My question is... how the hell did someone armor up a semi to the point that such a thing was needed o0;
easy steel plate(available almost everywhere) and some facility with a welder(available almost everywhere)
The irony is that a guy driving around with steel plating on his car sees it shot, but if a guy drives around with guns strapped to his car, that is perfectly legal: Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! These ones are by a company in Texas. Condition Zero Mounts are a product of Gunner Fabrication, headquartered in Kerrville, Texas. We design and manufacture a wide variety of products for those who prefer the convenience and confidence that comes with having the perfect mounting solution for their firearm. Launched in 2013, we’re proud to use American design, manufacturing, and materials. We believe strongly that a properly mounted and secured firearm gives you the best chance of using that firearm effectively. We’ve all seen the effects of having a firearm that was not available to the user when it mattered, and the risks that come with having a loaded firearm floating around your console or glove compartment. In the field, on the road, or wherever you need fast and secure access, we know that our customers are Never More Ready™ than with Condition Zero Mounts. Apparently, some believe driving in America is like driving through a Mogadishu during 'Black Hawk Down'.. I'll take the guy with the plated truck smashing into cars over any yahoo that would strap guns to their cars on any day, thanks.
It was my understanding that to carry your firearm in your vehicle, it had to be "safely and securely stashed" , with some caveats: http://smartgunlaws.org/guns-in-vehicles-in-pennsylvania/
Did you check your source? I became curious at this answer and I could not find the example, but I dont remember what state you are in so I couldnt search with that parameter. I remember this one and saw it on the news: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marvin_Heemeyer But that was a bulldozer. This one happened in cal but there was no shot through the engine: http://articles.latimes.com/2001/jan/18/news/mn-13625 This one police did stop after a while, but again, it wasnt a shot through the block: http://newsok.com/120-mile-chase-ends-trucks-traffic-rampage/article/2533365/?page=1 Point is I am skeptical of his story and am looking for some kind of confirmation. EDIT: Reading your post #24 I decided to search with pennsylvania. Here is the story: http://6abc.com/news/tractor-trailer-chase-ends-with-police-gunfire-in-montco/354244/ Again, not as the cop described to you but may be the reference incident.
The person I was talking to was an officer, but not one of the patrol officers - he was on each if the trainers (had formerly been part of the investigative force) - it's possible he was embellishing though - it wasn't someone I personally knew Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Thanks for the clarification. ...embellishing is a nice way to put it (and not a reflection on you).... It just bothers me the way we have militarized the police. And I dont like the police misleading the public when asked questions.
No right granted by the U.S. Constitution is superior to other enumerated rights, and this includes the freedom to practice your religion or the right to bear arms. If you use your right to bear arms to suppress my freedom of expression, that is as bad as using the freedom of religion to avoid paying taxes or affording competent medical care to your own children, or endangering public safety by refusing to vaccinate them or even teach them the truth about basic history like the reasons for the American civil war. When deadly force is needed for law enforcement authorized by that same Constitution against individuals who arm themselves with an intent to suppress or take away those other rights and freedoms from their neighbors, I support that effort 300%. This is the "well regulated militia" that is empowered by the Constitution, not a cadre of right wing nut cases flying a different flag, entrenched in their survivalist bunkers prepared for the worst and armed to the teeth. A system of laws not uniformly enforced is as bad as any other unbalanced approach, which includes anarchy. Laws which do not serve the best interests of everyone serves no one.
I bought a rifle years back after my time in the military. I took it to the range once; otherwise it stood in the corner of my closet gathering dust. I found that I had no real need for a gun, so I sold mine. Now, I haven't a problem with other people owning guns, but for me, there was no practical purpose in owning a gun.
It's dangerous to confuse the police with militia, or any other armed force. It leads to the militarization of the police, which creates a de facto army of occupation. That will not lead to good enforcement of the law, in the occupied communities. Police enforce laws, armies break them. They are on opposite sides, in a well governed civilization.
maybe We already have more than enough civilian gun control. Ruby Ridge, Waco.........................."coming to a town near you soon". Is another Janet Reno waiting in the wings? Or, do we pin those on Bill Clinton? Would Hillary be more of the same? Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
The US has a weird-ass gun culture. Even if the gov't started now with serious gun control, it would take a 100 years to undo this crap. It's almost useless to try. So, I say, what the heck . . . . . . let's arm everyone. Children should get their first weapon, maybe a derringer, when they go to kindergarten -- if they are really stupid or insane, they should be given their first weapon sooner, say when entering pre-school. Of course, home-schooled children can have their first weapon even earlier -- old enough to hold a spoon -- old enough to have a gun. Entry into HS should be AR-15 or AK-47 time -- they deserve it.
Good point. That could prevent accidents like this: ====================== CBS/AP April 20, 2014, 3:42 PM Utah boy, 2, shot and killed by 3-year-old sister LOGAN, Utah - A 2-year-old Utah boy has died after being accidentally shot by his 3-year-old sister with a rifle. Cache County sheriff's Lt. Mike Peterson says the boy was shot in the stomach with a .22-caliber rifle Friday evening in the family's home in College Ward. "The gun had been used earlier in the day by the victim's father and was set down after returning home," said Cache County Sheriff's Lt. Mike Peterson, according to CBS affiliate KUTV in Salt Lake City. "The gun was in an unloaded state but did have live rounds in the magazine. We believe the three-year-old had to manipulate the action enough to chamber a live round prior to the incident occurring." All family members were home and the boy's mother immediately called for assistance. ======================= Had the 2 year old have been armed, he could have dropped the shooter before she was able to shoot him.
Exactly. And so what if a child accidentally kills a half-dozen or so of his classmates by the time he is ten years old, these will be mainly off-set by the ones he kills on purpose, you know, for pissing him off on the playground.
Well, that's their own damn fault. If his classmates had been armed, he would have been stopped long before the second killing.
Seriously, how horrible does it have to get? If some sick bastard can go into an elementary school (Sandy Hook, CT) and kill 20 children and 6 staff members and nothing in this country changes, then what's there to do? Nothing. That was almost three years ago. As far as guns are concerned, and the mentality surrounding ownership, this country is f**ked. "Happiness is a warm gun."
At this point, we can identify one single institution as the cause of the intractability of our gun problem: the National Rifle Assholes. They provide immense campaign contributions to congressional candidates who support the status quo (i.e., the average American has the same probability of the cause of his death being a gunshot, as of it being a road accident) and lobby fiercely against anti-gun candidates. There is considerable antipathy toward the NRA. Perhaps after a few more years of high-profile shootings, the pendulum will swing the other way.
You're posting abut a psychology problem, not a gun problem. Universal health care would most likely be a more efficacious approach. But then, we would be interfering with the profit motive of the pigs.
NRA dudes on a science site. Whoda thunk it? Let me guess: you also don't believe in man-made global warming. That would fit right in the general thought patterns of an NRA man.
