beowulf

That is an unfortunate situation and why I have a weapon mounted light for my rifle and one of my handguns. Also I don't have any children. Fortunately that doesn't happen all that often.

Thank you. In my chl class I was told that even if you defend your life by shooting but injure someone else by the bullet hitting them too I would be liable. So always consider your angles and if possible try to shoot upwards if possible. I don't know if you have ever been in a street fight or not. But one of my favorite quotes is "Everyone has a plan till they get punched in the face." It's paraphrased from Mike Tyson. Anyway reality is so much different then what you think will happen. You just have to do what have to, to stay alive and keep your self and loved ones safe. If you can watch your background then do so. But things can go sideways really fast and all you can do is react. Also if you just happen to wound your attacker you may have to defend yourself in criminal and civil court even if you were in the right. It all depends on the District Attorney. If the DA drops it you can still be sued in Civil court. If you kill the attacker then the family may sue, even if the DA decides not to. As always the best option it to avoid having to shoot anyone. Using your firearm is the last resort when life is on the line.

If you are going to carry regularly you should seriously consider Texas Law Shield. http://www.uslawshield.com/texas/ Being pushed to the last resort of having to shoot someone to defend your life or a loved one can ruin your life financially.

I just use the security cable. Like I said it's not used all that often.

http://youtu.be/vIJFQO4DIxw I consider my Nanovault to not be all that secure. But it's better then just putting it in the glove box. Also I rarely leave my carry gun in my car.

Took me a little bit but I found the link for mounting a holster under your seat. I saw this at a gun show. Looks pretty good if you drive a lot. http://www.accufireproducts.com/gunsling-r.html

For those rare times that I have to leave my carry gun in my vehicle I use a Nanovault. You are better off carrying concealed then just keeping it in your car. After trying a couple of different concealed carry holsters I have settled on the hybrid holsters like Galco KingTuk and the Crossbreed holsters. I think keeping a firearm in your car makes it much more likely to be stolen, no matter what it's stored in. Wanted to add that considering we are both in the same state, the rules are pretty much the same for both of us. There are very few places I go that I can't legally carry. All of the lock boxes can be broken into given enough time and the fact that your vehicle can be stolen they would have plenty of time to break in. The biometric lock boxes are pretty easy to break into. Look it up on youtube, I have seen a couple of videos demonstrating how easy they are to defeat.

http://www.policymic.com/open-mic/healthcare/67/they-want-you-to-think-this-is-complicated-it-s-really-not-let-competition-work

The out going senate, if they lose power will reverse it, in the lame duck session, before they leave office. That might happen, but unfortunately the precedent has been set. So now it makes it more likely that a Senate in the future will decide to change it back when they feel the need to do so.

Yeah I know I wasn't that specific.

Are you directing this question to me? I have never voted for either of those parties. What the Democrats have done is make it so the minority party can't filibuster at all now. Now as long as the Democrats can muster a simple majority they can pass anything they want through the Senate except nominations for the Supreme court.

Fillibuster has been around a long time. It's nothing new. Over 200 years worth in one fashion or another And it has been used and abused by both sides for just as long If the rule change is so bad, I look forward to its being reversed next time the GOP has a majority in the Senate. They can vote for that on day 1 after the new Senators are sworn in. They can then put their votes where their mouths are and prove to us that they are not hypocrites. That is pathetic. Both Republicans and Democrats have wanted to do this. So far only the Democrats have been so bold as to actually do it. It's unlikely that it will ever be reversed. Why? Because when the Republicans are in office they will abuse it just like the Democrats who started this will abuse it now. Clearly you believe that the GOP whining and wailing today is just hypocrisy, then. Yes and no They are upset for good reason but I think when they have control of the Senate they won't reverse it.

Fillibuster has been around a long time. It's nothing new. Over 200 years worth in one fashion or another And it has been used and abused by both sides for just as long If the rule change is so bad, I look forward to its being reversed next time the GOP has a majority in the Senate. They can vote for that on day 1 after the new Senators are sworn in. They can then put their votes where their mouths are and prove to us that they are not hypocrites. That is pathetic. Both Republicans and Democrats have wanted to do this. So far only the Democrats have been so bold as to actually do it. It's unlikely that it will ever be reversed. Why? Because when the Republicans are in office they will abuse it just like the Democrats who started this will abuse it now.

The majority rule is not always right.

Fillibuster has been around a long time. It's nothing new. If you knew of the history and application of the filibuster, you would know that the gross abuse of the filibuster by the Republicans since 2009 is new. Very new. It has been a gross abuse of the Senate rules. The depth and breadth of RWC ignorance never fails. I am not a Republican. Are you really saying that the Democrat's never took advantage of these rules?

Fillibuster has been around a long time. It's nothing new. A real filibuster has been around long time. These blocking, obstructionist procedural moves are not filibusters and are fairly recent phenomena. They should be done away with, regardless of which party is in control. This is just a simple power grab for the Democrats. They don't like the rules so they change them when it suits them. When the shoe was on the other foot they objected.

Fillibuster has been around a long time. It's nothing new.

What Obama meant to say is you can keep your policy if he likes it. Otherwise you have to buy an Obama approved policy.

It was established Dec 23 1913. We are coming up to the 100 year anniversary. How did they do compared to the previous 100 years?

Yeah I think $17 Trillion is too big to deal with. But it's not just that. It's that there is no political will to even try to reduce spending or really begin to deal with the problem. All the politicians want to do is continue borrowing and printing endless amounts of money. Why? Because it's easy and so far it hasn't bitten them in the ass yet. Or at least they can't see how it's biting them in the ass. Politicians are only concerned with short term issues regarding political positioning and keeping their party in power and paying off their supporters. the will was there in the 90s. It involved both cuts and taxes. And we had a committee formed just a few years ago to do the same thing- unfortunately neither party (nor even the members of the committee) were willing to actually do it. Not really, spending never decreased to the point of zero deficit. I don't think increasing taxes is a good idea or would be successful. What they really need is drastic cuts in Federal spending. Whole departments need to be cut. Military spending needs to be cut significantly. Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid need to be drastically restructured. All subsidies need to be cut along with Foreign aid. None of this is anything any politician in office would even consider doing, but for the long term fiscal health of the country it needs to be done.

Yeah I think $17 Trillion is too big to deal with. But it's not just that. It's that there is no political will to even try to reduce spending or really begin to deal with the problem. All the politicians want to do is continue borrowing and printing endless amounts of money. Why? Because it's easy and so far it hasn't bitten them in the ass yet. Or at least they can't see how it's biting them in the ass. Politicians are only concerned with short term issues regarding political positioning and keeping their party in power and paying off their supporters.

I already told you that most first world nations have a higher debt to income ratio - your reply was that ratios didn't matter, that 17T is just too big. I don't think you understood what I said. Just because other countries have a higher debt to income ratio doesn't mean the US is in the clear or that there is no consequence for this debt. There is no one to bail out the US. The smaller countries have the US/ECB to bail them out. Japan has a far worse debt to income ratio and it will be very interesting to see the outcome there. It's going to be very ugly considering their demographics. I think we will see Japan suffer the consequences of their fiscal policies before the US.

We already are the worlds bully. One big dumb bully. That is my opinion. But any nation that thinks they have a right to kill or bomb people in foreign nations which is an act of war is a bully. How poor? I don't know. All I can see is the path we are following, not the end results.

Here some food for thought. China has been slowly positioning itself to capitalize on the US's irresponsible fiscal profligacy. If we don't change our path we will likely become a very poor nation. Unfortunately I don't see any politician having the balls or the backing to make the hard decisions that need to be made. http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2013-10-18/9-signs-china-making-move-against-us-dollar