36,200 Traffic Deaths in 2012...is it time to further "infringe" on the right to travel by motor v, page 2


Pages: <<  1    2  >>
ATS Members have flagged this thread 3 times


reply posted on 24-2-2013 @ 12:17 PM by solomons path
Originally posted by intrepid
Originally posted by solomons path
Asbestos stated purpose was for insulation. Thalidomide stated purpose was a sedative.

I don't see those being used in such a way now . . . Why? They are too dangerous. I don't see why it's so hard for people to comprehend, either?


You are making a case FOR guns? I think you just proved the exact opposite. Thanks.



Where did I mention guns in that post . . . ? You made the claim that cars stated purpose was benign . . . I showed you why that doesn't matter. Again, we are back to a comprehension problem. You were the one that brought up guns and their purpose. I've been talking about cars, mostly, or transportation in general.

I don't really care if you own a vehicle or not . . . as I don't think you should. They are death machines. You said BC was too big and dangerous for life without a vehicle . . . I just commented that you seem quite frightened to live in a world/place without them. Maybe you should move someplace more convenient/safer . . . leave BC for those that aren't afraid to live their lives in wooded peace and splendor?


ETA - also . . .IF we were talking about guns . . . How would my statment prove your point or me wrong? You said a gun's only purpose is to harm . . . They seem to be doing that quite well? So, how does my analogy prove that wrong? They work how they are supposed to.

Now a car and their stated purpose on the other hand . . . that's another story. They may work for transport, but like my examples, the benefits are not worth the carnage cause and lives they destroy. You may disagree, but I'm sure the cigarette, asbestos, and pharm industries disagree about the dangers of their products too. Comprehension . . . jeez!
edit on 2/24/13 by solomons path because: (no reason given)
edit on 2/24/13 by solomons path because: (no reason given)



reply posted on 24-2-2013 @ 02:20 PM by CosmicCitizen
reply to post by dainoyfb


Yes, and I am much more afraid (altho near nil) of being hit on the road by a tired trucker or a drunk driver than I am of being attacked by a "wacked-out" (ptsd) retired veteran with a semi-automatic AR-15 who is suicidal and wants to go out with a "bang!" (taking others with him).


reply posted on 24-2-2013 @ 02:28 PM by CosmicCitizen
reply to post by liejunkie01


IF you have read my threads on Gun Control then you should know that my tongue is half way nestled in my cheek on this one (vis a vis gun control). Obviously we need laws and regulations (safety regs, speed limits, drivers licenses, etc) to ensure safety on the road but horses and buggies (think equivalent to muskets at the time) were not a tool to insure the liberty of the people against government tyranny either.


reply posted on 24-2-2013 @ 02:30 PM by CosmicCitizen
reply to post by beezzer


I bet statistics will show that most traffic fatalities are NOT caused by cars with cosmetic speed features like "spoilers" and "mag wheels" (the on the road equivalent of an assault weapon).



reply posted on 24-2-2013 @ 09:05 PM by liejunkie01
reply to post by CosmicCitizen



I see where you are coming from.

I work around the granite city and east St Louis areas. I live approximately 65 miles south east of there. I
Had a Guy pull out in front of me on the highway Friday morning and I almost had a serious accident. I locked up my brakes and swerved into the right lane.

My point being, I drive more than some. I don't think stricter regulation can help when someone forgets to look the other way and directly crosses your path. It was driver error. It happens because we are not perfect.

It really shook me up for a bit.


reply posted on 25-2-2013 @ 04:54 PM by CosmicCitizen
reply to post by ispyed


Guns are not necessary unless some thugs kick down your door at 3am....travel after that could be a moot point if no guns are accessible to defend against them.


reply posted on 26-2-2013 @ 11:22 AM by snowspirit
reply to post by Gazrok



It's almost frightening the way people are carrying on about "omg, ban everything" just because of the US talking about gun control (people controlling their guns).

We all know that government agencies read the Internet to get a feel for what the public is thinking.

I understand that there's a second amendment right to have guns.

After Sandy Hook though, there was discussions of how more guns are needed, to keep people safe, to the point of some (too many) people being accepting of armed guards in the schools, theatres, malls, street corners......
Like a typical police state.

Do people not see something wrong with where this is going?
Do people not see that we do not want more regulation in every single area of people's lives?

I get concerned as a Cdn, because our countries are trying to coordinate laws and regulations.
We already have too many stifling laws and regulations.
Pages: <<  1    2  >>    ^^TOP^^



Attention ATS, This Is Important
  Posted 9 days ago with 33 member flags
Labor Day Has Been Canceled
  Posted 8 days ago with 21 member flags
Nine Myths About \'Socialism\' In The United States.
  Posted 7 days ago with 20 member flags
Asking for help around here......
  Posted 16 days ago with 19 member flags
Are You All Deranged?! Women Want Rape? o_O
  Posted 19 days ago with 15 member flags
I am tired.
  Posted 11 days ago with 12 member flags
Namaste = pretentious
  Posted 11 days ago with 11 member flags
Gays have the right to marry and always have
  Posted 4 days ago with 10 member flags