Jump to content
SASS Wire Forum

Loophole LaRue, SASS #51438

Members
  • Posts

    5,937
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    4

Posts posted by Loophole LaRue, SASS #51438

  1. 26 minutes ago, T.K. said:

    The thing you have to remember is according to my insurance agent I would have to supply serial numbers and photos to increase coverage above the 5 grand on my initial policy, and of course my next question was "is that confidential information?" to which he replied they would have to furnish it if requested to any government agency or law enforcement officials.

    So I bought a bigger and better safe.

    Maybe sending them by UPS or such may be an option. If you claim the value over $1000.00 it is handled like a "chain of custody" each person that handles it has to sign for it. The loader, driver etc. I state the contents are " machine parts" which isn't a total untruth.

    Just a thought.

    Good Luck, Pard!

     

    This is why you don't buy gun insurance from a home or auto insurer - they just don't understand the business.

     

    I've been using Lockton Affinity; they know firearms.  And they have not asked me for any serial numbers.

     

    https://locktonaffinityoutdoor.com/firearm-insurance/

     

    LL

    • Thanks 1
  2. What is the link between Dihydrogen Monoxide and gun violence?

    "The incidence of gun violence seems to be rising at an alarming rate. A recent stunning revelation is that in every single instance of violence involving guns, both in the U.S. and internationally, Dihydrogen Monoxide was involved. In fact, DHMO is often very available to those who would do harm to others. Meanwhile, apparently no efforts have been made to limit the availability of this potentially dangerous chemical compound."

     

    When I hit this one, I had to stop and think.  How is this possible?  When have you ever known any single factor to be present in every incidence of a type of crime?

     

    I have my doubts about the accuracy of this entire post.

     

    LL

    • Like 1
    • Haha 5
  3. 3 minutes ago, Sedalia Dave said:

     

    Que Sara Sara

     

     

    Uh, do you mean "que sera, sera"?  Roughly "what will be, will be"?

     

    Or are you happy about some pound cake (" What Sara Lee, Sara Lee?")

     

    LL

    • Haha 4
  4. 2 hours ago, PaleWolf Brunelle, #2495L said:

     

     

    Somehow, I have trouble reconciling James Bond with Dick Van Dyke....

     

    But there was a second connection between the Bond films and Chitty Chitty...

     

    Both films featured Desmond  Llewelyn (as Q in 17 007 films)

     

    LL

    • Like 2
  5. On 7/11/2021 at 12:39 PM, J-BAR #18287 said:

    Gonna be tough to pull down the Jefferson Memorial Gateway Arch in St. Louis:
     

    B75C531E-1076-4B4B-ABDC-404E4B965BE3.thumb.jpeg.63da39544d8727fe5909df64548a6243.jpeg

     

     

    Tearing that down would be just plain wasteful.....

     

    Paint it yellow and open a hamburger stand underneath it......

     

    LL

    • Haha 3
  6. 10 hours ago, Alpo said:

    What I had hoped for, happened.

     

    Letting it sit overnight with the light turned off, and the battery came up with a little bit of charge. Enough that my smart charger recognized it, and it is now charging the battery. 12 or 15 hours from now it will probably have enough charge to start the car, and I can drive down to the parts house and get a new battery. Yay.

     

    I always love those unexpected $150 - $200 charges.

    My Audi sat in the garage for 2 months, and would not start when I tried it.  No clicks.  No solenoid sound,  No growls.

     

    I have an emergency starter battery pack - nada.

     

    Used jumper cables from the Jeep; lights, door buzzer, but nothing more.

     

    Called AAA; they got nothing more. Battery was less than a year old.  Zippo.

     

    Had the car towed (flatbed) to the dealer.

     

    Battery was $265; install was $135; that's a $400 battery replacement.

     

    Still wouldn't start.

     

    Dead starter.  Replacement was $650; labor was $900.

     

    With tax, $2000 plus the tow.

     

    All good now, except that I'm broke.....I love German cars.

     

    LL

     

     

    • Sad 2
  7. I've never had a cup of coffee, and I have not had the virus; does that mean that NOT drinking coffee makes one virus-proof?

     

    Anecdotal reports of supposed correlations is not scientific proof of anything.  To each his/her own.  I, however, draw the line short of pig vaccines.

     

    LL

    • Like 2
    • Haha 1
  8. 8 minutes ago, Larsen E. Pettifogger, SASS #32933 said:

    Maybe this explains Biden's dementia and Kamala's idiotic laughing.  Vaccine side effects?

     

    Nah...pre-existing conditions.

     

    LL

    • Like 2
    • Thanks 1
    • Haha 3
  9. 32 minutes ago, J-BAR #18287 said:

    If Freedom is to work, then the government cannot force anyone to get a vaccination.  But if Freedom is to work, individuals must bear the consequences of their choices.  Get the government out of the Health Care business, allow insurance companies to write policies specifically tailored to the individual's risks.  You don't want the vaccine, fine, but then your health insurance premium goes up a bit to reflect the increased risk you face for the expenses if you get the disease.

     

    My wife and I are beyond reproductive age.  Why should we be charged a health insurance premium that includes having a baby?  We don't smoke.  Why should our health insurance premium include the risk of smoking associated conditions and diseases.  We are not obese.  Why should our health insurance premium reflect the risks associated with obesity?

     

    If insurance companies could truly compete without the government mandating coverages, then the overall price of health care would be reduced.

     

    To the original question:  my decision to get vaccinated did not depend on the endorsement of any other person, politician, celebrity, etc. Freedom means they make their decisions, I make mine, and we accept the consequences of those decisions.

     

    Which may go to show how unfree we are. 

     

     

    The basic precept of insurance is to spread risk widely among as many insureds as possible, lowering the cost of insurance to an affordable level.  If you allowed people to exclude the cost of the risks that they believe they will not incur, you basically end up as a self-insurer, or as an uninsured person, if for any reason you do become ill.  Taking your example, you don't smoke so you want to exclude lung disease from the risks you are insured against.  But many people become ill from lung conditions other than smoking; will your insurer now refuse to pay for your treatment?  Can you imagine what a patchwork of specialized policies would need to be created, and how much litigation there would be over coverage disputes?  If only folks who might become pregnant buy coverage for preganancy, you are reducing the pool of available premiums by at least 50%, making such coverage twice as expensive, forcing many folks to go without such coverage because of its prohibitive cost.  Be careful what you wish for; if such "custom" policies were available, and many folks excluded coverage for uncommon disorders from their policies, you could find yourself paying exhorbitant premiums if you suffer from an uncommon disease that requires expensive meds; in effect, a death sentence if you can't pay the premiums.

     

    LL

    • Like 2
    • Thanks 1
  10. Only going to reach the 70's here; but we're under a tropical storm warning, with rain and thunderstorms all day, winds gusting to 70+ mph, and a threat of.......tornados!

     

    Going to be a challanging day; tie down the picnic table and the swing set!

     

    LL

  11. 14 hours ago, Dustin Checotah said:

    Au contraire Pierre! Heading North from MD to Canady on the East coast once you leave New Hampshire you enter Maine where open carry and Constitutional carry are allowed. At least for now.

     

    Didn't NH cancel it's concealed carry permit requirement last year?  I suppose that makes them a "Constitutional Carry" state as well.  That's a disappointment for me; I used to have an out-of-state NH permit, which broadened the reach of my ability to carry by including states that had reciprocity with NH. Now with no NH permit, I have only a MA permit, recognized by very few other states.  MA does not recognize any other state's permits.

     

    LL

  12. 4 hours ago, Patagonia Pete said:

    Yeah ... interesting about the racial aspect of the news coverage ... AND ... pretty poor judgement displaying guns while on the side of the road ...

    (like ... why even bother with the low profile refuel if you're not going to keep a low profile .. sigh ...) ... BUT ...

     

    It is pretty interesting that MA statues allows > the colonel of state police, or persons authorized by him, to issue a "temporary carry license" to a nonresident or any person not falling within the jurisdiction of a local licensing authority ... subject to terms and conditions said colonel may deem proper".

     

    Wow ... how arbitrary ... (hope this kicks up some 2nd amendment legal teams!! Perhaps the race sensitivity of this incident might just give a needed boost) ... 

     

     

     

     

    Pete:

     

    All of our concealed carry permits are issued by local Chiefs of Police, who have very wide discretion in determining who is a "fit person" to have such a permit.  They also have the discretion to narrow the legal purpose of such a permit, restricting it to "hunting" only, or "transport of firearms to the range", or any other limitation they may choose.  My permit was issued "for any legal purpose", the broadest classification available.  Some Chiefs refuse to issue such broad permits; some refuse to issue any at all.  There has been some recent litigation concerning outright refusals, where the refused applicant has appealed to the Superior Court; there have not been enough decisions to establish any clear guidance that might serve to restrict the Chiefs' discretion short of requiring legal action.

     

    The temporary licenses are a very unique animal; I've never seen one issued, but I'm sure some have been.

     

    LL

  13. 16 hours ago, Buckshot Bob said:

    Maybe that’s why they did it , if it’s legal wouldn’t it be another case of the police picking on a group of black men ? 

    Black or white, expect to be stopped by the police if you open carry in MA.  Although there are no specific laws that forbid it, you will be cited/arrested for "disturbing the peace", or some similar vague charge.  Your firearm will be seized.  If you have a concealed carry permit, it will be taken, at least temporarily.  In short, there is an assumption among law enforcement that you must be a trouble maker if you open carry.

     

    This has always puzzled me.  We have an extensive web of firearms laws, and yet no law specifically addressing open carry.  You cannot buy a firearm in MA without some type of permit that allows you to possess it; you need a similar permit to buy ammunition; you need a permit to carry concealed (and if you have that permit, it covers possession of any firearm and purchasing ammo as well).  But there are no permits required for open carry, and no prohibitions against it either.

     

    MA recognizes and follows 18 USC 926A; these guys would probably have been fine if they were legally able to own these guns in RI, and secured them properly, unloaded, in an inaccessible portion of their vehicle, while driving through MA.  But having them loaded, out on the roadway or in their hands, was a major no-no.  Being in possession of a handgun in MA without a permit is an automatic mandatory 1 year in prison.  Being in possession of a loaded long gun on a public way, without a proper permit, is also a felony.  I don't know if they were inviting arrest to raise some legal issue, but they are likely to find out now.

     

    I watched an extended YouTube video posted by the leader, Rey.  He has a line of patter that seems to be intended to lull the listener into believing that his group is inoffensive and well-intentioned.  I doubt it.  They may not be overtly violent, but they seem to be intent on avoiding the law, claiming special privilege and immunity, and taking property that is not legally theirs.  They bear watching.

     

    LL

    • Like 3
    • Thanks 1
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.