Dumb Laws

[Brian G]

Yeah, I want to know why it's against the law for me to drive my red car on Lake Street! I've been informed that here in Minnesota, it's against the law to tease skunks.

And why, WHY! is it that when I go to visit my relatives in Wisconsin, I'm not allowed to cross the state line with a duck on my head (or a chicken, for that matter)?

[onedash]

on Marine Corps bases you can not run with headphones at all. And I have no beef with telling people to take em off when they cross a street. A lot of things happen because they dont want it to happen again on their watch. I'll bet dollars to donuts that the city thinking about passing that law had one or more people (probably kids) get killed crossing a street and they were wearing headphones and didn't hear or see them coming. Is it the drivers fault???Who knows, wasnt there and probably doesnt matter.
Are some of them over reactions??Im sure. Gun control on the other hand only prevents law abiding citizens from having or carying them. The criminals could care less what the laws are. Look at DC. The only place you can not own firearms has about the worst crime rate in the US.
If we want to stop sensless deaths lets call it murder when a drunk driver kills someone.
If they outlawed alcohol it wouldn't bother me. What kind of life do you think we would have if there were no laws and we had all the freedom in the world???If that was true we could kill people because they upset us and thats our right!!!!
Anyhow I think there are plenty sensless laws out there but I have no problem with that one.

[MilDoc]

To put it simply, we here love to pass laws that sound good but accomplish little. So, it's illegal to cross the street while using a phone or iPod? It's illegal to drive w/o seat belts? It's illegal to jaywalk? Yeah. But you have to be observed doing it first. Then the officer has to take the time to stop you, write a ticket, etc.

In other words, go ahead and do it anyway. You probably won't get caught. And if you do the fine will probably be small.

Laws to stop stupidity are virtually unenforceable, unless there are consequences. So, why bother?

OTOH, banning trans fats is good for you, society, the cost of health care, etc etc etc. And, personally, as a pediatrician who has seen the growing fatness of our kids, I would like to see fast food restaurants closed or prohibited from selling garbage (like McNuggets). But I guess it's your right to feed you kids junk food.

[crokett]

Careful fellas... There's a reason we keep politics off the board.

[Ed62]

If I've said something that anyone took as becoming heated, I apoligize for that. That's one thing I won't do is to get into a heated argument online. It's simply not my style online or off. I have strong feelings about some things, but I know others have opposing views. They have as much right to theirs as I have mine.

And my comment about politics was not meant in the sense it might have been taken, and that's my fault for lack of better wording. Again I apologize for that. I know politics is off limits here, and I think that's a good thing.

Now on to better things.

Ed

[JSCOOK]

Ditto ... I'm probably responsible for pushing this over the line most likely without thinking about it ... no hard feeling I hope fellows ...

[scorrpio]

Most of these 'laws' really don't come to bear until something happens. Sure, now and then a cop will issue a fine as a preventive measure, but these occasions are rare.

Here's some insight: Liability insurance in Russia is CRAP. They are trying to improve things, but it is still very much broken. A pedestrian hit by a car will, in most cases, get nada. No medical bills (if any, state healthcare is still free, but its quality is declining as more doctors go private) coverage, no compensation for lost worktime, nothing. In many cases, driver will not even suffer any consequences. No, it is not a good thing by any margin, but it does have one positive side effect: people are a whole lot more alert, and tend to cross streets very carefully.

Any legislature that knocks some of that 'pedestrian is always right' mentality out of people's heads over here, IMO, is good. Here in NY, it really is getting ridiculous. People in the City casually strolling down a traffic lane chattering in their cell phone. I am fairly sure we won't see a lot of fines for people with iPods crossing streets - but when one gets hit, law might apply. If the driver was drunk, or ran a red light/stop sign/was speeding or otherwise violating, I am sure it'll take precedence over the iPod law.

Gun control... I actually used to be an NRA member, but I think that state of our civilization has started to move beyond usefulness of small arms. Yes, I live in an fairly upscale area with very nice police coverage. Cops arrive within 2 minutes of a 911 call. I work in Manhattan - again, police coverage is very high. Crime is really not much of an issue. One needs to consider the origin of the right to carry arms. The first goal was to legally enable citizens to possess the means of fighting off an invading force - a very real threat back then, be it a foreign army or a thug breaking into one's house. A citizen-militia, armed with privately owned firearms, could be essential in times when rapid movement of regular troops was impossible, when telephone and radio did not exist. In this time of cell phones, roads, vehicles and transport airplanes, a military presence can be established faster than a local militia might mobilize - and law enforcement agencies can often provide the initial resistance, and can be call upon and respond rapidly to, small scale isturbances.

The other reason, as evident from Declaration of Independence:

...That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness....
...But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.

Recognizing the potential of any government to become corrupt, and grow abusive and tyrannical, a means of deposing such a government had to be provided. Again, back at the time, a rifle was pretty much the pinnacle of weaponry, and civilian militia was quite capable of standing up to a regular army.
These days, governments are in possession of arms that are beyond the individual's ability to own or defend against - modern armor, artillery, military aircraft, as well as chemical, biological and even nuclear. How would American Revolution go if British had an option to nuke Boston or Philadelphia by ways of 'getting a point across'?
The days when major governments could be deposed by means of civilians armed with small arms are gone. However, firearm ownership still might give one the sense of empowerment, the faith in being able to enact changes and the inclination to be more politically active.

[crokett]

There were a few suggestions that this thread was pushing the boundaries. While I doubt it was the Original Poster's intent to start a political thread, that is what this one has become.