Do you always obey the law?

[hariph creek]

I started to high jack another thread with this. The issue was exceeding the speed limit. I thought I'd pose the question here.

So, do you?
Do you feel you can pick and choose which laws apply to you, which don't?
Do you expect protection under the rule of law?
Do you hold the powers that be to that standard?

I'm not blind to corruption in the political/legal/social/etc...establishment. But, we're not living in a third world country either.

I feel, those excercising the second ammendment, have a responsibility to be ''upright.''

So do you speed? Maybe steal? Cheat on your taxes? Whatever...where do you draw the line?

How can we trust someone, if their sense of right and wrong, is determined by what's convenient?


Edit: I'm not speaking of hypothetical grand situations. No zombies or SHTF. Just day to day, life.

Read More

 

[Rascals]

Actually the only time I ever speed is on accident. I'm usually one of those that people get upset about becasue I go the speed limit. I try to do everything by the book so I dont give anybody a reason to take away rights that I value. It does not take that much longer to get anywhere if you just keep a steady pace.
With taxes I take it to the tax guys and do things by the book. I dont want to look over myshoulderr for something I have no idea about.

 

[hariph creek]

Another member, in the thread I nearly tried to take over, mentioned an instance.
He brought up, breaking the law by having a gun to defend his family, while on vacation.
That's a very justifiable view.
On the other hand.
We can get permits to carry (we should not have to, but that's another conversation). It's possible, if you plan ahead, to get permits for many other states, too.
We could choose to spend our time and MONEY in places that allow us to protect our families.
If we go where our safety is not respected, for recreation. We are placeing ourselves in a compromised position.

 

[hariph creek]

Rascals...you're right, speeding saves very little time. Generally uses alot more fuel, though.
I drive for a living, I drive the speed limit. It's liberating, not to worry about speed traps. Or stress if a LEO happens to be following me.
But, yes, it does irritate other drivers.

 

[dmancornell]

I feel we, those excercising the second ammendment, have a responsibility to be ''upright.''

If you support 2A and the Constitution then you have an obligation to ignore the bureaucratic law, as it is morally bankrupt and only serves the corrupt state.

 

[fd15k]

Rascals...you're right, speeding saves very little time. Generally uses alot more fuel, though.
I drive for a living, I drive the speed limit. It's liberating, not to worry about speed traps. Or stress if a LEO happens to be following me.
But, yes, it does irritate other drivers.

I obey the speed limits on trips shorter than a few hundred miles. But I've had 3 1000mi trips last year... it saves quite a bit if you go some 10miles over the limit. What do you think ?

 

[nwwoodsman]

As long as I'm not hurting anyone else or myself or imposing my will on others then I see no harm in living my life as I see fit. As far as government restrictions on the 2nd amendment I feel the freedom of the people takes a higer priority than unconstitutional governence. Than being said, if one chooses not to abide by government restrictions on personal liberties then they have to be prepared to accept the consequences when they're taken hostage by law enforcement.

 

[Rascals]

I obey the speed limits on trips shorter than a few hundred miles. But I've had 3 1000mi trips last year... it saves quite a bit if you go some 10miles over the limit. What do you think ?

I use to drive cross country twice a week for workAroundnt 135,000 miles a year. What I noticed was I could see a driver pick up a load and speed off across country. Then he would end up passing me over and over becasue he took to many breaks, in truck stops and buying extra fuel , ect ect ect but in the end usuallyly got there first and never had to look over my shoulder for speeding. Now DOT, I dont care how much you try to please those jerks they always seam to try and find a way to fine you. I wanted a safe truck but come on some of those BThingsgs they fine you for are a joke. Also why theharassss thprofessionalal drivers and let the dirst unsafe trucks froMexicoco go right by and pick on a well maintained trucevery timeme believeded was just a way to mess with us and take our money.
Very few run illegal if they arprofessionalsals. But the ones who are not I would like to know why they let those go by without even a look when you can see the problefromfom my truck and they ignore them. All I can think its to take our money and support the illegals.

 

[fd15k]

As long as I'm not hurting anyone else or myself or imposing my will on others then I see no harm in living my life as I see fit. As far as government restrictions on the 2nd amendment I feel the freedom of the people takes a higer priority than unconstitutional governence. Than being said, if one chooses not to abide by government restrictions on personal liberties then they have to be prepared to accept the consequences when they're taken hostage by law enforcement.

Take the speed limits for example. Based on your principle, it's okay to drive whatever speed you like, as long as you don't interfere outright with other traffic participants. The problem with that though, is that there are possible unintended consequences. For example, your vehicle may loose control due to mechanical failure, and exit the highway at a high speed and unpredictable direction, possibly damaging property and even causing harm to other citizens. You can not foresee such consequences, as many variables are involved, and those variables are a subject of study for various governmental and private bodies, which establish the methodologies for minimizing such risks. That is later directly translated into the speed limits, which puts a minor constraint on your freedom in order to resolve the conflict between your right to be free, and somebody else's right to life and property. Bottom line: it's not you vs. government, it's you vs. other citizens.

 

[pchewn]

Take the speed limits for example. Based on your principle, it's okay to drive whatever speed you like, as long as you don't interfere outright with other traffic participants. The problem with that though, is that there are possible unintended consequences. For example, your vehicle may loose control due to mechanical failure, and exit the highway at a high speed and unpredictable direction, possibly damaging property and even causing harm to other citizens. You can not foresee such consequences, as many variables are involved, and those variables are a subject of study for various governmental and private bodies, which establish the methodologies for minimizing such risks. That is later directly translated into the speed limits, which puts a minor constraint on your freedom in order to resolve the conflict between your right to be free, and somebody else's right to life and property. Bottom line: it's not you vs. government, it's you vs. other citizens.

Then why did the speed limit go to 55 from 70 or 80? It was not for safety, it was for fuel conservation. I buy my fuel, I'll use it as quickly as I choose, thank you.

I think if you really want "study for various governmental and private bodies" to make your decisions for you, you might want to relocate to Europe or China.

 

[fd15k]

Then why did the speed limit go to 55 from 70 or 80? It was not for safety, it was for fuel conservation. I buy my fuel, I'll use it as quickly as I choose, thank you.

Several things to say about that one. First, there was a perception of possible economic threat, which would have affected everybody - collective security. Second, they admitted later on that it didn't work, and previous speed limits were restored in most places.

I think if you really want "study for various governmental and private bodies" to make your decisions for you, you might want to relocate to Europe or China.

I'm not an expert in all areas of life, I need to delegate certain decision making to qualified individuals and organizations, and I need somebody to supervise them so that they don't misuse my trust. For example, I

- don't self medicate
- don't represent myself in court
- don't produce my own food
- don't negotiate strategic weapons with Russians

and so on

 

[Nwcid]

Most laws are written to the dumbest person. This means that many things that should not nor need to be illegal or set for the average person are ruling us all............

 

[fd15k]

Most laws are written to the dumbest person. This means that many things that should not nor need to be illegal or set for the average person are ruling us all............

That's right. Lowest common denominator

 

[dmancornell]

Take the speed limits for example. Based on your principle, it's okay to drive whatever speed you like, as long as you don't interfere outright with other traffic participants. The problem with that though, is that there are possible unintended consequences. For example, your vehicle may loose control due to mechanical failure, and exit the highway at a high speed and unpredictable direction, possibly damaging property and even causing harm to other citizens. You can not foresee such consequences, as many variables are involved, and those variables are a subject of study for various governmental and private bodies, which establish the methodologies for minimizing such risks. That is later directly translated into the speed limits, which puts a minor constraint on your freedom in order to resolve the conflict between your right to be free, and somebody else's right to life and property. Bottom line: it's not you vs. government, it's you vs. other citizens.

If the speed limits are really for safety, why were they lowered over time as vehicle technology improved? Even my college Corolla was far safer than the average 70's land yacht at *any* speed, and yet, the government has decided that the speed limit now should be lower than before. Why is that? And if the conclusions of your "governmental and private bodies" were correct, then the German autobahn should be a fiery funeral pyre at all times. But it isn't.

Of course, if safety were the real goal, the government should simply ban drivers with poor reaction times, non-existent hand-eye coordination, or simply a total lack of spatial awareness. You live in Tigard, so you must have seen the dimwits who brake at the slightest curve on OR 217 and cause massive backups. And yet, according to the bureaucratic law, it's all perfectly legal, and according to their propaganda, they are less of a risk on the road than me cruising at 75mph in the left lane and maintaining proper distance. It's a load of crap and anyone with a brain can recognize that fact.

The real objective of speed limits is to give legal cover for the state to confiscate wealth from private citizens, and to demonstrate the power of the state. Ignoring them is a moral imperative.

 

[fd15k]

Can't let this BS slide.

If the speed limits are really for safety, why were they lowered over time as vehicle technology improved? Even my college Corolla was far safer than the average 70's land yacht at *any* speed, and yet, the government has decided that the speed limit now should be lower than before. Why is that? And if the conclusions of your "governmental and private bodies" were correct, then the German autobahn should be a fiery funeral pyre at all times. But it isn't.

Maybe you can ask DOT ? I haven't seen any studies, as generally that's not a subject of my interest. I suspect that it is not only about vehicle technology, but also about availability of statistics. The more time car transportation exists, the more information is available to the researchers, such as statistics on road accidents on highway areas with different speed limits.

German highways are not a valid example either, as you introduce cultural differences into equation. I've driven many times in Germany, I did not see there as much recklessness in the areas without a speed limit, as I see here on 55mph freeways. I didn't see as many cops on German streets either, and their crime rate is very low... perhaps if we get rid of our cops, our crime will be just as low ?

Of course, if safety were the real goal, the government should simply ban drivers with poor reaction times, non-existent hand-eye coordination, or simply a total lack of spatial awareness.

They might get to it once a relevant study is available. Unless they had a study already, and they didn't find a problem. Any idea ?

You live in Tigard, so you must have seen the dimwits who brake at the slightest curve on OR 217 and cause massive backups. And yet, according to the bureaucratic law, it's all perfectly legal, and according to their propaganda, they are less of a risk on the road than me cruising at 75mph in the left lane, while maintaining proper distance. It's a load of crap and anyone with a brain can recognize that fact.

I'm not familiar with that "propaganda", can't comment.

The real objective of speed limits is to give legal cover for the state to confiscate wealth from private citizens. Ignoring them is a moral imperative.

It's an interesting theory, especially since you are not forced into a position where government will take something from you.

 

[nwwoodsman]

I need somebody to supervise them so that they don't misuse my trust.

That "somebody" is you and me and everybody else reading this. Unfortunately they don't like us to supervise them nearly as much as they like to "supervise" us.

 

[fd15k]

That "somebody" is you and me and everybody else reading this. Unfortunately they don't like us to supervise them nearly as much as they like to "supervise" us.

I'm planning to go to a dentist soon, I will contact you so you can supervise him for me

 

[dmancornell]

Maybe you can ask DOT ? I haven't seen any studies, as generally that's not a subject of my interest. I suspect that it is not only about vehicle technology, but also about availability of statistics. The more time car transportation exists, the more information is available to the researchers, such as statistics on road accidents on highway areas with different speed limits.

Haha, nice try. But no amount of massaged statistical data can overwrite real evidence, as in, German drivers are alive and well, as are drivers in states that have higher limits, such as Montana.

German highways are not a valid example either, as you introduce cultural differences into equation. I've driven many times in Germany, I did not see there as much recklessness in the areas without a speed limit, as I see here on 55mph freeways. I didn't see as many cops on German streets either, and their crime rate is very low...

So is it culture, or mechanical failure, as you stated in your first post? If it's mechanical failure, then I should be allowed to drive my BMW at autobahn speeds, yes?

And if it's culture, maybe driver education should be improved? Yet another responsibility completely neglected by the government. As usual, government creates the problem, then masquerades as the cure.

perhaps if we get rid of our cops, our crime will be just as low ?

If the US got rid of our idiotic laws, then yes there would definitely be less "crime" as defined by the state.

They might get to it once a relevant study is available. Unless they had a study already, and they didn't find a problem. Any idea ?

They don't do a study on this because it is a case of the seen vs unseen principle. The blind 80 year old can cruise at 20mph on the left lane and not have an accident, but is highly likely to cause an accident in the massive pileup behind him. I also hypothesize that the government doesn't research this phenomenon because it would offend the elderly and soccer mom voting segments.

I took an information theory/systems course in college that talked about how in many "games", a single or tiny minority of "players" behaving erratically can have consequences far beyond what a single player can be expected to achieve via the same seen vs unseen principle. We modeled roads and demonstrated how a single slow driver can slow down an entire 20 mile stretch. God forbid the government do the same experiments that a bunch of graduate engineering students concocted in a week.

It is far simpler for the government to come up with an easy scapegoat, and one that conveniently allows the state to make a bunch of money.

I'm not familiar with that "propaganda", can't comment.

And yet you quoted "governmental and private bodies"... might want to start there.

It's an interesting theory, especially since you are not forced into a position where government will take something from you.

So what's stopping you from sawing your shotgun down to 10" or putting a FA trigger in your AR-15? If fear of government prosecution is the only thing stopping you from speeding, then your entire safety argument is worthless.

 

[nwwoodsman]

I'm planning to go to a dentist soon, I will contact you so you can supervise him for me

I will gladly go along. And if during this dental visit the dentist decides to give you a rectal examine instead of a routine tooth examine, I will stand idly by and continue to supervise. I have to warn you that the footage may end up on youtube.

Ok, seriously. Comparing private enterprise (dentist office) and government agencies is like comparing apples and oranges, Ak's and AR's, Putin and Obama....Wait, those last two are one in the same.

 

[fd15k]

So is it culture, or mechanical failure, as you stated in your first post? If it's mechanical failure, then I should be allowed to drive my BMW at autobahn speeds, yes?

I would expect that chance of mechanical failures increases with increase of speed. Culture plays a role in a way that while there is no legal speed limit, few Germans drive above recommended 130KM/h.

And if it's culture, maybe driver education should be improved? Yet another responsibility completely neglected by the government. As usual, government creates the problem, then masquerades as the cure.

German folk has to go to driving school for 3 months before they get a license. Wouldn't you call that another unnecessary government bureaucracy ?

If the US got rid of our idiotic laws, then yes there would definitely be less "crime" as defined by the state.

Don't take laws in general, take homicides (other than self-defense). Or maybe we should legalize them ?

They don't do a study on this because it is a case of the seen vs unseen principle. The blind 80 year old can cruise at 20mph on the left lane and not have an accident, but is highly likely to cause an accident in the massive pileup behind him. I also hypothesize that the government doesn't research this phenomenon because it would offend the elderly and soccer mom voting segments.

Technically that's not allowed. At least in California where I initially got licensed and actually studied for the test. Is it different in Oregon ?

So what's stopping you from sawing your shotgun down to 10" or putting a FA trigger in your AR-15? If fear of government prosecution is the only thing stopping you from speeding, then your entire safety argument is worthless.

NFA laws had some societal interest when they got passed. Those interests are long gone, so we have to revisit those laws.