Geeto67

Nerp

This thread has become second shooter conspiracy central and I’ve lost interest. I dunno what you are waiting for other than the “loophole” is exploited by merchants who pretend to be private individuals so they can circumvent Brady bill background checks, interstate sales restrictions, and in some cases sales taxes. Merchants move more units than a private individuals generally would and they don’t have to keep any records like an FFL merchant would. On its face it may look like they are screwing the gubment out of revenue, but really they are screwing private sellers, FFL merchants, and the general public. It’s more nuanced than that, esp with the different state laws in play, but really - lost interest. I would love to sit and write another novel about the Kennedy assassination, a non violent coup d’etat, and buying guns anonymously through the mail - but, nah.

Is this the same car?

Why put a body on it? Plenty of cart things driving around, there was one at the Tolles show. Register it like a scratchbuilt/kit car, hang plates and lights, and call it a day.

One of 102? is it a Big Block N96 shaker hood car?

I’m not chiming in again till Monday, but keep talking some good stuff being brought up

oh yeah, it's boring as shit to watch. no argument from me on that point. For me the fun with the GTO was how far could I push it while keeping the car consistent. This was in the 1990's so it wasn't like the big hp numbers they are today but I went from a solid 14 second worn out 400ci pontiac, to a mid 12 car putting 350hp to the rear wheels. I wanted to (but never did) run NMCA FAST (Factory Appearing Stock Tire) class too so I did it with mostly stock parts and a lot of tuning: .030 over numbers matching block, 670 Ram Air 1 heads, Stock intake acid flowed to match head ports, 1969 GTO judge blue dot carb (blueprinted), Ram Air IV cam, Ram Air IV cast exhaust manifolds, 1968 Factory warranty replacement TH400 with manual valve body and shift kit, 2000rpm converter, factory 10bolt w 3.55 gears and an auburn posi unit. On 10" wide bias plys I had a best of 1.66s 60' and best ET 12.30 (not in the same run). I think my average trap speed was around 112mph. car routinely ran 1.6-1.8 60' if I flashed the converter against the linelok and used the button to release brakes while walking it out. Unless I missed a shift she was rarely off more than 2/10ths. It was a lot of work and money, and I am glad I am not doing it anymore, though I do miss my GTO something awful (its in storage in NY). When you are competing, if you are really into the gamesmanship of the thing it can be fun even with a slow car. Deep staging, shallow staging, burning your opponent down, running a really slow breakout and then top end braking to make the number. However, it is slow torture if you are in the stands.

So I ran brackets with my GTO, which means if I got beat (and it happened often) it was by the better driver and not the car. Sure having a faster car made it a lot more fun but I once took 2nd at a bracket night in E-town in my 16 sec jeep. That being said....you're co-worker is just talking out of his ass. The whole institution of "fast" cars is built on the idea that someone took a slow car and made it fast. Every American V8 muscle car owes it's origin to a greasy 1940's/50's teen who swapped a flatty or a chebby v8 into their model T chassis. To smugglers who needed moar power to haul hundreds of lbs of liquid stored in hidden tanks, to people who couldn't find american cars to road race against the light, underpowered ferrin' jobs so they built things like ol' yeller on the concrete floor of a 1 car garage. Innovation comes from problem solving, and there is no greater test to problem solving than racing. The S2000 wasn't shat out of some engineer's brain fully formed, it came from decades of people racing things like the honda S600 and S800 and civics, and accords, and other things and taking that knowledge and learning from it and building the next thing.

Hey Rick, can you post an address for the show in this thread? this way some of us who haven't been there before can plug it into our GPS

Well, First off I don't think there is a singular action that will serve as a "solution" to anything. I spent my life around legislation and how it really works and what I would like to see is some progress and evolution in a certain direction that is more considerate of the needs and wants of the American people. What I would like to see change: - The dickey Amendment to the omnibus spending bill repealed. This amendment prevents the CDC from funding research directly on gun use and gun violence. The current environment is one of ignorance all around because there hasn't been a good study done since 1993. It would be nice to have some actual metrics and to make informed policy decisions instead of being deadlock in this area of extremes. - Following the ban on research being lifted we could have a real analysis on the supply side. I think that the current process of background checks is deeply flawed, but I would like to know what flaws and loopholes are actually contributing to some of the problems and what are not. Right now any legislation is basically just taking a guess as to what will have an effect. Here is an example: We all assume mass shooters are mentally ill because their acts are usually incomprehensible, but we don't know how many of them actually seek treatment to a level that could be used to restrict their access to firearms. A bill right now on restricting access to the mentally ill is a shot in the dark - but with someone looking at the actual numbers that would be generated by renewed research, we could not only justify a bill like that but could narrow it to the types of mental illness history that is most closely linked to incidents. More importantly what if research turns up that most accidental home shootings are because of a certain method of storage? - wouldn't it be nice to be having a conversation about home storage solutions and improved safety training rather than bans on the weapons itself? - On the gun show side of things I would like to see the wild west nature of that give way to responsible selling with background checks, but on the upside I don't see how the interstate commerce restrictions of the Gun Control Act of 1968 (which the NRA drafted prior to their own internal coup d'etat) are relevant anymore so maybe those could go away. So gun shows start to look more like trade shows and less like dirt floor quasi black market swap meets. - I don't think the federal government should have all the controls. Carry and Conceal laws should remain at the state level because, well, carrying in Wyoming vs carrying in NYC are two different situations and let the local experts handle that. I like the DOT/DMV model for how the background and vetting process works: the federal government sets up a set of recommendations and minimum standards and runs a certification agency for the few items that have heavier restrictions, and the states adopt them and build on it as they see fit. I would like to see as part of those recommendations a standardized and comprehensive training program. this way the states still mantain their own control but the laws become more standard from state to state. Wouldn't it be nice if a CCW in one state was recognized in every one because of standardized training and vetting? Here is what I think will happen: - The NRA will not put up much of a fuss on the banning of bump stocks. To be honest I firmly believe they are relived that the national focus is on that and not AR15s or something they would actually have to take a stand on. So they don't resist as hard and in all likelihood bumpstocks, and maybe trigger cranks, get banned. After that they will then resume their usual fear mongering that every liberal the world over wants to take their guns. - The democrats will continue to not get the voter turn out in repeal of the dickey amendment and gun research will continue to be de-funded. By the way the whole reason it was defunded in the first place was an early 1990's study that said a person with a gun in their home had a greater risk from being shot than a person without. This went against the NRA's hardline narrative since 1977 of people being generally safer with guns (despite there being no actual proof that this assertion is true). - Another mass shooting will happen in 3-6mos and we will start this cycle all over again until the next mid-term election. Depending on how fed up the voter base is with the lack of progress this may allow the democrats to take back the house and senate. I think the GOP is aware of this hence the softer narrative coming out of them following vegas. What we can do: - drop the narrative that the liberals are demanding an outright ban. I think there are more people saying 9/11 was an inside job than there are people calling for a complete and totalitarian gun ban, and it's as equally a crazy proposition. Ruth Bader Ginsburg, the liberal moral compass of the supreme court has outright defended that a ban is unconstitutional and will never happen - you can't get more definitive than that. Most people in the political spectrum want to have this conversation, and you have to be open to this conversation - thinking everyone who wants to talk about gun control is talking about a ban is not being open. - Drop this hardline "2nd amendment must not be infringed" nonsense. 1) the constitution doesn't exist in a vacuum, the founding fathers didn't intend for it to stand alone but rather be the cornerstone on which a body of federal laws and judiciary could be built. Federal laws, including gun control laws, are backstopped by the constitution, they do not exist in spite of it. 2) Even the founding fathers couldn't agree as to the definition of the 2nd amendment. It has come to be defined by the body of federal laws it inspired. The actual narrative of the 2nd as a standalone right comes not from any historical context, but the NRA's Cincinnati Revolution in 1977, led by Harlon Carter. Prior to this the NRA was a sportsman organization and had a seat at the table in shaping all gun related legislation. Post 1977 it has become a hard line political machine seeking to roll back 200+ years of federal laws. - Stop supporting the current administration of the NRA. The NRA used to be a sportsman organization dedicated to positive things like education and sensible discussion that earned them the right to shape legislation and even receive and distribute free surplus ammo and targets from the government. From 1934 to 1977 every gun control bill passed was at least in part written by the NRA, and almost all the training programs came from them. Post 1977 their primary focus is to roll back all the NRA's previous work, spread lies, create a public ignorance, and protect the interests of the industry including helping the transition from rifles to hand guns through their "self defense" narrative (for which again there is no statistical proof). It is the Post 1977 NRA that advocated shooting police and government agents (ruby ridge), they profit from keeping the American public ignorant by lobbying hard for the dickey amendment and continuing to protect it, they continue to run an aggressive media hit campaign that continues to foster the division in this country and makes an enemy out of anybody looking to have a sensible conversation. Does the organization do some good? yes the training, and the work with the boy scouts, and sometimes their lawsuits against some state action are justified (except they contribute to the environment where the states are forced to act in an extreme way so it's hard to chicken or egg those situations), but there is also something very rotten in there and it needs to be excised like a tumor. The organization doesn't need to go away, just be better at representing all owners and not fringe interests politically. ok...so those are my thoughts - have at it CR

Sorry for your loss.

well....first off this is a long way off. Even if we got rid of all the gasoline cars (which by my estimation would take roughly a century and a half), there are still things that will require oil, like airplanes, to run. Also it is used prolifically in manufacturing to the point we can't have things like toothbrushes and tires without it. We will never be totally without oil. hopefully in that time those regions figure out another way to make money. They won't destabilize instantly unless something sudden happens to them. The Sudden thing that happened to Venezuela was the withholding of the US dollar from importers and price control measures inside the country, and then a drought. Venezuela is not a "poor" country but they do import a majority of essential goods and voluntarily taking themselves out of the traditional trade structure crippled the nation.

earlier page and you seem like the type. And there it is....I own you now. enjoy the rest of your afternoon with that rage boner.

I guess I should add reading comprehension to the growing list of things you are bad at. 1) I am not upset at anything. This is a medium for conversation. Grownups have conversations. Children such as yourself should sit in the corner and not disturb the grown ups when they are talking, esp with their imaginary conspiracy theories about recent tragedies or how 9/11 was an inside job. If you want to have a grown up conversation, then grow the fuck up. 2) if you read all of this and the thing you get out of it is about people being fired...then I don't know what to tell you...you just are not smart. I'm not saying that as an insult (ok maybe a little as an insult), I just don't feel that you are knowledgeable or intelligent. 3) Bill O'Reilly was fired. For something else. He's on his own now. he can't be fired from a website he owns. I will add, no where did I say he should be fired. Its a conversation about human cost. Even Tim got that (because he's not dumb).

I am talking about Comments Bill O'Reilly made about acceptable human costs regarding the vegas tragedy. YOU are talking about journalists being fired without any perspective to the vegas tragedy. Again, how is this relevant?

how is any of this relevant to the current conversation?

you know what? I'm good.

It doesn't matter which one is worse...the conversation I want to have is "do you believe it?" Well, not with you, you obviously do. But really, I think it is a shitty thing to say that 59 people's lives are a price we should just accept without recognizing there is, at the bare minimum, a discussion that can be had. I think it is a position that is rooted in the misconception that all people in favor of gun control want to ban all guns, and exploits that ignorance for a very specific political agenda. And I would like to have a conversation about that. since you brought up age, I don't expect your fragile, 20 something, mad at the world brand of ignorance and rage to understand that is the real conversation so I'll just sit back and watch you not help your self while you grantrum all over the place.

fixed it for you sweetums. :thumbup:

Is it though? I don't believe that a total ban in necessary to improve the system and continue down the path to safety. I think that most people don't believe it. The only ones who do are extremist nut jobs on both sides. I think that the above statement is a red herring that is specifically designed to shut down the conversation. I don't that that is what this situation calls for. People want to talk about this, and they want recognition of a middle ground. yep, and the majority of gun control legislation is about vetting people to grant access. That sounds more like restrictions on people than the weapons themselves. It also sounds like it might address some of the nations concern. We don't make progress on any of it, anyway, and when these things come up the politicizing of the issue tends to focus on outright hardware restriction bills (like the suppressor bill) because they are polarizing. you can bitch and moan about vetting people as part of a travel ban (where the existing process was already very effective) and have no problem being flippant about their constitutionally protected basic human rights, but a vetting process to a piece of equipment (where the existing vetting process has more holes than swiss cheese) you are going to rail against? I don't get the logic (because it's stupid). If you really believe that the price of one life has any value, then I don't think you would take the position that nothing can be done, or that it is a necessary cost.

Just so I am clear on your double standard: It's perfectly ok for Conservative fanboi to post something shitty a liberal asshole said (which I 100% agree was an asshole thing to say and she should have and did get fired over it) but the moment I point out that a political pundit, whose literal job it is to say shitty things to get you worked up, says a shitty thing - it's not ok by your standard? I'd has you to pull your head out of your ass grant but I think all the heavy excavators you would need to do the job are in use at the moment. you know what... I am going to assume you just agree with him, seems to fit your character as an overall shitty person.

I don't want to add to the conspiracy-paloza that is going on here....so..... if we are going to talk about the now fired insensitive NBC lawyer for her remarks can we at least throw some stones at Bill O'Reilly for saying that mass shootings are gun an inevitable byproduct of freedom and we should accept this tragedy as "the price of freedom" and move on? http://variety.com/2017/tv/news/bill-oreilly-las-vegas-shooting-1202578290/ I mean, I can't be the only one that thinks that's an asshole thing to say, right?

day and time of the sale? saw those cabinets clay got from you, super envious. you don't have any more kicking around do you?

who is this we? I keep saying...just you...

if you lock it up, Brandon is just gonna start more threads to post whatever thing triggered him on facebook. At least here it is contained.