raider179 was right...

[beet1e]

Originally posted by Jackal1
You might try a British BBS where they are discussing British law.

Well duh - that's what I am doing. ^

[Holden McGroin]

In London's Hyde Park, a man was fined for violating a city ordinance against playing musical intrurments for the purpose of accepting donations.

He was aquitted, as by English Law set forth during Scottish insurrections against the English King, that the Highland Bagpipes he was playing were not considered a musical insturment but a weapon of war.

There was no ordinance against using a weapon of war for the purpose of accepting donations.

[lazs2]

I do not believe that most people in those times felt that coloreds were human and the laws of "people" applied.   Some came to realize later in life that they were wrong and freed their slaves.

six...  In Vermont or Arizona there are no laws on how you carry (bear) a gun (arm).   that is the only constitutional way.  All other gun control laws are unconstitutional including making someone use the safety or whatever.   I believe that it the way it should be.  It causes no problems in those states.

As for the "hillbilly" that you are so freightened of.... there are health laws (to protect people) there are attractive nusance laws (to protect children from real harm) there are even abstructing road signs laws (to prevent accidents to other people) and.... there are even "no shooting in the city limits laws"  which I agree with as being not unconstitutional...  Hang was more on target than you think.... if everyone shunned the "hillbilly" when they weren't outright verbally abusing him and making his life misserable.... he would get with the program or move somewhere where he fit in better.... just that simple.  

beet.... Are you trying to say that if most people want something that it is ok to take away a minorities freedom?   But let's be honest....

you aren't in the least worried about saving the life of someone who doesn't wear a seat belt.... you are worried about what it might cost you personaly.   in money....  I explained that you got conned... you didn't save anything and...  most medical expenses are incured by the elderly... those non belt wearers woulda saved you a bundle in the long run..had they died.

And yes... I guess you are right... we Americans (with some notable exceptions here) are "obsessed" with freedom...  someone has to be.

lazs

[beet1e]

Originally posted by lazs2
beet.... Are you trying to say that if most people want something that it is ok to take away a minorities freedom?   But let's be honest....

you aren't in the least worried about saving the life of someone who doesn't wear a seat belt.... you are worried about what it might cost you personaly.   in money....  

No Lazs. You're arriving at the wrong conclusions because they're based on your false assumptions.

You never know where lightning might strike. Those car accident victims could be my family/friends/neighbours etc. Within the past two weeks, someone on this board posted to the effect that he had lost not one but TWO of his grown up children to a car accident. I'd be interested to hear his views on this, but I'm not going to pull him into this thread. You might argue that the chances of a seatbelt saving your life or my life are infinitesimally small, and I might even agree with you. But as you have already agreed in another thread, it's no less likely than your needing that loaded gun you keep next to your bed at night, which you seem to think is so important.

[Sixpence]

Originally posted by lazs2

six...  In Vermont or Arizona there are no laws on how you carry (bear) a gun (arm).   that is the only constitutional way.  All other gun control laws are unconstitutional including making someone use the safety or whatever.   I believe that it the way it should be.  It causes no problems in those states.

You can walk through a mall with a loaded shotgun in those states? I would like to see that, but I will take your word for it.

As for the "hillbilly" that you are so freightened of.... there are health laws (to protect people) there are attractive nusance laws (to protect children from real harm) there are even abstructing road signs laws (to prevent accidents to other people) and.... there are even "no shooting in the city limits laws"  which I agree with as being not unconstitutional...  Hang was more on target than you think.... if everyone shunned the "hillbilly" when they weren't outright verbally abusing him and making his life misserable.... he would get with the program or move somewhere where he fit in better.... just that simple.

Oh, you don't like that guy with the junk cars in his front yard? Seems there are some laws you like taking away freedom of choice. Wait, you won't write the law but harass the guy til he leaves?  Hmmm, seems you are willing to restrict someone's freedom if it is in your best interest.

Are you trying to say that if most people want something that it is ok to take away a minorities freedom?   But let's be honest....

Again, what about that guy with the eye sore in his front yard? Oh, that's right, we have the freedom to harass him til he leaves


Another example of why a seat belt law is good. We can agree that in many accidents, the people who wear their seat belts usually have minor injuries or walk away from the accident, and the people who don't suffer major injuries 60% of the time.

Now, an suv rolls over, everyone in the car was wearing their seat belts. EMT's spend about a half hour at the scene. Now another suv rolls over, but this time they were not wearing their seat belts. They are thrown from the vehicle and are in rough shape. Now this ambulance will spend anywhere from a half hour to an hour more at the scene than the accident where seat belts were worn. You see where I am going with this?

Now, you still won't believe that wearing a seat belt effects others, but that guy with the junk cars in his front yard is, weird

[Jackal1]

Originally posted by beet1e
Well duh - that's what I am doing. ^

Well Duuuh!
Let me splain it to ya Luuucy.
We ain`t talking about Briish law here.

[beet1e]

Originally posted by Jackal1
Well Duuuh!
Let me splain it to ya Luuucy.
We ain`t talking about Briish law here.

Erm... "seatbelts to be worn by vehicle occupants" - it's the exact same law, doofus.

[Holden McGroin]

Originally posted by Sixpence
Oh, you don't like that guy with the junk cars in his front yard? Seems there are some laws you like taking away freedom of choice. Wait, you won't write the law but harass the guy til he leaves?  Hmmm, seems you are willing to restrict someone's freedom if it is in your best interest.

Having some neighbo(u)r pissed at you is not the same as having the government restrict your freedom.

[Torque]

Jefferson, like all slaveholders and many other white members of American society, regarded Negroes as inferior, childlike, untrustworthy and, of course, as property. Jefferson, the genius of politics, could see no way for African-Americans to live in society as free people. He embraced the worst forms of racism to justify slavery.

inferior? the man preferred to have sex with negro women, so much so he kept a slave as a concubine. maybe he was just a couple of centuries ahead of his time.

yeah, thomas was platform virtuous and bedroom savvy.

[Toad]

What he was was flawed as Ambrose suggests. Ambrose has a few flaws too, as do all of us.

Doesn't change the value of his observations on and contributions to a better form of government.

[Jackal1]

Originally posted by beet1e
Erm... "seatbelts to be worn by vehicle occupants" - it's the exact same law, doofus.

  And yet once again...........that is not what is being discussed here and nothing British is being discussed period. You claim to be quite happy with your laws anyway. At least that`s the front you are putting on.
As Toad said, I guess you can continue to pretend the subject matter is anything you wish.

[Jackal1]

Unless I have missed it in all the dribble drabble, those of the "privilege" booster club has yet to explain exactly where this mystical mountain is that The God Of Privileges resides.
  It has always been my belief that most of what is being discussed here were rights not "privileges". The founders of our country pretty well laid them out as rights and that idea has been protected and fought for over many generations with many Americans believing so strongly in them that they gave their lives to protect them as such.

[Hangtime]

Originally posted by Sixpence

Oh, you don't like that guy with the junk cars in his front yard? Seems there are some laws you like taking away freedom of choice. Wait, you won't write the law but harass the guy til he leaves?  Hmmm, seems you are willing to restrict someone's freedom if it is in your best interest.

Again, what about that guy with the eye sore in his front yard? Oh, that's right, we have the freedom to harass him til he leaves

Now, you still won't believe that wearing a seat belt effects others, but that guy with the junk cars in his front yard is, weird

Six, yer much happier hiding behind a bull**** law than you are dealing with the problem yourself, face to face. We don't need eyesore laws.. we need citizens with a set of testicles. We don't need seatbelt laws, we need citizens that can think for themselves and act accordingly.

You'd rather enact laws, hire a cop and hide behind his gun, badge and the bull**** 'feel good' laws you and yer fellow citified panzies put on the books to 'protect' people from themseleves. I'd rather own a gun and use common sense. I can protect myself, don't need a cop, a badge or bull**** laws to tell me when to buckle up or when to take action when my kids or property is threatened.

My way costs less, promotes small government with minimal intrusion into the affairs of free men. Yours costs billions and populates welfare rolls and prisons with folks that in MY society wouldn't make it past puberty alive with the attitudes that they consider 'kewl'.

Sleep tight, Six. The guy that YOU have to worry about ain't me. It's the guy your pussifed welfare and education programs created you gotta worry about. THAT'S the guy that's gonna take your car, rape yer kid and murder yer wife while you stand there helplessly waiting for the cop that may never come.

[Sixpence]

Originally posted by Hangtime

Six, yer much happier hiding behind a bull**** law than you are dealing with the problem yourself, face to face. We don't need eyesore laws.. we need citizens with a set of testicles.

So law and order is just a bunch of bull****, ok, I know where you stand.

You'd rather enact laws, hire a cop and hide behind his gun, badge and the bull**** 'feel good' laws you and yer fellow citified panzies put on the books to 'protect' people from themseleves.

Hmm, I don't remember saying one thing in this thread about protecting people from themselves, but if it makes you feel better to say it, that's ok


Sleep tight, Six. The guy that YOU have to worry about ain't me. It's the guy your pussifed welfare and education programs created you gotta worry about.

lol! You are losing an argument so you throw in welfare, brilliant!! You going to take your ball and go home now?

THAT'S the guy that's gonna take your car, rape yer kid and murder yer wife while you stand there helplessly waiting for the cop that may never come.

Why? I can't own a gun? And what does that have to do with a seat belt law? Oh, that's right, it's going to lead to government domination,lol, here ya go  

lol, wow, seems you have different opinions on freedom when the guy next door has a junkyard for a front lawn. Maybe you should paint that avatar grey

[beet1e]

Originally posted by Jackal1
And yet once again...........that is not what is being discussed here and nothing British is being discussed period.

I'm discussing it - with Lazs amongst others. Good grief, you'll be telling me that "this is a US board" next.

You say that this thread is all about "freedom", "constitution" etc., and claim that the seatbelt issue was just being used as an example. Really - is that the best "example" that anyone could think of?

But... I've had an idea. I'll find a road safety/motoring enthusiasts' site in New Hampshire. I'll join it and run the same poll there that I'm running here. As of today, that one is running at 11-2 in favour of mandatory seatbelt usage.

inferior? the man preferred to have sex with negro women, so much so he kept a slave as a concubine. maybe he was just a couple of centuries ahead of his time.

I must say I'm tickled pink about these jefferson revelations. I used to have to lick the guy's behind myself when I lived over there. No, I don't mean it like that: His mug was on the airmail postage stamps!