Time to Take Motor Vehicles Away From the American Public!

reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux


Didnt people then use democracy to create the gun laws we have now?

Or does democracy vanish as soon as the majority makes a decision that you dont like? Or did the evil shadow goverment make the rule you cant own a full auto handgun because jesus is coming back and the lords army doesnt need any more firepower?

Originally posted by Wertdagf
reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux

 

Didnt people then use democracy to create the gun laws we have now?

Or does democracy vanish as soon as the majority makes a decision that you dont like? Or did the evil shadow goverment make the rule you cant own a full auto handgun because jesus is coming back and the lords army doesnt need any more firepower?

edit on 7-4-2012 by Wertdagf because: (no reason given)

Jesus H. Christ, man! What the hell does Jesus have to do with this?

The Constitution for the United States of America guarantees every state in the Union a republican form of government precisely to prevent your democracy worshiping mob from trampling all over the rights of the People. Democracy has not vanished, it is reviled by the Constitution...even after all the democracy worshipers have done what they can to undermine the republic and replace it with your precious democracy, i.e. the 17th Amendment.

Many cities in Germany and the Netherlands have removed traffic signs to make things safer, and reduce traffic congestion.

www.dw.de...

A number of European cities have begun to successfully implement the system developed by Monderman, which reportedly has decreased congestion and reduced accidents, according to police statistics.

I think it is important to recognize that knowing why you should stop, and why you should drive certain speeds, is more important than blindly following the rules someone made up, without bothering to understand why.

And here is a hint as to the root of the problem.

"Many road signs are only put up so that we are covered for insurance purposes and not necessarily because they provide the driver with useful information, '' said Jörg Hennerkes from the ministry.

Originally posted by aching_knuckles

Great to see you post this. Now I know exactly where you stand. You hate being told what to do so much, you would rather endanger everyone else in the world than have to follow a rule.

I have yet to meet a 10 yer old capable of endangering "everyone else in the world". You must have some terribly advanced 10 year olds where you live. What do they have which is more powerful than nukes, which certainly aren't powerful enough to "endanger everyone else in the world": - unless by some great fortune, your precocious ten year olds can convince everyone in the world to gather into one circular crowd, shoulder to shoulder, so that nukes can be concentrated on the pile.

What on Earth are you letting your ten year olds play with?

I don't compromise

Ah! The mark of a truly educated man!

Compromise for compromises sake is only a mark of "education" to the timid, who would prefer all men be as timid as they are, so that they can avoid conflict by any means.

Originally posted by aching_knuckles

At what point in human history do you feel that there was no government where people could do as they wished? The Romans? The Sumerians? There were even rules at the birth of our mighty republic,no? You are arguing from a fallacious point.

A fallacious argument. You are confusing "government" with "rules". A man may live by rules, yet have no government at all. This has occurred all through human history, and even now in some places.

Originally posted by Wertdagf
reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux

 

Didnt people then use democracy to create the gun laws we have now?

Or does democracy vanish as soon as the majority makes a decision that you dont like? Or did the evil shadow goverment make the rule you cant own a full auto handgun because jesus is coming back and the lords army doesnt need any more firepower?

edit on 7-4-2012 by Wertdagf because: (no reason given)

Democracy is the enemy of freedom. Democracy is one group of people thinking they somehow have the "right" to divest other groups of their rights by dictate.

The US is not nor ever has been a democracy, so "democracy" did not make our gun laws here.

I don't know why you think I can't own a full auto handgun. I owned a MAC-10 for a number of years, and there was nothing illegal about it. I divested myself of it because fully automatic handguns are a waste of metal.

Jesus was not consulted in either the decision to buy it or the decision to get rid of it.

reply to post by nenothtu


The U.S. is actually a form of democracy, just not a true democracy.

We need a thing, in its origin.

Unfortunately, we have lost our common sense.

reply to post by poet1b


The US of A is a Democratic Republic. Not a democracy.

reply to post by poet1b

reply to post by randomtangentsrme


A republic is also a form of democracy.

Do some research.

reply to post by poet1b


While the two are not mutually exclusive, and since you asked so nicely here are a few links for you to understand the difference.

www.1215.org...
en.wikipedia.org...
www.williampmeyers.org...
en.wikipedia.org...

Originally posted by poet1b
reply to post by nenothtu

 

The U.S. is actually a form of democracy, just not a true democracy.

We need a thing, in its origin.

Unfortunately, we have lost our common sense.

The U.S. incorporates some elements of a democracy, but the bicameral legislature originally had a House of Representatives that were directly elected by the People, and a Senate which was not, but rather chosen by state legislatures. Indeed, Robert A. Dahl has written a book, How Democratic is the American Constitution, where he laments and through using various graphs and charts to compare against European states,, just undemocratic the U.S. actually is. Dahl is a base propagandist who hopes to indict the Constitution for the United States for not being democratic enough, but his baseness is readily apparent in that he refuses to provide the Constitution itself. Dahl doesn't want you or anyone else to actually read the Constitution he criticizes, he just wants to tell you what to think.

Here is a good link on democracy. In the classic definition, a republic is considered to be a form of democracy, and even in the more modern definition, democracy includes representative government.

www.democracy-building.info...

Democracy is by far the most challenging form of government - both for politicians and for the people. The term democracy comes from the Greek language and means "rule by the (simple) people". The so-called "democracies" in classical antiquity (Athens and Rome) represent precursors of modern democracies. Like modern democracy, they were created as a reaction to a concentration and abuse of power by the rulers. Yet the theory of modern democracy was not formulated until the Age of Enlightment (17th/18th centuries), when philosophers defined the essential elements of democracy: separation of powers, basic civil rights / human rights, religious liberty and separation of church and state.
...

Today, the majority of democratic countries in the world are republics, i.e. officials are elected. Some well-established democratic countries in Europe, however, (the United Kingdom, Spain, Belgium, the Netherlands, Luxemburg and the Scandinavian countries) are constitutional monarchies, i.e. a king or queen is head of state while the constitution guarantees nevertheless all basic rights as in any democratic republic and sets clear limits to duties and competences of the monarch. Such a king can be regarded as a stabilizing factor rather than as a danger for a democracy. Therefore the classical definition of democracy is little helpful - at least concerning monarchy.

Really we are talking semantics here, but it seems that recently, a lot of people are trying to pigeonhole the definitions.

I agree somewhat with your third link, we are currently heading along the route of the Roman Republic.

Originally posted by jar11

Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux
Table 1103. Motor Vehicle Accidents—Number and Deaths: 1990 to 2009

[11.5 represents 11,500,000]

Item
Unit 1990 1995 2000 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009
ACCIDENTS

Motor vehicle accidents 1 : Million . . .

.........11.5 10.7 13.4 10.9 10.7 10.4 10.6 10.2 10.8

DEATHS

Motor vehicle deaths within 1 yr. 2 : 1,000 . . . .

.........46.8 43.4 43.4 44.9 45.3 45.3 43.9 39.7 35.9


Motor Vehicle Accidents: Number and Deaths

Firearms were the third-leading cause of injury-related deaths nationwide in 2009, following poisoning and motor vehicle accidents.

Gun Violence Statistics

Come to think of it, time to take the poisons away from the American public!

Neither poison, or motor vehicles are Constitutionally protected by the federal government, yet the federal government turns its head to these most disturbing statistics. To hell with rights! To hell with freedom! To hell with the American public! Time to put that ever so annoying American public in its place!

What's with all these threads about "Time to take away this and that from the public"?

No, they shouldn't be taken away "for safety".

"Safety" is a load of crap.

I realize you're thread is probably sarcastic, but don't give them any ideas!

edit on 5-4-2012 by jar11 because: (no reason given)

There is a very fine line between liberty and safety.

Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux

Originally posted by poet1b
reply to post by nenothtu

 

The U.S. is actually a form of democracy, just not a true democracy.

We need a thing, in its origin.

Unfortunately, we have lost our common sense.

The U.S. incorporates some elements of a democracy, but the bicameral legislature originally had a House of Representatives that were directly elected by the People, and a Senate which was not, but rather chosen by state legislatures. Indeed, Robert A. Dahl has written a book, How Democratic is the American Constitution, where he laments and through using various graphs and charts to compare against European states,, just undemocratic the U.S. actually is. Dahl is a base propagandist who hopes to indict the Constitution for the United States for not being democratic enough, but his baseness is readily apparent in that he refuses to provide the Constitution itself. Dahl doesn't want you or anyone else to actually read the Constitution he criticizes, he just wants to tell you what to think.

Want to know more about the Constitution? Here you go...

constitution.hillsdale.edu...

Originally posted by MsAphrodite

There is a very fine line between liberty and safety.

Not really. Freedom is inherently unsafe, and not for the timid. In freedom, you take your chances, and accept that at times your chances will take you.

There isn't really a fine line as much as it's an inverse relationship between the two. The line is moveable. If you have more of one, you will have less of the other.

reply to post by MsAphrodite

There is a very fine line between liberty and safety.

As fine as the Grand Canyon. There is however a fine line between ignorance and foolishness. There is fine line between propaganda and disinformation. So fine, it's as fine as frogs hair.

There is no justification for taking away a persons liberty or property for violation of a safety law, especially when it comes to protecting someone from themselves, unless negligence can be proven. In no way should safety violations be considered a crime, unless negligence can be proven.

It just another scam for city revenues, insurance companies, lawyers, and other associated profiteers.

Yes, we need laws to eliminate criminal elements, but with these laws we have made it a crime to make a mistake, and that is where society stepped over the line. It is nothing less than a drive towards enforced conformity, bureaucratic totalitarianism. Risk takers will slowly be driven out of society.

Take away the risk takers, and you take away the innovators, and just like Rome, our society will grind to a halt. The machines will grind to a halt, and the people capable of keeping them running will have been long gone, just like when the aqueducts were pulled down around the crumbled civilization of Catholic Rome.

reply to post by poet1b


It's also due to ignorance of the law. People will enter into kangaroo courts assuming they are valid courts. People will gladly say what administrative agencies need them to say so they can construe a grant of jurisdiction, or say too little which can then be construed as tacit grant of jurisdiction. People will readily plead not guilty to something not understanding that this is not a direct challenge of the bogus legislation, or misapplication of sound legislation, but rather language that can be construed as agreement that the charge was valid.

When one say's "guilty", the acceptance of the legislation is expressly clear. When people say "not guilty", because no challenge of jurisdiction was offered, then it legally assumed that the defendant has no issue with jurisdiction.

reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux


Sadly, traffic courts are one of the finest examples of how justice has disappeared in the U.S.. The way the system is set up, you are still punished even if you succeed in proving your innocence, and the evidence required to prove your innocence is heavily stacked against you. Once that traffic ticket is written, you are presumed guilty, the cop's word is gold, while your word has no weight.

It is just another instance where our courts have abandoned any attempts of pretension to justice.

All this is on top of the reality that our cities and infrastructure is built solely to accommodate the use of the automobile, so that loss of license is practically paralysis for many, in that the ability to get around without an automobile is extremely limited.

Without a license to drive, you are severely handicapped in your daily race through the maze to gets some cheese. "It's too bad, they got you by the balls, and you can't, get away, from it all". IORnR Stones.