7/1/09 - new state laws today - Page 2

lon · 07-02-2009

Quote:

Originally Posted by jsgolfman

Question, how do you control law abiding citizens? Answer, you can't. So what's a governement to do? Easy, you create enough laws so that eventually everyone becomes a criminal.

"The more corrupt the state, the more numerous the laws."

- Cornelius Tacitus (55-117 A.D.)

qwerty99 · 07-02-2009

11. Electronic recycling program

Where is the drop-off for my email recycling?

tv1217 · 07-03-2009

Quote:

Originally Posted by Boilers

New batch of laws go into effect today | IndyStar.com | The Indianapolis Star

...
...
...
...
...
...
...
... misplaced elderly
...
...
...
...

Boilers · 07-03-2009

Glad I could provide some laughs.

level.eleven · 07-03-2009

Hmmm...I wonder if the driving with a cell phone law will be a primary or secondary offense.

fpd9317 · 07-03-2009

As an LEO, and this might surprise some, there are PLENTY of laws that I think are stupid and should have never even been talked about let alone put into effect.

With that being said, there are a couple of these that I do agree with. I know I know........more laws= more criminals (debatable). The ones on this list I do agree with are:

Harming/killing pregnant women........I remember the outcry from the bank teller deal and in my opinion it was a justified outcry. I know my views on unborn babies are not shared by all, but killing an unborn child either on purpose or as an unintended victim should get you the needle......period. No matter what the parent(s) are like and what they are into, that unborn child does not have a choice and deserves all the protection we can give him/her, and if that means all we can do is increased penalties, then that is a step in the right direction IMO.

The no driving while talking on the phone for under 18. As one that has to go take the crash reports caused by this, It REALLY is needed. Again, I know......more laws yada yada yada, but countless $$$ have been spent talking about this in drivers ed classes and the kids don't care. Maybe if it means hitting the pocketbook will help them, then so be it. If this new law prevents me from having to go to ONE house and telling someone that their loved one is dead because a new driver wasn't paying attention because they were talking on the phone, I'm for it. I have done that too many times and it is something I hope to never have to do again, but know I will.

I know these thoughts won't be popular with everyone, and I do understand your views, but unfortunatly I see the other side where some people just won't regulate themselves and do the right thing.

theweakerbrother · 07-03-2009

Sorry dude, you're a cop and not a nanny. Crying "think of the children" doesn't convict me that more rights need to be taken away. What is debatable about more laws = more criminals? That is semantics and language and factual... like the bell curve.

fpd9317 · 07-03-2009

Quote:

Originally Posted by theweakerbrother

Sorry dude, you're a cop and not a nanny. Crying "think of the children" doesn't convict me that more rights need to be taken away. What is debatable about more laws = more criminals? That is semantics and language and factual... like the bell curve.

You are right, I am not a nanny......but unfortunatly I have to act like one most of the time. Like I said, I see, understand, and agree with you......but there are SOME (not all, but some) things that do need regulated. I'm not crying "think of the children", if they crash their "stuff" oh well sucks to be them. My issue comes into play when they injure or kill someone because they couldn't wait 5 minutes to talk on the phone. As far as the unborn baby thing......I really hope nobody has an issue with that because I will not debate that one at all.

jeremy · 07-05-2009

Quote:

Originally Posted by theweakerbrother

Sorry dude, you're a cop and not a nanny. Crying "think of the children" doesn't convict me that more rights need to be taken away. What is debatable about more laws = more criminals? That is semantics and language and factual... like the bell curve.

Quote:

Originally Posted by fpd9317

You are right, I am not a nanny......but unfortunatly I have to act like one most of the time. Like I said, I see, understand, and agree with you......but there are SOME (not all, but some) things that do need regulated. I'm not crying "think of the children", if they crash their "stuff" oh well sucks to be them. My issue comes into play when they injure or kill someone because they couldn't wait 5 minutes to talk on the phone. As far as the unborn baby thing......I really hope nobody has an issue with that because I will not debate that one at all.

My .02 cents is we are making it entirely to difficult for Darwin to work! Somehow the stagnant end of the Gene Pool should be kept clean.

Before you flame me fpd9317, I have had to use a can opener to cut the kids out of the sardine cans.

level.eleven · 07-03-2009

So, is this a primary offense or not? Are LEOs now given the discretionary power to judge the age of a driver by simply looking at their face as they drive by?

Seatbelt laws were sold to the public as secondary violations. However, over the years, we have seen them escalated to primary violations in many states - mostly in the name of recieving federal funding.

07-03-2009	#4 (permalink)
Boilers Master Join Date: Apr 2009 Location: Indianapolis Posts: 2,834	Glad I could provide some laughs. __________________ Looking for Ammo? Join the AMMO ALERT system. Click here for more details. See my videos "Glock, grant me the magazine capacity to engage the targets that I cannot avoid, the courage to shoot those that need shooting, and the training to react with deference."

07-03-2009	#7 (permalink)
theweakerbrother The Bearded One Join Date: Mar 2009 Location: Columbus, IN Posts: 2,023	Sorry dude, you're a cop and not a nanny. Crying "think of the children" doesn't convict me that more rights need to be taken away. What is debatable about more laws = more criminals? That is semantics and language and factual... like the bell curve. __________________ Pray for peace; prepare for war. Hospitaller: Holiness is in right action, and courage on behalf of those who cannot defend themselves.

07-03-2009	#10 (permalink)
level.eleven Plinker Join Date: May 2009 Posts: 237	So, is this a primary offense or not? Are LEOs now given the discretionary power to judge the age of a driver by simply looking at their face as they drive by? Seatbelt laws were sold to the public as secondary violations. However, over the years, we have seen them escalated to primary violations in many states - mostly in the name of recieving federal funding. Last edited by level.eleven; 07-03-2009 at 21:28.

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Switch to Linear Mode Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Rifle Carry - State to State Map?	Bubbajms	Carry Issues and Self Defense	7	04-06-2009 06:51
carry fire arm from state to state	CAVoorhis	Carry Issues and Self Defense	1	03-25-2009 17:48
Fun With the State Salary Database The Indy Star has updated their state salary datab	4sarge	Politics, Laws and 2nd Amendment	2	02-27-2009 12:12
Nonlicensee state-to-state tranfer rule	Michiana	Politics, Laws and 2nd Amendment	2	02-16-2009 19:39
Laws?	jburns89	Politics, Laws and 2nd Amendment	2	11-07-2008 23:45

07-02-2009	#2 (permalink)
qwerty99 Plinker Join Date: Jan 2009 Location: NE indy Posts: 38	11. Electronic recycling program Where is the drop-off for my email recycling?

07-03-2009	#5 (permalink)
level.eleven Plinker Join Date: May 2009 Posts: 237	Hmmm...I wonder if the driving with a cell phone law will be a primary or secondary offense.

07-03-2009	#6 (permalink)
fpd9317 Criminal w/ a Badge Join Date: Feb 2009 Location: Noblesville Posts: 402	As an LEO, and this might surprise some, there are PLENTY of laws that I think are stupid and should have never even been talked about let alone put into effect. With that being said, there are a couple of these that I do agree with. I know I know........more laws= more criminals (debatable). The ones on this list I do agree with are: Harming/killing pregnant women........I remember the outcry from the bank teller deal and in my opinion it was a justified outcry. I know my views on unborn babies are not shared by all, but killing an unborn child either on purpose or as an unintended victim should get you the needle......period. No matter what the parent(s) are like and what they are into, that unborn child does not have a choice and deserves all the protection we can give him/her, and if that means all we can do is increased penalties, then that is a step in the right direction IMO. The no driving while talking on the phone for under 18. As one that has to go take the crash reports caused by this, It REALLY is needed. Again, I know......more laws yada yada yada, but countless $$$ have been spent talking about this in drivers ed classes and the kids don't care. Maybe if it means hitting the pocketbook will help them, then so be it. If this new law prevents me from having to go to ONE house and telling someone that their loved one is dead because a new driver wasn't paying attention because they were talking on the phone, I'm for it. I have done that too many times and it is something I hope to never have to do again, but know I will. I know these thoughts won't be popular with everyone, and I do understand your views, but unfortunatly I see the other side where some people just won't regulate themselves and do the right thing.