Man in Zorro Costume Detained Ahead of Chaotic Night at LAX

[jtrain609]

Lol.... a thread about an incident turns into a gun argument (what a friggin shock, since apparently people want to turn this into arguingaboutguns.com), and the other half turns into bitching about how much California sucks. Which is funny, considering how many of the same people complaining think the federal government should be hands off and the states should decide how they govern themselves. You know, except when they do stuff you don't like.

I find that states rights advocates are all about small government and states making decisions as long as they can discriminate as they see fit, and if they can't, they want the full force and effect of the federal government to protect them.

I figure you're either a Federalist or you're Against Us.

 

[B200 Hawk]

#ZorroLivesMatter

 

[Bandit_Driver]

As far as I know the Zorro guy and the mass panic were not related to each other. No one knows where the "loud noises" came from. They're doing a lot of construction in terminal 7/8, and it wouldn't surprise me if some loud construction noises startled someone and they didn't stop to think where the noise was coming from. I heard that the panic started in terminal 8 near gate 80 and spread like wild fire as security propagated the issue to other terminals.

Probably construction using a RAMSET

 

[Bandit_Driver]

That would make great business sense in the worlds 6th largest economy and largest state by population in the USA.

Sends a message you won't be dictated too... or better yet just add a California fee to all packages to pay for the new trucks...

 

[Lawman]

I find that states rights advocates are all about small government and states making decisions as long as they can discriminate as they see fit, and if they can't, they want the full force and effect of the federal government to protect them.

I figure you're either a Federalist or you're Against Us.

Conversely the "we need a national standard" crowd only want to fight for that state majority overriding drive when it serves there purpose.

Remember the freak out over text books because of Texas? Suddenly people in New York or California weren't the driving decider for the rest of the country and they weren't happy about it.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Lawman]

That would make great business sense in the worlds 6th largest economy and largest state by population in the USA.

It's funny you're essentially defending a state making a bad environmental driven decision effecting businesses that allow that economy to function.

Thanks to double refining and other programs forced on diesel it is by pound transported per amount of exhaust produced and petrol consumed far more cost effective and environmentally beneficial than gas engines.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[JordanD]

Sends a message you won't be dictated too.

Jeez, really sucks when companies have to like, abide by laws.

 

[JordanD]

Thanks to double refining and other programs forced on diesel



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Heavy handed government BS we should do away with. Works great over in China.

 

[Lawman]

Heavy handed government BS we should do away with. Works great over in China.

We have a hatred of diesel in this country. It is amazing that we purposefully walk away from a form of fuel with higher thermodynamic efficiency and go so far as to attack it through extra taxes (both at the pump and at the time of purchase) and different standards of emissions because the black smoke we can see is to easy to hate vs the hydrocarbons we can't. Meanwhile it is singularly responsible for most of the commerce movement in this country (train/truck transport).

Never mind the fact that diesel refining is far more efficient for overall use to the rest of the things you need to burn fuel for over petrol gas.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Cherokee_Cruiser]

I'm going to stick with the age old defense of lots of guns. If a sociopath wants to do harm, which law in particuliar would prevent him or her from doing harm? I understand the guy stealing his law abiding mothers gun, but if we put the genie back in the bottle and made all guns vanish, would he have still done harm? Could he have killed just as many with a Bowie knife, since none of the teachers (I assume) were armed? (Nor would they be if we made his mothers gun disappear with the rest?)
I've yet to hear a reasonable response to this point. None of your points make sense (with respect) unless we could make all the guns (except the safe ones from California) disappear.
So, yes, in the mean time, the answer to a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun.
What's the average response time of your local police department? How many small towns in California don't even have a police department?
And I'm not even touching the most prominent arguement, the INTENT of the founding fathers when writing EVERY word of the bill of rights.
But I'll leave that alone because I realize most of the left believes that to be an antiquated document.
It's like God, the Constitution and Santa clause are all in the same basket, I know. (Sorry, small jab at the end there, couldn't help it)
And believe it or not, I always appreciate your input, please continue. Or at least until the lock!

No, he wouldn't have killed 25+ people with a knife in that school. He shot out the barrier to the school using the Bushmaster.

"Good guy with a gun" could be someone with 0 to 8 hrs training firing maybe 30-50 rounds at most.

 

[Cherokee_Cruiser]

The result of the the "assault " weapons bans in New York and Connecticut. California will follow suit, myself included. I will not comply.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/frankmi...-register-their-assault-weapons/#515ec2e7bdf2

You won't comply with a law? Makes you a criminal, no? What happened to the "we're law-abiding citizens!"


Doesn't matter what you "feel" the state law is. If it violates the Constitution, the Supreme court will over turn it. Until that day, I hope you don't break any laws as a "responsible" legal gun owner.

 

[z987k]

We have a hatred of diesel in this country. It is amazing that we purposefully walk away from a form of fuel with higher thermodynamic efficiency and go so far as to attack it through extra taxes (both at the pump and at the time of purchase) and different standards of emissions because the black smoke we can see is to easy to hate vs the hydrocarbons we can't. Meanwhile it is singularly responsible for most of the commerce movement in this country (train/truck transport).

Never mind the fact that diesel refining is far more efficient for overall use to the rest of the things you need to burn fuel for over petrol gas.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Indeed we do. If you're not in a vehicle designed for shortish distance races or need a very lightweight engine, you should be burning a heavy oil fuel. Period.

 

[z987k]

As far as I know, and the examples I gave in my post, a Ruger Mini 15/Mini 30, and some models of Springfield M1As can and will continue to be eligible for purchase new without any of the "evil" features, hence the term "featureless", and won't require registration. The laws makes no sense to me, I can't imagine that an AR15 would be any less deadly than an M1A in the wrong hands, lever action rifles are also not going to be affected, I'm trying to save up for a Big Horn Model 89 carbine, an 18" barreled lever action rifle chambered in 500S&W that holds seven rounds, I would guess that it holds a heck of a lot more potential energy than a ten round AR but it looks like a cowboy gun so it can't be dangerous, right?

My 300win mag bolt action is far more deadly than an AR-15 for mass murder. It has none of the offending characteristics. Has a touch more energy than a 223. But lets not advertise it too much. They'll want those to.
Oh, I'd like that Big Horn gun to, but the price is ridiculous.

 

[bucksmith]

Lol.... a thread about an incident turns into a gun argument (what a friggin shock, since apparently people want to turn this into arguingaboutguns.com), and the other half turns into bitching about how much California sucks. Which is funny, considering how many of the same people complaining think the federal government should be hands off and the states should decide how they govern themselves. You know, except when they do stuff you don't like.

Nobody said hands off. We have a document that spells out exactly what the fed gov can do. There's even a sentence in there that says if it's not covered by this document, then it's up to the states. That's one of the beautiful things about our country, we have a constitution that tells the government what it CAN do. If you don't like it, amend it. Until then, get the heck out of my business and stop belittling me for grasping onto our rule of law. That's all we're saying.
We can even amend the document if we think states rights is allowing disriminatory laws to be in place.
This forth branch of government that is writing laws (er, regulations) and allowing non elected officials to change the fabric of this country is sad to watch. It makes many of the people you seem to simplisticly reduce to pbr drinking he-haws frustrated with our system and think that it is broken. Besides the other conspiratory forces at work, I'd like to say "thanks a friggin lot" to the far left for essentially creating the vacuum that allowed this baffoon to rise to lead my fathers party.
If all that went by you (or over you) lemme break it down for ya, California sucks.

 

[z987k]

Besides the other conspiratory forces at work, I'd like to say "thanks a friggin lot" to the far left for essentially creating the vacuum that allowed this baffoon to rise to lead my fathers party.

The two party primary system led to that. The inevitable consequence of only the fringe of the party picking the candidate for the general election is that the candidates move further and further to the fringe.
Your side just happens to be more batcrap than the other, which is a result of your fringe being more right than the left's fringe is left. Though you could argue the actual people on the left wanted someone far more left than is the candidate.
But in this country, what amounts to a private corporation picks the people we get to vote for. Yeah crony Republicanism!(not the party)

 

[bucksmith]

I find that states rights advocates are all about small government and states making decisions as long as they can discriminate as they see fit, and if they can't, they want the full force and effect of the federal government to protect them.

I figure you're either a Federalist or you're Against Us.

Again, reducing the people that consider themselves constitutional conservatives to a bunch of racist is a bit ignorant. And if I remember correctly, it was the democrats that wanted to use law to discriminate so badly that they threw a fit and started their own country. (I'm not talking about the conch republic, btw)

 

[z987k]

Again, reducing the people that consider themselves constitutional conservatives to a bunch of racist is a bit ignorant. And if I remember correctly, it was the democrats that wanted to use law to discriminate so badly that they threw a fit and started their own country. (I'm not talking about the conch republic, btw)
As far as that last statement of yours, what?

You know that the Southern Democrats that did that all joined the Republican party and that party embraced them in 1964 right? I think you'd be very hard pressed to find a sons or daughters of the confederacy that votes blue.

 

[bucksmith]

The two party primary system led to that. The inevitable consequence of only the fringe of the party picking the candidate for the general election is that the candidates move further and further to the fringe.
Your side just happens to be more batcrap than the other, which is a result of your fringe being more right than the left's fringe is left. Though you could argue the actual people on the left wanted someone far more left than is the candidate.
But in this country, what amounts to a private corporation picks the people we get to vote for. Yeah crony Republicanism!(not the party)

Agreed, mostly. I haven't called myself a republican in a long time. I was commenting on the segment of his supporters that rose from the frustration created by, imho, overreaching bloated government that does what it wants, despite our constitution, democrat or republican. (But mostly democrat )

 

[bucksmith]

You know that the Southern Democrats that did that all joined the Republican party and that party embraced them in 1964 right? I think you'd be very hard pressed to find a sons or daughters of the confederacy that votes blue.

You mean after they finished up with Jim Crow and segregation? For a good time, Google "Dixiecrats".
What you just said is completely false. After the civil rights act passed with the help of a democrat president, white racist democrats switched parties out of spite. (We never invited them!)
And what about eryone's precious democrat that carried JFK's torch? Check out his voting record in Texas before becoming prez. You mean to tell me he had some kind of enlightenment?
I'm not proud of the bunch of clowns that run on the republican ticket, but I resent constantly being lumped in with racist animals, and quite frankly, when it comes from the left, I think it's awfully ironic!

I'll see ya in the lav!

Edit: I honestly don't know what kind of welcome mat might of been rolled out in the 60's, so I guess I meant to say "I didn't invite them".

 

[jtrain609]

Again, reducing the people that consider themselves constitutional conservatives to a bunch of racist is a bit ignorant. And if I remember correctly, it was the democrats that wanted to use law to discriminate so badly that they threw a fit and started their own country. (I'm not talking about the conch republic, btw)

Oh don't get the wrong impression, I didn't just mean that you are a racist; I find that constitutional conservatives hate minorities, women, homosexuals, catholics, and pretty much anyone that isn't like them.

So I didn't call you racist, I said you're racist AND you discriminate against anyone that isn't exactly like you.

Glad we had the chance to clear this up.