champu

Like some other laws of this nature, it ends up creating absurd situations. For example, they sell lockable gun safes you can mount in your car. This law may make it illegal to store a gun in one of those (unless those are covered in another section I missed) you have to use your center console which has no lock instead. In California it's quite a bit more strict. No CCW? No loaded handguns in your car. And the handgun has to be in a locked container. Trunk is okay, glove box and center console are expressly prohibited. No ruling on if a trunk can still be "locked" for the purposes of that statute if the seats fold down or if you have a car with a proximity key fob that lets you (or the cop who pulled you over) open the trunk with the key near the car, so I put them in a small pelican case with a pad lock to be safe. (safe from the DA, mind you, not the gun.)

You're right, particularly without more specificity. I did look it up for Kentucky though...

Two things: 1) It sounds like the DA's discretion leaves something to be desired. Driving around with loaded handguns and no CCW permit is already a major no-no but it doesn't sound like he was charged with anything for that. 2) It sounds like they probably took his two semi-auto pistols* and let him keep a couple revolvers and bolt/lever action rifles which goes to show how dumb it is to focus on a firearm's action or random features. Focus on filtering out those who shouldn't have guns and don't let them have guns. *alternative explanation is the police just confiscated the two most expensive weapons so they could keep them or sell them, which would be a whole other problem.

I started writing a longer response but the first thing I wrote sums my opinion up pretty well... Basic social responsibility my ass. It's either a tax and an expenditure like anything else, or it's some national treasure we should all be so thankful for. You can't pretend it's the latter and fund it like it's the former.

I always cook thin crust pizza on my grill with a stone. I've found direct heat is fine if you start out with the burners on medium so you don't overheat the bottom of the stone while the top is still cold. Once you get everything to 375F or so you can then turn it up higher to crispy temperatures. Tuning this, of course, is going to depend on your specific grill and stone.

I wonder just how much that last sentence made his head explode. Did you mean the last sentence (the one that began "Not only...") or the fragment at the end that began "Even..? Yes - the entire sentence. I think you need to revisit grammar and punctuation class. Elk.

There's a similar meta-worry when worrying that people will get worried and call the police and you'll end up facing charges of some sort. It's infrequent but also well-reported when it happens. I think people are a lot more pearl-clutchy these days and the odds are higher that someone calls the police when they see unattended kids... being unattended. But I think the chances of anyone actually getting in trouble or the police making a stink out of it are pretty low.

The 20% figure comes up a couple times, so he didn't necessarily mean, "kill all Shiites everywhere." He could have just as easily meant, "kill all Sunnis in Iraq." Or it could have been sarcasm and he doesn't really want several million people exterminated in another holocaust nor actually think that's a tidy solution.

I think I'll avoid any bike forums in fear of someone posting a picture of whatever a "speedo device" might be. Yeah, or elaborating on how a headlight could interfere with it.

I've seen this before (actually I've seen the whole show, I think it is/was on Netflix.) He's right that it's important to have a sense of humor about things and to remember that sometimes you're just listening to a comedian making jokes. He's also right that on a basic level the reason a lot of gun owners fight for their right to keep their guns and to be able to buy more is because, "fuck off, I like guns." That said, it's also funny he claims to hate bullshit arguments. Finding the bit funny or not and finding yourself in agreement with him or not, everyone should recognize that he's not braving new ground in the debate. Just like he broke up the 50% of the audience that disagree with him into 20/20/10, there's just as likely a similar split on the side that agrees with him. 20% are just laughing cause he's a comedian, 20% are patting themselves on the back for agreeing with everything he says, and 10% are getting so worked up about guns from talking about it that they have to pull out their cellphone and make a donation to the Brady Campaign.

Strange, that sucks. I've had very good luck with Phillips LED bulbs. I have a few dozen of various models that are between 1-5 years old and with the exception of one that was DOA that I exchanged at the store they are all working well.

That timeline sounds about right. I vaguely remember helping my sister wipe her new Sony laptop and start from scratch in the 2004-2005 time frame. It was pretty appalling out of the box.

If LED technology weren't amazing I'd be more upset. I have a flashlight that's smaller than those 2AA maglites I grew up with that I can carry in a pocket that puts out 960 lumens. All but a few lamps in my house are LED. The only place I really need incandescent bulbs is in my garage door opener. I discovered LED bulbs tend to interfere with its receiver which results in it becoming strictly a garage door opener. I'll investigate further at some point but in the meantime I have a bunch of half-used incandescent bulbs to burn through.

Oh! Sorry, you forgot to use the term "ODS" in this post. You only made it three posts straight. Not a great showing. I feel like the term "ODS" is kinda billvon's thing. You and a few others try to get too much mileage out of it.

I thought he had a reindeer, not an elk. I'm guessing that was an auto-correct mishap, but it gave me a belly-laugh! I think it was in reference to this: http://www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?post=4703134#4703134 I've tried to find a good photo of a person standing along with some elk but i haven't had much luck finding one with the right look. I may have to photoshop something together. Elk, as I'm sure you know living in CO, are kinda a bunch of jerks.

In my defense, btw, people do sometimes get incensed over them. mmm... coffee...

Well no, most people don't. Failure to recognize this colors your world view. Indeed. The idea of becoming enraged over a driving slight (particularly when there hasn't even been an accident) is bizarre to me. A few weeks ago it was raining just a little bit and a woman rear-ended me while I was stopped at a red light. I set the parking brake, got out of the car, and you know what the first thing I said to her was ? "Hey, are you okay?" It's not difficult people. Pro-tip: if you hit "Preview Post" before you lock the phone and then it does this reload, your message will be intact. Sensible eh? I don't suppose your idea of "sensible" is anything like the version that is snaking it's way through the 9th circuit (see Peruta v. Gore) right now, is it? Which is really what this proposed reciprocity bill is about. Defeating it isn't about protecting people in states with sensible laws from gun owners in states with insensible laws. Defeating it is about protecting some states' desire to maintain their insensible laws. Passing it is about protecting gun owners from states with sensible laws from prosecution by states with insensible laws.

What does any of this have to do with what you wrote in post #20? If this is all you meant then "poor wording" is an understatement. No, that was in response to you showing how much money you spend on education and health. Post 20 was simply indicating that american society has no appetite to increase taxes to spend on education and health. Both systems are signifcantly behind the rest of the civilized world, unless you have lots of money to spend. Okay, so going back to your example of tooth extraction. You're chastising people in country B for not wanting to pony up an additional $750 to catch up with country A.

What does any of this have to do with what you wrote in post #20? If this is all you meant then "poor wording" is an understatement.

Well, doing everything takes money. What goes on the list of things that takes tax money is obviously subject to lengthy debate. But you're absolutely wrong that we prefer to not spend money. We throw money at everything in fucking spades... http://nces.ed.gov/programs/coe/indicator_cmd.asp http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_total_health_expenditure_(PPP)_per_capita http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_military_expenditure_per_capita Yes you do. You guys love funneling tax payers money at quadruple the costs to private instututions. The best system money can buy, at least if you own part or all of the privatized institution. I think you may have also missed the point behind the post. But that's probably due to my own poor wording. You guys obviously do a bang up job taking care of your society! Maybe I did miss your point. I interpreted what you wrote to mean we don't like to spend money on education and healthcare and instead we spend it on military equipment or war. (i.e. military spending is to blame for poor end results in the other two areas.) Meanwhile I am certain you missed my point as evidenced by the last sarcastic sentence of your post.

I never said that. The police need not do anything criminal for someone to get screwed over by the sum-total of behavior, that's kinda the point of my post. And the fact that there would be nothing criminal about it is actually what makes your prospects of trying to get back to where you started so terrible. What's the alternative? I dunno, maybe if police have such a bad record of collecting, documenting, properly storing, and returning firearms to their owners they should just leave them the hell alone. How about that?

One of the concerns that people have here in the US really stems from the sum total of anti-gun behavior. In California (yeah, one state but over 12% of the population) it's legal to own just about anything. But over the last 15 years it has become illegal to buy more and more things. You cannot buy assault weapons, even from other people through a dealer. You cannot buy 10+ magazines, even from other people through a dealer. You cannot buy NFA items even if you go through the federal tax and registration process. You cannot buy any handgun designed in the last couple years new, and you can only buy older models new as long as those manufacturers continue making them, unchanged, and as long as they pay fees to CA uninterrupted. For now, you can still buy any used handgun through a dealer. So what happens in a disaster? "Hey, there's a fire in the hills nearby and we're not sure which way it's going to go, so we're evacuating your neighborhood." Okay... Police kick in every door to make sure everyone is out and, hey while they're there, take all firearms to "secure" them. Firefighters control the blaze (thank you firefighters) and people return to their homes. What happened to the guns? Oh the police accidentally stored them in a sewer and they've been destroyed. But don't worry the county will reimburse you. "Well, can I replace what I had?" "Nope, sucker! Go pound sand!" Now, is this likely to happen? Well, by definition it is only as likely or less likely to happen as the natural disaster itself. But there are plenty of individuals in positions of power in law enforcement agencies in California who could implement responses like this more or less single-handedly and, judging by some of their past statements and behavior, would more than happily do so. It seems to be what happened in the OP case and it seems to be what happened in the case of Katrina.

Well, doing everything takes money. What goes on the list of things that takes tax money is obviously subject to lengthy debate. But you're absolutely wrong that we prefer to not spend money. We throw money at everything in fucking spades... http://nces.ed.gov/programs/coe/indicator_cmd.asp http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_total_health_expenditure_(PPP)_per_capita http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_military_expenditure_per_capita

Why are you bringing up guns? Get your mind away from Guns! Stop derailing the thread! Stop derailing the thread! Why are you derailing the thread!?!

The idea that SAMs are somehow naturally stealthy in terms of radar returns is bogus. While I can't say with certainty that no one has ever tried to design one, the idea of a purpose-built "stealth SAM" is exceedingly dumb for a couple reasons. 1) For a SAM to be effective it has to go from zero to several Mach in the right direction in a very short period of time. This involves extremely conspicuous thermal and radar emissions, so you're not going to effectively hide what you're doing. 2) For reasons which are numerous and hopefully obvious, trying to defeat a SAM using a method that requires tracking it with your own radar is a losing battle. So you're not going to improve your probability of a successful intercept.