In all seriousness, glad your wife is ok
Any vehicle is a stored energy device. Gasoline cars have stored energy in the form of liquid fuel, which is highly flammable. Electric cars store energy in batteries. Every energy storage system has some danger to it. If you think about it, a gun is a stored energy device. The powder is stored in the round.
Modern breaker and control technology can handle the sorts of hazards which can be reasonably
I'd be very surprised if these cars are not ultra safe electrically.
Disorderly conduct and harassment at freeway speed is outside of the Second Amendment. I agree about the brandishing.
911; tell dispatch you are scared and being harassed for miles; brake and get plate. Give description of bullies. Tell them again how scared you are. Stay on with dispatch. Wait for at least 2 Troopers to show up. Feel smug and enjoy the mental picture of them getting pulled over in your rear view mirror.....
What a bunch of p****** driving that truck for harassing a woman.
Glad shes ok. Sounds like she did good by ignoring them. Yes I bet she was nervous. But at least she had a gun just in case. And kudos to you for driving a volt and saving gas. That way you can save for more guns and ammo. Something we all need more of. Stay safe.
By the way, small cars and big trucks rarely mix well. This example from Saturday last at 35 mph.
It could be worse, you could be driving a Pious...er, Prious. And nothing says "I refuse to fight back, no matter what you do to me." quite like a guy who drives a Prious.
Look over, smile :D and :thumbup: and continue driving... that's about it.. and no, that could not be considered shinning em on. That would be if you gave em the bird lmao.
Let's DO be real here.
So what.... someone "yelling" something... is not a threat.
the 1st Amendment is NOT "just" about the Govt... it is also about YOU ..... having NO RIGHT to try to stop them from expressing their opinion, no matter how much you like or don't like what they are saying nor how they are saying it. OP gave no overt threats or even implied threats that they made in any manner.
I never said they couldnt express themselves...I just said that their 1A rights didnt protect them from consequences from those outside the govt.
You are defending a pretty sad position right now. But carry on.
Having the speedo reading something other than zero doesn't, by itself, equate to "threat." More dangerous by virtue of being at speed? Perhaps, but it would be hard to argue such a thing to a DA or GJ, were that to be the claimed justification for responding to the words.
She could have felt legitimately threatened...and did. A man approaching a woman on foot, threatening assault....she has a legitimate basis to defend herself (I didnt say with lethal force). Same here....idiots showing poor judgement driving lethal weapons.
Again, not an impressive position you are defending....and not even accurate in some...perhaps hers...circumstances.