[ucodegen]

@paramount

“A Ford Expedition SUV often flips when one of its tires looses it tread or rapidly decompresses, much less getting into an accident.”

And yet if you look at the overall death rates of an Expedition it is lower than average.

And you have just demonstrated that you can take a quote out of context, as well as miss the point I was making… The point I was making was that a vehicle flipping is not all that dangerous, particularly if the occupants remain strapped in (seat belted to begin with). The biggest problem is when the passenger compartment is intruded upon in the crash. The only microcar that I would consider driving is the Mercedes Smartcar because the passenger compartment remained intact after the collision.

[ucodegen]

@paramount

“A Ford Expedition SUV often flips when one of its tires looses it tread or rapidly decompresses, much less getting into an accident.”

And yet if you look at the overall death rates of an Expedition it is lower than average.

And you have just demonstrated that you can take a quote out of context, as well as miss the point I was making… The point I was making was that a vehicle flipping is not all that dangerous, particularly if the occupants remain strapped in (seat belted to begin with). The biggest problem is when the passenger compartment is intruded upon in the crash. The only microcar that I would consider driving is the Mercedes Smartcar because the passenger compartment remained intact after the collision.

[ucodegen]

@paramount

“A Ford Expedition SUV often flips when one of its tires looses it tread or rapidly decompresses, much less getting into an accident.”

And yet if you look at the overall death rates of an Expedition it is lower than average.

And you have just demonstrated that you can take a quote out of context, as well as miss the point I was making… The point I was making was that a vehicle flipping is not all that dangerous, particularly if the occupants remain strapped in (seat belted to begin with). The biggest problem is when the passenger compartment is intruded upon in the crash. The only microcar that I would consider driving is the Mercedes Smartcar because the passenger compartment remained intact after the collision.

[ucodegen]

I found the reporting on the article on the safety of microcars when in collisions with SUVs to be biased. I do agree that passenger compartment intrusion is a serious problem though. If you look at the damage to the ‘A-column’ that the 3 microcars show, only the Mercedes Smartcar’s ‘A-column’ stayed intact and the passenger compartment was not intruded upon in the crash. The narration tries to make is sound bad, though, by saying it nearly flipped. Well guess what. A Ford Expedition SUV often flips when one of its tires looses it tread or rapidly decompresses, much less getting into an accident. High CG’d SUVs are more likely to flip when hit from the side by a car than car would be.

[ucodegen]

I found the reporting on the article on the safety of microcars when in collisions with SUVs to be biased. I do agree that passenger compartment intrusion is a serious problem though. If you look at the damage to the ‘A-column’ that the 3 microcars show, only the Mercedes Smartcar’s ‘A-column’ stayed intact and the passenger compartment was not intruded upon in the crash. The narration tries to make is sound bad, though, by saying it nearly flipped. Well guess what. A Ford Expedition SUV often flips when one of its tires looses it tread or rapidly decompresses, much less getting into an accident. High CG’d SUVs are more likely to flip when hit from the side by a car than car would be.

[ucodegen]

I found the reporting on the article on the safety of microcars when in collisions with SUVs to be biased. I do agree that passenger compartment intrusion is a serious problem though. If you look at the damage to the ‘A-column’ that the 3 microcars show, only the Mercedes Smartcar’s ‘A-column’ stayed intact and the passenger compartment was not intruded upon in the crash. The narration tries to make is sound bad, though, by saying it nearly flipped. Well guess what. A Ford Expedition SUV often flips when one of its tires looses it tread or rapidly decompresses, much less getting into an accident. High CG’d SUVs are more likely to flip when hit from the side by a car than car would be.

[ucodegen]

I found the reporting on the article on the safety of microcars when in collisions with SUVs to be biased. I do agree that passenger compartment intrusion is a serious problem though. If you look at the damage to the ‘A-column’ that the 3 microcars show, only the Mercedes Smartcar’s ‘A-column’ stayed intact and the passenger compartment was not intruded upon in the crash. The narration tries to make is sound bad, though, by saying it nearly flipped. Well guess what. A Ford Expedition SUV often flips when one of its tires looses it tread or rapidly decompresses, much less getting into an accident. High CG’d SUVs are more likely to flip when hit from the side by a car than car would be.

[ucodegen]

I found the reporting on the article on the safety of microcars when in collisions with SUVs to be biased. I do agree that passenger compartment intrusion is a serious problem though. If you look at the damage to the ‘A-column’ that the 3 microcars show, only the Mercedes Smartcar’s ‘A-column’ stayed intact and the passenger compartment was not intruded upon in the crash. The narration tries to make is sound bad, though, by saying it nearly flipped. Well guess what. A Ford Expedition SUV often flips when one of its tires looses it tread or rapidly decompresses, much less getting into an accident. High CG’d SUVs are more likely to flip when hit from the side by a car than car would be.

[ucodegen]

1) If I obtain a gun now legally and violence and unrest occurs, I expect the government to seize my firearm. I might also face an undesired level of scrutiny for having even registered a firearm in the past.

Correct. Interesting side note, in the plans that Nazi Germany had for taking over a country by subversion, a section included locating those members of a the said country who had gun ownership and removing the firearms by any means possible, including trumped up charges. The other part was to subvert those in charge – ie blackmail, threats etc.. and if those are not effective, make them vanish.

2) If I obtain an illegal gun now so the government won’t know who to confiscate it from, I am making myself a criminal now which I don’t want.

Or learn to be a gunsmith.. so you can make one if the need every arrives. This way you don’t break the ‘registration’ of the firearm and get yourself in trouble that way… even though ‘registration’ is technically unconstitutional. It infringes on the right by requiring an action in order to own a firearm. The 2nd amendment says “shall not be infringed”.. not “shall not be prevented”. This was to prevent hegemony against the right through successive restriction.

But I know that if it becomes known that I have necessities that are scarce, I’m making myself a target. That is the big reason I’m thinking of home defense.

Are any other non gun owners thinking similar thoughts?

I am more concerned about the government than the citizenry. Usually the citizens pull together in time of trouble while the government is more concerned about maintaining its authority..

[ucodegen]

1) If I obtain a gun now legally and violence and unrest occurs, I expect the government to seize my firearm. I might also face an undesired level of scrutiny for having even registered a firearm in the past.

Correct. Interesting side note, in the plans that Nazi Germany had for taking over a country by subversion, a section included locating those members of a the said country who had gun ownership and removing the firearms by any means possible, including trumped up charges. The other part was to subvert those in charge – ie blackmail, threats etc.. and if those are not effective, make them vanish.

2) If I obtain an illegal gun now so the government won’t know who to confiscate it from, I am making myself a criminal now which I don’t want.

Or learn to be a gunsmith.. so you can make one if the need every arrives. This way you don’t break the ‘registration’ of the firearm and get yourself in trouble that way… even though ‘registration’ is technically unconstitutional. It infringes on the right by requiring an action in order to own a firearm. The 2nd amendment says “shall not be infringed”.. not “shall not be prevented”. This was to prevent hegemony against the right through successive restriction.

But I know that if it becomes known that I have necessities that are scarce, I’m making myself a target. That is the big reason I’m thinking of home defense.

Are any other non gun owners thinking similar thoughts?

I am more concerned about the government than the citizenry. Usually the citizens pull together in time of trouble while the government is more concerned about maintaining its authority..

[ucodegen]

1) If I obtain a gun now legally and violence and unrest occurs, I expect the government to seize my firearm. I might also face an undesired level of scrutiny for having even registered a firearm in the past.

Correct. Interesting side note, in the plans that Nazi Germany had for taking over a country by subversion, a section included locating those members of a the said country who had gun ownership and removing the firearms by any means possible, including trumped up charges. The other part was to subvert those in charge – ie blackmail, threats etc.. and if those are not effective, make them vanish.

2) If I obtain an illegal gun now so the government won’t know who to confiscate it from, I am making myself a criminal now which I don’t want.

Or learn to be a gunsmith.. so you can make one if the need every arrives. This way you don’t break the ‘registration’ of the firearm and get yourself in trouble that way… even though ‘registration’ is technically unconstitutional. It infringes on the right by requiring an action in order to own a firearm. The 2nd amendment says “shall not be infringed”.. not “shall not be prevented”. This was to prevent hegemony against the right through successive restriction.

But I know that if it becomes known that I have necessities that are scarce, I’m making myself a target. That is the big reason I’m thinking of home defense.

Are any other non gun owners thinking similar thoughts?

I am more concerned about the government than the citizenry. Usually the citizens pull together in time of trouble while the government is more concerned about maintaining its authority..

[ucodegen]

1) If I obtain a gun now legally and violence and unrest occurs, I expect the government to seize my firearm. I might also face an undesired level of scrutiny for having even registered a firearm in the past.

Correct. Interesting side note, in the plans that Nazi Germany had for taking over a country by subversion, a section included locating those members of a the said country who had gun ownership and removing the firearms by any means possible, including trumped up charges. The other part was to subvert those in charge – ie blackmail, threats etc.. and if those are not effective, make them vanish.

2) If I obtain an illegal gun now so the government won’t know who to confiscate it from, I am making myself a criminal now which I don’t want.

Or learn to be a gunsmith.. so you can make one if the need every arrives. This way you don’t break the ‘registration’ of the firearm and get yourself in trouble that way… even though ‘registration’ is technically unconstitutional. It infringes on the right by requiring an action in order to own a firearm. The 2nd amendment says “shall not be infringed”.. not “shall not be prevented”. This was to prevent hegemony against the right through successive restriction.

But I know that if it becomes known that I have necessities that are scarce, I’m making myself a target. That is the big reason I’m thinking of home defense.

Are any other non gun owners thinking similar thoughts?

I am more concerned about the government than the citizenry. Usually the citizens pull together in time of trouble while the government is more concerned about maintaining its authority..

[ucodegen]

1) If I obtain a gun now legally and violence and unrest occurs, I expect the government to seize my firearm. I might also face an undesired level of scrutiny for having even registered a firearm in the past.

Correct. Interesting side note, in the plans that Nazi Germany had for taking over a country by subversion, a section included locating those members of a the said country who had gun ownership and removing the firearms by any means possible, including trumped up charges. The other part was to subvert those in charge – ie blackmail, threats etc.. and if those are not effective, make them vanish.

2) If I obtain an illegal gun now so the government won’t know who to confiscate it from, I am making myself a criminal now which I don’t want.

Or learn to be a gunsmith.. so you can make one if the need every arrives. This way you don’t break the ‘registration’ of the firearm and get yourself in trouble that way… even though ‘registration’ is technically unconstitutional. It infringes on the right by requiring an action in order to own a firearm. The 2nd amendment says “shall not be infringed”.. not “shall not be prevented”. This was to prevent hegemony against the right through successive restriction.

But I know that if it becomes known that I have necessities that are scarce, I’m making myself a target. That is the big reason I’m thinking of home defense.

Are any other non gun owners thinking similar thoughts?

I am more concerned about the government than the citizenry. Usually the citizens pull together in time of trouble while the government is more concerned about maintaining its authority..

[ucodegen]

The Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act of 2007 is a bill sponsored by Rep. Jane Harman (D-CA)[1][2][3] in the 110th United States Congress. Its stated purpose is to deal with “homegrown terrorism and violent radicalization”[4] by establishing a national commission, establishing a center for study, and cooperating with other nations.

The bill defines some terms including “violent radicalization,” “homegrown terrorism,” and “ideologically based violence,”[8] which have provoked controversy from some quarters. [9][10][11][12]

So are you a terrorist/or radicalized if you do not like the way things are going, if you feel that the voice of the average citizen has been marginalized, if you feel that there are what seem like coordinated efforts to disenfranchise the existing voters to the effect of keeping the existing power base in power? This is getting to be a very slippery slope.

The government has to remember that it is to respond to and for the service of the citizenry (as a whole and not for any one specific to the detriment of another specific group) and not the other way around. The real purpose of the 1st amendment is to allow the citizenry to know what their government is doing, free from government tampering. The real purpose of the 2nd amendment is to allow the people to take their government back should it decide to ‘run itself’ to the benefit of itself and the detriment of its citizens. It has to be remembered that the colonists were just fresh from/in the process of throwing off the bonds of Imperial England and were quite aware of why they were able to. They wanted the citizens of America to repeat the process if the situation was ever repeated.

I am not the tinfoil hat type: but remember that the government ‘finds the facts’ against you in a criminal case (prosecution), and runs the judicial system that judges you.. all with your dollars. No one but you pays to defend you against those charges (except in the case of public defenders.. with can also be a problematic because the relation with the prosecutors office can be nepotistic). There is no real cost for them to prosecute an unsubstantiated case against you(with your dollars).. but there is definitely a cost to you, to defend yourself against such a case.

1st and 2nd amendments are the bulwarks against such systematic abuse. Hopefully we never get to the state where we really need to use what the 2nd amendment allows us. I would really hate to see that day. Even worse would be to give up the guarantees of the 2nd amendment in the name of perceived safety.. only to need its guarantee later. (Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety. – Benjamin Franklin)

[ucodegen]

The Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act of 2007 is a bill sponsored by Rep. Jane Harman (D-CA)[1][2][3] in the 110th United States Congress. Its stated purpose is to deal with “homegrown terrorism and violent radicalization”[4] by establishing a national commission, establishing a center for study, and cooperating with other nations.

The bill defines some terms including “violent radicalization,” “homegrown terrorism,” and “ideologically based violence,”[8] which have provoked controversy from some quarters. [9][10][11][12]

So are you a terrorist/or radicalized if you do not like the way things are going, if you feel that the voice of the average citizen has been marginalized, if you feel that there are what seem like coordinated efforts to disenfranchise the existing voters to the effect of keeping the existing power base in power? This is getting to be a very slippery slope.

The government has to remember that it is to respond to and for the service of the citizenry (as a whole and not for any one specific to the detriment of another specific group) and not the other way around. The real purpose of the 1st amendment is to allow the citizenry to know what their government is doing, free from government tampering. The real purpose of the 2nd amendment is to allow the people to take their government back should it decide to ‘run itself’ to the benefit of itself and the detriment of its citizens. It has to be remembered that the colonists were just fresh from/in the process of throwing off the bonds of Imperial England and were quite aware of why they were able to. They wanted the citizens of America to repeat the process if the situation was ever repeated.

I am not the tinfoil hat type: but remember that the government ‘finds the facts’ against you in a criminal case (prosecution), and runs the judicial system that judges you.. all with your dollars. No one but you pays to defend you against those charges (except in the case of public defenders.. with can also be a problematic because the relation with the prosecutors office can be nepotistic). There is no real cost for them to prosecute an unsubstantiated case against you(with your dollars).. but there is definitely a cost to you, to defend yourself against such a case.

1st and 2nd amendments are the bulwarks against such systematic abuse. Hopefully we never get to the state where we really need to use what the 2nd amendment allows us. I would really hate to see that day. Even worse would be to give up the guarantees of the 2nd amendment in the name of perceived safety.. only to need its guarantee later. (Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety. – Benjamin Franklin)

[Author]

Posts