thorne Posted July 27, 2007 Report Share Posted July 27, 2007 I don't believe just one breed is on the books.....I think it covers several. However, I believe the dog law varies by state / city too. It's not a matter of fairness. Again, dogs aren't people.....discrimination is fair game as is profiling. I don't see it as a lobbiest thing.....what group is being paid by who to nail Pit Bulls? Follow the money...there's no one benefiting financially to nail a breed of dog like Pits just for the sake of nailing a dog breed. Bottom line is they are the choice dog of dog fighters and drug dealers and they do make up a pretty notorious ranking for severity of bites/attacks, etc...anything that can be put on the books to squeeze folks like that out of neighborhoods is good in my book....and thus why it's a city regulated law. I happen to agree with it as I don't need some redneck hood with a Pit living in my area nor do I want a crack house with Pits near me. Make a law against the dog and you can clear out those two legally Should it by chance kick out the AKC Dog show dog owners.....oh well.... lobbiest are not awlays from people who are in it for money. Look at the candy that tasted like marijauana that got banned it had nothing to do with money. Or the drink cocaine or ma ny other things. It was a law created around fear. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thorne Posted July 27, 2007 Report Share Posted July 27, 2007 Bottom line is they are the choice dog of dog fighters and drug dealers and they do make up a pretty notorious ranking for severity of bites/attacks, etc...anything that can be put on the books to squeeze folks like that out of neighborhoods is good in my book....and thus why it's a city regulated law. If they tapped all phone calls they could catch this. Does that mean its a good law? If they made a law requiring all people to let there house be searched it would stop it does that make a good law? I do not dog fight yet in some states my dog would be considered a pit bull because he has 1/6 pitbull in his line. Does that make me a dog fighter or criminal? A line has to be drawn in everything or we will have people like mister W bush taking all of our freedoms away. Maybe you like being able to have sex with your wife with out poeple watching. If you keep wathcing where societyu is going maybe in the next 50 years we will be required to have cameras in our houses to make sure where not braking the law. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thorne Posted July 27, 2007 Report Share Posted July 27, 2007 btw this is not a far fetched thing. Habious Corupus was a right we used to have..... remember them days. Hail George W. Hitler Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thorne Posted July 27, 2007 Report Share Posted July 27, 2007 Also since poor poeple having kids to exploit the welfair system causes all of us should we ban having kids if your poor? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
V8 Beast Posted July 27, 2007 Report Share Posted July 27, 2007 Let me break it down for you..... Seatbelt & Helmet. Both are safety features intended to save lives. What happens if you get caught without a seatbelt on? The government sees it as a way to earn a profit while possibly saving a life. That ticket may be that extra push a person needs to use safety equipment. It has nothing to do with taking away freedoms. If they wanted to take away freedoms they would make bikes illegal. I really dont understand this freedom talk... Way too many people are dying because of the popularity of bikes. Most of them don't have enough riding time to do half the shit they are doing. Do a search and you will see that the end result is death in a lot of cases. Dont blame the government, blame those dead riders that made them consider making it a law. Just like with drinking and driving, you still have a choice, but dont complain when you get a ticket. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TTQ B4U Posted July 27, 2007 Report Share Posted July 27, 2007 .... You guys scare me with your profound lack of understanding about the lack of freedoms. They are outlawing something they are outlawing the ablitiy to ride with out a helment. I understand what you're saying about outlawing the ability to ride without a helmet, but in the end, riding is a privilege and when your choice costs others weather it be financially or physically, I back a law that protects the many in spite of sacrificing the enjoyment of a few. I'm sorry, but the "freedom" of riding without a helmet isn't worth the risks or costs that will be incurred. I'm choosing the one that benefits me more and is acceptable to me in order to find a "balance".....that balance being giving me the privilege to still ride, but without causing undo risk to others. We live in a society with laws for a reason. Balance of protection and rights to live and exist in that society. Those that don't like it have the right to vote and if they lose, they have a right to move. BTW there is a law regarding eye protection. What I was saying is in other states even with helmet laws you don't require a full face mask. Your statements indicate you feel that something going in someones eye is a big deal. So what is the point of a hlement law if it don't cover the entire face? Something in your eye on a bike is a big deal. If you don't feel so, than I can't say anymore. I'm glad there's a law regarding eye protection...that's a great thing....but even if there's not, a helmet law still protects the financial exposures I've outlined previously. Again, here I side with the creation of a law that protects the financial well being of me, and those around me yet still provides me with the privilege to ride. If alky creates a greater risk for someone to drive while intoxicated why not require poeple to never dirnk. WTF its the same damn thing no matter how you put it. It's called balance. The world isn't black or white. IMO, I do think there should be a zero tolerance on drinking and driving. Zero, none, I live by that rule personally as again, I don't feel I have the right to at any level jeopardize the physical or financial well being of those around me. The Alky laws are a balance....and one that is changing to be more strict. Perhaps one day it will be Zero.....again, a law I would back for the exact same reasons as I've noted above. I wouldn't see it as a limitation of my rights. Shit I have a right to run naked...but not on the sidewalk. I'll use the word Society as that's what we live in. Sometimes I think those so opposed to laws should live in their own society.....some do...they move. The bush administrator has taken more rights then any other in the history of the USA. Do we need another friggin pointless law. All of your statements are around what iffs. My statements aren't around what if situations. The facts exists regarding wearing helmets and not...same with seat belts. I know what's going on with society and gov't. I'm not blind. However, I also think we as a society have grown a little out of our place in some areas. Everyone is so bent on thinking they can do whatever the hell they want and fuck the rest of those around them that I'm a little pissed off and will do what I can to stop it. I have many more important things in my life to worry about than weather I can ride my bike without a helmet. It's a real simple decision for me personally...no helmet = dumb/dangerous/costly.....that equals me wearing one. Weather it's the law or not, I'm wearing one. I don't waste my time worrying about who decides....me or the gov't. I decide....to play it safe for me and those around me. The rest who are simply bent on who the hell decides likely don't care or can't see beyond the fucking decision to what the real issues are. it's not about who decides, it's about what the decision protects.....their ass and the those around them. Again, sad part is those that ride without a helmet don't give as big of a shit about those around them as I do. That's a problem in itself. You what if Motorcycle + wreck = expensive Motorcycle + no helment + wreck = more expensive. Ok so lets make it so you have to wear helments. No its Car + wreck = expensive motorocycle + wreck = more expensive Shoudl we ban motorcycles now? The above is a perfect analogy for charging more for motorcycle insurance. Again, no one is going to remove the right to ride a bike. Bottom line is that if the costs are greater when they wreck, then the costs to ride one should be balanced as well. Consider it a luxery tax. Hell I drive a nice car and pay more insurance than the guy next to me...but then if I wreck, mine costs more to fix. Same deal. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TTQ B4U Posted July 27, 2007 Report Share Posted July 27, 2007 okay, it's around money and intelligence. I'm sorry but for a fucking company to create candy that tastes like weed and a marketing company to come up with cocaine as a drink that targets kids, is fucking stupid. I hope to God the idiots at those companies got fired. Again, if folks who support weed and cocaine and the right to use the associated names words and twist them around a bit and still target kids want to exist in society....let them create their own. Society as a whole has enough issues, we don't need that crap. lobbiest are not awlays from people who are in it for money. Look at the candy that tasted like marijauana that got banned it had nothing to do with money. Or the drink cocaine or ma ny other things. It was a law created around fear. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
V8 Beast Posted July 27, 2007 Report Share Posted July 27, 2007 .... You guys scare me with your profound lack of understanding about the lack of freedoms. They are outlawing something they are outlawing the ablitiy to ride with out a helment. You're right! I should have the right to drive 212mph down the freeway with bald tires in the snow. I mean hell, if no one else is on the road I'm only putting myself in danger. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TTQ B4U Posted July 27, 2007 Report Share Posted July 27, 2007 If they tapped all phone calls they could catch this. Does that mean its a good law? phone tapping....you're playing a pun off the terrorist related Bush Tactics I take it? Yeah, I agree with what he did there. Fucking profiled the folks and those that fit got tapped....and it worked. Genius, pure genius. Shit, if I see a poor black hood and his brother walking down my street, you're damn right he's being profiled as a suspicious person.....I'm all for profiling....I'll give up my right there too as I have nothing to hide. Overall, my wife has worked at the prosecutors office and is an attorney now and it's an overwhelming mistake that we give the bad guys so many rights. Drug dealers....yeah, they should have their phones tapped. Let's get a law for that one. Caught dealing drugs and I'll gladly let big brother listen to you all day long....'cause me...I look out for the safety of those around me and am not going to "lose my right" to private conversations. If they made a law requiring all people to let there house be searched it would stop it does that make a good law? All people who are harboring terrorists or are known drug dealers/convicted druggies.....yeah, I'm all for letting the have the right to toss their house. I have nothing to worry about as I'm not a drug dealer. Those breaking the law are typically the ones who worry and I say fuck them anyhow. I won't have anything to worry about. I do not dog fight yet in some states my dog would be considered a pit bull because he has 1/6 pitbull in his line. Does that make me a dog fighter or criminal? I don't think a mere 1/6 pit does but if the rules are set up for zero....then in that case, I'd suggest you don't disclose the details. Likely wouldn't be able to prove 1/6th anyway. A line has to be drawn in everything or we will have people like mister W bush taking all of our freedoms away. Maybe you like being able to have sex with your wife with out poeple watching. If you keep wathcing where societyu is going maybe in the next 50 years we will be required to have cameras in our houses to make sure where not braking the law. Now to steal your phrase, the above....now that's a statement based on fear and whole big What if ! If at some point a law is created to protect others in society that requires big brother watch me bang my wife in 50 years, I'll pity the fool that's watching an 87 year old man doing it doggy style Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TTQ B4U Posted July 27, 2007 Report Share Posted July 27, 2007 The welfare and other systems are fucked up that's for sure...but IMO, I do believe there should be a limit on the amount of support and support in general that folks in the welfare system receive.....and maybe go so far as to say the kids then become wards of the court if the parents continue to push forward having kids and can't support them. Either way, is wrong, but which is in the best interest of the child and less wrong? Also since poor poeple having kids to exploit the welfair system causes all of us should we ban having kids if your poor? Now, let's put the Alky Talk, Drug Talk, Dog Talk, Welfare Talk, Gun Talk and all the other off topic items away and get back on track if the conversation even needs to continue Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thorne Posted July 27, 2007 Report Share Posted July 27, 2007 WOW......... I am amazed that people can blindly give up freedoms. Who watches the fucking watchers. This shit pisses me off because in my time I've had to deal with it. The patriot act directly affected me personally because of a Network SEcurity Group I was involved with . We where all profesionals who worked in the industry. We would meet to discuss the latest threats and show off how to protect against them. That freedom was taken away. Why because some criminal might be doing someting. Because someone might is not a good enough reason to remove freedoms. BTW if you can point out how mister bushes complete misuse of power has once benfited us as americans please do. You say it is ok to tap your phones and such. My crazy neighbor at my old house said i was a crack dealer. Does that mean its ok to listen to my calls now? If so do they get to hear me talkin dirty to my wife if i feel like it? The point at hand is helments yet you twist my words. My point was that having eye protection allows a rider to see better. FACT! wearing a helment does nto affect the riders ablityu to operate there bike. Thats my point. http://www.wtopnews.com/?sid=1154314&nid=25 ^ what is that them talking about banning sport bikes^ But you said something like that would never happen. Hmmmm maybe you should open your eyes to the complete BS thats going around in regards to removal of freedoms. Please justify that or any of the other freedoms you suggested would be ok to remove. So If I thought you where a drug dealer because you change cars allot and tapped your line would that make you happy? Who watches the watchers. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thorne Posted July 27, 2007 Report Share Posted July 27, 2007 These posts may seem off topic but look at the big picture where talking about the same thing. Laws being implemented based on stupidity and lack of understanding. Laws that remove freedoms. Laws that create a police state. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
V8 Beast Posted July 27, 2007 Report Share Posted July 27, 2007 This isnt big picture... its abstract art. I promise there will not be some guy standing outside of your house ramming a helmet on your head whenever you sit on your bike. (Stop smoking ) However at the same time what's to stop them from limiting all cars on the road to a top speed of 70mph??? A lot of high speed crashes result in serious injury right? I can see both sides now.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Akula Posted July 27, 2007 Report Share Posted July 27, 2007 Should be a personal decision. I wear one but it you don't want to you shouldn't have to. The government doesn't always have to protect us from ourselves. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thorne Posted July 27, 2007 Report Share Posted July 27, 2007 Should be a personal decision. I wear one but it you don't want to you shouldn't have to. The government doesn't always have to protect us from ourselves. QFT Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TTQ B4U Posted July 27, 2007 Report Share Posted July 27, 2007 the helmet law isn't being based on stupidity and lack of understanding. laws don't remove freedoms, they establish a conduct or procedure by which a society can function as a cohesive unit. just because you exist here and breath doesn't mean you can do whatever you want. These posts may seem off topic but look at the big picture where talking about the same thing. Laws being implemented based on stupidity and lack of understanding. Laws that remove freedoms. Laws that create a police state. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TTQ B4U Posted July 27, 2007 Report Share Posted July 27, 2007 don't get caught up in the "what if" fears.....regarding speeds of cars and bikes, that is another concern that's raising interests....just look at the State of VA. Fines for speeding 20mph+ over the limit are $2,500-$3,500 In fact it made the news just the other day. I don't personally agree with it, but they are taking a stand and making a point.......you speed excessively, you endanger the folks around you......then consider it a luxury tax for driving like an idiot on public roads. This isnt big picture... its abstract art. I promise there will not be some guy standing outside of your house ramming a helmet on your head whenever you sit on your bike. (Stop smoking ) However at the same time what's to stop them from limiting all cars on the road to a top speed of 70mph??? A lot of high speed crashes result in serious injury right? I can see both sides now.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TTQ B4U Posted July 27, 2007 Report Share Posted July 27, 2007 They aren't just protecting the rider, they are looking out for the financial protection and while Thorne doesn't see it, the non-financial protection of those around the riders as well. I'll say it again, I don't need a rider involved in an accident with me endangering himself so much further by not wearing a helmet and potentially killing himself and having that guilt rest with me simply because he didn't want to use common sense and protect his melon while he goes down the road. I also don't believe the financial implications of a riders decision should be allowed to impact those around them. I say add in the law, you don't buckle up or wear a helmet, then all the risks and financial implications should rest on the rider. They can pay their own medical bills and court costs, etc.... It's a fact that these safty measures have numerous benefits to everyone. Simliar in fact to the Gov't safety standards on cars. Stability control is a great feature and now it's going to be required on all vehicles produced after an upcoming date....I forget the details. Yes, manufacturers now lose the "right" not to put it on cars....but then the benefits of enforcing such a rule have greater benefits to society as a whole than given them the "right" not to include it. Laws aren't about just one person, they are about society as a whole. Riding a bike and how you do it isn't a God Given right, it's a Civil Right or Privilege and the laws revolving around that civil right are there to protect Citizens both you and those around you. Should be a personal decision. I wear one but it you don't want to you shouldn't have to. The government doesn't always have to protect us from ourselves. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thorne Posted July 27, 2007 Report Share Posted July 27, 2007 the helmet law isn't being based on stupidity and lack of understanding. laws don't remove freedoms, they establish a conduct or procedure by which a society can function as a cohesive unit. just because you exist here and breath doesn't mean you can do whatever you want. What a second. You said it don't remove freedom. Right now I have the freedom to choose weather or not I put my helment on when i go for a ride. If this law passes then I no longer have the freedom to do so. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thorne Posted July 27, 2007 Report Share Posted July 27, 2007 don't get caught up in the "what if" fears.....regarding speeds of cars and bikes, that is another concern that's raising interests....just look at the State of VA. Fines for speeding 20mph+ over the limit are $2,500-$3,500 In fact it made the news just the other day. I don't personally agree with it, but they are taking a stand and making a point.......you speed excessively, you endanger the folks around you......then consider it a luxury tax for driving like an idiot on public roads. Consider it a reason to attempt to out run the cops. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TTQ B4U Posted July 27, 2007 Report Share Posted July 27, 2007 sure you do.....you can then just simply pay the price to do it. no different than the speed limit sign you'll pass as you go down your street. you drive 25mph because it protects your family and those around you....go 35 or 40mph down your street and you increase the danger and risk of those around you in a confined and populated area. same deal. If this law passes then I no longer have the freedom to do so. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thorne Posted July 27, 2007 Report Share Posted July 27, 2007 They aren't just protecting the rider, they are looking out for the financial protection and while Thorne doesn't see it, the non-financial protection of those around the riders as well. Like I said the same could be said about owning a motorcycle or sports car period. What about people that drive very unsafe cars. They could die just as easly . Your takinga what if and tayloring it to fit you belief. I'll say it again, I don't need a rider involved in an accident with me endangering himself so much further by not wearing a helmet and potentially killing himself and having that guilt rest with me simply because he didn't want to use common sense and protect his melon while he goes down the road. You keep refering to your guilt. Come on man I feel guilty because I splashed some kid when i was driving in the rain. Does that make it illegal to walk on the side of the road in the rain. That is the risk you take everytime you drive. what if you hit a retarded child who runs in the road and you kill that child. I mean should kids be required to wear helments out side? If you hit a motorcyclist period your going to cause 10x more damage then just hitting someone driving a Jetta(Safe happens) or something. Your tiney little insurance complaint is really kinda bs. I pay more insurnace to ride my bike. If the wreck is not your fault then why are you worried Its my premiums that go up. This is just another example of people trying to enforce there beliefs as laws. I also don't believe the financial implications of a riders decision should be allowed to impact those around them. I say add in the law, you don't buckle up or wear a helmet, then all the risks and financial implications should rest on the rider. They can pay their own medical bills and court costs, etc.... Dude there are 8million things about that statement that are wrong. If you hit a car in the right place you will kill the driver. Does that mean that cars that have that issue should have the same claus? In a wreck a SUV driver has a much higher chance of hurting badly or even killing the other driver then say a GEO Metro. Does that mean SUV's should be outlawed since they affect the public safety? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thorne Posted July 27, 2007 Report Share Posted July 27, 2007 sure you do.....you can then just simply pay the price to do it. no different than the speed limit sign you'll pass as you go down your street. you drive 25mph because it protects your family and those around you....go 35 or 40mph down your street and you increase the danger and risk of those around you in a confined and populated area. same deal. A law is removal of freedom Period. free·dom [ frdəm ] (plural free·doms) noun Definition: 1. ability to act freely: a state in which somebody is able to act and live as he or she chooses, without being subject to any undue restraints or restrictions I believe by making a law about riding with out a helment your creating a restriciton. law [ law ] (plural laws) noun Definition: 1. binding or enforceable rule: a rule of conduct or procedure recognized by a community as binding or enforceable by authority so law = restriction or a rule. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TTQ B4U Posted July 27, 2007 Report Share Posted July 27, 2007 Like I said the same could be said about owning a motorcycle or sports car period. What about people that drive very unsafe cars. They could die just as easly . Your takinga what if and tayloring it to fit you belief. no the above is different still.....it's not the very act of owning a specific vehicle that makes it unsafe and that laws will then be created for....it's how it's used. you can own a bike, but the law in question says if you own and in turn ride a bike you must do XXXXx. same with guns, you can own one, but how you use it is up to regulations.....fire one in city limits and you further endanger those around you and that equals a good law. You keep refering to your guilt. Come on man I feel guilty because I splashed some kid when i was driving in the rain. Does that make it illegal to walk on the side of the road in the rain. That is the risk you take everytime you drive. what if you hit a retarded child who runs in the road and you kill that child. I mean should kids be required to wear helmets out side? the guilt and costs are real. you want to run with your retarded child case.....okay....there are LAWS in place that mandate the safety and wellfare of children....in your example the parents are breaking the LAW and are liable for their actions. IMO that's Child Neglect. What a dumbass for them exposing their child, let alone one with a mental disability to a situation where they could run out in the street. Thank God the law exists that says parents are liable for such things. Take that same child and the idiots who don't buckle them up in car seats......that's the analogy you need to make to be consistent. folks are required to buckle up kids and keep them in child seats for very much the same reasons as we're discussing. Not buckling a kid up = neglect = breaking of a Civilized law we have in place....not to mention a common sense law of just being human. Dumb. The guilt and related repercussions of being involved in an accident where a family hasn't properly secured their kids.......that pisses me off more than the helmet thing. But to use your mentally challenged kid running out in the street......he's even further protected by the LAW that says the speed limit is 25mph in his neighborhood. You have the ability to drive faster, you even have the freedom to do so, but the LAW says you will be held responsible for doing so. If you hit a motorcyclist period your going to cause 10x more damage then just hitting someone driving a Jetta(Safe happens) or something. Your tiny little insurance complaint is really kinda bs. I pay more insurance to ride my bike. If the wreck is not your fault then why are you worried Its my premiums that go up. This is just another example of people trying to enforce there beliefs as laws. The damage of a bike and car colliding is great, but wear no helmets or seatbelt are involved, the damage and impacts overall are greater....that's a fact. Your premiums may go up, but the costs that the insurance companies incur isn't covered simply by your premiums alone. Again, get off the fact that freedoms are all about the individual. They aren't. Those costs are rolled out and paid by everyone. My home owners insurance on our Condo in Florida is through the roof but my home is inland and has never been affected by weather....why?.... all the billions of dollars incurred by my Insurance Company are being differed to everyone in the state and thus my premiums are higher as a result. Hey those folks still have a right to build along the shore once again, but I laugh when they because insurance co.'s won't insure them....let them become self insured and pay 100% of the price for the risks they take. I'm tired of paying for the actions of others. Dude there are 8million things about that statement that are wrong. If you hit a car in the right place you will kill the driver. Does that mean that cars that have that issue should have the same claus? In a wreck a SUV driver has a much higher chance of hurting badly or even killing the other driver then say a GEO Metro. Does that mean SUV's should be outlawed since they affect the public safety? there's nothing wrong with my statements. look at how the laws have changed to take that situation of side impacts and improved the design of vehicles so that the above mentioned fatality is greatly reduced. the law's not based on black and whites....you keep stating absolutes....if XXX happens, then it's completely without questions illegal.....ahh....no....if the vehicles on the road have a flaw in the design or could be made better, which they did have a poor design 10 years ago, the gov't stepped in and required the safety standards to be increased and met. That's happened and lives are being saved. The jetta of today is a lot more safe than the ones of days gone by and it's due to enforcing the safety standards. if that didn't happen, manufacturers wouldn't have done it. These new Laws = Saving more lives. Same thing with your statement about SUV's. They were unsafe....then roll-over standards were implemented...guess what.....they are safer. As far as Safety between SUV's hitting cars.....yes, they too were unsafe....then the changes in the law were made to the safety standards of cars........the insurance co's backed it and pushed for it....as did many consumers.......now I have much less fear of our van being involved in a side impact with an SUV.....I wouldn't say that if my van was 10 years old. Look at the 1995 Chevy Cavalier as rated by IIHS.org, it scored their lowest level back then of Poor. Today, the 2007 Cobalt has an overall score of Good, their highest safety level, a three step jump thanks to new regulations and laws that required safer cars. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TTQ B4U Posted July 27, 2007 Report Share Posted July 27, 2007 Your speak of freedom is technically accurate, but it's not being applied to the world in which we live....a civilization or society Living freely without any undue restraints? Come on....yeah, sure I want to live in a society where everyone is allowed to have undue restraints. Fuck that.....that's why we live in a society where folks are civilized and there are laws that protect the freedom and safety of others. Just because you can do something doesn't mean you're entitled to do it when living among others. It's not all about you. Everyone thinks that the decision to wear a helmet should be there decision alone....well, sorry, but that decision has impact on more than just the rider and anytime one's actions impact others, there needs to be a rule regarding that action in a civilized society. I can own a gun, but I'm not allowed to fire it in my back yard. I can carry a gun, but I have to get a permit and even then, I can't carry it into a mall that's open to the public. These check points and restrictions to ones freedom to own a firearm are there to protect others. Don't like them, move to the middle east.....I hear they have wonderful civil order and safety in the streets thanks to their freedoms around guns The rights of the individual take back seat to those of the ones around them, when that individual chooses to interact with society. Especially when it comes to the safety and financial well being of others. If they don't like the laws, this is a free country and they are free to work the system to change them, or they can go live somewhere else that doesn't have these laws. Sounds like they are pretty free to choose if you ask me. A law is removal of freedom Period. free·dom [ frdəm ] (plural free·doms) noun Definition: 1. ability to act freely: a state in which somebody is able to act and live as he or she chooses, without being subject to any undue restraints or restrictions I believe by making a law about riding with out a helment your creating a restriciton. law [ law ] (plural laws) noun Definition: 1. binding or enforceable rule: a rule of conduct or procedure recognized by a community as binding or enforceable by authority so law = restriction or a rule. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.