Recent Topics
Pardner Protector
by buck91
10/30/14 10:54 PM
Vortec 4.3l v6 oil recommendation
by gmgoodwrencher
10/30/14 10:53 PM
Oil change or wait??
by Rolla07
10/30/14 10:38 PM
VW Oil Conversation - why 40 weight?
by SandCastle
10/30/14 10:04 PM
Big Buddy
by buck91
10/30/14 09:33 PM
Time to get rid of the Integra?
by ThirdeYe
10/30/14 08:35 PM
Australian Drag Racing
by Stelth
10/30/14 07:59 PM
One Of The Worst Car Articles I've Ever Read
by Nickdfresh
10/30/14 07:22 PM
Which tires for 2014 Mustang GT?
by wtd
10/30/14 07:04 PM
Wearing on a sleeved block? - audi s4
by Guitarmageddon
10/30/14 06:48 PM
Battery Tester Lies?
by Vikas
10/30/14 06:40 PM
Tire Pressure Monitor Issue
by Warstud
10/30/14 06:31 PM
Newest Members
Thourun, Zach72, SandCastle, ymc226, redwoods73
51758 Registered Users
Who's Online
58 registered (147_Grain, 901Memphis, ArtDart, 67lemans, 05LGTLtd, 7 invisible), 1137 Guests and 149 Spiders online.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Forum Stats
51758 Members
64 Forums
221437 Topics
3501834 Posts

Max Online: 2862 @ 07/07/14 03:10 PM
Donate to BITOG

Page 7 of 7 < 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Topic Options
#3399936 - 06/17/14 04:30 PM Re: Violent crime down, while gun sales are up [Re: IndyIan]
hatt Offline


Registered: 01/03/12
Posts: 1112
Loc: Florida
Originally Posted By: IndyIan

But there has to be reasonable amount of force available to a person. And some tools are too dangerous for the general public to own as they could be used for mass murder, and aren't reasonable for personal self defence.
This is why you can't buy hand grenades, or rocket propelled grenades. I think large clips for semi auto guns should be banned too, as they are more useful to kill alot of people than defend yourself in a typical self defense situation.
What if you're in an atypical self defense situation. Just need to die? If you did any research you notice that many, maybe most, police shootings result in more than 10 rounds being fired. The police are encountering the exact same people you're going to encounter.
_________________________
2013 F150 5.0, PU 10w-30, FL500s
2010 Camry 2.5, PP 5w-30, Wix 57047

Top
#3400344 - 06/18/14 07:02 AM Re: Violent crime down, while gun sales are up [Re: IndyIan]
dnewton3 Offline



Registered: 05/14/07
Posts: 5639
Loc: Indianapolis, IN
Originally Posted By: IndyIan
Originally Posted By: SteveSRT8
Originally Posted By: dnewton3
Every sovereign person has a right to do these things; provide, protect, serve.

DON'T FOCUS ON THE EMOTION; LOOK AT THE FACTS.
People kill people; objects are tools.


Outrageously succinct, can't be improved!

But there has to be reasonable amount of force available to a person. And some tools are too dangerous for the general public to own as they could be used for mass murder, and aren't reasonable for personal self defence.
This is why you can't buy hand grenades, or rocket propelled grenades. I think large clips for semi auto guns should be banned too, as they are more useful to kill alot of people than defend yourself in a typical self defense situation.



Then you would support the concept of limiting the size and capacity of other tools?
- Again, what of the examples of the men and women who killed his kids by means of arson? We should not be able to buy gasoline in 5 gallon containers, and only have access to fuel 2 gallons at a time?
- Or a microwave oven should be so small as to not be able to fit an infant inside of it? Or a clothes dryer for the same reason?
- Perhaps we could construct the size of a vehicle such that only one driver and one passenger can fit, so that people like Susan Smith cannot kill her kids by drowning them in a lake? Had we restricted the capacity of seating, maybe just one child could have been saved? After all, saving a child's life is paramount, and should be chased at any cost, right?
- Likely we should place regulations so that bailing twine has a breaking point in tension lower than the force necessary to strangle a person, and limit the length of the spool such that no one can wrap it around the neck of another. Never mind that the product would then lose all value for it's normal purpose.
- Maybe we should limit the size of pressure cookers and kitchen pots to no more than two quarts, because 5 quarts holds too much gun-powder ... I'll bet the victims of the Boston Marathon event are in support of that, right?
- Might a smaller bathtub have stopped the five successive drowning of the five Yates children? It only takes a few inches of water in a bucket to drown a child; just how did you want to limit the capacity of the bathtub?

Look at your quote above and see what I underlined. You are making an unfair presumption of level of attack. I don't need an RPG to defend myself against another person, but it is completely reasonable to think that I have a right to any means to equal that of government at my same level. If cops carried RPGs in their cars, then I should have one. But they don't, so I don't. But they do carry high-capacity mags, and so I, too, should have access to such.

I cannot speak to the historical means of Canada; I simply am not educated on your laws and country's origins of use of firearms. But here in the States, it was most assuredly the concept of the People having equal access to a means to repudiate Government with force, should it become necessary. After all, we were fresh off a revolution at the time. How well would it have gone for us if the Brits had guns of the era, but we were limited to sticks and rocks? Perhaps we would not have fared as well if we were self-limited to lower capacity powder kegs, or shorter musket barrels, or smaller calibers, or such. It was a foregone assumption that personal firearms were to be of free and immediate access, but tyranny even then was not blind to the concept of controlling the public's means of fighting back, and so the Second Amendment was added to ensure all manner of force equal to the Government was available. The Second Amendment was never about hunting or person-on-person attacks; it was most certainly about the "Right of the People" to hold Government accountable by force, if necessary. The Brits were not confiscating guns because folks were hunting or getting rowdy in a tavern; they were taking guns because they wanted to remove the ability of the People to fight back. Could the Founders have foreseen the mass destruction weapons of the last several decades? I cannot answer that. I admit I don't see the rationale for a local person having access to nukes or a 105mm Howitzer for self-defense. But when it comes to personal defense against villains and tyrants, I'm all for a magazine that holds as much as I think it needs to hold. I firmly believe that individual States should not only have self-controlled National Guard units, but those units should have access to a means of controlling the Federal government. The State Armies should be able to collectively repel the Federal Army. And individual persons should be able to repel individual attacks no matter the source. Person on person; State on State; Nation on Nation. Each level should be able to defend itself, and form collective alliances to repel that which is oppressive.

The majority of mass-shooting suspects are untrained or poorly trained. It really does not matter if they have several 10 round or 20 round magazines; their exchange technique and rate is poor, but more importantly, it's unchallenged. The number one reason most mass-killing shootings are so successful? Because no one is shooting back!

Several years ago I had a conversation with a man who took his family down to the Knob Creek range; for those who don't know it is a VERY popular firearms shoot where all manner of weapons (including a large amount of NFA stuff) is present semi-annually. After being there a while, his wife realized that their young daughter had wandered off and was missing. Did he panic? Nope - he told me "We were in a sea of people who passed a federal background check to own fully automatic weapons, who each is carrying at least two guns per person, and woe unto the first pervert who grabs a little girl and makes her scream for daddy in a place like this ..."
His point? When everyone has a gun, everyone is motivated to be well behaved. Only when there is a distinct disparity in force does the ability of one to control another emerge. That goes for mass tyranny as well as individual self-defense.

Anyone who reads my ramblings understands that I'm all about facts and data. I look at nearly everything from a logical point of view. There exists a difference between possibilities, probabilities, and certainties.
- If you restrict the general public from defending itself, it is possible that most events will go well, but unlikely for all events to go well.
- In some of those events which possibly do not go well, it is probable to produce victim(s) who would like the ability to defend themselves on a level equal to the attack.
- If that ability to defend does exist, there is no guarantee that the outcome will be desirable for the victim, but it is certain that if you do not allow such defense, the disparity will be ever present, and you rely on the hope that good-will is present in all men; an inherently bad assumption that history proves repeatedly to be untrue.

The Second Amendment does not assure equal outcome, but it most certainly recognizes the right to have equal opportunity to repel the aggressor, be it a person or a government. And so limiting access to the tools of that right is a defacto means of smothering that right.

I have no objection to those that choose not to excercise their right. But I will not tolerate those who would take it away; for that I will not stand.

Facts tell me that oppression is ever-present in history, from all levels.
Facts tell me that oppression is best held in check with equal power at any given level.
Facts tell me that more guns does not equal more violence.
Facts tell me that other risks in life far outpace those of firearms.


.
_________________________
Conventionals vs. Synthetics isn't about which is "better"; it's about which lasts longer, while assuring safe operation, in relation to cost. Any product can be over or under utilized. The same applies to filters.
Make an informed decision; first consider your operating conditions, next determine your maintenance plan, and then pick your lube and filter. Don't do it the other way around ...

Top
#3400370 - 06/18/14 07:54 AM Re: Violent crime down, while gun sales are up [Re: dnewton3]
IndyIan Offline


Registered: 09/23/08
Posts: 5663
Loc: Ontario, Canada
I agree that almost anything can be used as a weapon, but I don't see the armed forces issuing pressure cookers or 5 gallon jugs of gas to their soldiers...
They issue an auto/semi auto rifle with a high capacity magazine that can be changed rapidly for a reason, they are the most cost effective weapon they have to kill people in close combat.

While I do agree with the right to own firearms, for the purpose of self defence against criminals, or government, the level of fire power has to be limited. The average costs do outweigh the potential benefits at some point. Your individual right to own extremely deadly weapons on the off chance that you will need them, shouldn't take precedence over the likely chance that someone will use those weapons in mass murder.
_________________________
07 Focus ZXW, 5spd manual, 92km M1 5W20
03 Tracker, 5spd manual, 262km, Valvoline Syn 5W30

Top
#3400395 - 06/18/14 08:32 AM Re: Violent crime down, while gun sales are up [Re: whip]
hatt Offline


Registered: 01/03/12
Posts: 1112
Loc: Florida
dnewton3 for President!!
_________________________
2013 F150 5.0, PU 10w-30, FL500s
2010 Camry 2.5, PP 5w-30, Wix 57047

Top
#3400464 - 06/18/14 10:18 AM Re: Violent crime down, while gun sales are up [Re: dnewton3]
surfstar Offline


Registered: 09/16/04
Posts: 4392
Loc: Santa Barbara, CA
An armed society is a polite fearful society.

whistle

Top
#3400527 - 06/18/14 11:49 AM Re: Violent crime down, while gun sales are up [Re: surfstar]
hatt Offline


Registered: 01/03/12
Posts: 1112
Loc: Florida
Originally Posted By: surfstar
An armed society is a polite fearful society.

whistle
An unarmed society is a helpless society.

There is no greater fear than helplessness.
_________________________
2013 F150 5.0, PU 10w-30, FL500s
2010 Camry 2.5, PP 5w-30, Wix 57047

Top
#3400600 - 06/18/14 12:55 PM Re: Violent crime down, while gun sales are up [Re: dnewton3]
Hokiefyd Offline


Registered: 06/24/04
Posts: 11492
Loc: North Carolina
Originally Posted By: dnewton3
When everyone has a gun, everyone is motivated to be well behaved. Only when there is a distinct disparity in force does the ability of one to control another emerge. That goes for mass tyranny as well as individual self-defense.


I was frankly astounded at the behavior I witnessed when I attended my first gun show a few years ago. The place was packed; there was a line out the door waiting to get in before it opened. You know what? I didn't hear anyone yelling at someone else. I didn't see any pushing or shoving to get in. A line naturally formed that snaked through the front gallery area without anyone having to tell anyone else where to stand. It was, quite simply, the most well-behaved crowd I've ever observed. I've seen moms and dads at a school play act more inappropriately.

I've been shooting for about 3 years. As a group, the responsible gun ownership crowd is about the most respectful and most helpful I've come across, despite some popular characterizations by certain media groups. I've never felt safer than in the presence of a responsible gun owner, and I strive to be one myself.

I saw a funny video on YouTube once, from one of my favorite channels, sootch00. He goes to safety-check the pistol; he pulls back the slide, sees that it's loaded, and says, "it's loaded, we're safe." He chuckles about it and unloads the weapon for the video, but deep down, there's a lot of truth in that to me.
_________________________
Cheers,
Jason

2008 Honda CR-V EX-L (QSUD 5W-30)
2005 Acura MDX Touring (FMC 5W-20)

Top
#3400611 - 06/18/14 01:04 PM Re: Violent crime down, while gun sales are up [Re: Hokiefyd]
Hokiefyd Offline


Registered: 06/24/04
Posts: 11492
Loc: North Carolina
Originally Posted By: Hokiefyd
I saw a funny video on YouTube once, from one of my favorite channels, sootch00. He goes to safety-check the pistol; he pulls back the slide, sees that it's loaded, and says, "it's loaded, we're safe." He chuckles about it and unloads the weapon for the video, but deep down, there's a lot of truth in that to me.


It's at 1:35, for what it's worth...

_________________________
Cheers,
Jason

2008 Honda CR-V EX-L (QSUD 5W-30)
2005 Acura MDX Touring (FMC 5W-20)

Top
#3400665 - 06/18/14 02:27 PM Re: Violent crime down, while gun sales are up [Re: pottymouth]
123Saab Offline


Registered: 10/27/10
Posts: 1316
Loc: PA
Originally Posted By: pottymouth
I'll continue to vote for and encourage other gun owners to vote for candidates that respect our rights. I'll continue to point out to gun owners that our rights are not some cafeteria plan and must be fought for in their entirety. You do what you like.


I want to keep my guns too, As does my wife.

She also wants equal pay and the right to have an abortion.

And government sponsored healthcare would be nice too.
_________________________
Twenty-twenty-twenty four hours to go I wanna be sedated
Nothin' to do and no where to go-o-oh I wanna be sedated

Top
#3400700 - 06/18/14 03:29 PM Re: Violent crime down, while gun sales are up [Re: dnewton3]
123Saab Offline


Registered: 10/27/10
Posts: 1316
Loc: PA
Originally Posted By: dnewton3
Originally Posted By: IndyIan
Originally Posted By: SteveSRT8
Originally Posted By: dnewton3
Every sovereign person has a right to do these things; provide, protect, serve.

DON'T FOCUS ON THE EMOTION; LOOK AT THE FACTS.
People kill people; objects are tools.


Outrageously succinct, can't be improved!

But there has to be reasonable amount of force available to a person. And some tools are too dangerous for the general public to own as they could be used for mass murder, and aren't reasonable for personal self defence.
This is why you can't buy hand grenades, or rocket propelled grenades. I think large clips for semi auto guns should be banned too, as they are more useful to kill alot of people than defend yourself in a typical self defense situation.



Then you would support the concept of limiting the size and capacity of other tools?
- Again, what of the examples of the men and women who killed his kids by means of arson? We should not be able to buy gasoline in 5 gallon containers, and only have access to fuel 2 gallons at a time?
- Or a microwave oven should be so small as to not be able to fit an infant inside of it? Or a clothes dryer for the same reason?
- Perhaps we could construct the size of a vehicle such that only one driver and one passenger can fit, so that people like Susan Smith cannot kill her kids by drowning them in a lake? Had we restricted the capacity of seating, maybe just one child could have been saved? After all, saving a child's life is paramount, and should be chased at any cost, right?
- Likely we should place regulations so that bailing twine has a breaking point in tension lower than the force necessary to strangle a person, and limit the length of the spool such that no one can wrap it around the neck of another. Never mind that the product would then lose all value for it's normal purpose.
- Maybe we should limit the size of pressure cookers and kitchen pots to no more than two quarts, because 5 quarts holds too much gun-powder ... I'll bet the victims of the Boston Marathon event are in support of that, right?
- Might a smaller bathtub have stopped the five successive drowning of the five Yates children? It only takes a few inches of water in a bucket to drown a child; just how did you want to limit the capacity of the bathtub?

Look at your quote above and see what I underlined. You are making an unfair presumption of level of attack. I don't need an RPG to defend myself against another person, but it is completely reasonable to think that I have a right to any means to equal that of government at my same level. If cops carried RPGs in their cars, then I should have one. But they don't, so I don't. But they do carry high-capacity mags, and so I, too, should have access to such.

I cannot speak to the historical means of Canada; I simply am not educated on your laws and country's origins of use of firearms. But here in the States, it was most assuredly the concept of the People having equal access to a means to repudiate Government with force, should it become necessary. After all, we were fresh off a revolution at the time. How well would it have gone for us if the Brits had guns of the era, but we were limited to sticks and rocks? Perhaps we would not have fared as well if we were self-limited to lower capacity powder kegs, or shorter musket barrels, or smaller calibers, or such. It was a foregone assumption that personal firearms were to be of free and immediate access, but tyranny even then was not blind to the concept of controlling the public's means of fighting back, and so the Second Amendment was added to ensure all manner of force equal to the Government was available. The Second Amendment was never about hunting or person-on-person attacks; it was most certainly about the "Right of the People" to hold Government accountable by force, if necessary. The Brits were not confiscating guns because folks were hunting or getting rowdy in a tavern; they were taking guns because they wanted to remove the ability of the People to fight back. Could the Founders have foreseen the mass destruction weapons of the last several decades? I cannot answer that. I admit I don't see the rationale for a local person having access to nukes or a 105mm Howitzer for self-defense. But when it comes to personal defense against villains and tyrants, I'm all for a magazine that holds as much as I think it needs to hold. I firmly believe that individual States should not only have self-controlled National Guard units, but those units should have access to a means of controlling the Federal government. The State Armies should be able to collectively repel the Federal Army. And individual persons should be able to repel individual attacks no matter the source. Person on person; State on State; Nation on Nation. Each level should be able to defend itself, and form collective alliances to repel that which is oppressive.

The majority of mass-shooting suspects are untrained or poorly trained. It really does not matter if they have several 10 round or 20 round magazines; their exchange technique and rate is poor, but more importantly, it's unchallenged. The number one reason most mass-killing shootings are so successful? Because no one is shooting back!

Several years ago I had a conversation with a man who took his family down to the Knob Creek range; for those who don't know it is a VERY popular firearms shoot where all manner of weapons (including a large amount of NFA stuff) is present semi-annually. After being there a while, his wife realized that their young daughter had wandered off and was missing. Did he panic? Nope - he told me "We were in a sea of people who passed a federal background check to own fully automatic weapons, who each is carrying at least two guns per person, and woe unto the first pervert who grabs a little girl and makes her scream for daddy in a place like this ..."
His point? When everyone has a gun, everyone is motivated to be well behaved. Only when there is a distinct disparity in force does the ability of one to control another emerge. That goes for mass tyranny as well as individual self-defense.

Anyone who reads my ramblings understands that I'm all about facts and data. I look at nearly everything from a logical point of view. There exists a difference between possibilities, probabilities, and certainties.
- If you restrict the general public from defending itself, it is possible that most events will go well, but unlikely for all events to go well.
- In some of those events which possibly do not go well, it is probable to produce victim(s) who would like the ability to defend themselves on a level equal to the attack.
- If that ability to defend does exist, there is no guarantee that the outcome will be desirable for the victim, but it is certain that if you do not allow such defense, the disparity will be ever present, and you rely on the hope that good-will is present in all men; an inherently bad assumption that history proves repeatedly to be untrue.

The Second Amendment does not assure equal outcome, but it most certainly recognizes the right to have equal opportunity to repel the aggressor, be it a person or a government. And so limiting access to the tools of that right is a defacto means of smothering that right.

I have no objection to those that choose not to excercise their right. But I will not tolerate those who would take it away; for that I will not stand.

Facts tell me that oppression is ever-present in history, from all levels.
Facts tell me that oppression is best held in check with equal power at any given level.
Facts tell me that more guns does not equal more violence.
Facts tell me that other risks in life far outpace those of firearms.


.


Man.

You put a lot of thought and effort in to this, I thank you for a good read.

However there are a lot of people out there that rightfully and legally carry but are nowhere ready mentally to do so.

That is a Fact too.
_________________________
Twenty-twenty-twenty four hours to go I wanna be sedated
Nothin' to do and no where to go-o-oh I wanna be sedated

Top
#3400736 - 06/18/14 04:36 PM Re: Violent crime down, while gun sales are up [Re: 123Saab]
pottymouth Offline


Registered: 01/24/08
Posts: 483
Loc: NJ
Originally Posted By: 123Saab
Originally Posted By: pottymouth
I'll continue to vote for and encourage other gun owners to vote for candidates that respect our rights. I'll continue to point out to gun owners that our rights are not some cafeteria plan and must be fought for in their entirety. You do what you like.


I want to keep my guns too, As does my wife.

She also wants equal pay and the right to have an abortion.

And government sponsored healthcare would be nice too.



What is she doing about it?

Top
#3401019 - 06/18/14 09:49 PM Re: Violent crime down, while gun sales are up [Re: pottymouth]
123Saab Offline


Registered: 10/27/10
Posts: 1316
Loc: PA
Originally Posted By: pottymouth
Originally Posted By: 123Saab
Originally Posted By: pottymouth
I'll continue to vote for and encourage other gun owners to vote for candidates that respect our rights. I'll continue to point out to gun owners that our rights are not some cafeteria plan and must be fought for in their entirety. You do what you like.


I want to keep my guns too, As does my wife.

She also wants equal pay and the right to have an abortion.

And government sponsored healthcare would be nice too.



What is she doing about it?


Running a Interim Executive Agency In NYC and the Philly area as well.

Oh and she Votes too.
_________________________
Twenty-twenty-twenty four hours to go I wanna be sedated
Nothin' to do and no where to go-o-oh I wanna be sedated

Top
#3401047 - 06/18/14 10:11 PM Re: Violent crime down, while gun sales are up [Re: dnewton3]
JHZR2 Offline



Registered: 12/14/02
Posts: 33791
Loc: New Jersey
Originally Posted By: dnewton3

- Fact: there is correlation between crime down and gun sales up, but where correlation is easy to see, we CANNOT assume direct causation; it would need to be proven via hard data. I, for one, believe that the anecdotal data is overwhelmingly massive and cannot be ignored, but my training does not allow me to just jump to conclusions.


Bolded for emphasis since many think it is just automatically the case. One must consider all possible correlations. It may also correlate well to how much coca-cola people buy, how many TVs or cars per capita, or how many babies are born named McKenzie.

I agree overwhelming data that must have a statistically significant relationship, but you put it well in terms of reality and analysis. Well said.

Originally Posted By: dnewton3

- Fact: doctors kill waaaaaayyyyyy more people by accident than guns kill people in total; it is the third leading cause of death in the US. Homicide does not even make the top 15.


So you propose that all gun owners have to be trained, licensed, registered and carry insurance in order to operate (e.g. CCW)? After all, all those things are implemented to reduce societal risk from something that is considered utilitarian and an agent of good, that can also have deathly consequences. Slippery slope there. That said, as was mentioned above, many people aren't mentally competent to carry. I dont, because of both laws (which I work within the state the change), and also because of the consistent and well based safety of my local surroundings which allows me to to choose not to under most scenarios even if I were granted the ability. So I cant even say that I would be mentally competent to carry, even with training and the fact that Im a decent shot with a lot of training for respect of things with a LOT of power that can easily kill or even vaporize you (easier than a gun).

Originally Posted By: dnewton3

The Second Amendment does not assure equal outcome, but it most certainly recognizes the right to have equal opportunity to repel the aggressor, be it a person or a government. And so limiting access to the tools of that right is a defacto means of smothering that right.

I have no objection to those that choose not to excercise their right. But I will not tolerate those who would take it away; for that I will not stand.

Facts tell me that oppression is ever-present in history, from all levels.
Facts tell me that oppression is best held in check with equal power at any given level.
Facts tell me that more guns does not equal more violence.
Facts tell me that other risks in life far outpace those of firearms.


Quoted for truth.

Top
#3401067 - 06/18/14 10:29 PM Re: Violent crime down, while gun sales are up [Re: 123Saab]
pottymouth Offline


Registered: 01/24/08
Posts: 483
Loc: NJ
Originally Posted By: 123Saab
Originally Posted By: pottymouth
Originally Posted By: 123Saab
Originally Posted By: pottymouth
I'll continue to vote for and encourage other gun owners to vote for candidates that respect our rights. I'll continue to point out to gun owners that our rights are not some cafeteria plan and must be fought for in their entirety. You do what you like.


I want to keep my guns too, As does my wife.

She also wants equal pay and the right to have an abortion.

And government sponsored healthcare would be nice too.



What is she doing about it?


Running a Interim Executive Agency In NYC and the Philly area as well.

Oh and she Votes too.


So what point were you trying to make? Is it that such issues are mutually exclusive? If so, I disagree. If your wife wants these things, she should be fighting for all of them. Turning up at the polls is one small part of the fight.

Top
#3401346 - 06/19/14 09:31 AM Re: Violent crime down, while gun sales are up [Re: pottymouth]
dnewton3 Offline



Registered: 05/14/07
Posts: 5639
Loc: Indianapolis, IN
Originally Posted By: pottymouth
Originally Posted By: 123Saab
Oh and she Votes too.


So what point were you trying to make? Is it that such issues are mutually exclusive? If so, I disagree. If your wife wants these things, she should be fighting for all of them. Turning up at the polls is one small part of the fight.



A warning to you in this side discussion; politics is a no-no and this needs to stop.

The gun discussion has been, for the most part, about facts relating to events, data and history. Those may continue.
_________________________
Conventionals vs. Synthetics isn't about which is "better"; it's about which lasts longer, while assuring safe operation, in relation to cost. Any product can be over or under utilized. The same applies to filters.
Make an informed decision; first consider your operating conditions, next determine your maintenance plan, and then pick your lube and filter. Don't do it the other way around ...

Top
Page 7 of 7 < 1 2 3 4 5 6 7