Arlington bans texting and driving today.

[347Mike]

I don't need laws to protect my from myself. Maybe the weak minded do, and apparently there are far more of them, than there are of me.

I am hardly worried about you if you are texting and driving and slam into the rear of me.

[Baron Von Crowder]

I am hardly worried about you if you are texting and driving and slam into the rear of me.

Explain the law requiring you to wear a seat belt in the car, Mexadamus.

[bcoop]

I am hardly worried about you if you are texting and driving and slam into the rear of me.

Actually you are, or you wouldn't agree with this bullshit money grab law

[SS Junk]

According to the news, you don't have to show them your phone, so how can they prove it? lol.

Easy. Those who text and drive are completely oblivious to their surroundings. It's not hard to spot morons continuously looking down and weaving all over the road. Another dead giveaway are those who creep to a stop when at a traffic light or don't go after a light turns green.

[Geor!]

It seems like you're so damn far off reality you're creating your own arguments for sport. You seem to have completely missed my first point. You basically started off with "I'm not sure what I'm saying..." And then fabricated 2 other examples completely unrelated to what we're talking about. Then, you start off on a rant regarding blaming the individual for texting while driving. THAT IS MY POINT you literally showed with your own reasoning what I'm trying to explain to you. The difference between someone who is drinking and driving, and someone who is texting is one of them is legally competent to make the decision. YES they are liable. You do realize that none of what you just proposed has ANYTHING to do with the law we're arguing? People are prosecuted from vehicular manslaughter EVERY DAY for texting while driving.

And then this gem:


What are you even talking about Geof? You can't just fabricate your own statements, and then argue against them in an attempt to validate a point. You completely missed what I'm explaining. The argument was in relation to someone who is competent vs. someone who is not. And your argument to this is to compare two incompetent people?

So people are arrested for vehicular manslaughter for texting and driving every day. Point. But I guess you're all for those poor bastards just going ahead and dying, rather than trying to do something proactively to help eliminate that risk? Tell me otherwise, because your statements so far say "Kill 'em all and let God sort 'em out."

Let's eliminate all speed limits.
Let's eliminate all traffic signs and lights.

Anything else you'd wish to see in your utopia?

Maybe I misunderstood you, but it seemed to me as if you were saying that the only reason police enforce DWIs so harshly is because those people are incompetent; those people are INCAPABLE of making a decision (which is complete horseshit, by the way). It would only make sense to compare public intoxication to DWI, and the night and day difference of the penalties then, wouldn't it? Competency has nothing to do with it. It's the mortality factor. If competency were the factor, they'd have to pull over and arrest every Asian broad behind the wheel.

[Ratt]

Maybe they should just outlaw stupid.

[Geor!]

Maybe they should just outlaw stupid.

I would be in prison for life. Shit, I might even get the needle.

[CJ]

So people are arrested for vehicular manslaughter for texting and driving every day. Point. But I guess you're all for those poor bastards just going ahead and dying, rather than trying to do something proactively to help eliminate that risk? Tell me otherwise, because your statements so far say "Kill 'em all and let God sort 'em out."

You're reasoning is maybe it will do something, maybe it won't. You can see from the majority of posts in this thread - it's seems to be a consensus this is not going to be enforceable. You're theorizing that it might do something. I am presenting factual evidence, and reasoning that what it will do without question is impose further regulation on our lives, and now our personal property (our cars interior) is under police scrutiny. I am not willing to throw my liberties out the window on a theory that it might do something.

Let's eliminate all speed limits.
Let's eliminate all traffic signs and lights.

All of these are enforceable, poor point. This has nothing to do with this discussion, again you're bringing in completely unrelated things in an attempt to prove a point because the actual subject here doesn't work for you.

Anything else you'd wish to see in your utopia?

Geof, if you haven't noticed, you're the one trying to enforce your utopia on the population with additional regulations to make you feel better. Regulations that will absolutely do jack shit to curb texting while driving, and now give the police the legal means to scrutinize what you are doing in your own vehicle. You have really proposed no good solid points in these arguments, the truth is you just want to vote for it because it makes you feel better, actual results have no place in your "utopia."

Maybe I misunderstood you, but it seemed to me as if you were saying that the only reason police enforce DWIs so harshly is because those people are incompetent; those people are INCAPABLE of making a decision (which is complete horseshit, by the way). It would only make sense to compare public intoxication to DWI, and the night and day difference of the penalties then, wouldn't it? Competency has nothing to do with it. It's the mortality factor. If competency were the factor, they'd have to pull over and arrest every Asian broad behind the wheel.

You're correct, you misunderstood me. You just attempted to make the point that someone who is drunk is capable of making a competent decision. The law says they are not, the law - look it up. That's about the dumbest thing I've heard yet. And don't bring racism into this.

[DON SVO]

That's the reason most people get rid of glocks for carry. Ever considered a 1911? They are quite thin.

The Kahr is plenty slender

[CJ]

The Kahr is plenty slender

That's true, they are very slender. But, it makes me feel like I'm holding a squirt gun.

[GSXRK5]

They should just ban all phones in a vehicle. People will be pissed off and seems like a money building scam... er i mean safety plan.

[CJ]

They should just ban all phones in a vehicle. People will be pissed off and seems like a money building scam... er i mean safety plan.

It's all about generating money. Arlington needs more money to fund their belligerent spending. Same reason I got a court date for a 6 year old ticket in the mail a few days ago. Gotta scrape that cash up from every place.

You want to make some extra money? You toss up a bill that makes people like Geof feel better and vote for it. Bam, more revenue, just like that.

Guess how social security came into law? A temporary fund for old disparaged seniors that lost all their money in the depression. Now? Permanent fund that is the single largest social program expense our economy has. Why did people vote for it? Made them feel warm and fuzzy inside.

[SS Junk]

They should just ban all phones in a vehicle. People will be pissed off and seems like a money building scam... er i mean safety plan.

After the stupid shit I've seen dumbfucks do while texting or simply just on the phone, I'm all for a ban.

[Geor!]

You're reasoning is maybe it will do something, maybe it won't. You can see from the majority of posts in this thread - it's seems to be a consensus this is not going to be enforceable. You're are theorizing that it might do something. I am presenting factual evidence, and reasoning that what it will do without question is impose further regulation on our lives, and now our personal property (our cars interior) is under police scrutiny. I am not willing to throw my liberties out the window on a theory that it might do something.


All of these are enforceable, poor point.



Geof, if you haven't noticed, you're the one trying to enforce your utopia on the population with additional regulations to make you feel better. Regulations that will absolutely do jack shit to curb texting while driving, and now give the police the legal means to scrutinize what you are doing in your own vehicle. You have really proposed no good solid points in these arguments, the truth is you just want to vote for it because it makes you feel better, actual results have no place in your "utopia."



You're correct, you misunderstood me.

It wasn't a childish insult. Besides, I'm not sure how you can be insulted when you've said exactly that for the past two pages. You don't want the police to be proactive in possibly saving someone's life because it would infringe on your liberties. Shared sacrifice, right? You'll sacrifice another's life for your liberties. I'll sacrifice the tiniest fraction of my liberty for another's life. And how trivial is this, anyway? It's not as if big government is coming after your guns, or telling you how many kids you may have, or coming to take you away (haha!) to a FEMA camp. They are saying don't text and drive. But, then again, England didn't do it overnight.

Texting while driving is enforceable, too, if done properly. If you're weaving all over the place and a cop sees you doing something on your phone for a bit, wouldn't he be justified in pulling you over?

I'm sorry if possibly saving lives isn't considered a good, solid point to you, CJ. I have proposed no good, solid points to you, because you're as set in your belief as I am in mine. Therefore, is really even a need in arguing about this anymore? Now if you'll excuse me, I need to go meet with a Mr. Jintao at the Arlington convention center. He is hosting an interesting seminar about how to rule everyone though traffic citations.

[Geor!]

"Don't bring racism into this."

lol! I was trying to add a bit of light humor into a discussion that we seem to be taking all too seriously. And besides, everyone loves stereotypes!