Time to Take Motor Vehicles Away From the American Public!

page: 4
88
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join

posted on Apr, 5 2012 @ 10:00 PM
link   
reply to post by aching_knuckles
 


Why are you fishing for insults? Ignorance of the law is no excuse. If you don't want to understand, this is your business. If you do not want to govern yourself, then embrace the tyranny of the state.




posted on Apr, 5 2012 @ 10:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux
reply to post by aching_knuckles
 


Why are you fishing for insults? Ignorance of the law is no excuse. If you don't want to understand, this is your business. If you do not want to govern yourself, then embrace the tyranny of the state.





I cant understand because you wont give an answer. I am trying to understand libertarian theory. But I do not understand how you feel that people should avoid following commoon sense laws, like stop signs. How is that "fishing for insults"?

All I am asking is if you believe it is OK for people to drive drunk or not observe stop signs....like around preschools maybe? Is it to do it as long as you dont get caught? Its not OK? What is your position? Why wont you answer? Why do you keep attempting to belittle me?

Do you often insult those asking you to explain your position? I am seriously wondering...if you drive drunk, but dont hurt anyone, is that then "from good"?
edit on 5-4-2012 by aching_knuckles because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 5 2012 @ 10:11 PM
link   
reply to post by lonegurkha
 



I wonder how many deaths have been caused by the government.


Probably not nearly as many deaths as caused by Corporate entities. Considering most wars of the last hundred plus years were instigated by corporations.

If we got rid of the corporate entity, and make all business activities tied to specific individuals responsible for the decisions, we could probably shrink government considerably.

Save the world, ban the corporate entity.



posted on Apr, 5 2012 @ 10:15 PM
link   
reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux
 


I made a quick search, and it seems all the solid numbers on vehicular manslaughter are locked up behind close doors to protect reported DUI statistics, and they sure don't want to get any information out there to verify, or possibly discredit that stuff.

It just wouldn't be politically correct.



posted on Apr, 5 2012 @ 10:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux
reply to post by FortAnthem
 


In my research efforts I have yet to find the time to take a gander at the statistical evidence for the danger of bad jokes. Damn interrupting cows!



I couldn't find any statistics but, I did find this article about jokes that kill:
13 Practical Jokes Gone Horribly Wrong


You can count on the gubment to look to ban that dangerous sense of humor to keep more from being hurt.

Didn't they change the national motto to "If it only saves just one life, it was worth it" recently?



posted on Apr, 5 2012 @ 10:39 PM
link   
reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux
 

Let's talk about tools. Many species use them. From primates using sticks to gather ants all the way to the laptop I'm currently typing on.
Autos, weapons, computers, can openers are nothing more than tools that we use to aid in many aspects of our lives.

To assign a social restrain on the "tool" and not on the individual using the tool is dishonest.

It's akin to banning the printing press (curse you Guttengerg!) for printing something that someone doesn't agree with.

A weapon is a innantimate object. Any legislation banning this "tool" is, in effect, denying the perceived result that the individual may obtain as a result of it's use.

So, cutting to the chase, banning weapons is an attempt to negate a future result that "they" would rather not see.

AmIright?



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



posted on Apr, 5 2012 @ 11:00 PM
link   
Alcohol now cars geez, what else you wanna take from americans



posted on Apr, 5 2012 @ 11:08 PM
link   
reply to post by beezzer
 


Put the same logic to vice laws, laws governing sexual activities, all safety laws including traffic laws, or how about the laws that won't even let people camp out on the beach anymore. Now that is whacko.

But hey, if a company puts a bunch of poisonous chemicals in the water, and a bunch of people die directly from that chemical, then the people of that company should get punished in the same manner as a drunk driver who kills someone, except they shouldn't be allowed to serve the terms concurrently. And the people shouldn't have to hire a lawyer, it should be a criminal prosecution. Or maybe victims of drunk drivers shouldn't have to pay unless the victims hire a lawyer and take them to civil court.

Or we could get rid of government, and go back to vigilante law.



posted on Apr, 5 2012 @ 11:10 PM
link   
reply to post by rumor21
 


Good think we don't have detachable penises.

or do we?



posted on Apr, 5 2012 @ 11:12 PM
link   
i totally agree. i hate cars and i wish they had never been invented.. and just about every "advance" in "modern society" that is linked to cars, i wish had never happened.

i could write a whole book about it, and maybe some day i will. lol. but not now.

i have no problem with progress, i just feel we all progressed down a wrong turn around-about 300 years back...

but this might be getting off the subject.
edit on 5-4-2012 by BohemianBrim because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 5 2012 @ 11:13 PM
link   
If we still had small markets within walking distance of homes we could have less cars driving on the road. We need to return these stores so the regular man/ woman can acquire their dreams. Big business screws with the ability of the little guy. we should be able to start little businesses in residential areas that provide for the neighborhood without too much paperwork. Within reason.Tiny markets and places to sell locally grown produce should be allowed. This would take a lot of cars off the road. No alcohol sold in these places though.



posted on Apr, 5 2012 @ 11:14 PM
link   
reply to post by poet1b
 

Government doesn't like weapons because they (weapons) are an effective tool to thwart a controlling central authority from making decisions that would and could affect daily lives.

If banana peels were an effective tool, then government would ban those as well.



posted on Apr, 5 2012 @ 11:18 PM
link   
SWIMMING POOLS.
They simply have to go!
More children die from swimming pools than guns. Swimming pools are dangerous for Americans. It's for our collective good to ban them and we owe it to the children. I believe we need to hire 4500+ irs agents to regulate and enforce this.

And while we are at it...private gardens..well flowers are ok if they are not edible but I don't think anyone has the riight and discernment to grow their own fruits and vegetables without some kind of government oversight. What if a kid ate a tomato that wasn't usda approved? That would/could be tragic! Think of the consequences of this kind of irresponsible act.
god save the queen....and monsanto.

viva le resolution



posted on Apr, 5 2012 @ 11:28 PM
link   

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!



Nice post JPZ!

However firearms being the third leading cause of death is complete crap firearms are not even on the radar much less a leading cause. Here is the top 20 and you will be digging for a long time for firearms to appear on the list. That anti gun bent put out a lot of misinformation and reinterpretation of statistics.

webappa.cdc.gov...



posted on Apr, 5 2012 @ 11:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by rumor21

Alcohol now cars geez, what else you wanna take from americans


You don't need those feet. Gimme those feet. You're not going anywhere......


Des



posted on Apr, 5 2012 @ 11:50 PM
link   
You can have my car when you pry the steering wheel from my cold dead hands!

Plus, I use my car for hunting opossums,squirrels,raccoons and the occasional dog or cat.
What about us?
How are we supposed to hunt?



posted on Apr, 5 2012 @ 11:52 PM
link   
reply to post by Screwed
 


lol

i really hope thats a joke, and if not.. i really hope you eat those animals, and if not..



posted on Apr, 5 2012 @ 11:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by BohemianBrim
reply to post by Screwed
 


lol

i really hope thats a joke, and if not.. i really hope you eat those animals, and if not..


Hey...he owns the Roadkill Cafe...good eats....


Des



posted on Apr, 6 2012 @ 12:01 AM
link   
reply to post by aching_knuckles
 


I gave you an answer, you couldn't accept that answer. You asked for clarification, and I explained a very simple principle of law that has existed since time immemorial. Ignorantia juris non excusat. This is Latin for ignorance of the law is no excuse. Latin is a dead language. I emphasize this to illustrate just how ancient this principle is. You want to take that as an insult. It is simply a fact of law. You seem to want to lead this into some other direction, but all I can tell you is what I know, and that is the law.

All people are born with rights. It is self evident that all people have the right to life. You can reply to that with more questions asking for clarification, but what I have just stated is as self evident as the day time sun. If you were to ask me questions in reply demanding clarification, all I can say is that I see someone hiding in a cave all day long only to come out at night and read what I say, and then ask for clarification how the sun is self evident.

People were driving automobiles before before government decided to declare that driving was a right but only a privilege. In the California State Constitution, there are Declarations of Rights. The latter part of Section 24 states:


This declaration of rights may not be construed to impair or deny others retained by the people.


This is a direct contradiction to California's assertion that driving is a privilege and not a right, particularly because people were driving first and by right.

Either you can understand this, or you cannot. If you cannot you can declare it is a failure in my communication, but between you and I, I seem to be the only one willing to make statements. Playing a Socratic method is obvious and in my estimation disingenuous. The law is not philosophy, and if it were, it would be useless.

What more do you want?



posted on Apr, 6 2012 @ 12:04 AM
link   
You can have my truck.....bumper first!!!!





new topics
top topics
 
88
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join