Comments by "Charles Eye" (@TheCharleseye) on "ABC News"
channel.
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@coolcat6303 It's specifically because I'm a law abiding gun owner that this kind of nonsense does bother me. I've lived my life on the straight and narrow. I've committed no offense greater than traveling above the speed limit my entire life. What do I get for my responsible behavior? I get to jump through hoop after hoop, having to prove time and time again that I am an upstanding citizen.
Meanwhile, the only people these laws don't bother are those who don't want to own guns and, of course, criminals. See, neither you nor the guy who might shoot you one day is all that inconvenienced by these laws.
- He's going to steal or buy a stolen gun.
- You're going to continue to think the police will get there in time.
- He's going to show up, rob you, and shoot you.
- You're going to die.
- He's going to run away.
- The police are going to show up eventually and write up a report.
- They'll run the serial number (if your killer leaves the gun behind, which he probably won't) and come up with the name of some guy who had his gun stolen five years prior.
- Your case will go unsolved.
- Your family will go public, demanding politicians enact more useless laws.
- Your killer will laugh at the next anti-gun press conference ABC airs, while loading yet another stolen gun.
- I'm going to be standing in line, waiting for a psych evaluation, a physical, and an IQ test to prove, yet again, that I should be allowed to buy a gun (even though I already have guns and have never harmed anyone).
Thanks but I don't think I'll be subscribing to your brand of "logic" any time soon.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@vie2210 That's where the car came to a stop. If you're a professional driver, you should know that cars don't just stop dead in their tracks when something hits their windshield. Plus, you can see from the damage to the front of the car that it went had bounced off of at least a couple of those concrete dividers. I think you're stuck on the idea that everyone has time to hit the brakes. That's not the case.
A car traveling at 65+ mph can coast a very long way, if something doesn't bring it to a stop (which going by the condition of the front of the car, something did). Furthermore, your anecdote about "there's fences" doesn't take into account those which are in disrepair (you know, that infrastructure issue you mentioned earlier) or those that simply haven't yet been fenced (yes, they do exist). Yes, this is speculation but then, that's all either of us has been doing.
Now look at 0:17 into the video. They're standing under an overpass, inspecting it. Why would they do that? Whether it was because someone threw the concrete off of it or it chunked off and fell by itself, the car would have had to have passed under it to get hit. Your latest reply actually goes against your original conspiracy theory. Now I have to ask: If the car was nowhere near an overpass, got hit by a piece of concrete and came to a dead stop (so hard that both front wheels were torn loose) where does your new theory say the concrete came from? Space? A special concrete airplane?
Or is it possible that someone chucked a piece of concrete off the overpass seen in the video, hit the windshield, killed the driver and the car kept moving forward (as they do) until it had wrecked its front end enough to come to a stop where it appears at around 0:40 in the video? I have an easier time believing that than whatever it is your new implications are pointing to.
2
-
@vie2210 First, that's not a newer vehicle. Second, the airbag sensors are in the front, rear and sides of a vehicle, near common impact zones. I could throw bowling balls through your windshield at you all day and it would never trigger the airbags or (on newer cars) the brake lockup feature.
As for the idea that a piece of debris - traveling in the same general direction as this car - could fall off a truck and through the windshield (without a bounce) with enough force to kill the driver runs pretty counterintuitive to the laws of physics. A body in motion stays in motion. If they were both travelling, say, West at relatively equal speeds, the impact would be at nearly 0 mph. He would have to have been hauling ass past the truck for it to have even made it all the way through the windshield (they're laminated).
As for your little snipe at the end, your reading comprehension is lacking. At no point did I even imply that "some drunk teenager did it, open and shut." I presented a plausible alternative to your paranoid ramblings. You pressed me on it and I backed it up - whereas you folded on your claims. Never once did I say "This is what happened." I have no idea what happened. I just know that there are much better odds of some scenarios than others. Your latest scenario is at least getting within the realm of possible, so I applaud you for the effort. However, that wasn't a real forensic hypothesis. It was spit-balling out of frustration of having your other theories dismantled (with your own help). At least we're off the "It's a vast conspiracy!" nonsense. Baby steps.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
hellasow b Um, you might want to rethink your "guns of their time" stance. At the time, the 2nd amendment was also protecting private citizens' right to own cannons. I really don't think you want to go there.
Anyway, your premise is false, regardless. "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the Right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed." "The people" had the same firearms available to them as any modern (for the time) army. Do you really think the founders intended for the militia to continue using muskets when any invading force was upgrading their arms? They knew about things like the Puckle gun at the time the Constitution was penned. They didn't add any clauses that said "But if guns get, like, really powerful and stuff, the People totally shouldn't have those." Why? Because they were building a Country based on individual freedoms. They fought to get out from under the thumb of an overreaching government. The Second Amendment was put in pace so that no American would ever have to submit to one again.
So yeah, I'm pretty sure they'd have been cool with AKs and ARs. You really shouldn't try to argue for more Federal regulations by invoking the founding fathers. They'd have probably shot you for treason. Just sayin'.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
PwnyGOD Actually, I wasn't referring to that and it's the first I'm seeing of it. That was about some interview. I'm talking about a speech I watched her give after one of the mass shootings. If I find it, I'll post a link but I assure you, I have no interest in the NRA or their shtick.
As for her policies, they're pretty clear. She wants the Heller decision reversed. She's made no bones about that. The Heller decision determined that the second amendment was not simply protecting a State's Right to a militia but also the individual Right to keep and bear arms for home/self defense. Now, if that decision is reversed, then suddenly, we no longer have a Right to defend ourselves with firearms. If that's the case, then we have no "need" for anything other than hunting rifles and shotguns (nobody hunts with a handgun). She has been sure to say on many occasions that she has no problem with guns...for hunting. So, even if I can't find the video of the speech, it's not exactly necessary. She doesn't want to reverse Heller because she thinks we should be able to have the types of guns people carry for self defense. Can you really justify her desire to take away our Right to defend ourselves with a firearm as "common sense" gun control? That goes way beyond background checks and registration.
1
-
1