rhaig

Members
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Content

    2,766

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Feedback

    0%

Everything posted by rhaig

  1. rhaig
    a 3/4/5 square is not an archaic short-cut in construction. It's a useful tool employed by the resourceful. -- Rob
  2. rhaig
    so I should plan a vacation day for then? -- Rob
  3. rhaig
    I sat next to an armed ATF agent on my flight home yesterday. He was a little surprised when I asked him (quietly) what kind of pistol he was carrying. He didn't flash it accidentally, but I saw him hike it up (like I've done a hundred times) when he stood up and recognized the movement. He was an explosives trainer. Nice guy. -- Rob
  4. rhaig
    TX also has specifically a concealed handgun license, but in TX, open carry of unloaded long-guns is legal as long as you're not "brandishing" (which has case-law definition meaning at minimum to hold in a menacing manner). So in TX, he's fine. Even without a CHL in TX he's fine with the pistols in the car. Before I got my CHL, the first question out of the officer's mouth when I got stopped was usually "do you have any guns or drugs in the car". Now it's more typically "are you armed today sir?" Followed by "yes, right hip" or "yes, center console". I've never had an officer hold my weapon for the duration of the stop (which wouldn't bother me a bit), and have always gotten a warning when I was armed. -- Rob
  5. rhaig
    so what your'e saying here bill, is that the government is ant-small business? -- Rob
  6. rhaig
    not the "if" ore the "who" so much, but as you alluded, the "how" is the issue. The system has more holes in it than swiss cheese and they've exploited it for their own gain. Which laws have been broken? If no laws have been broken, under what authority do we take their money? indeed, the how is the problem. -- Rob
  7. rhaig
    All of the training requirements in other states that I am aware of are simply training about what is state law relative to deadly force and where you can and can't carry. While training is never bad, this kind of training helps keep the honest people honest. If there were states with honest-to-god tactical handgunning courses required for concealed carry, then I'd be right there saying removing those training requirements would result in fewer handgun-proficient concealed carriers. But I don't know of any states that require more than some classroom work regarding laws, and a "can you hit the broad side of a barn" shooting test. -- Rob
  8. rhaig
    as it should be puts the bad guys and the good guys on a level playing feild Good guys could already get a permit - doesn't change anything for them. So nothing is changed for the good guys (except they don't have to pay the fee). Nothing is changed for the bad guys (they'd carry no matter what the law says). And the state doesn't have to process as many concealed carry applications each year (people who want a CO CC license to carry in one of the other 30 states that honor a CO license). I don't see a down side here. -- Rob
  9. rhaig
    c'mon dude...seriously? Yes, seriously - there is a measurable decrease in coordination. agreed...but "fucked up" is a pretty serious charge. MADD lobbied for the 0.08 based off of statistics taken for accidents where the driver was impaired. It had nothing to do with measurements of the actual coordination differences between 0.08 and 0.10. It was considered internally a step towards 0.00 legislation that many of the MADD national leaders had set as their goal at the time. When the organization became of the abolitionist mindset, the founder of the movement quit and went to work for the liquor lobby. That should say a lot right there. When my wife worked for MADD, and they had company dinners, I enjoyed having them buy me scotch. At one dinner the manager asked "who had liquor?" I raised my hand. She then asked "who else, there are 2 doubles on the tab" I raised my hand again "they were both me". (I wasn't driving) I got some "interesting" looks from people after that. -- Rob
  10. rhaig
    yes yes... It's clear I didn't read the last few paragraphs of the article. Clearly there was no actual threat, so perhaps the congressman did indeed exercise good judgement. Right there with you on this... I don't think he needed to do things differently. He could have, sure... But I think it was handled just fine. -- Rob
  11. rhaig
    that one is my favorite -- Rob
  12. rhaig
    The SS investigates all credible threats against the president. I think even they would have told the congressman to bugger off. Have they gotten involved here? -- Rob
  13. rhaig
    exactly. so let's make more laws to control them -- Rob
  14. rhaig
    what threats precipitated these remarks? Most states define what kind of a physical threat allows response with force (deadly or otherwise depending on the threat) In TX, that's sec 9 of the penal code. If this was street protesters carrying signs and shouting, I don't think that would meet any state's response with force criteria. -- Rob
  15. rhaig
    Why not? The GOP has been the party of 'NO' for a very long time. Hey- the republicans do pretty much anything they need to do to get their own way. Now the democrats are doing whatever they need to do to get their own way. name-calling does not change the facts.....if it works and it is in the best interests of the people they represent, then unless someone changes the rules, then they can do that. don't like it? Then get elected and change the rules. I had to put up with that fucking asshole Bush for 8 years, now you have to put up with this wah wah wah So you are in favor of illegal activity, nice. Great morals there! work within the system, until the system won't allow you to work within the system. He's saying it's time for an armed uprising. -- Rob
  16. rhaig
    are we going to discuss how many years that is again? Because if we are, I need another drink. that was a painful thread. -- Rob
  17. rhaig
    welcome to speakers corner -- Rob
  18. rhaig
    I did that here once. Was cause for an increase in my work productivity for a couple of weeks. -- Rob
  19. rhaig

    Texas Tunnel

    rhaig replied to mattmais's topic in Wind Tunnels

    http://impactnews.com/leander-cedar-park/365-business/11052-schlitterbahn-developers-search-for-funds -- Rob
  20. rhaig
    the Dem candidate could have been a scarecrow and he would have won because he wasn't bush. Let's not count winning after following Bush as one of his big challenges. -- Rob
  21. rhaig
    Why? Where's the logic in making them more available to criminals via the gun show loopholes? Where's the logic in the NRA being against closing it? No. The pro-gun forces AREN'T logical; they're single minded. If the NRA was logical, they'd fight harder to keep guns OUT of the hands of criminals. Instead, they have a blind faith in their interpretation of the Second Amendment and THAT is a religion. again you're inferring things that I didn't imply. -- Rob
  22. rhaig
    If you can't see the parallels between pro-gun and religion, I can't help you. if we look at the OP, it goes the other way, religion and gun control both fall back on emotional choices more often than logic. So, then . . . you'd prefer to align the pro-gun owners with atheists, even though the the NRA is more like a church than a chess club. I would certainly align the pro-gun owners with with logical people. And the anti-gunners with the over-emotional types. Anything else inferred is of your own manufacture. -- Rob
  23. rhaig
    If you can't see the parallels between pro-gun and religion, I can't help you. if we look at the OP, it goes the other way, religion and gun control both fall back on emotional choices more often than logic. -- Rob
  24. rhaig
    If you don't have a criminal, you don't have a crime. Can't disprove that. This is wrong on at least two accounts. Three if you count the second statement. A person is innocent until proven guilty. Innocent people aren't criminals. Therefore, crimes can be committed without criminals. thus proving that if you don't get caught, it isn't illegal :) -- Rob
  25. rhaig
    In TX at least, as long as it's not a permanent structure, it's not considered a building. And as the feds have said that CHL in parks falls to local state law, I'd be fine if the shitter was a port-a-potty, or depending on the style, even some of the backwoods composting toilets. But the brick/morter shitter at the trailhead, yeah... not in there. -- Rob