Uncle Punk

Exactly, gas mileage, gas mileage, gas mileage. Aluminum, v-nose, low height, saved me enough in gas the first year I owned it that it practically paid for itself the first year. I store it inside at all times and do not have one bit of rust on it anywhere after five years. No repainting the frame or worrying about support rusting through. I can only carry two street bikes but I have had five trials bikes in it. What I over paid for an aluminum trailer up front has more that made up the difference in cost of ownership in several categories.

I keep going down in size of my trailers, this one is the smallest I've ever had but I wanted it for several reasons. It has a "V" nose that I will never do without again, the sides are seamless so no more rivet rust, it is all aluminum that I paid for up front but have more than made up the price difference in gas and maintenance plus I will have a better resale when that time comes. I wanted a low height trailer this time as well, again adding to the gas mileage plus I can store it inside a garage. I would buy a low height trailer again but it has caused some issues. One being that in order to get any amount of inside height the floor was lowered; this causes ground clearance issues in the front and in the back. I ride trials and getting into and out of some of the riding sites means I'm dragging the tail on more than one occasion. Not as badly as I was the 24' trailer behind the motor home but more than I expected. Having a trailer still means that folks want to borrow it and this little one is no exception but with it being so small and light I usually don’t need to provide the tow vehicle because a minivan is capable of towing it.

Aluminum 6x12 single axle, no brakes. I will have a scooter in the Harley spot and won't be using the custom wheel chock instead the scooter and the bike will both be held in place with pit-bull trailer restraints. I drive +10 over the speed limit and get 11.7 MPG with a vehicle that gets 14.9 on the highway without the trailer.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/harrybinswanger/2013/01/01/with-gun-control-cost-benefit-analysis-is-amoral/

My contention is that we should be encouraging everyone that has the means to carry a firearm to be doing so at each visit on school grounds. This would mean we need to repeal the gun-free school zone law that has place our children in harm’s way. Can you believe it, another gun nut suggesting that more guns is the solution to gun violence? Let's forget that killing an active shooter is the best way to stop them, let's ignore the fact that with the exception of one incident attempts at mass shooting in non gun free zones end at three deaths. I am not real big on numbers meaning a lot in an argument because it seldom changes my opinion. We have a few anti gun folks around here so I need them to explain to me how the numbers I have come up with don't mean much to my contention that more guns is the answer. I came up with these numbers doing a bit of internet research so I’m not sure if sources are accurate as most things on the internet aren’t but a good faith effort went into getting the numbers for what it’s worth. I think this knee jerk, over reacting, poorly conceived law is responsible for countless lives lost. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun-Free_School_Zones_Act_of_1990 Here are my numbers to support that statement. In the prior twenty-two years of the law being enacted there were forty reported shootings on school grounds including suicides, resulting in forty-eight deaths not including suicides. Post law passage numbers are fifty-one shooting incidents including suicides, with a death toll of one-hundred-forty-eight not including family members that were killed off campus. That’s right one-hundred more preventable deaths had we not shackled law abiding citizens with a law that keeps us from protecting our children. This horrible law emboldened more attempts and empowered the shooters with opportunity to carry out their sick cowardly deeds unopposed. The time is now to stop the attempts at making more laws that will inevitably lead to more deaths that could have been prevented had good people the means to protect those without.

Have we established if these two aren't the same person yet? You will not find me promoting no guns for felons; they should have them after sentence is served. I have never tried to give the impression of being law abiding. A lot of folks here have been on rides with me so this place is a meeting place for people to go out to break laws. I'm missing your point in the hypocrisy.

Out fucking standing!

WHAT? You can't possibly expect the rest of us to consider you pro gun; I find it comical that you are under such a delusional impression that it makes me sad for you. You are the agnostic fence sitter without any real convictions either way and think you can talk out of both sides of your mouth trying to pacify the two sides when in reality both of them hate you.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Firearms_Act http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_Control_Act_of_1968 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Firearm_Owners_Protection_Act Enough compromise already, we have twenty thousand other laws that don't stop criminals. None of them are needed to keep me from committing a crime, and some deprive me of opportunity, some of them would make me a criminal for possessing something that would never cause harm to anyone. The slippery slope is already here and compromising from the last set of compromising is a loser’s mentality. Someone commits a crime by stealing something from me and I'm complicit? Let's play that out to the gun/bullet manufactures and make them complicit as well. The crime couldn't happen if the tool was never built. I know others have gone down this path and it's a stupid deflection of responsibility away from where it belongs.

http://gunnuts.net/2012/01/09/blackhawk-serpa-banned-at-fletc/ http://www.mdshooters.com/showthread.php?t=63657 http://www.gunsite.com/main/wp-content/uploads/2010/09/Safety-Issue-Prohibiting-Use-of-Blackhawk-SERPA-Holsters.pdf http://www.glocktalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=1042429 A safety on a gun is a bad enough idea and you want to add one to a holster? Retention for law enforcement is necessary and deadly without it; retention for concealed carry is deadly.

Not entirely true but accurate for the vast majority, enough so that if it would happen again it would most likely end with a standoff or exchange of bullets, totally dependent on the governments actions. Peace loving people just want to go about their business without the government making their situation more dangerous or being deprived of property.

Rep & buy more ammo

Once released from prison is his life less valuable than yours that he shouldn’t be afforded the right to self protection or to join others in arms against a tyrannical government? What leads you to believe that you are superior to others that your life is more valuable?

You fucker' date=' I was excited to see a Shield up for grabs out in the wild until I made it to the end of your sentence. Gouger.[/font']

Europe and Canada got them.

There were some seriously fucked up reactions to 911, patriot act and the TSA being two big ones. Yes there are right and wrong reactions, caring doesn't mean your solutions aren’t diabolical.

We are not in a free state and you suggesting additional gun laws will surely slow down the process of us ever getting there. The makeup of our state legislature is very disappointing regardless of what party is in power. Some of them are like you, gun owners that like gun laws and are the enemy from within. Sometimes we have to vote for the lesser of two evils. I do have a very hard time asking for more laws and regulations no matter what good intentions people see as a possible outcome.

http://shop.holsterloops.com/ https://www.facebook.com/pages/Raven-Concealment-Systems/305851175686#!/RDRKydex?fref=ts

http://www.joerocket.com/catalog/index.cfm/237/130/Pants/Alter_Ego_Pant

No such reassurances are expected nor needed in a place where freedom exists. We get to pursue our own destiny the outcome is not guaranteed. I'm not so sure you are grasping the concept of free men exercising a right. The people that live in Free states don't jump through stupid made up bullshit hoops to carry a firearm. The rest of the free citizens of those states that choose not to touch a firearm have laws to punish the ones that cause harm. I cannot figure out why you feel the need to complicate such a system. If you can point me to some information that leads to problems in states that don’t require a license to carry a firearm I'm all ears. In the mean time sounding like a socialist bureaucrat won't win you any friends with the people that value freedom so you should expect opposition to your inclinations of a nanny state.

The goal is to eliminate the license all together not add more stupid onerous bureaucracy bullshit. You are confusing restrictions on where firearms should be with a licensing process, they are two separate issues.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hxRlpRcorEU