At least they admit that the cameras are for money, if that’s any consolation.

btw, the comments actually make me want to go and buy a gun, specifically to exercise my 2nd amendment rights.

if you dont like it, i dont care.

Once again, criminals do not respect anti-gun laws. If they want to get a gun, they’ll get one regardless of what laws are there in place to prevent that. Bright pink guns? Whip out a can of Krylon and paint it black. Bullets aren’t that hard to come by, either.

The only thing your recommendations (which as I suspect were more of a emotional response rather than a rational one) will do is to rob law-abiding citizens the means to protect themselves in the circumstances that the police cannot come flying to their aid in a matter of minutes.

As the most lefty, pinko, commie, liberal member of TTAC,

Sorry, mate. I win that title….

It makes me think that with guns, like cars, the key might not be freedom-limiting laws, but proper education so that people *choose* to act in a sane manner.

Perhaps the guns were smuggled in, or not. It doesn’t matter. The fact is that gun laws do not stop criminals from having guns. It’s not a just a semantic argument about only criminals having guns. Seriously think about it. Even in police states people show up with guns.

Even in Britain and Japan where you have the IDEAL setting for a workable gun law (homogenous populations with strong social ethics who live on islands), there are lots of illegal guns. The fact is that they would likely not be shooting each other much in those countries without any laws.

Gun laws are nothing but a hassle for honest people who want or need guns, and a liberal hoax on people who believe that government really accomplishes things.

I have also read that most of the guns used in crimes in Toronto have been illegally smuggled in from the US. Not sure how accurate that is though

By no means should border patrol (or any other kind of law enforcement) not have guns

Great argument! Are you a lawyer, by any chance?

As for the cameras, it’s just getting ridiculous this obsession: ever more combative and adversarial approach, as if “motorist” is a different person than “voter”.

About Canada…

they don’t have all the rights, and they do have guns.

I lived there. I watched the sadly liberal news casts. There are places in Vancouver and Toronto that rival the worst places in the US. It is spreading because the liberal policies simply will not work in a densely populated, culturally diverse country which southern Canada is becoming.

My favorite story was the report of the border patrol guys who were tired of being unarmed. They have panic buttons which, in many places, auto dial the US agents on the other side for help dealing with armed perpetrators.

Sort of sums up the whole Canadian sovereignty issue.

It’s a pretty coarse-grained democracy in Britain; you vote for your least un-favorite politician once every four years and the party with the most politicians elected runs the government until next time. With the two main parties so far apart in ideologies on a lot of things, the bigger issues win out. Hence health care, jobs and the economy are much more likely to sway people’s votes than what to do with those who break the speed limit.

With time date stamp on license plates, its easy to catch people averaging too fast a speed.

Also, GPS on every car with uplink to cops.

Even better, governers. I was following a jeep today, he was driving aggressive as most do, with worst handling vehicle out there, and I was thinking his car should have a 55 mph electronic governer.

I am OK with guns but mostly not in urban and suburban areas, where you cant shoot outside, just as I am disapproving of 200 mph cars for public highways.

The only thing that defines a “speeder” under these circumstances is an inappropriate law that is designed to be violated.

With this sort of enforcement, it is really just an arbitrarily assessed driving tax. With excessively low limits, everyone becomes a criminal. The only people who won’t be speeding are the ones who ride the bus (although the driver might be.)

As for utilising a surveillance system that would be right at home in an Orwellian dystopia, I can see where you’re coming from, but I don’t quite make that connection myself. Granted it is tracking the movements of particular vehicles over a stretch of road, but merely to enforce a law that would already be enforced by any police officer who spotted a violation.

@PCH: If they need to raise revenue, I’d prefer they get the cash from speeders rather than a blanket charge on all motorists, law abiding or not.

I don’t wish to get into a gun control debate here, but this statement is clearly true. All you need to do is to look at what’s happening in Iraq to see that a determined armed insurgency can stop an army in its tracks.

Even if the army is technically “winning” the battles by inflicting greater losses than it sustains, it can still lose the war because it can’t pacify the public. However, I don’t see anyone using the Second Amendment to raise our speed limits.

Oh yeah that’s right, in an attempt to stop the government enforcing traffic laws. I mean, how dare they!

When the speed limits are chosen to generate revenue, rather than to promote safety, then yes, it is absolutely appropriate to challenge them. Enforcement like this is really just a way to pull more money from our wallets without calling it what it is — a tax. If they need the money, they should just raise the registration fees and call it a day.

–chuck

Reply number 3.

beeb375 :
April 16th, 2008 at 6:20 pm

Oh yeah that’s right, in an attempt to stop the government enforcing traffic laws. I mean, how dare they!

When “enforcing traffic laws” requires frighteningly totalitarian methods, it’s appropriate to discuss their enforcement.

It’s okay to have an adult conversation about freedom and tyranny. It’s also okay to have different opinions about unquantifiable subjects.

It’s not okay to belittle the opinions of other people simply because they disagree with you.

How dare they utilize a surveillance system that would be right at home in “1984″?

Excellent question.

On topic, you’re all blowing this stupidly out of proportion. You’re talking about blowing up cameras and re-arming the populace, for what?

Oh yeah that’s right, in an attempt to stop the government enforcing traffic laws. I mean, how dare they!

–chuck

As a retired Army officer, I can assure you that there is plenty an armed populace can do against a modern army. More accurately, there are serious limitations to what a modern army can do against an armed populace. And that is more to the point, isn’t it?

We don’t keep the 2nd amendment around in case of invasion or the need to overthrow the government. Merely having the 2nd Amendment helps prevent the creation of circumstances where one of those conditions could evolve.

I note that none of you anti gun folks want to own up to, or challenge the fact that no where has there ever been a free, unarmed population. At least not for very long.

And there is nothing an individual or group of people can do against an army in the year 2008. Maybe back in 1770 it was possible to take up arms and revolt, but in the age of weapons of mass destruction (nuclear and other) it is impossible for any relatively small group of people to have an impact on a world power using guns alone. In fact, the only way a group of people who wish to use weapons can actually affect a large government in this day and age is terrorism, which is certainly not something anybody should be advocating

I think gun ranges should have a storage facility on site, so if you want to go shoot your gun, go to the range and shoot it. then leave it there and go home. if you want to take it somewhere you are not aloud to buy or have bullets on your person.

every other gun should be painted BRIGHT pink.

if you dont like it, i dont care.

How about a list of countries that have all of the other ten amendment rights without the 2nd?

BTW, no matter what country you name, my answer is that they don’t have all the rights, and they do have guns.

The key to tyranny is to get people to believe that government can do things which it can’t.

I gotta go to that site with the camera destruction. I figured out long ago that when I think if doing something like that, so do a lot of other people, and they don’t all have my self control.