[Doly]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('rwwff', '
')Right now, time is more valuable than oil. Sorry.

[fireplaceguy]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('rwwff', '
')You're thinking that if we start conserving, 100 million Indians are not going to want to add air conditioning to their uninsulated homes?

Ok.......

[fireplaceguy]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Doly', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('rwwff', '
')Right now, time is more valuable than oil. Sorry.

[sventvkg]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Specop_007', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Dreamtwister', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Specop_007', 'Y')ou dont travel much do you. 55 MPH is horrific.

[azreal60]

As I would hardly be one to support 55 mph when I never obey it myself, (shhhh) I'm just going to ask a question of rwwff. So, I'm a Dem. Not your usual dem though. I really don't see guns as much as a cause of crime as a tool that makes crime worse. I think however there are alot of things that you could do to bring crime down that don't involve guns.

So here's my proposal. I'll require everything legal currently to register guns. I don't think anyone would argue with not wanting guns in the hands of felons and the like, so ya gotta do some paperwork when buying a gun. I won't say I'm going to support CCR or what ever you called the concealed carrying thing, because I would say that's exactly the wrong route. Basically the only time's I've seen a gun become a really bad thing is when it's suddenly produced. It turned a situation undercontrol into a situation that very rapidly esculated out of control.
Instead, I'll say nationwide right to carry in the open. If I know a person has a gun, I can treat them accordingly from the get go. If you don't want to deal with the social consquences of carrying a gun, well, tough. If you don't like how people treat you, then don't carry one. =)

I personally plan to own many firearms, and I'm not going to buy this bullshit of dems going after your guns. That's a bunch of crap. They only did even the small things they did do because the cops who advised them where telling them this is a good idea. Mostly because those same cops where getting their asses shot off by better equiped criminals.

So, would you then stop basing your voting on a silly knee jerk reaction to firearms? Dear god, if we reach the point where you have to resist your government with firearms, then I really don't think it's much going to matter which party is in power. I never understood the whole I'm going to hole up here and if the government comes calling they'll get a peice of my gun collection thought. I mean, you really think they wouldn't dig your butt out if you where an isolated case? And if your not (an isolated case), you really think they would even try? There are alot of things you could be resisting. Heck, join the ACLU and rescue it from the current crop of wayy too far left liberals holding it. As they said in the American president, here is an organization dedicated to defending the constitution. How can you argue with that? Get it to defend you for a change. =)

[rwwff]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('azreal60', '
')So here's my proposal. I'll require everything legal currently to register guns. I don't think anyone would argue with not wanting guns in the hands of felons

[azreal60]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'a')zreal60 wrote:

So here's my proposal. I'll require everything legal currently to register guns. I don't think anyone would argue with not wanting guns in the hands of felons


This is already done.

[rwwff]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('azreal60', '
')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'T')hey *did* it. They haven't apologized, nor made even a symbolic repeal vote. We took it back by political force. I have no reason to believe the Dems would act any differently if they regained power

[Geko45]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('rwwff', 'I') don't have a problem with the ban on full auto weapons. But again, full automatic weapons are not mentioned in the Assault Weapons Ban of 1993.

[phaster]

Just wondering how other believers in a peak would react to a federal mandate to reduce max speed limits back to 55 mph?
I'd personally support changing the limit downward because it's a question of basic physics and efficency, the slower ya drive the less energy ya need, hence less CO2 is released into the atmosphere. This is one step I think can solve the problem of climate change and peak oil.

But as it stands I don't think 99.9% of politicians or political leaders have the balls or brains to take decisive action (esp after watching this news report on political hypocrisy in Texas)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eG6X-xtVask

[emailking]

It would be good and would also mean less deaths, but I doubt we'll see it happen unless/until things get pretty bad.

[Revi]

My little pickup doesn't go much more than 55 anyway. I think it's a great idea. People will freak out, but that's the way it goes. We all need to slow down anyway. It would save huge amounts of gas.

[kpeavey]

to sell such an idea to the public, rather than explain how much fuel it would save and how it would reduce our dependence on foreign oil and all sorts of environmental stuff, we will need a short and simple slogan that also shows how much the government cares about the people it [s]subjugates[/s] serves...

55 SAVES LIVES

[SILENTTODD]

I came of age shortly before the shortly before the "first" oil crisis of 1973. I had only been driving 2 years.
Ever since then I have made it an endeavor to try and nurse every last mile out of every tank of gas. Because even then I knew this was going to happen again.

I have never owned anything but fuel efficient compact cars or small trucks.
To this day I drive under 60 mph in the slow lanes. I try to find a large slow truck or someone towing a trailer or boat to follow.

As pointed out above, strict adherence to 55mph would reduce the number and severity of accidents. Greatly improve your fuel mileage, and reduce wear and tear on your vehicle. The small truck I'm driving now I bought new 20 years ago and it just went over 300,000 miles with the same engine.

[Jack]

I suggest a search for Jevon's paradox.

[SchroedingersCat]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', '1')2/1/42 Gas rationing and a 35 mph speed limit on all roads that had been in effect along the East Coast for 7 months was extended nationally to conserve gasoline and rubber during World War II

[Tanada]

55 is a pointless excercise of feelgoodism coupled with revenue enhancment for the local authorities.
It never accomplished a damn thing in terms of fuel or life savings because the VAST majority ignored it. Life is too short and driving faster saves time to do other things. In order to really enforce 55 you would have to have hundreds of additional patrol cars and police/enforcement officers.

Police/sherriff HATE 55 enforcement, the most dangerous thing they can do on the job is pull over random cars. More enforcement officers are killed doing that one aspect of their job than any other. This makes them both irritated and tense when approaching a motorist. Not a happy situation when the enforcement officer is armed and traffic is whizzing by, either of which can lead to death. A percentage of officers are hit by traffic every year, and a larger percentage end up in confrontations with stupid people or criminals who feel they have nothing to lose.

It is not fair to put officers in this position, it makes average citizens more likely to despise them on sight AND it puts them at increased risks for what is very low pay to start with. It also needs draconian levels of police presence to effectively enforce. We don't need a bigger police state, thank you very much. No on 55.

[Heineken]

I think we should increase it to 75. Then our signs will match our current behavior. Then, as drivers adjust to 85, CO2 levels will be decreased by all the extra fatalities.

[TheDude]

I can't drive 55.



How about just putting governors in cars?

[TheTurtle]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('TheDude', 'H')ow about just putting governors in cars?