Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login

Log In

A valid email is required.
Password is required.
Site Notices
Posted: 12/18/2001 11:38:21 AM EDT
In the wake of the September 11 attacks, Chuck Schumer and Dianne Feinstein have called for stricter laws on automobiles, for fear of truck bombings. Schumer and Feinstein's bill, also known as the Truck Bomb Bill propose that manufacturers, from 2004 onwards, only have 10-gallon tanks. "We feel that by only having 10 gallons in a gas tank, it would hinder a terrorist's ability to carry out a truck bombing. Children are 48 times more likely to be killed in truck bombings," Schumer said. "It would also reduce drunk drivings, where children are the primary victims." Feinstein commented, "By forcing motorists to visit the gas station more often, they will realize how much they spend on gas, and they will cut back on the amount of driving they do. This will reduce the amount of traffic, causing less traffic fatalities. 234,258 children die each day because of traffic accidents, and many, many more are injured." Doesn't the 10 gallon limit seem arbitrary? Feinstein said, "Who needs a 20 gallon tank to go duck hunting? 234,258 children die every day because of car accidents. We should be doing this for the children. I'm sure people would rather give up their personal freedom for the children."
Link Posted: 12/18/2001 11:46:52 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 12/18/2001 11:40:18 AM EDT by jhasz]
Another attempt at a freedom encroaching law being foisted upon the public - which will say , yes, more than 10 gals of gasoline are very dangerous and explosive! BAH! first off, gasoline is flammable, not explosive - of course that difference is the same as smokeless power - it burns, black powder explodes.... (at least that's what I understand) Secondly, gasoline [b]vapor[/b] is more dangerous than a tank [b]full[/b] of gasoline... It's the air/fuel mixture that burns, and when confined in an enclosed space (cylinder, or gas tank) makes something "explode". So another "feel good" law by schumer and sweinstien... A smaller tank won't stop an explosion as much as saying we should stop at every station adn top our tanks off - but then how are you going to regulate [i]that![/i]
Link Posted: 12/18/2001 11:50:01 AM EDT
Originally Posted By Skunkabilly: Schumer and Feinstein's bill, also known as the Truck Bomb Bill propose that manufacturers, from 2004 onwards, only have 10-gallon tanks.
View Quote
Gasoline companies wouldn't be too happy about the 10-gal limit. They would be loosing money hand over fist. Maybe the gasoline companies/Schumer-Feinstein would compromise and settle on a 15gal limit instead.
Link Posted: 12/18/2001 11:53:24 AM EDT
ROFLMAO! The scary part is I'm not sure if you were serious not.
Link Posted: 12/18/2001 11:53:27 AM EDT
Too many peopl ewith interest in oil companys for this to get anywhere.. just my opinion....
Link Posted: 12/18/2001 11:57:18 AM EDT
I hear the NAA (National Automobile Association) has begun a fund raising drive so that they have a chance at defeating at least part of this. Conflicting reports say that the NAA is against the tank limitations but will compromise by making all civilian automobiles accessible only with a "key". On a side note... Does anyone know where I can find an 80% box cutter these days?
Link Posted: 12/18/2001 12:04:57 PM EDT
I guess I should start fixing up those "pre-ban" non running vehicles I have in my driveway... "Chuck Schumer and Dianne Feinstein" Are there any people stupider than these s**theads?[-!-]
Link Posted: 12/18/2001 12:07:47 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 12/18/2001 12:00:47 PM EDT by jamon]
Originally Posted By jhasz: Another attempt at a freedom encroaching law being foisted upon the public - which will say , yes, more than 10 gals of gasoline are very dangerous and explosive! BAH! first off, gasoline is flammable, not explosive - of course that difference is the same as smokeless power - it burns, black powder explodes.... (at least that's what I understand) Secondly, gasoline [b]vapor[/b] is more dangerous than a tank [b]full[/b] of gasoline... It's the air/fuel mixture that burns, and when confined in an enclosed space (cylinder, or gas tank) makes something "explode". So another "feel good" law by schumer and sweinstien... A smaller tank won't stop an explosion as much as saying we should stop at every station adn top our tanks off - but then how are you going to regulate [i]that![/i]
View Quote
ahhh...I think this is a joke guys [;)]
Link Posted: 12/18/2001 12:07:58 PM EDT
Uhhhh. this is a spoof people. Sad part is, it is COMPLETELY beleivable as to Schumer / Feinswine's "logic."
Link Posted: 12/18/2001 12:25:17 PM EDT
dammit... and I was looking at all the news sites i have to try and find it.... DOH!!! [BD]
Link Posted: 12/18/2001 12:32:12 PM EDT
Originally Posted By Skunkabilly: ...234,258 children die each day because of traffic accidents, ...."
View Quote
let's see...234,258 children per day, at 365 days per year equals....85,504,170 children die per year in automobile accidents. definitely a joke!
Link Posted: 12/18/2001 1:41:46 PM EDT
...let's see...234,258 children per day, at 365 days per year equals....85,504,170 children die per year in automobile accidents. definitely a joke!
View Quote
HolyS**t! We better support our senators. [b]If this rampant use of [red]dangerous pre-ban, high capacity, assault automobiles[/red] continues, America will run out of people in less than four years![/b] Help, help!...won't the government save me 'cause I'm to stupid to function as an adult on my own! Alex
Link Posted: 12/18/2001 1:46:54 PM EDT
Feinstein seriously wanted a law saying airlines couldn't serve more than 2 drinks per passenger per flight. Low cap gas tanks wasn't exactly a stretch of credibility with her.
Link Posted: 12/18/2001 9:41:06 PM EDT
Well, if this is going to help with the overpopulation problem, maybe the law shouldn't pass... I have been getting worried about population lately. Think about it - with all the advances in curative medicine and gerontology, we have a higher overall survivability of just about anything and a constantly increasing life expectancy. Now, where are all these people going to live? Call me cranky, but I want some ROOM, and I refuse to give it up simply because some statis says I should "for the children," when we could be working on off-world colonisation and the terraforming of Mars and Venus... Start with Mars, I believe NASA estimates show that Mars could be fully life-supporting (sans e-suits and the like) within something like 30 years, and would give buffer space while we work on Venus... YES, people, this IS serious... We're hitting the wall at the 6 billion+ mark right now... I know I'm not the only person that like to have room to breathe, and the ability to disappear from time to time. Besides, with all the liberal environMENTALists running about closing off land wherever possible, we are going to have to cram more people into less space on this mudball all the time. I know we can have some offshore seafloor colonies, and we have spaceflight technology, so WHY AREN'T WE USING IT?!?!?!?! FFZ
Link Posted: 12/18/2001 9:42:19 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 12/18/2001 9:34:32 PM EDT by ColonelKlink]
Link Posted: 12/18/2001 9:45:49 PM EDT
Link Posted: 12/18/2001 9:46:36 PM EDT
Originally Posted By Skunkabilly: Feinstein commented, "By forcing motorists to visit the gas station more often, they will realize how much they spend on gas, and they will cut back on the amount of driving they do.
View Quote
Actually, when I fill the 20 gallon gas tank of my truck every week and see almost $30 dollars go out of my wallet I realize how much I spend on gas. On the other hand, if I were only spending $11-$12 per gas trip I wouldn't feel quite as raped by the petroleum companies.
Link Posted: 12/18/2001 9:47:29 PM EDT
2049 - 47 (and a little bit more...) years. Tell me, why can't we put that time to use? I have nothing against medical advnaces, but we have to work the other end of the problem as well - all those damn people have to live SOMEWHERE. Think about it... I have had enough of war, and a nuclear exchange will do things to the race that don't bear thinking about ("Limited Nuclear War" is a misnomer.) Moreover, expanding H. Sapiens outwards to the stars would help to ensure the survivability of the race, and actually serve to further evolution by exposing the species to new challenges and situations that we have not seen to conquer... FFZ
Link Posted: 12/18/2001 9:50:14 PM EDT
Originally Posted By Armed_Scientist: ROFLMAO! The scary part is I'm not sure if you were serious not.
View Quote
...me too
Top Top