tnguy

  Homeschooling has a lot of resources and information available. It's not just a bunch of religious nutjobs locking their kids in the basement.

  Your Dad is a smart man.

The government can have something to say on this when they stop taking our money to subsidise foods that make people fat.

I passed the Ham exam early this year. I bought a handset but have yet to do anything with it. In my first test broadcast, I was speaking in to the wrong part so no one could hear me :wall:   I do have a C.B. but I bought it for my mother who has since passed away. Haven't brought myself to sell it yet though she only used it a couple of times. She was big in to the C.B. (which caused some friction in the household during one period).   Ham is a little more likely to be useful since it has fewer restrictions (in certain respects) than C.B. But my mother would tell of some quite impressive contacts from long distances. Of course, not everyone respects those restrictions....

Where's the delete button?

  My thought is that rather than try to change opinion, the idea is to get your point across. Then, at some point in the future, as happened for me, it can all come together and the opinion changes anyway.   A big part of the problem with modern politics is that people refuse to see each others points. A disagreement about the conclusion is thought to invalidate the whole of the other persons argument, leading to an inability to break things down point-by-point and no way to find common ground. I think your summary focuses on the salient point though there are others. Let's break it down some:   1)Are DUI checkpoints "right" in general? I think we can agree to disagree here (If everyone saw things my way, the constitution would not be needed). Some people will think that it's worth inconveniencing a few to keep these drunk drivers off the road. Personally, I'm not real happy with citizens stopping other citizens without direct cause. One thing I love about the US was it was founded as a nation of equals. This kind of thing goes against that and releases undue power to the government. Recheck those Peelian Principles I posted earlier. Also playing into this is that the statistics that lend support (or not) to this seems to have some issues. This is where MADD is a problem because their hysteria tends to preclude a rational discussion of the topic.   2)Is it constitutional? Calls to authority aside, this seems to rest on your definition of "unreasonable". I guess if you feel it's OK for citizens acting under authority of the government to stop and interrogate other citizens going about their lawful business because they /might/ be committing a crime, you could find that acceptable. Hard to see why they bothered with the 4th if that's the case though.   2b)Implied consent. The government does not get to write laws (ignoring the fact that they do so) weaseling their way out of the constitution. Not legal ones anyway. If you can't see where such things lead, there's not much hope for you.   3)DUI. I don't think there's many here that think DUI shouldn't be prosecuted as such but it is an argument that I have heard before. For the purposes of this thread can we stipulate that driving under the influence is a crime that deserves punishment according to the laws currently on the books (BAC levels and such are for another discussion)?

    It's in their interest to give their best service to anyone they deal with. That transfer today could be a 1500 gun and a couple of thousand rounds next month.

  You might want to bear in mind that it /is/ possible to fly without security checks. It is just certain kinds of flights that are regulated that way.

When I worked pizza delivery, there was an area on the map behind the counter which was marked "Do not take orders from here". As the pizza place started struggling, that was quietly dropped. Personally, I never felt any more uncomfortable there than anywhere else.

I did a transfer through a LGS recently and it was a bit of a headache. Between Wholesalehunter being snowed under by orders and apparently losing the documents my LGS claimed he sent them first time around and the LGS not having a lot of incentive to facilitate the deal, it was a real PITA to get them both communicating with each other. It all worked out in the end though.   With that said, the actual process itself was "same day" but it just got confounded by an annoying series of issues.

  Seems like there's a lot of room for interpretation there. It would imply that there's a way to display a firearm in a public place that wasn't calculated to alarm. Then it comes down to what their intent was. I'd imagine that a good lawyer could probably win this or a pissy judge could just say "I don't care, you're guilty".   Either way, not an especially smart move.

  So I can moon the cop at the speed trap as long as I'm wearing a g-string?  

Just be careful where you say "bang".

Even if Obama turned out to be everything he and others claimed, ended all wars and brought an end to poverty and starvation, it still sullied the prize that it was awarded in such a manner (though it was pretty grubby anyway by that point)

Interesting reading:   Majority of Nobel Jury ‘Objected to Obama Prize’   http://www.amren.com/news/2009/10/majority_of_nob/   Even the Socialist Left guy wasn't happy. Surprised that the Progress Party is right wing also.

2006-2008 Mjøs, Ole Danbolt (Chairman) b. 1939 Christian People's Party   Furre, Berger Ragnar (Dep. Chairman) b. 1937 Socialist Left Party   Five, Kaci Kullman b. 1951 Conservative   Rønbeck, Sissel b. 1950 Labour   Ytterhorn, Inger-Marie b. 1941 Progress Party

Go look at the titles of the people on the peace prize committee. Here's a hint: The people on the chemistry committee are chemists, the people on the biology committee are biologists, the people on the peace prize committee are a bunch of leftist pinko commie politicians (With maybe one exception but probably not).   And I bet they're feeling stupid now. What am I saying? Those kind of people have no shame.

Just FWIW, one of the things that caused me to get my carry permit was being approached on the road by an aggressive dog while walking (It was a place where people tended to like to dump their dogs when they got bored of them so possibly a stray). There were a few non-strays that caused me some concern while bicycling too.

    OK, can we have a quick check? Hands up anyone who is defending drunk driving.

Yep, it's not the "outdoors" bit that's the problem. If you want to take a bedroll out there and sleep under the stars, that'd work.

  We are talking about the stopping of innocent people. If your method picks out only drunk drivers or gives you at least a reasonably suspicion that they may be drunk, have at it.

Is there a guy standing there to frisk you down when you dismount? Do you really fail to see what it is the people are objecting to?

Are you kidding? Once this sucker hits tarmac, he's *gone* (Edit: That dog actually has non-functional front legs but the pic is so good I'm leaving it here)

But even so, there's a dividing line between regulating the use of equipment and impeding people going about their lawful business, especially since the police are not part of the legislative branch.

  One thing this thread did make me think of was the possibility of a remote device that would do the calling out. Then even if it doesn't deter them, you still haven't given your location away.   Also if you're going down that path is the possibility of extremely bright lights to destroy the goblins' night vision.