Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
#3401
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
Approximately 11/5/03 22:54, David J. Allen uttered for posterity:
> "Gerald G. McGeorge" <gmcgeorgenospam@frontier.net> wrote in message
> news:bobs8601b26@enews3.newsguy.com...
>> > 1976. and the required MPG level didn't reach critical levels until the
>> mid 1980s. <
>>
>> Right, and to achieve this result mfrs had to "downsize" all their cars.
>> However this put drivers at much elevated risk of death & serious injury,
>> even the Clinton-era NHTSA reported findings that concluded the forced
>> downsizing resulted in the unnecessary deaths of nearly 20,000 people.
> They
>> concluded the increases in milage achieved by weight reduction could have
>> been easily achieved through powertrain management systems that by the
> time
>> of thewir report, 2000, were already in production. You cn stick the
> entire
>> fiasco on the backs of liberals like Hopward Metzenbaum of Ohio (who gave
>> us the 55 mph speed limit... remember THAT fiasco?) and that @$$#01e Joan
>> Claybrook.
>
> I can't count how many trips I've taken back then going up the California
> central valley or across the Nevada desert with 55mph signs posted all the
> way. Of course, no one ever really drove 55 on those roads. I think the
> only effect that law had was to raise the blood pressure and stress level of
> millions of drivers, not to mention a permanent crick in your neck due to
> checking the rear view mirror so often.
>
According to NHTSA it also lead to a pronounced increase in single
vehicle accidents on rural highways. Presumed cause that of the
driver falling asleep due to the sheer boredom of toodling across
Nebraska, Nevada, etc. at a mind-numbingly slow 55 or similar mph.
I don't recall if Nevada actually went along with the 55 mph limit,
initially they and Montana "declined the honor". Montana finally
posted a 55 mph speed, but the fine was a trivial amount for wasting
a natural resource and was distinctly not a speeding ticket or
points on a drivers license. Think Nevada caved, but then did
extremely light enforcement.
--
My governor can kick your governor's ***
> "Gerald G. McGeorge" <gmcgeorgenospam@frontier.net> wrote in message
> news:bobs8601b26@enews3.newsguy.com...
>> > 1976. and the required MPG level didn't reach critical levels until the
>> mid 1980s. <
>>
>> Right, and to achieve this result mfrs had to "downsize" all their cars.
>> However this put drivers at much elevated risk of death & serious injury,
>> even the Clinton-era NHTSA reported findings that concluded the forced
>> downsizing resulted in the unnecessary deaths of nearly 20,000 people.
> They
>> concluded the increases in milage achieved by weight reduction could have
>> been easily achieved through powertrain management systems that by the
> time
>> of thewir report, 2000, were already in production. You cn stick the
> entire
>> fiasco on the backs of liberals like Hopward Metzenbaum of Ohio (who gave
>> us the 55 mph speed limit... remember THAT fiasco?) and that @$$#01e Joan
>> Claybrook.
>
> I can't count how many trips I've taken back then going up the California
> central valley or across the Nevada desert with 55mph signs posted all the
> way. Of course, no one ever really drove 55 on those roads. I think the
> only effect that law had was to raise the blood pressure and stress level of
> millions of drivers, not to mention a permanent crick in your neck due to
> checking the rear view mirror so often.
>
According to NHTSA it also lead to a pronounced increase in single
vehicle accidents on rural highways. Presumed cause that of the
driver falling asleep due to the sheer boredom of toodling across
Nebraska, Nevada, etc. at a mind-numbingly slow 55 or similar mph.
I don't recall if Nevada actually went along with the 55 mph limit,
initially they and Montana "declined the honor". Montana finally
posted a 55 mph speed, but the fine was a trivial amount for wasting
a natural resource and was distinctly not a speeding ticket or
points on a drivers license. Think Nevada caved, but then did
extremely light enforcement.
--
My governor can kick your governor's ***
#3402
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
Approximately 11/5/03 22:54, David J. Allen uttered for posterity:
> "Gerald G. McGeorge" <gmcgeorgenospam@frontier.net> wrote in message
> news:bobs8601b26@enews3.newsguy.com...
>> > 1976. and the required MPG level didn't reach critical levels until the
>> mid 1980s. <
>>
>> Right, and to achieve this result mfrs had to "downsize" all their cars.
>> However this put drivers at much elevated risk of death & serious injury,
>> even the Clinton-era NHTSA reported findings that concluded the forced
>> downsizing resulted in the unnecessary deaths of nearly 20,000 people.
> They
>> concluded the increases in milage achieved by weight reduction could have
>> been easily achieved through powertrain management systems that by the
> time
>> of thewir report, 2000, were already in production. You cn stick the
> entire
>> fiasco on the backs of liberals like Hopward Metzenbaum of Ohio (who gave
>> us the 55 mph speed limit... remember THAT fiasco?) and that @$$#01e Joan
>> Claybrook.
>
> I can't count how many trips I've taken back then going up the California
> central valley or across the Nevada desert with 55mph signs posted all the
> way. Of course, no one ever really drove 55 on those roads. I think the
> only effect that law had was to raise the blood pressure and stress level of
> millions of drivers, not to mention a permanent crick in your neck due to
> checking the rear view mirror so often.
>
According to NHTSA it also lead to a pronounced increase in single
vehicle accidents on rural highways. Presumed cause that of the
driver falling asleep due to the sheer boredom of toodling across
Nebraska, Nevada, etc. at a mind-numbingly slow 55 or similar mph.
I don't recall if Nevada actually went along with the 55 mph limit,
initially they and Montana "declined the honor". Montana finally
posted a 55 mph speed, but the fine was a trivial amount for wasting
a natural resource and was distinctly not a speeding ticket or
points on a drivers license. Think Nevada caved, but then did
extremely light enforcement.
--
My governor can kick your governor's ***
> "Gerald G. McGeorge" <gmcgeorgenospam@frontier.net> wrote in message
> news:bobs8601b26@enews3.newsguy.com...
>> > 1976. and the required MPG level didn't reach critical levels until the
>> mid 1980s. <
>>
>> Right, and to achieve this result mfrs had to "downsize" all their cars.
>> However this put drivers at much elevated risk of death & serious injury,
>> even the Clinton-era NHTSA reported findings that concluded the forced
>> downsizing resulted in the unnecessary deaths of nearly 20,000 people.
> They
>> concluded the increases in milage achieved by weight reduction could have
>> been easily achieved through powertrain management systems that by the
> time
>> of thewir report, 2000, were already in production. You cn stick the
> entire
>> fiasco on the backs of liberals like Hopward Metzenbaum of Ohio (who gave
>> us the 55 mph speed limit... remember THAT fiasco?) and that @$$#01e Joan
>> Claybrook.
>
> I can't count how many trips I've taken back then going up the California
> central valley or across the Nevada desert with 55mph signs posted all the
> way. Of course, no one ever really drove 55 on those roads. I think the
> only effect that law had was to raise the blood pressure and stress level of
> millions of drivers, not to mention a permanent crick in your neck due to
> checking the rear view mirror so often.
>
According to NHTSA it also lead to a pronounced increase in single
vehicle accidents on rural highways. Presumed cause that of the
driver falling asleep due to the sheer boredom of toodling across
Nebraska, Nevada, etc. at a mind-numbingly slow 55 or similar mph.
I don't recall if Nevada actually went along with the 55 mph limit,
initially they and Montana "declined the honor". Montana finally
posted a 55 mph speed, but the fine was a trivial amount for wasting
a natural resource and was distinctly not a speeding ticket or
points on a drivers license. Think Nevada caved, but then did
extremely light enforcement.
--
My governor can kick your governor's ***
#3403
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
Approximately 11/5/03 22:54, David J. Allen uttered for posterity:
> "Gerald G. McGeorge" <gmcgeorgenospam@frontier.net> wrote in message
> news:bobs8601b26@enews3.newsguy.com...
>> > 1976. and the required MPG level didn't reach critical levels until the
>> mid 1980s. <
>>
>> Right, and to achieve this result mfrs had to "downsize" all their cars.
>> However this put drivers at much elevated risk of death & serious injury,
>> even the Clinton-era NHTSA reported findings that concluded the forced
>> downsizing resulted in the unnecessary deaths of nearly 20,000 people.
> They
>> concluded the increases in milage achieved by weight reduction could have
>> been easily achieved through powertrain management systems that by the
> time
>> of thewir report, 2000, were already in production. You cn stick the
> entire
>> fiasco on the backs of liberals like Hopward Metzenbaum of Ohio (who gave
>> us the 55 mph speed limit... remember THAT fiasco?) and that @$$#01e Joan
>> Claybrook.
>
> I can't count how many trips I've taken back then going up the California
> central valley or across the Nevada desert with 55mph signs posted all the
> way. Of course, no one ever really drove 55 on those roads. I think the
> only effect that law had was to raise the blood pressure and stress level of
> millions of drivers, not to mention a permanent crick in your neck due to
> checking the rear view mirror so often.
>
According to NHTSA it also lead to a pronounced increase in single
vehicle accidents on rural highways. Presumed cause that of the
driver falling asleep due to the sheer boredom of toodling across
Nebraska, Nevada, etc. at a mind-numbingly slow 55 or similar mph.
I don't recall if Nevada actually went along with the 55 mph limit,
initially they and Montana "declined the honor". Montana finally
posted a 55 mph speed, but the fine was a trivial amount for wasting
a natural resource and was distinctly not a speeding ticket or
points on a drivers license. Think Nevada caved, but then did
extremely light enforcement.
--
My governor can kick your governor's ***
> "Gerald G. McGeorge" <gmcgeorgenospam@frontier.net> wrote in message
> news:bobs8601b26@enews3.newsguy.com...
>> > 1976. and the required MPG level didn't reach critical levels until the
>> mid 1980s. <
>>
>> Right, and to achieve this result mfrs had to "downsize" all their cars.
>> However this put drivers at much elevated risk of death & serious injury,
>> even the Clinton-era NHTSA reported findings that concluded the forced
>> downsizing resulted in the unnecessary deaths of nearly 20,000 people.
> They
>> concluded the increases in milage achieved by weight reduction could have
>> been easily achieved through powertrain management systems that by the
> time
>> of thewir report, 2000, were already in production. You cn stick the
> entire
>> fiasco on the backs of liberals like Hopward Metzenbaum of Ohio (who gave
>> us the 55 mph speed limit... remember THAT fiasco?) and that @$$#01e Joan
>> Claybrook.
>
> I can't count how many trips I've taken back then going up the California
> central valley or across the Nevada desert with 55mph signs posted all the
> way. Of course, no one ever really drove 55 on those roads. I think the
> only effect that law had was to raise the blood pressure and stress level of
> millions of drivers, not to mention a permanent crick in your neck due to
> checking the rear view mirror so often.
>
According to NHTSA it also lead to a pronounced increase in single
vehicle accidents on rural highways. Presumed cause that of the
driver falling asleep due to the sheer boredom of toodling across
Nebraska, Nevada, etc. at a mind-numbingly slow 55 or similar mph.
I don't recall if Nevada actually went along with the 55 mph limit,
initially they and Montana "declined the honor". Montana finally
posted a 55 mph speed, but the fine was a trivial amount for wasting
a natural resource and was distinctly not a speeding ticket or
points on a drivers license. Think Nevada caved, but then did
extremely light enforcement.
--
My governor can kick your governor's ***
#3404
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
"Lloyd Parker" <lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu> wrote in message
news:boe5bg$i0q$5@puck.cc.emory.edu...
> In article <Sicqb.54272$Ub4.8985@twister.socal.rr.com>,
> "David J. Allen" <dallen03NO_SPAM@sanNO_SPAM.rr.com> wrote:
> >
> >> > Joe wrote:
> >> >
> >> > > "Nature doesn't extinguish fires started by lightening "
> >> > > if this were true, there would be no vegitation on the planet. It
> >would
> >> > > have burned off long before humans showed up.
> >> >
> >> > OK, you got me. I should have said something like "nature lets fires
> >burn
> >> until
> >> > rain storms put them out and doesn't fight them just becasue they are
in
> >> > national forests or near populated areas or becasue they dump lots of
> >> pollution
> >> > into the environment." But I bet you understood what I menat in the
> >first
> >> > place....didn't you?
> >> >
> >> > Ed
> >> >
> >>
> >> What about all those greenhouse gasses that the fires have spewed into
the
> >> air? Does that mean that the environmental groups that blocked any
> >thinning
> >> of the forests are responsible for releasing all that CO2 and
contributing
> >> to global warming. Its certainly put more CO2 into the air than my
little
> >> truck ever will or has in the 11 years I've owned it.
> >>
> >>
> >
> >I was thinking the same thing when I went out to get the paper on Sunday
> >morning and saw plumes of smoke the size of thunderheads all the way
across
> >the horizon. There aren't enough SUV's in the world.... NO!.... in
history
> >to put out the amount of greenhouse gases being released in one day! The
> >whole SUV/Greenhouse gases thing is a canard.
> >
> >Ironically, one of the reasons SUV's are so popular is the supply of
large
> >cars with powerful engines were so restricted starting with the1973 CAFE
> >regulations.
> >
> >
> Humans put out more CO2 than nature by several orders of magnitude.
Prove it.
#3405
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
"Lloyd Parker" <lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu> wrote in message
news:boe5bg$i0q$5@puck.cc.emory.edu...
> In article <Sicqb.54272$Ub4.8985@twister.socal.rr.com>,
> "David J. Allen" <dallen03NO_SPAM@sanNO_SPAM.rr.com> wrote:
> >
> >> > Joe wrote:
> >> >
> >> > > "Nature doesn't extinguish fires started by lightening "
> >> > > if this were true, there would be no vegitation on the planet. It
> >would
> >> > > have burned off long before humans showed up.
> >> >
> >> > OK, you got me. I should have said something like "nature lets fires
> >burn
> >> until
> >> > rain storms put them out and doesn't fight them just becasue they are
in
> >> > national forests or near populated areas or becasue they dump lots of
> >> pollution
> >> > into the environment." But I bet you understood what I menat in the
> >first
> >> > place....didn't you?
> >> >
> >> > Ed
> >> >
> >>
> >> What about all those greenhouse gasses that the fires have spewed into
the
> >> air? Does that mean that the environmental groups that blocked any
> >thinning
> >> of the forests are responsible for releasing all that CO2 and
contributing
> >> to global warming. Its certainly put more CO2 into the air than my
little
> >> truck ever will or has in the 11 years I've owned it.
> >>
> >>
> >
> >I was thinking the same thing when I went out to get the paper on Sunday
> >morning and saw plumes of smoke the size of thunderheads all the way
across
> >the horizon. There aren't enough SUV's in the world.... NO!.... in
history
> >to put out the amount of greenhouse gases being released in one day! The
> >whole SUV/Greenhouse gases thing is a canard.
> >
> >Ironically, one of the reasons SUV's are so popular is the supply of
large
> >cars with powerful engines were so restricted starting with the1973 CAFE
> >regulations.
> >
> >
> Humans put out more CO2 than nature by several orders of magnitude.
Prove it.
#3406
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
"Lloyd Parker" <lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu> wrote in message
news:boe5bg$i0q$5@puck.cc.emory.edu...
> In article <Sicqb.54272$Ub4.8985@twister.socal.rr.com>,
> "David J. Allen" <dallen03NO_SPAM@sanNO_SPAM.rr.com> wrote:
> >
> >> > Joe wrote:
> >> >
> >> > > "Nature doesn't extinguish fires started by lightening "
> >> > > if this were true, there would be no vegitation on the planet. It
> >would
> >> > > have burned off long before humans showed up.
> >> >
> >> > OK, you got me. I should have said something like "nature lets fires
> >burn
> >> until
> >> > rain storms put them out and doesn't fight them just becasue they are
in
> >> > national forests or near populated areas or becasue they dump lots of
> >> pollution
> >> > into the environment." But I bet you understood what I menat in the
> >first
> >> > place....didn't you?
> >> >
> >> > Ed
> >> >
> >>
> >> What about all those greenhouse gasses that the fires have spewed into
the
> >> air? Does that mean that the environmental groups that blocked any
> >thinning
> >> of the forests are responsible for releasing all that CO2 and
contributing
> >> to global warming. Its certainly put more CO2 into the air than my
little
> >> truck ever will or has in the 11 years I've owned it.
> >>
> >>
> >
> >I was thinking the same thing when I went out to get the paper on Sunday
> >morning and saw plumes of smoke the size of thunderheads all the way
across
> >the horizon. There aren't enough SUV's in the world.... NO!.... in
history
> >to put out the amount of greenhouse gases being released in one day! The
> >whole SUV/Greenhouse gases thing is a canard.
> >
> >Ironically, one of the reasons SUV's are so popular is the supply of
large
> >cars with powerful engines were so restricted starting with the1973 CAFE
> >regulations.
> >
> >
> Humans put out more CO2 than nature by several orders of magnitude.
Prove it.
#3407
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
"Lloyd Parker" <lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu> wrote in message
news:boe5a7$i0q$4@puck.cc.emory.edu...
> In article <hNbqb.10739$9M3.9268@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink .net>,
> "FDRanger92" <csu13081@nospammail.clayton.edu> wrote:
> >
> >"C. E. White" <cewhite3@mindspring.com> wrote in message
> >news:3FA900DF.A19031A2@mindspring.com...
> >>
> >>
> >> Joe wrote:
> >>
> >> > "Nature doesn't extinguish fires started by lightening "
> >> > if this were true, there would be no vegitation on the planet. It
would
> >> > have burned off long before humans showed up.
> >>
> >> OK, you got me. I should have said something like "nature lets fires
burn
> >until
> >> rain storms put them out and doesn't fight them just becasue they are
in
> >> national forests or near populated areas or becasue they dump lots of
> >pollution
> >> into the environment." But I bet you understood what I menat in the
first
> >> place....didn't you?
> >>
> >> Ed
> >>
> >
> >What about all those greenhouse gasses that the fires have spewed into
the
> >air? Does that mean that the environmental groups that blocked any
thinning
> >of the forests are responsible for releasing all that CO2 and
contributing
> >to global warming. Its certainly put more CO2 into the air than my little
> >truck ever will or has in the 11 years I've owned it.
> >
> >
> CO2 put into the air by nature has been in balance for millions of years.
> It's man changing this equilibrium that's the problem.
Totally false. I suggest you learn some science.
#3408
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
"Lloyd Parker" <lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu> wrote in message
news:boe5a7$i0q$4@puck.cc.emory.edu...
> In article <hNbqb.10739$9M3.9268@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink .net>,
> "FDRanger92" <csu13081@nospammail.clayton.edu> wrote:
> >
> >"C. E. White" <cewhite3@mindspring.com> wrote in message
> >news:3FA900DF.A19031A2@mindspring.com...
> >>
> >>
> >> Joe wrote:
> >>
> >> > "Nature doesn't extinguish fires started by lightening "
> >> > if this were true, there would be no vegitation on the planet. It
would
> >> > have burned off long before humans showed up.
> >>
> >> OK, you got me. I should have said something like "nature lets fires
burn
> >until
> >> rain storms put them out and doesn't fight them just becasue they are
in
> >> national forests or near populated areas or becasue they dump lots of
> >pollution
> >> into the environment." But I bet you understood what I menat in the
first
> >> place....didn't you?
> >>
> >> Ed
> >>
> >
> >What about all those greenhouse gasses that the fires have spewed into
the
> >air? Does that mean that the environmental groups that blocked any
thinning
> >of the forests are responsible for releasing all that CO2 and
contributing
> >to global warming. Its certainly put more CO2 into the air than my little
> >truck ever will or has in the 11 years I've owned it.
> >
> >
> CO2 put into the air by nature has been in balance for millions of years.
> It's man changing this equilibrium that's the problem.
Totally false. I suggest you learn some science.
#3409
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
"Lloyd Parker" <lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu> wrote in message
news:boe5a7$i0q$4@puck.cc.emory.edu...
> In article <hNbqb.10739$9M3.9268@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink .net>,
> "FDRanger92" <csu13081@nospammail.clayton.edu> wrote:
> >
> >"C. E. White" <cewhite3@mindspring.com> wrote in message
> >news:3FA900DF.A19031A2@mindspring.com...
> >>
> >>
> >> Joe wrote:
> >>
> >> > "Nature doesn't extinguish fires started by lightening "
> >> > if this were true, there would be no vegitation on the planet. It
would
> >> > have burned off long before humans showed up.
> >>
> >> OK, you got me. I should have said something like "nature lets fires
burn
> >until
> >> rain storms put them out and doesn't fight them just becasue they are
in
> >> national forests or near populated areas or becasue they dump lots of
> >pollution
> >> into the environment." But I bet you understood what I menat in the
first
> >> place....didn't you?
> >>
> >> Ed
> >>
> >
> >What about all those greenhouse gasses that the fires have spewed into
the
> >air? Does that mean that the environmental groups that blocked any
thinning
> >of the forests are responsible for releasing all that CO2 and
contributing
> >to global warming. Its certainly put more CO2 into the air than my little
> >truck ever will or has in the 11 years I've owned it.
> >
> >
> CO2 put into the air by nature has been in balance for millions of years.
> It's man changing this equilibrium that's the problem.
Totally false. I suggest you learn some science.
#3410
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
"Lloyd Parker" <lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu> wrote in message
news:boe58v$i0q$3@puck.cc.emory.edu...
> In article <NDbqb.10704$9M3.5530@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink .net>,
> "FDRanger92" <csu13081@nospammail.clayton.edu> wrote:
> >
> >"Lloyd Parker" <lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu> wrote in message
> >news:bob0k1$s2a$1@puck.cc.emory.edu...
> >> In article <bo8tgh012ij@enews1.newsguy.com>,
> >> "Gerald G. McGeorge" <gmcgeorgenospam@frontier.net> wrote:
> >> >> You're still clutching onto the old "popular vote" complaint Lloyd.
We
> >> >didn't have a popular vote. There wasn't a popular election, so
there's
> >no
> >> >popular vote. Counting up the aggregate of individual state votes and
> >> >calling it a "popular vote" doesn't make it so. We've had this
argument
> >> >before and you always ignore this pertinent fact. >
> >> >
> >> >Well, first, Llyod prefers indictrination to facts. ;-) If we add up
the
> >> >poopular vote Gore is ALLEGED to have won by around 500,000. I say
> >alleged,
> >> >because the 2000 Presidential vote total was never verified.
> >>
> >> Each state certified its election returns.
> >>
> >>
> >> >Had we NOT had
> >> >an Elctoral College, as of course we do, that 500,000 represented
about
> >1/2
> >> >of 1 percent of the total vote, satistically insignificant and
therefore
> >it
> >> >would have necessitated a National recount. Given the corrupt Democrat
> >> >machines in the urban areas of the Country wher there political base
is,
> >> >it's doubtful those 500,000 votes would have survived.
> >>
> >> And there're no corrupt Republican machines? Hello, Texas? Florida?
> >>
> >
> >Not as many as Democratic. The counties Gore tried to Cherry-pick in
Florida
> >were Democratic strongholds. Do you think that was an accident?
> >
> >
> >> >
> >> >Nontheless, with the exception of Clinton's re-election in '96 the
> >Democrats
> >> >have lost every major campaign since '94 and are now out of power and
can
> >> >mount no effective opposition other than obstruction.
> >>
> >>
> >> Since there're been 2 "major campaigns" since 94, that makes both
parties
> >> batting .500.
> >>
> >> >Their recent hero,
> >> >Clinton, was a pragmatist and closet conservative, anything so long as
it
> >> >got him power. So, other than the biggest tax increase in history,
name
> >ONE
> >> >major liberal adgenda item he either championed or got signed into
law.
> >>
> >> Family leave, environmental protection, workplace safety, kept abortion
> >rights
> >> from being taken away, Brady Bill, assault weapon ban...
> >>
> >>
> >I can't fault FMLA, in itself its a good thing. Workplace safety
sometimes
> >goes to far the way the laws are written. Whether you like it or not
Lloyd
> >there is such a thing as over regulation. I think abortion is wrong, but
its
> >not for me or anyone else to legislate it, hence I don't think it should
be
> >an issue.
> >The Brady Bill and assault weapons ban are a joke, if you actually got
out
> >of that ivory tower you're holed up in you might realize it. If it were
up
> >to you I could think of three people off the top of my head who might be
> >dead at the moment if they didn't have a firearm handy.
> >An Atlanta police officer's wife who killed her would be rapist.
> >A man who shot a would be carjacker on the northside of Atlanta somewhere
in
> >a Wal-Fart parking lot.
> >A wal-Fart employee in Florida somewhere IIRC who was being stabbed by
some
> >nutcase who was foiled by an old lady w/ a pistol.
> >
> >
> >
> And for each of those, there are family members shot in anger or
accidentally,
> suicides with a handy gun, children shooting children with a gun found in
the
> house, shooting of a neighbor the homeowner thought was a burglar, etc.
A complete lie. Better ditch those lying left wing sites and read some facts
Lloyd. In your words, Prove it.