New Jersey the communist state

steveox said:
Now you see America is not a safe country to live in. Its because of Cops not doing their jobs. Now theyre are some police depts can choose not to enforce certain laws. Like for example look at Arizona Sheriffs dept who wont enforce illegal immingration law that was signed by governor Jan Brewer
http://abcnews.go.com/WN/protestors-arizona-immigration-bill-urge-boycott-state/story?id=10487582

Now you see why youre much safer in Canada and in Japan? Cause cops there dont enforce petty stuff like Texting laws, Illegal prositution laws,,Petty traffic laws. They get more seroius stuff like Murder,Robbery,Rape,Car Theft,Mugging and Assults.
Click to expand...
Sorry Steve ..... I am becoming more convinced that you are suffering from liberalism. I live in America. Moreover, I live in TEXAS! I have a legal right to conceal a weapon, carry that weapon and use it against any perpetrator that I deem a threat to me, my family or anyone else that I deem a threat! I understand the laws, I understand my boundaries. It is you who are sickened with the disease that believes that government and laws can save you from your own ideologies! Maybe Canada is a better place for "progressive thinkers" such as your self!
 
Werbung:
Hey Texas,,, Go shoot a black man and see what Eric Holder will do to you.. But if a Black man shoots you the media will stay silent and the cops will look the other way like they did in Norfolk.
 
GenSeneca said:
Seat belt, Helmet, Texting laws...All examples of how our Rights are abridged by government through popular public support.

"Since the general civilization of mankind, I believe there are more instances of the abridgment of the freedom of the people by gradual and silent encroachments of those in power, than by violent and sudden usurpations; but, on a candid examination of history, we shall find that turbulence, violence, and abuse of power, by the majority trampling on the rights of the minority, have produced factions and commotions, which, in republics, have, more frequently than any other cause, produced despotism. If we go over the whole history of ancient and modern republics, we shall find their destruction to have generally resulted from those causes" - James Madison
Click to expand...

Seatbelt and helmet laws I can almost understand as the results of failure do cost us all either in in creased ins raes or taxes related to indigent care. I would prefer insurance companies address this in policy pricing much as they do in life ins policies but they found it easier to get the government to do.

Texting, on the other hand I se as more about protecting those injured by distracted drivers. Kind of the flip side of helmets and more a matter of public safety. given that its been found to be a genuine problem in terms of volumes of incidents I'm ok with that.
 
steveox said:
Hey Texas,,, Go shoot a black man and see what Eric Holder will do to you.. But if a Black man shoots you the media will stay silent and the cops will look the other way like they did in Norfolk.
Click to expand...
Sorry Steve ....
I am not interested in shooting anyone and I am well aware of the racist agenda of the AG and the MSM!
 
NJ ‘Ban’ on Texting Really Just Poor Word Choice by Media

Over the weekend, media outlets began reporting that a New Jersey town had officially instituted a ban on texting while walking, making it a fineable offense. Turns out, this “ban” was really just a mix-up with words by many in the media that misconstrued what exactly the local authorities were issuing tickets for.


http://www.theblaze.com/stories/nj-ban-on-texting-really-just-poor-word-choice-by-media/
 
dogtowner said:
I se as more about protecting those injured by distracted drivers.
Click to expand...
1. Laws do not, and cannot protect, anything. Laws merely establish certain actions as punishable offenses.
2. Any damage or injury that could result from a distracted driver is already against the law.
3. By accepting the abridgement of Rights to an entirely subjective concept (distracted drivers) opens the door to further encroachments. Anything that could be considered as a distraction to the driver could potentially be banned, such as eating, listening to the radio or changing stations, having a conversation with other occupants of the car etc.
 
Get rid of these liberal stupid laws like that seat belt law needs to go too. Wanna know why the ACLU will never challege that seat belt law? Its a violation of US consitution the government cant tell you what to wear like Helmet laws too. The Reason they wont challenge to the U.S Supreme court is most minories dont own or drive cars. Theyre too poor to own a car. Blacks and hispanics take the bus or subways. Thats why the ACLU wont challenge this to U.S Supreme court.
 
GenSeneca said:
1. Laws do not, and cannot protect, anything. Laws merely establish certain actions as punishable offenses.
2. Any damage or injury that could result from a distracted driver is already against the law.
3. By accepting the abridgement of Rights to an entirely subjective concept (distracted drivers) opens the door to further encroachments. Anything that could be considered as a distraction to the driver could potentially be banned, such as eating, listening to the radio or changing stations, having a conversation with other occupants of the car etc.
Click to expand...

texting requires you to stop looking at the road, the ret not so much. without defining distracted driving as a crime it does not violate a law and limits the liability. that wreck was just a wreck as it were.
 
steveox said:
Get rid of these liberal stupid laws like that seat belt law needs to go too. Wanna know why the ACLU will never challege that seat belt law? Its a violation of US consitution the government cant tell you what to wear like Helmet laws too. The Reason they wont challenge to the U.S Supreme court is most minories dont own or drive cars. Theyre too poor to own a car. Blacks and hispanics take the bus or subways. Thats why the ACLU wont challenge this to U.S Supreme court.
Click to expand...

not around here
 
I am totally surprised that it is not the unanimous opinion of everyone here that this simply shows how ridiculous lawmakers are.
 
GenSeneca said:
o_O ...You said you agreed with this law... yet you recognize how rediculous it is?
Click to expand...

lawmakers are ridiculous which was what the post in question spoke to.

this law upon further examination seems aimed at interaction between vehicles and people texting or other activities that prevent them from being aware of their surroundings. just walking down the sidewalk is just a matter of rudeness.
 
How this law protects you?
220px-Parking_meter_pd_med.jpg
 
Werbung:
Back
Top