4 ms·
It's just another regulation that is impossible to enforce consistently without invasions into one's privacy. We really don't have many "rights". Most "rights
by lhnn 15y ago
It's just another regulation that is impossible to enforce consistently without invasions into one's privacy.
We really don't have many "rights". Most "rights" people talk about are priviledges, like health care, schools, a job, etc.
The real rights we have, such as privacy, free speech, and the permission to own firearms, are being assailed by the government every day.
- kinghajj 15y ago"...impossible to enforce consistently without invasions into one's privacy." What? You have no privacy on the road, through a clear windshield. I fail to see any such violation. It would seem to me to be unconstitutional, but I assume they'll skirt around that like with drinking ages: withhold funds to states that don't pass the laws the federal government wants. That way the federal government technically isn't making something illegal, but is basically blackmailing the states into doing so. (It's not technically blackmail because the states aren't entitled to those funds, as they're provided at the discretion of Congress.)
- 18pfsmt 15y agoColorado specifically opted out of the helmet law because the revenue generated from motorcycle tourists outweighs the federal subsidy.
- lhnn 15y agothey should have opted out because it's not their damned business, but ya.
- deleted 15y ago[deleted]
- lhnn 15y agoSo many people text below the windshield level. How will someone prove that I was texting at a certain time? Some cop will say he thought he saw me texting and demand my phone records. And the original point of my post is that to ban texting is arbitrary; you can't ban everything before the fact. If anything, put additional punishment on someone whose accident was found to be caused by texting.