this is what i hear when i read what you write:
why do you need to open carry? ....
It now seems that both your reading comprehension and your rational thinking skills are lacking. You "hear" something dramatically different than I wrote. And what you hear is not even a logical analogy for what I wrote.
There is no comparison between simply choosing to take offense at an OC'd firearm, vs measurable impairment of excessive window tint or too much alcohol in your system. An OC'd firearm does NOTHING to impair your ability to safely function in public. There is no analog to the current discussion except for the simpleton, frenzied mind, desperate to claim that all who support RKBA must also agree on every other issue.
just because you can't see out a tinted window, doesn't mean i can't. if you can't see out of a tinted window, then don't tint your windows. if i can see out of the window but you can't, why should i have to conform to your standards? if i drive with tinted windows which i can't see out of safely, then i am potentially liable for whatever happens. just because someone has dark tint that you can't see through, doesn't mean that's the end all point for tint. if i can safely see through tinted windows, i don't need to pass a "test" to prove it....you sound like a gun grabber.
there was absolutely no reason to bring up alcohol as an argument- it's not the same thing. window tint does not impair "judgement", but alcohol does.
Alcohol is a very good (not perfect, but good) analog to window tint in a couple of respects.
1-At some level (BAC or % of light blocked), both impair your ability to safely operate your vehicle.
2-There are always going to be those who think their level of impairment is so much less than is everyone else's. Whether it is the stupid lush of bygone days who claimed that "a few drinks loosen me up and I drive better," or the ignorant and arrogant kid who thinks he can safely compose and read text messages while driving at 60 mph, or the guy who thinks he has super vision and can handle tint so much better than everyone else, odds are good all three are grossly over-estimating their own ability.
3-There is always going to be the nut case who argues that until he actually crashes, no crime has been committed. Sorry, that just doesn't fly with rational people. Point a gun at me, I don't have to wait for you to pull the trigger. Drive around with a clearly unsecured load and we don't have to wait for something to come off your truck and wipe out the motorcyclist behind you. And if you are drunk, high, texting, didn't wear your glasses, or have tinted your windows to the point that you cannot see what needs to be seen to safely operate your vehicle, you are endangering the public even if you manage to go months without actually causing a crash. That a drunk's fellow drivers manage to avoid him, that they compensate for his bad driving, doesn't mean he wasn't committed a real crime and endangering the public, infringing on their rights to use the roadways reasonably.
That said, for those who do read well, I previously posted (a couple of times) to the effect that I'd be fine with an objective test about how much tint you can handle. You've ignored that offer in favor of attacking me personally in terms of what I can handle vs what you can handle. That suggest to me you are just looking to be argumentative and pick a fight, rather than having a rational discussion. So be it.
In practice, the objective, personal test is largely unworkable. We'd need to mark your license with what tint level you can handle (and what level of BAC you can handle, and a host of other impairment levels) so any officer knows whether you are currently impaired or not. At some point, we have to make laws for the masses, with some margin of safety. We don't set speed limits for the 1% professional drivers cruising down the freeways in their Italian supercars. Such persons can safely handle 150 mph under good conditions, I'd think. But 99% of drivers cannot, even if 75% of them think they can. Similarly, most DUIs have a BAC of at least 50% over the legal limit. Turns out that a BAC of 0.08% or 0.10% provides decent or minimal, respectively, margin of safety for most drivers. Are there those who drive better at a BAC of 0.12% than can their neighbor stone cold sober? In a nation of 320 million persons I'd be shocked if we can't find a fair number of examples. But we simply cannot make laws on such an individual basis.
All of which is a moot point to the original argument about window tint. Whether the limit on the windshield is 5% or 10%, you're still talking about more than enough light transmission for an officer to see through the windshield and into the car. At the practical level, on most vehicles, window tint is not going to provide real visual privacy simply because of the practical limits to driving safely. Remove all evil laws about window tint than puerile anarchists stomp their feet and shout "I can do whatever want" about, and the windshield will have to remain transparent enough to operate the car.
At this point I note that neither you nor the other anarchist who tried to make hay over window tint law has bothered to even attempt address my logical test on self consistency regarding privacy. One more evidence that you have no desire to engage in a rational discussion, but simply to yell and pick a fight.
Let me know if you change your objective.
Charles
Wish me luck.
