Uncle Punk

All I have to add is your signature picture sucks.

You did not get lost. You can't get there from here.

I totally agree that this would be an excellent idea and have good results but I don't think we need a government entity enforcing it. As a test pilot program why don't you guys at STT implement the concept and work out any bugs that might come up before we make it a mandatory law for road use. No fucking way! I didn't think so.

What are these? I carry hollow points every day.

A 1300cc cruiser is no more dangerous than a Ninja 250. I don't see the need for more government intervention in our lives. If we need seatbelts in a motor vehicle because of safety I can't understand how we even allow motorcycles on the road. If I am paying for your insurance I don't want you to be able to take the risk of riding a motorcycle on the road, I think it's too dangerous and I don't want to take the risk of paying for your bills if you get hurt. I don't think you should ever be able to drive a SUV by yourself you need to have it fully occupied. In fact you need to have a special license to purchase any vehicle that has more than two seats. You must show a need to have such a big vehicle and if you don't have a family forget about it. This means you won't be able to tow a trailer because it's just a waste of resources and is too heavy and dangerous for the rest of us just for you to have a little fun. A tiered system is a very good idea but my ideas or experience doesn't translate into oppressing others to them.

I have seen you post a lot of things and agree with most of them but this is the stupidest thing you have ever posted. Ditto. We do not need any additional government intervention in our lives. Seatbelt and helmet laws are too much already. I use both but don't think it is necessary for the government to place their standards on me and I don’t need your standards either any more than you would like to live under mine.

I find it unfortunate that the mothers call initiated the problems for her son but can find no fault in her actions. She couldn’t have foreseen the actions of the state at the time and I’m sure she regrets calling them now. I commend anyone who calls on a loved one that they know has committed a crime and is a fugitive from justice. I know this wasn't the case here but she thought she was doing the right thing and helping. The state is where things went really wrong. Don't get me wrong about involving authorities if someone is wanted, I would never turn someone in who has violated a law that I find unjust. If you have a firearm that someone deems illegal no call from me, if you break a traffic law and haven't harmed anyone no call from me, if you have violated a community standards law no call from me. If you have raped someone, I'm calling, if you hit someone in a motor vehicle and run I'm calling, if you rob a bank I'm calling, no matter what your relationship to me is.

All of this applies only if you do not have a disability.

New Jersey can make all the gun laws they want to but if this article is reporting correctly, this guy was prosecuted for a crime he couldn't commit. This appears to violate federal firearm transportation laws that a state can't override with their own law. This will be overturned or the article was not correct in all of the facts reported.

I really like the idea of this bike but this is still propaganda and needs to be taken as such. I will wait to see independent reviews and ride one myself before I form much more of an opinion about it.

I also believe they have the right to protest without government intervention. I also believe that there are consequences for your actions.

Can I play Jim Jones?

Regardless of that judge’s orders if anyone on the jury would have known the federal guidelines for transport this would not have happened. I'm going to guess this gets overturned if the article was correct in its reporting.

Does a reason matter? Can you think of a good reason to protest a serviceman's funeral? Please do not respond with what you think is a "real" answer or we won't be able to see this thread on the main page too long.

http://www.ohio-riders.com/showthread.php?t=68893 http://www.ohio-riders.com/showthread.php?t=68902

The article is nothing more than a couple of retards who don't like the law using very poor examples of their interpretations of its abuse. Nothing very news worthy nor anything to worry about, these examples were part of the discussion before the law was passed so the same arguments should have no traction in trying to repeal it.

Are there any behavior correlations in the two stories? http://www.ohio-riders.com/showthread.php?t=68893

Exactly, no dudes for me. Vaginatarian all the way.

Behaving so poorly could result in an unforeseen tragedy.

14 out of 22, Jesus might have issues with me.

Funny little man, white peoples are the rulers of the world and have the superior right to kill others that are inferior to them. That is why they pass gun laws that try to affect the poor people to keep them from possessing them. They are working on a way to keep guns away from the over achieving Asians who refuse to stay in the poor demographic, why they won’t get with the program is disturbing. To answer your Asian persuasion quip, Blacksburg, Virginia, but you knew that.

I think you were doing a better job than I was. It is exhausting trying to think up stupid anti-gun drivel, I don't know how the true anti's can do it while being sincere. Lasagna FTW!

It is stupid that you have to wait until you are 21. I was carrying a .45 at 19 although it was issued by the USMC. I think you kids should be able to drink at 18 as well. Anyone over the age of 42 drank when they were 18 and quite a few countries allow drinking at 18 still today. Why are our youths inferior in mental capacity to handle it?

NASCAR coaster is invalid, it turns right.