Comments on: DOA 2

By: ER

ER — Tue, 08 Jul 2014 20:25:22 +0000

You would think that it would be the teamsters who should be required to ring the bell, not the pedestrians. Another example of the law always favoring the big shot, and putting a burden on the little man.

I guess if you can’t afford a carriage, or if you’re not a merchant with a fleet of wagons, its up to you to look after your own safety. After all, you wouldn’t want to get run over and delay a delivery.

By: DanS

DanS — Tue, 08 Jul 2014 17:10:43 +0000

Understood, and I totally agree.

The “too many laws” comment even calls to mind a certain law that was still on the books for Chicago, about 20 years ago. Seems it was still illegal for a pedestrian to cross a street without wringing a bell, so as not to be trample by a team of draft horses.

I’m sure many communities around the world have similar ancient statutes in dire need of revision. All I was saying is that, as we are each an individual with unique hopes, dreams, aggressive limits, love requirements, standards of personal measure, life holds many set rules, but no sure book of directions.

Cheers, all.

By: mcfly

mcfly — Mon, 07 Jul 2014 21:37:06 +0000

We’re all just struggling through the darkness here. Apparently, at some point in the past, all the little guys got sick and tired of getting pushed around and killed by all the big guys, so law was invented. At 5′ 6″, I can see where it might have been something of an improvement.

Where will it end? I doubt it ever will, and that’s probably not a bad thing. Human society is a perpetual work-in-progress.

By: ER

ER — Mon, 07 Jul 2014 18:55:20 +0000

What they’re saying is we already have too many laws, and many are of questionable effectiveness; which may very well be true. Law should be challenged and brought up to date.

But what they really mean is “its going to cost us money to have that law and we don’t want to shell out”.

Its why I brought up the seat belt laws as an example. No less an authority than Lee Iacocca himself sternly warned us seat belts were going to cause the collapse of the entire US auto industry. Other Conservative objections ranged from the cost of installation, to the cost of enforcement, to obscure constitutional arguments about civil liberties and freedom and the flag.

And of course, Conservatives also pointed out that

1) Not everyone was going to obey the law and buckle up.
2) People wearing seat belts could still die in crashes.
3) People not wearing belts would still survive some crashes.
4) Some people would even be killed by seat belt-caused injuries.
or, my favorite,
5) We already have plenty of traffic laws and people still have accidents and get hurt!

In other words, the same kind of bullshit objections they make to common sense gun control legislation. The same people who want to send you to jail for downloading a song without paying for it, or smoking a joint in your own house, want everyone to have the absolute unrestricted freedom to buy and sell multiple sniper rifles and automatic assault weapons because they’ve convinced themselves some day they might need them to stop a tyrannical government or a communist invasion.

These people are easy to figure. Just follow the money. They are not stupid, they know exactly what they’re doing.

By: DanS

DanS — Mon, 07 Jul 2014 18:19:28 +0000

Laws are designed to be “right” vs. “wrong,” and are convenient ways for our governing authorities to prosecute criminals. They are guidelines for the law-abiding, and challenges for the lawless. This game will continue, until criminals become a thing of the past.

You can’t fix stupid, and you can’t fix crime. All you can do is try to outlast them.

By: Jody

Jody — Mon, 07 Jul 2014 14:56:33 +0000

…is where will it all end? No arguments on my end. Just wondering out loud until there is a law forbidding that.

Truthfully, my opinions are rhetorical in nature.

My rhetoric has nothing to do with laws per se. It has everything to do with the Human Condition Gene. Lamentations of an old sea hag.

You can’t fix stupid.

By: mcfly

mcfly — Mon, 07 Jul 2014 13:08:00 +0000

Kind of brings us back to the “why have any laws at all” argument, doesn’t it? You say people will always be able to find ways to do damage, regardless of any attempts to stop them. So why waste energy trying? Why have any laws at all?

By: ER

ER — Sat, 05 Jul 2014 18:52:08 +0000

Three? Is that some kind of gang sign?

By: Jody

Jody — Sat, 05 Jul 2014 17:24:48 +0000

I expected more from you ER.
You are being facetious. You ALWAYS categorize what I say into right wing nut propaganda. I advocate seat belts. Always have. You forget anything I have ever said in the past. But as you have said before, you don’t care what I think.

Go ahead and
point your finger at me. There are three pointing right back atcha.

By: ER

ER — Sat, 05 Jul 2014 16:10:21 +0000

Of course, people are ultimately responsible for bad things.
And true, no law or regulation can stop a determined criminal, or a freak accident. So should we outlaw seat belts? You know, the Right opposed them, too. How many lives and maimings does it take, Jody?

It is wrong, even criminal, to suggest that because of this we should do nothing at all; that because a law isn’t perfect there should be none at all. To this twisted mind-set, even common sense precautions are pointless because you can always find a way to do evil, or because you can always point to at least one case where a perfectly reasonable safeguard was short-circuited or a safety feature was bypassed.

This is the kind of perverse logic the NRA throws around, because it helps to obscure their real agenda, one that is only concerned with their own selfishness and greed at the expense of the common welfare. The PEOPLE certainly do stupid and evil things, but you can’t blame them for the full depth and breadth of the body count, and the victims should not be blamed for the crimes inflicted on them.

I expect this kind of dodgeball from the wingnuts. You can do better.