checks. Are you serious? You apparently have a short memory. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/04/17/background-checks-bill_n_3103341.html What I beleive he meant is that the American public hasn't been railing against background checks. Your linked article even points out that the measure had a 90% public approval rating. It was the politicians that didn't get the job done. They really do not explain what "universal background check" means. If they explained that I could not give my wife a shotgun for christmas without her submitting to a background check and having a federally licensed person do the "transfer", they might get a better feel for it. If I just buy the gun myself and give it to her with a bow on it under the tree, I am a "straw buyer" and she is an illegal gun owner. I think the main issue is making unreported sales of firearms at gun shows and similar venues. I remember one reporter who was able to buy anything he wanted at a show with no check, no questions asked. How many crime guns have actually been traced to a gun show? You do understand a licensed dealer still needs to record "private" sales I suppose. Sure. In many states he "records" it in his little black book that is subject to audit ... maybe. Wasn't that the case in the kid who used his mother's gun to shoot up some kids at a school? The ATF hadn't checked his books for years. It also doesn't stop a private or gun show dealer sale of a firearm to a person legally prohibited from owning one. That was proven by the TV investigation where they sent a guy to gun shows and he was able to buy anything he wanted with no background check performed. |
Had to share this story
On 10/31/2014 3:33 PM, wrote:
On Friday, October 31, 2014 3:01:56 PM UTC-4, Mr. Luddite wrote: On 10/31/2014 2:38 PM, wrote: Thanks for making my point. In every one of these school shootings the gun was traced back to the shooter or the shooter's family and they all had passed background checks. And the fact that they could be traced is a good thing. How so? How would the outcome be any different if the guns were untraceable? It wouldn't in that case. But in the case of a murder or homicide the ability to trace ownership may help lead to the person responsible. Raises another question. Ever wonder why a new gun comes with a spent shell in the box or case? |
Had to share this story
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... |
Had to share this story
On 10/31/2014 3:39 PM, 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 I don't know about other states but in MA the license plates (or "tags" as some call them) have a coating designed to optimally reflect the lasers used in speed traps. It's the preferred "target". Some of the old MA plates were issued with one plate only .. to be mounted on the rear of the car. Can't get them anymore. Cops want two plates and require both to be on the car. |
Had to share this story
On Friday, October 31, 2014 3:53:41 PM UTC-4, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 10/31/2014 3:33 PM, wrote: On Friday, October 31, 2014 3:01:56 PM UTC-4, Mr. Luddite wrote: On 10/31/2014 2:38 PM, wrote: Thanks for making my point. In every one of these school shootings the gun was traced back to the shooter or the shooter's family and they all had passed background checks. And the fact that they could be traced is a good thing. How so? How would the outcome be any different if the guns were untraceable? It wouldn't in that case. But in the case of a murder or homicide the ability to trace ownership may help lead to the person responsible. Only if the weapon is recovered. And it could point the finger at an innocent person that had the gun stolen or otherwise removed from their custody before the event. Raises another question. Ever wonder why a new gun comes with a spent shell in the box or case? To test functionality. And/Or, to build a database of gun "fingerprints", i.e. bullet striations. That info, along with registration, can lead back to the owner. |
Had to share this story
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... Why bother with a detector then? Cracks me up to what extent people will go to break a law without getting caught ... hopefully. |
Had to share this story
On Friday, October 31, 2014 4:00:41 PM UTC-4, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 10/31/2014 3:39 PM, 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 I don't know about other states but in MA the license plates (or "tags" as some call them) have a coating designed to optimally reflect the lasers used in speed traps. It's the preferred "target". Some of the old MA plates were issued with one plate only .. to be mounted on the rear of the car. Can't get them anymore. Cops want two plates and require both to be on the car. SC only has one plate, mounted on the rear. I don't run a front "vanity" plate for that very reason. |
Had to share this story
On Friday, October 31, 2014 4:04:50 PM UTC-4, Mr. Luddite 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... Why bother with a detector then? Because when the detector saves you from just one ticket, it pays for itself. I like to drive with a purpose. I'm currently ticket-free, and have been for many years. :- |
Had to share this story
On 10/31/2014 4:02 PM, wrote:
On Friday, October 31, 2014 3:53:41 PM UTC-4, Mr. Luddite wrote: On 10/31/2014 3:33 PM, wrote: On Friday, October 31, 2014 3:01:56 PM UTC-4, Mr. Luddite wrote: On 10/31/2014 2:38 PM, wrote: Thanks for making my point. In every one of these school shootings the gun was traced back to the shooter or the shooter's family and they all had passed background checks. And the fact that they could be traced is a good thing. How so? How would the outcome be any different if the guns were untraceable? It wouldn't in that case. But in the case of a murder or homicide the ability to trace ownership may help lead to the person responsible. Only if the weapon is recovered. And it could point the finger at an innocent person that had the gun stolen or otherwise removed from their custody before the event. Raises another question. Ever wonder why a new gun comes with a spent shell in the box or case? To test functionality. And/Or, to build a database of gun "fingerprints", i.e. bullet striations. That info, along with registration, can lead back to the owner. I suspect the latter. |
Had to share this story
On 10/31/2014 4:09 PM, wrote:
On Friday, October 31, 2014 4:04:50 PM UTC-4, Mr. Luddite 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... Why bother with a detector then? Because when the detector saves you from just one ticket, it pays for itself. I like to drive with a purpose. I'm currently ticket-free, and have been for many years. :- The older I get the slower I drive. I'll probably get a ticket for impeding traffic in a few more years. :-) I am not in any big hurry to get anywhere anymore and I've outgrown the thrill of speed. I've had a couple of cars that were pretty fast and high performance. Problem was, there's no place to use them to their potential unless you go to a closed race track. |
Had to share this story
On 10/31/2014 4:05 PM, wrote:
On Friday, October 31, 2014 4:00:41 PM UTC-4, Mr. Luddite wrote: On 10/31/2014 3:39 PM, 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 I don't know about other states but in MA the license plates (or "tags" as some call them) have a coating designed to optimally reflect the lasers used in speed traps. It's the preferred "target". Some of the old MA plates were issued with one plate only .. to be mounted on the rear of the car. Can't get them anymore. Cops want two plates and require both to be on the car. 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. Speaking of SC, I'll be making a trip down there soon to start scoping out new house potentials. Was hoping the one up here would sell first but winter is around the corner and we'd like to be out of here before the snow starts flying. |
Had to share this story
On Friday, October 31, 2014 4:24:29 PM UTC-4, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 10/31/2014 4:05 PM, wrote: On Friday, October 31, 2014 4:00:41 PM UTC-4, Mr. Luddite wrote: On 10/31/2014 3:39 PM, 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 I don't know about other states but in MA the license plates (or "tags" as some call them) have a coating designed to optimally reflect the lasers used in speed traps. It's the preferred "target". Some of the old MA plates were issued with one plate only .. to be mounted on the rear of the car. Can't get them anymore. Cops want two plates and require both to be on the car. 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. Heh. That should really scatter the laser! Speaking of SC, I'll be making a trip down there soon to start scoping out new house potentials. Was hoping the one up here would sell first but winter is around the corner and we'd like to be out of here before the snow starts flying. What area? Winter is coming quick. We're getting our first freeze this Sunday. Back in the 70's next week, though. |
Had to share this story
|
Had to share this story
On 10/31/2014 11:25 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 10/31/2014 10:22 AM, KC wrote: On 10/31/2014 9:59 AM, Poco Loco wrote: On Fri, 31 Oct 2014 09:18:32 -0400, "Mr. Luddite" wrote: On 10/31/2014 9:02 AM, Poco Loco wrote: On Fri, 31 Oct 2014 08:41:10 -0400, "Mr. Luddite" wrote: On 10/31/2014 7:49 AM, Poco Loco wrote: On Thu, 30 Oct 2014 22:32:51 -0400, "Mr. Luddite" wrote: 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. No. We're talking about ways the 2A can be circumvented by smart, tricky liberal politicians. Which can happen under any circumstances. It is already and is likely to continue. That's the problem. So, instead of giving them the argument that no discussion, negotiation or compromise is possible with gun-owners, take that political ammunition away by being willing to work with them and be willing to accept non-invasion rules on your "rights" like background checks and registration. I've no problem with background checks. If you seriously think the liberals are going to take your guns away, don't register your presently owned firearms. OK, I won't. What it does it takes away some of the "right-wing crazies" rhetoric and gives them a pseudo political victory that really doesn't mean anything or affect your right to bear arms. I've not seen a whole lot of fighting over background checks. Are you serious? You apparently have a short memory. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/04/17/background-checks-bill_n_3103341.html That was the 'expanded' background check. We have a background check in place: http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/nics The bill you sited shows that liberals are never satisfied. Once a compromise is reached, they go for the next step. Yet I get trolled for saying the exact thing... lol! Maybe it's the way you say it. Doubt it, you just can't help yourself... |
Had to share this story
On 10/31/2014 1:11 PM, Wayne.B wrote:
On Fri, 31 Oct 2014 12:46:41 -0400, Harrold wrote: On 10/31/2014 11:49 AM, wrote: On Fri, 31 Oct 2014 09:14:56 -0400, Harrold wrote: On 10/31/2014 7:33 AM, Poco Loco wrote: All of that looks like any given month in Chicago, which has some of the most restrictive laws in the country. Why don't the cops use those laws to confiscate guns from criminals? Because the criminals do not register them. Don't they know who the bad guys are? === They absolutely do but if they stop them without probable cause then they are racist profilers. It's a no win situation. Stop and frisk was stopped in NYC, pretty much for the same reasons voter ID's are so strongly fought against... so the crims can continue to be crims... |
Had to share this story
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! |
Had to share this story
On 10/31/2014 4:20 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 10/31/2014 4:09 PM, wrote: On Friday, October 31, 2014 4:04:50 PM UTC-4, Mr. Luddite 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... Why bother with a detector then? Because when the detector saves you from just one ticket, it pays for itself. I like to drive with a purpose. I'm currently ticket-free, and have been for many years. :- The older I get the slower I drive. I'll probably get a ticket for impeding traffic in a few more years. :-) I am not in any big hurry to get anywhere anymore and I've outgrown the thrill of speed. I've had a couple of cars that were pretty fast and high performance. Problem was, there's no place to use them to their potential unless you go to a closed race track. Yup, my dad raised me to "never make up for lost time behind the wheel"... and I don't. Well, maybe twice that I can remember, once was getting a guy with a broken arm and no pulse to his hand to the ER... But other than that, I don't. Hey, I'm not perfect, I routinely set my cc to 72-73 on the highway when the speed limit is 65... But I rarely if ever get above 10 over... I got a bunch of grief in my community (motorcycle racing) after I had no pity for a street stunter/racer who got killed.. My opinion is if you are that good, take it to a track and prove it against other pro's, not against grandma on the interstate.... If you ain't good enough to be picked up by a team, or pay for track days, stop stunting/racing. I indicated my feeling for those who play with my life on the streets and it did not go over to well with some... |
Had to share this story
On Fri, 31 Oct 2014 15:24:22 -0400, wrote:
On Fri, 31 Oct 2014 12:22:51 -0400, "Mr. Luddite" wrote: On 10/31/2014 12:06 PM, wrote: On Fri, 31 Oct 2014 06:26:44 -0700 (PDT), wrote: On Friday, October 31, 2014 9:18:35 AM UTC-4, Mr. Luddite wrote: On 10/31/2014 9:02 AM, Poco Loco wrote: I've not seen a whole lot of fighting over background checks. Are you serious? You apparently have a short memory. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/04/17/background-checks-bill_n_3103341.html What I beleive he meant is that the American public hasn't been railing against background checks. Your linked article even points out that the measure had a 90% public approval rating. It was the politicians that didn't get the job done. They really do not explain what "universal background check" means. If they explained that I could not give my wife a shotgun for christmas without her submitting to a background check and having a federally licensed person do the "transfer", they might get a better feel for it. If I just buy the gun myself and give it to her with a bow on it under the tree, I am a "straw buyer" and she is an illegal gun owner. I think the main issue is making unreported sales of firearms at gun shows and similar venues. I remember one reporter who was able to buy anything he wanted at a show with no check, no questions asked. How many crime guns have actually been traced to a gun show? You do understand a licensed dealer still needs to record "private" sales I suppose. That's one of Harry's big lines, but I've yet to see all the back up reports of same. |
Had to share this story
On 10/31/2014 12:10 PM, True North wrote:
On Friday, 31 October 2014 12:59:02 UTC-3, John H. wrote: On Fri, 31 Oct 2014 08:10:45 -0700 (PDT), True North wrote: On Friday, 31 October 2014 11:10:55 UTC-3, John H. wrote: On Fri, 31 Oct 2014 10:05:19 -0400, Harrold wrote: On 10/31/2014 9:57 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote: On 10/31/2014 9:25 AM, Harrold wrote: On 10/31/2014 8:25 AM, Poco Loco wrote: On Fri, 31 Oct 2014 08:15:44 -0400, "Mr. Luddite" wrote: On 10/31/2014 7:43 AM, Poco Loco wrote: On Thu, 30 Oct 2014 21:25:17 -0400, wrote: On Thu, 30 Oct 2014 19:52:02 -0400, "Mr. Luddite" wrote: I think sometimes we forget that the majority of Americans do *not* own guns and that majority is growing. BTW I am not really sure that is true. I think we may have the Nancy Reagan syndrome working here. When a pollster asks if people have a gun, they just say no. I will not divulge gun ownership for any survey. Why let myself be put on someone's list? Hell, Harry's database is enough. You don't have to divulge anything. You've broadcasted every gun you own and what future guns you might buy all over the Internet. No, no, no....only here! :) What goes on in rec.boats doesn't necessarily stay in rec.boats. That's why I cautioned you, some time ago, not to broadcast your travel plans. ;-) What goes on in rec.boats is copied and distributed to who knows how many web based forums and websites. You need to assume that anything you say is available to anyone, anywhere who may have interest in what you do and where you are. So Harry might be completely justified in keeping himself walled up in his little fortress. Right? No, Harry's the one with the 'interest' in anything one says, does, or where the are, or any other personal information he can glean. Of course, Don White is right behind. Note how he uses 'adoption' as a slam against a person. My, my JohnnyMop..... you're on the verge of getting hysterical about this adoption thing. My comment was in reply to one of your Moppetts trying to belittle another poster by inferring that he has a 'baby brother' complex. quote: "Gettin' real personal.. .guess I am hitting a nerve... Like I said before, it's the baby brother syndrome, nobody ever told you no... " I simply pointed out that your Moppett was more likely to have been catered to and spoiled because he was an only child and an adopted one at that.... That is.. his adoptive parents WANTED him rather than his conception being an accident. That they got a defective unit isn't the issue...... or maybe it was..mmmm. You might just try an apology for a stupid comment rather than the bull****. You could apologize for calling me stupid first..and I'm talking about yesterdays post. don, you are not known here as being all that sharp.. so stupid kinda' fits... |
Had to share this story
On Fri, 31 Oct 2014 12:54:46 -0700 (PDT), 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'm a 10%'er. Add 10% to the limit and set the cruise control. Has always worked, although I get passed a lot. |
Had to share this story
On 10/31/2014 8:30 PM, wrote:
On Fri, 31 Oct 2014 15:34:59 -0400, "Mr. Luddite" wrote: On 10/31/2014 3:24 PM, wrote: How many crime guns have actually been traced to a gun show? You do understand a licensed dealer still needs to record "private" sales I suppose. Sure. In many states he "records" it in his little black book that is subject to audit ... maybe. Wasn't that the case in the kid who used his mother's gun to shoot up some kids at a school? The ATF hadn't checked his books for years. That is because none of the guns he handled were ever investigated in a crime. That should be a good thing. When they did go looking for one, the system worked. Isn't all you are looking for? It also doesn't stop a private or gun show dealer sale of a firearm to a person legally prohibited from owning one. That was proven by the TV investigation where they sent a guy to gun shows and he was able to buy anything he wanted with no background check performed. There is nothing to stop a person from selling a gun to a person who shouldn't have one. It is already illegal and making it "more" illegal is meaningless. If 10 years and $100k fine is not a deterrent, what do you think your new law would impose that would do the trick? Death? Did you read the wording on the Federal Transfer Form that John posted a link to? I am still scratching my head trying to figure out what good it does. It basically says that you can sell or transfer a firearm to a convicted felon or nut case as long as you didn't know he was a convicted felon or nut case. |
Had to share this story
On 10/31/2014 8:40 PM, wrote:
On Fri, 31 Oct 2014 16:00:39 -0400, "Mr. Luddite" wrote: On 10/31/2014 3:39 PM, 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 I don't know about other states but in MA the license plates (or "tags" as some call them) have a coating designed to optimally reflect the lasers used in speed traps. It's the preferred "target". Some of the old MA plates were issued with one plate only .. to be mounted on the rear of the car. Can't get them anymore. Cops want two plates and require both to be on the car. We only run one tag here. From what see, it is just a suggestion anyway. I see at least one car a week without a tag. They do sell a tag cover that you can read the tag through but it seriously reduces the laser reflection and it is hard to see from an angle, frustrating cameras. Heh. You don't have annual vehicle inspections in Florida like we do. People have tried the plastic over the front plate trick by getting fancy plate holders. Won't pass inspection if you have one installed. |
Had to share this story
|
Had to share this story
On 10/31/2014 8:49 PM, wrote:
On Fri, 31 Oct 2014 13:02:04 -0700 (PDT), wrote: Raises another question. Ever wonder why a new gun comes with a spent shell in the box or case? To test functionality. And/Or, to build a database of gun "fingerprints", i.e. bullet striations. That info, along with registration, can lead back to the owner. I have never bought a gun with a case in the box. I do question the validity of all of these ballistic fingerprint things if the gun has been used a lot. I agree that if they have the gun and a recently fired bullet or case, they usually can match them up but if this gun has several thousand rounds of barrel erosion and the slings and arrows of dirty ammo going through it, matching up tool marks from the day it was made is going to be far from exact. I bet the difference between S/N xxxxx1 and xxxxx2 brand new is less than xxxx1 to xxxx1 after years of hard use. If the same tool cut the rifling, won't the tool marks be very close to the same? Interesting. When was the last time you bought a new gun? Every gun I have purchased in the past 3-4 years has an envelope with a spent round casing that was fired from the gun at the factory. It's also mandatory that new guns come with some type of lock. Is this a MA thing or is it true everywhere? |
Had to share this story
|
Had to share this story
On 10/31/2014 9:33 PM, BAR wrote:
In article , says... On 10/30/2014 6:27 PM, wrote: On Thu, 30 Oct 2014 17:22:04 -0400, "Mr. Luddite" wrote: Here's an idea: Draft some reasonable legislation that responds to some of the anti-gun crowd concerns but doesn't infringe on anyone's right to own a firearm. The most successful program seems to be keeping violent felons in jail longer. The left complains that we lock too mane people up but most of them are non violent offenders. Even so, the crime rate is falling at about the same rate as incarceration rates. Ever watch "Lock Up" on MSNBC (Friday and Saturday evenings) Not too many people watch MSNBC. Many of the violent offenders in prison have absolutely no clue what living a normal, law abiding life is all about. They live in a narrow little world and many feel *they* are the victims. I get the sense that no amount of therapy or rehabilitation will ever permanently change their views or lifestyle. It's almost like it's in their DNA. You need to do some serious root cause analysis to find out why the inhabitants of jails and prisons are there. The problem is not the judicial system, it goes further back into their lives than their first encounter with the police. That's why the show is interesting. It goes into that sort of stuff. It's not a liberal political thing like the rest of the MSNBC programing. |
Had to share this story
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. |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 05:37 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 BoatBanter.com