beowulf

Members
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Content

    5,102

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Feedback

    0%

Posts posted by beowulf

  2. regulator

    ***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.



    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.

  4. SkyCoi

    If it's a loaded weapons, unless it's on my person it's secured. People come into my house all the time for a variety of reasons - it's not just kids that I'm worried about. Perhaps you haven't noticed, but people are ridiculously stupid sometimes.

    Beowolf, did you mount the Nanovault in your vehicle or is it lose? Looks like it comes with a security cable that can be secured to something?



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

  7. 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.

  9. turtlespeed

    ***

    Yes and no
    They are upset for good reason but I think when they have control of the Senate they won't reverse it.



    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.

  11. 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.

  12. kallend

    ***************It's politics as usual :S.

    The whole nuclear option thing is bullshit anyway. It seems that a simple majority was how things were done for most of the time that we've had houses of Congress; this whole filibuster-as-normal thing started fairly recently.

    Wendy P.



    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.

  13. kallend

    *********It's politics as usual :S.

    The whole nuclear option thing is bullshit anyway. It seems that a simple majority was how things were done for most of the time that we've had houses of Congress; this whole filibuster-as-normal thing started fairly recently.

    Wendy P.



    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.

  14. wmw999

    It's politics as usual :S.

    The whole nuclear option thing is bullshit anyway. It seems that a simple majority was how things were done for most of the time that we've had houses of Congress; this whole filibuster-as-normal thing started fairly recently.

    Wendy P.



    The majority rule is not always right.

  15. Quote

    SEN. HARRY REID (D-NV): "As majority leader, I intend to run the Senate with respect for the rules and for the minority rights the rules protect. The Senate was not established to be efficient. Sometimes the rules get in the way of efficiency. The Senate was established to make sure that minorities are protected. Majorities can always protect themselves, but minorities cannot. That is what the Senate is all about. For more than 200 years, the rules of the Senate have protected the American people, and rightfully so. The need to muster 60 votes in order to terminate Senate debate naturally frustrates the majority and oftentimes the minority. I am sure it will frustrate me when I assume the office of majority leader in a few weeks. But I recognize this requirement is a tool that serves the long-term interest of the Senate and the American people and our country."

    -Senator Harry Reid, Congressional Record, S.11591, 12/8/06)

  16. funjumper101

    ******It's politics as usual :S.

    The whole nuclear option thing is bullshit anyway. It seems that a simple majority was how things were done for most of the time that we've had houses of Congress; this whole filibuster-as-normal thing started fairly recently.

    Wendy P.



    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?

  17. kallend

    ******It's politics as usual :S.

    The whole nuclear option thing is bullshit anyway. It seems that a simple majority was how things were done for most of the time that we've had houses of Congress; this whole filibuster-as-normal thing started fairly recently.

    Wendy P.



    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.

  18. wmw999

    It's politics as usual :S.

    The whole nuclear option thing is bullshit anyway. It seems that a simple majority was how things were done for most of the time that we've had houses of Congress; this whole filibuster-as-normal thing started fairly recently.

    Wendy P.



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

  20. 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?

    Quote


    http://www.sovereignman.com/finance/check-out-the-feds-dismal-track-record-12924/
    Check out the Fed's dismal track record

    As we’re coming up on the 100th anniversary of the establishment of Federal Reserve, one thing has become abundantly clear– these guys are horrible at their jobs.

    According to the popular lie, the Federal Reserve was supposed to have been established to smooth out the economic cycle, thus preventing booms, busts, recessions, and depressions.

    It hasn’t really worked out that way.

    In the 100 years prior to the establishment of the Federal Reserve, there were 18 distinct recessions or depressions:

    1815, 1822, 1825, 1828, 1833, 1836, 1839, 1845, 1847, 1853, 1860, 1865, 1869, 1873, 1887, 1890, 1899, and 1902.

    Since the establishment of the Federal Reserve, there have been 18 recessions or depressions:

    1918, 1920, 1923, 1926, 1929, 1937, 1945, 1949, 1953, 1958, 1960, 1969, 1973, 1980, 1981, 1990, 2001, 2008.

    So in other words, the economy experienced just as many recessions with the ‘expert’ management of the Federal Reserve as without it.

    And this doesn’t even begin to capture all the absurd panics (the S&L scare), bailouts (Long-Term Capital Management), and ridiculous asset bubbles that they’ve created.

    Hardly an impressive enough track record to justify conjuring trillions of dollars out of thin air, and awarding nearly totalitarian control of the money supply and economy to a tiny banking elite… wouldn’t you say?

  21. kelpdiver

    ***

    Quote

    your reply was that ratios didn't matter, that 17T is just too big.



    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.

  22. Quote

    your reply was that ratios didn't matter, that 17T is just too big.



    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.

  23. kelpdiver

    ***
    When the debt is $17 Trillion the size of the US economy is irrelevant. There is no way the Government will ever begin to pay down the principal. If any individual had a similar debt to income ratio they would have long since declared bankruptcy.



    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.

  24. chutem

    How "poor" would the US have to get before it becomes a conquering nation that takes what it wants/needs? Will we go from world's police to world's bully?



    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.