Red Mosquito

This one is more trendy though.

BurtReynolds wrote:This one is more trendy though.

When will we pass common sense SUV control? Vehicles with such a high hood exist only to enable rapid slaughter, and have limited utility when it comes fending off 30-50 feral hogs.

BurtReynolds wrote:Why has the car not been charged yet?!

lets go with this stupid hot take

so youre saying a gun and the car should be treated the same

so every person who owns a gun should have to buy insurance in case someone is injured by his gun

a person who owns a gun should have to take license renewals every few years and if he fails his right to operate a gun will be suspended until they can prove they are competent.

if you are caught using a gun while under the influence then before you can use that gun again you will have to blow into a device to prove you have no alcohol in your system before a round enters the chamber


am i doing this right?

BurtReynolds wrote:Why has the car not been charged yet?!

Great analogy

Peeps wrote:

BurtReynolds wrote:Why has the car not been charged yet?!

lets go with this stupid hot take

so youre saying a gun and the car should be treated the same

so every person who owns a gun should have to buy insurance in case someone is injured by his gun

a person who owns a gun should have to take license renewals every few years and if he fails his right to operate a gun will be suspended until they can prove they are competent.

if you are caught using a gun while under the influence then before you can use that gun again you will have to blow into a device to prove you have no alcohol in your system before a round enters the chamber


am i doing this right?

How dare you use logic in 'Merica?

Is that logic? I have no idea what straw man is being attacked here, but leave me out of it!

But I'll play your game...

"so youre saying a gun and the car should be treated the same?"

Yeah sure. That means no one should have to buy insurance or get their license renewed or blow into a breathalyzer to own a car if they haven't done anything dangerous or criminal with it.

I also think the identities of murderers should be mentioned in articles about someone murdering people, either with cars or guns, rather than just saying "a car" or "a gun" did it. And that should be done with no regard for the race or politics of the murderer (or the media org).

What do you think of that?

BurtReynolds wrote:But I'll play your game...

"so youre saying a gun and the car should be treated the same?"

Yeah sure. That means no one should have to buy insurance or get their license renewed or blow into a breathalyzer to own a car if they haven't done anything dangerous or criminal with it.

I also think the identities of murderers should be mentioned in articles about someone murdering people, either with cars or guns, rather than just saying "a car" or "a gun" did it. And that should be done with no regard for the race or politics of the murderer (or the media org).

What do you think of that?

That they assiduously avoid re-naming the suspect suggests his motivations were a bit more specific than fleeing the scene or even just generally running people over. What are the chances he gets a generous plea deal to avoid having any of his police statements go public?

Why should this even go to trial? He was using a public road and those people marching in the parade were jaywalking!

spike wrote:Why should this even go to trial? He was using a public road and those people marching in the parade were jaywalking!

How cute. Time, place, and manner restrictions are perfectly reasonable. A permitted event with traffic control and public notice is not the same as randomly closing intersections to 'be heard'.

No car insurance or license sounds like a great idea Burt. You really thought that one through, huh?

E.H. Ruddock wrote:No car insurance or license sounds like a great idea Burt. You really thought that one through, huh?

Yep!

simple schoolboy wrote:

spike wrote:Why should this even go to trial? He was using a public road and those people marching in the parade were jaywalking!

How cute. Time, place, and manner restrictions are perfectly reasonable. A permitted event with traffic control and public notice is not the same as randomly closing intersections to 'be heard'.

The worst part is knowing - KNOWING - that the next time some "protesters" are blocking traffic and attacking drivers and the driver goes through their roadblock to get away, I'm gonna hear from the rocket scientists about how it's the same thing and that I'm a hypocrite for being ok with that but not someone plowing through a parade of old people and kids. I KNOW THIS WILL HAPPEN, and there is nothing I can do about it. It is my fate to read this brilliant retort. It's written in the stars.

I'm gonna have to imagine the smug look on their face as they hit "submit" and it's going to make my blood boil.

And there is NOTHING I CAN DO to divert us from this future.

It's like the plot of terminator 3

BurtReynolds wrote:

E.H. Ruddock wrote:No car insurance or license sounds like a great idea Burt. You really thought that one through, huh?

Yep!

This is how it works with areas with sufficient judicial reform. Expecting minimums such as insurance and licensure results in a disparate impact on low income POC. The law may be on the books, but, if say, someone high on Xanax crashes into a telephone pole, they won't even be arrested for a suspended license or having an unregistered vehicle, let alone the whole driving under the influence thing.

The law will be selectively enforced on people of means because the court might actually get money out of them.

BurtReynolds wrote:I'm gonna have to imagine the smug look on their face as they hit "submit" and it's going to make my blood boil.

They're going to be super confused if the Hispanic middle class realizes that the Mexican mafia is better able to maintain public order than the municipal police.

But they're also POC, why come no solidarity!?