West Memphis Police Now Using AR's on Traffic Stops

[MinuteMan47]

Just watch the video.....

Login | Facebook

Wow, demonize right-wingers for disagreeing with taxes. They are all basically murderers huh? Let's just have soldiers patrol the streets, because apparently "we are at war" with sovereign citizens. Sheesh.

You posted a video from the SPLC as some kind of justification for more militarisation? The same people that would just as soon see every INGO member rounded up and jailed as a threat to their lefty agenda? LOL.

...........could we get a link for those of us who don't have FACEBOOK.

 

[ATOMonkey]

No victim, no crime.

The police are only needed to investigate crime, trying to pre-empt it just leads to less freedom and more abuse and more people dependant on government.

 

[public servant]

I say just give 'em these...

But some people would still *****.

 

[Blackhawk2001]

Let's take traffic laws, for example. Steveh_131, you consider them "revenue enhancers"; have you considered the consequences of total non-enforcement of traffic laws? Right now we see people routinely speeding when they shouldn't (driving too fast for conditions); we see people running red lights; we see people driving recklessly. Since not everyone is equally willing to be responsible for their actions, we have laws to limit these types of behaviors. If we (society) didn't enforce them, even to the limited extent that police do now, we'd have something much closer to a third-world traffic system than the Autobahn in the US. If you want to drive like an idiot, in an unsafe vehicle, you have plenty of opportunities as it is now - we all see it every day - it's just that there is the chance that your behavior is going to come to the attention of a cop who is going to ticket you for your actions and it's going to cost you money. Don't speed, drive recklessly, do maintain your vehicle and obey traffic laws, and you will probably not be stopped by a cop. I haven't had a ticket in over 20 years, for example.

 

[steveh_131]

Bull. We are a nation of laws. You can't pick and choose.

I'd like to hear your plan for this utopia of yours.

Funny, I had hoped we were supposed to be a nation of freedom.

 

[steveh_131]

Let's take traffic laws, for example. Steveh_131, you consider them "revenue enhancers"; have you considered the consequences of total non-enforcement of traffic laws? Right now we see people routinely speeding when they shouldn't (driving too fast for conditions); we see people running red lights; we see people driving recklessly. Since not everyone is equally willing to be responsible for their actions, we have laws to limit these types of behaviors. If we (society) didn't enforce them, even to the limited extent that police do now, we'd have something much closer to a third-world traffic system than the Autobahn in the US. If you want to drive like an idiot, in an unsafe vehicle, you have plenty of opportunities as it is now - we all see it every day - it's just that there is the chance that your behavior is going to come to the attention of a cop who is going to ticket you for your actions and it's going to cost you money. Don't speed, drive recklessly, do maintain your vehicle and obey traffic laws, and you will probably not be stopped by a cop. I haven't had a ticket in over 20 years, for example.

Montana: No Speed Limit Safety Paradox

Montana had no effective speed limit for a period of time in certain areas, resulting in a safer highway.

It turns out that people were better able to determine a safe speed than the law was.

Responsible people drive responsibly. Irresponsible people drive irresponsibly. Arbitrary speed limits and traffic laws don't change this.

 

[Blackhawk2001]

Montana: No Speed Limit Safety Paradox

Montana had no effective speed limit for a period of time in certain areas, resulting in a safer highway.

It turns out that people were better able to determine a safe speed than the law was.

Responsible people drive responsibly. Irresponsible people drive irresponsibly. Arbitrary speed limits and traffic laws don't change this.

Now apply that to drivers you see everyday on I-465 and see how well that model works for you.

 

[steveh_131]

Now apply that to drivers you see everyday on I-465 and see how well that model works for you.

You mean people are driving irresponsibly REGARDLESS of traffic laws? SAY IT AINT SO!!!!

That's kind of my point.

 

[LEaSH]

Now apply that to drivers you see everyday on I-465 and see how well that model works for you.

I'd be taking city streets everyplace.

 

[ATOMonkey]

Let's take traffic laws, for example. Steveh_131, you consider them "revenue enhancers"; have you considered the consequences of total non-enforcement of traffic laws? Right now we see people routinely speeding when they shouldn't (driving too fast for conditions); we see people running red lights; we see people driving recklessly. Since not everyone is equally willing to be responsible for their actions, we have laws to limit these types of behaviors. If we (society) didn't enforce them, even to the limited extent that police do now, we'd have something much closer to a third-world traffic system than the Autobahn in the US. If you want to drive like an idiot, in an unsafe vehicle, you have plenty of opportunities as it is now - we all see it every day - it's just that there is the chance that your behavior is going to come to the attention of a cop who is going to ticket you for your actions and it's going to cost you money. Don't speed, drive recklessly, do maintain your vehicle and obey traffic laws, and you will probably not be stopped by a cop. I haven't had a ticket in over 20 years, for example.

Your position assumes no negative consequences for driving outside of the guidelines. That simply isn't the case.

If you crash into someone you are held financially and sometimes criminally accountable.

I believe the fear of crashing keeps people in line more than the fear of a citation.

The only way we'd become "third world" with our motor vehicles would be if there were no consequences for crashing.

 

[Disposable Heart]

Montana has that but has no congestion that we have around here. Ever see the folks that "make their own speed limit" on 465? They usually end up in a ditch or with their car's nose up another one's butt. The Montana example is an example of a best case scenario with little bearing on other populated areas, such as highways around Indy or other situations. I have heard that arguement by other racers when I used to race SCCA. It's the "dream" situation, like the folks that want to use rifles for deer in Indiana, or those who want to do anything unihibited: You will end up with lives lost as quite a few people CANNOT be trusted to keep their irresponsibility in check or one cannot trust another's skill level. I was in an accident a month or so ago. Some nitwit honey-poo was texting while driving. Imagine no speed limit and she slammed into me doing 60 isntead of 35 as stated by the signs. Dead Disposable. Pathos laden arguement? Yes. But the Montana one is based on foul, incorrect and shortsighted logos, even worse.

Revenue enhancers? In a way, yes: They enhance revenue through the recklessness, hubris, arrogance and stupidity of others. In theory, we do have an "Idiot" tax of sorts...

 

[ATOMonkey]

Now apply that to drivers you see everyday on I-465 and see how well that model works for you.

Probably the exact same way it does right now. No one drives the posted speed limit, even in the construction zones. They drive at a speed they feel comfortable with.

How does that change if you take down the posted limits?

I postulate that people would actually drive slower if we didn't have posted speed guidelines.

 

[steveh_131]

I was in an accident a month or so ago. Some nitwit honey-poo was texting while driving. Imagine no speed limit and she slammed into me doing 60 isntead of 35 as stated by the signs.

She was breaking the law by texting while driving.

Yet you're claiming your life was saved by the fact that she was going 35 because the law told her to.

Think this through a little.

 

[Disposable Heart]

Live in anarchy if you wish, but due to stupidity of humans and general recklessness (most likely stemming from arrogance or a subconscious misunderstanding of other's right to live), I will embrace common sense laws instead of being mad 'cause I cannot drive my car as fast as I want.

 

[steveh_131]

Live in anarchy if you wish

I can't with all these jackboots around telling me what to do.

 

[Jay]

I wonder if the traffic laws aren't meant to try and protect the vast majority of motorists from the few that think they're especially talented, or their current situation trumps everyone else's reasons for driving at any given time. If violations only had an adverse effect on the violator, I wouldn't care. Unfortunately, too many speeders only get stopped when they impact an innocent persons vehicle. Far too often, the ditz that caused the crash, gets to go to jail, instead of a funeral.

 

[steveh_131]

I wonder if the traffic laws aren't meant to try and protect the vast majority of motorists from the few that think they're especially talented, or their current situation trumps everyone else's reasons for driving at any given time. If violations only had an adverse effect on the violator, I wouldn't care. Unfortunately, too many speeders only get stopped when they impact an innocent persons vehicle. Far too often, the ditz that caused the crash, gets to go to jail, instead of a funeral.

They're meant for revenue collection. Maybe they once were about safety but they're not any more.

Nevertheless, it doesn't change the fact that the laws don't make anyone safer. If fear of death isn't going to stop someone from driving irresponsibly, a traffic citation certainly won't either.

 

[ATOMonkey]

Anarchy is a total absense of government. Holding people accountable when they impact another person is not the absense of government.

BTW, how many additional fatalities did we have since we bumped up the speed limits on rural interstates?

Also, does everyone drive the limit or do they still drive 10 over?

 

[ATOMonkey]

Montana has that but has no congestion that we have around here. Ever see the folks that "make their own speed limit" on 465? They usually end up in a ditch or with their car's nose up another one's butt. The Montana example is an example of a best case scenario with little bearing on other populated areas, such as highways around Indy or other situations. I have heard that arguement by other racers when I used to race SCCA. It's the "dream" situation, like the folks that want to use rifles for deer in Indiana, or those who want to do anything unihibited: You will end up with lives lost as quite a few people CANNOT be trusted to keep their irresponsibility in check or one cannot trust another's skill level. I was in an accident a month or so ago. Some nitwit honey-poo was texting while driving. Imagine no speed limit and she slammed into me doing 60 isntead of 35 as stated by the signs. Dead Disposable. Pathos laden arguement? Yes. But the Montana one is based on foul, incorrect and shortsighted logos, even worse.

Revenue enhancers? In a way, yes: They enhance revenue through the recklessness, hubris, arrogance and stupidity of others. In theory, we do have an "Idiot" tax of sorts...

Just a question I have, and this is off topic.

If hunting with a rifle in Indiana is inherrently dangerous, why is it ok to hunt coyotes and fox and other game with a rifle? For that matter, why is it legal to fire one at all?

 

[machete]

They're meant for revenue collection.

That and control--nothing more...