Enforce the existing laws. It doesn't matter why you ran that red light, or were weaving in and out of your lane, or hit that other car, etc. All that matters is actions and what has been done. What might happen is irrelevant.

Yet the population continues to grow. Why move to a place with a high likelihood of flooding or otherwise detrimental weather? Or if you do, why complain and beg for government help when you knew it was coming and decided not to prepare for the inevitable?

Clearly the author has never been to the NJ/NY shoreline... It's already coated in "recycled" glass.

Agreed, if shifting clocks is the way it is to be, then move them forward at least 4 hours, preferably 6-8 hours. That way you you get out of work and have daylight to get productive or fun outside things to do. Alternatively, leave the clocks how they are and just shift working hours so we start work somewhere between midnight and 0400. I used to work third shift and loved it, my life wasn't ruled by the sun and unable to do anything I want or need to do in the winter. Unfortunately there are few "real" jobs in which you can work nights or odd times. Well, and not work those times in addition to all day, as I currently do in IT.

Personally I'd be fine with standing room only for flights up to 6 hours or so, if it meant cheaper ticket prices. My preferences are fairly irrelevant though, as I won't fly anymore. I do not want to be harassed by the TSA and other government thugs to fly on a private airline. My business is between me and the airline I choose to pay for their service, not the government. For me it's drive or take a train (when possible), at least before they expand the TSA further into rail stations and hubs.

The only difference is the rate at which we lose our freedoms, the rate at which we are impoverished by higher taxes and inflation, the rate at which we start more wars, etc. The bottom line is a vote for either Romney or Obama are both a vote for bigger government, greater government spending, and m ore freedoms taken from us. It doesn't matter which one is president, either way we all lose.

Good thing I don't drive any vehicles with air bags.I'll stick with my simple, cheap and reliable vehicles that won't try to kill me.

The Russians have several on Venus.

There is not a single libertarian who supports or endorses slavery. Libertarians are against anything that violates the rights of others. I would hope we can all agree slavery is a violation of the slave's rights, so it should be clear that libertarians wholeheartedly oppose slavery.

Perhaps you mean the Chinese way? Their lax restrictions on air quality is part of why there is so much manufacturing there, as it's not economically feasible in other countries such as America.

Life is hard, part break and wear out.

Like cats?

You're ignoring the fact that there are often several people and objects near to you when you are shooting. Ejected casings hit things and bounce around before hitting the ground. Personally I've had my own brass hit me or go down my shirt a few times. It happens, it's hot, and it burns.

It's the owners money to waste, and none of your concern. Or it could be like myself and others who have posted here where they need a truck 25% of the time or less but the cost of having another vehicle (econobox) is greater than the fuel savings, mostly due to high registration/road tax and insurance costs despite the fact that you can only drive one at a time. I NEED a truck to tow my trailer every weekend and to haul things for personal projects and side work. I WANT an econobox so I use save money on normal commuting and errands, however thanks to government taxes and insurance company charges there is no savings by owning an econobox in addition to a truck, it's actually more expensive.

Here it's insurance cost that makes a second vehicle more expensive. I drive my truck that gets single digits for MPG every day, simply because insurance costs for liability only on a second vehicle is more than I'd save in fuel, or close enough that any maintenance or repairs would push it over to be more expensive. Not worth the extra time and headache if I'm not saving money.

Registration (road tax) doesn't make sense per vehicle either. It's a road tax for use of the roads, and here it used to be based on vehicle weight. A motorcycle was under $20, a car was $40-$60 and a truck was $60+ depending on gross weight rating. Now everything costs about $75, per vehicle. If I have tow vehicles I'm not using the roads any more, or putting any more wear on them... In fact I would wear the roads less since I'd be driving a 2600 lbs car most of the time instead of a 6000 lbs truck all the time. Far be it for the state to do anything logical, especially if that may reduce tax income.

I don't get it, because I can only drive one at a time, so insurance should not cost any more. Liability should be solely for the driver, in any car. Comprehensive/collision/agreed value/etc. should be per vehicle or based on the most expensive/risky vehicle you drive and cover all lesser vehicles. That would make sense though, and could hurt the crooks in the insurance scheme. One person can only drive one vehicle at a given time.