There are certainly things prohibited to the people of Panama, which get transported daily through the Canal.
JD transports their alcohol, usually by truck, out of Moore County.
Moore county residents, while prohibited from buying or selling alcohol In Moore County, are
still allowed to drink, they just have to travel outside the county to buy or sell.
P.S.
The CBBT is not a "free" public road. It is a privately owned TOLL bride-tunnel. Some of the tolls collected go to paying the interest on the privately owned bonds which funded the project. The investors then, kinda have a little more control over who gets to use it.
If it's funded in part by public dollars, YES, I would disagree in principle.
If I'm trying to get something from Cape St. Claire to Stevensville...
They weren't seizing the ship because it was transporting something THROUGH Panama that was illegal IN PANAMA.
They were seizing it because:
"International sanctions today disallow for any weapons to be shipped to North Korea."
Now, in principle, I'm not sure how I feel about the international community controlling what things can be shipped to North Korea.
Should I ship my small pox infested blankets to North Korea or not?
Furthermore - as I said earlier - I didn't want to get into nation-state border issues if I can help it.
I'd like to focus on interstate commerce, which is really where these controls come into play on a domestic level.
We're all part of the USA. each state, and each county, UNITED.
It's not like a Mexican is driving something from Mexico to Canada (which actually happens)
We're talking about US citizen using a public road to drive from one part of the USA to another part of the USA without having to dispose or destroy his otherwise legal property, just to avoid becoming a TEMPORARY criminal.
Jesus, with your guys' attitude, it's no wonder we have the highest incarceration rates.
Again, as a disclaimer, I am talking about what SHOULD BE, and not what IS.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Thanks to Xenphire @ Inkfox for the amazing new sig
“Thus strangely are our souls constructed, and by slight ligaments
are we bound to prosperity and ruin.”
― Mary Shelley, Frankenstein
Sorry, I missed the edit. Whether it's a toll road is immaterial. There are plenty of other non-toll tunnels in Maryland (to stick with the example state), and those also have transport restrictions:
And NO. This has NOTHING to do with speed limits. You do not possess the street, you do possess your comic books.
But your comic books are on the street you do not possess. I could make exactly the same argument against the comic-book transporter that you're making against the speeder. And you possess your speeding car. I could make exactly the same argument in favor of the speeder that you're making in favor of the comic-book transporter. It's just an incredibly ad hoc argument. And it's not even an accurate argument, since speeding is an offense whether you're on a public road, off-road, or even on a road you personally own. (If you run a racetrack, there's a bunch of special licensing.)
Jack Daniels is made in a Dry county. You cannot buy or sell it there. But you can still drink it there, as long as you bought it elsewhere. Also, JD ships their alcohol out of Moore County usually by truck specifically TO sell it elsewhere. So it's obviously not impossible for a county that otherwise outlaws something, to allow some leeway here.
Of course it's not impossible. You can write a law to do practically anything. But you don't have to. Wyoming is perfectly within its rights to say, "No, we're not going to make an exception for Coloradans; we don't want that stuff in our state, period". Moore County would be in its rights to do the same; it has simply chosen not to (for obvious economic reasons). Like I said earlier, these jurisdictions are not obliged to be dictated to by the legislatures of different jurisdictions. And I find it very strange that you, such an arch-localist, seem to think that they should.
There are certainly things prohibited to the people of Panama, which get transported daily through the Canal.
JD transports their alcohol, usually by truck, out of Moore County.
Moore county residents, while prohibited from buying or selling alcohol In Moore County, are
still allowed to drink, they just have to travel outside the county to buy or sell.
Now who's talking about what is rather than what should be?
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Vive, vale. Siquid novisti rectius istis,
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
I think that it being a toll road is very relevant, but agree to disagree.
As far as the rest of your point - did you see all the "exceptions" to those rules?
Pretty much every part of those restrictions can be unrestricted if you meet certain guidelines.
I never once said anything about there being no guidelines to HOW you transport it.
maybe they need to keep their weed locked in a lock-box in the trunk, kinda like I need to do with my GUN depending on where I'm driving.
I do NOT however, need to destroy or dispose of my gun.
Tell me, what safe transportation measurements do you think a person should take to safely transport their half-gram of weed through a clean county on a publicly owned road?
Finally, in principle, yes I disagree with the idea. I'm for following necessary safety guidelines, but carry on through the tunnel.
In reality, they are given three other routes to take with their prohibited materials.
In reality, there are restrictions they can't avoid.
In reality, you probably can't drive with your weed through the clean county.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Thanks to Xenphire @ Inkfox for the amazing new sig
“Thus strangely are our souls constructed, and by slight ligaments
are we bound to prosperity and ruin.”
― Mary Shelley, Frankenstein
While there are some items with exceptions, there are plenty that cannot be unrestricted.
(2) Class 1 explosives are prohibited;
(5) Class 2, division 2.3 poisonous gas is prohibited;
(9) Class 4, division 4.2 spontaneously combustible materials are prohibited;
(10) Class 4, division 4.3 dangerous-when-wet materials are prohibited;
(11) Class 5, division 5.1 oxidizers are prohibited;
(12) Class 5, division 5.2 organic peroxides are prohibited;
(14) Class 6, division 6.2 infectious substances are prohibited;
etc.
By your reasoning, Maryland would have no authority to prevent someone from out of state from driving any of these through their tunnels. This would be putting everyone else who uses those tunnels in danger.
And NO. This has NOTHING to do with speed limits. You do not possess the street, you do possess your comic books.
But your comic books are on the street you do not possess. I could make exactly the same argument against the comic-book transporter that you're making against the speeder. And you possess your speeding car. I could make exactly the same argument in favor of the speeder that you're making in favor of the comic-book transporter. It's just an incredibly ad hoc argument. And it's not even an accurate argument, since speeding is an offense whether you're on a public road, off-road, or even on a road you personally own. (If you run a racetrack, there's a bunch of special licensing.)
Speeding is an offense off-road? Really? Unless there is a posted speed limit, I don't see how you can support this.
I'm sure you'll find a "BLM land management park use something something..." to back this up with, but really?
Also, on private land?
Wrong. Running a race track (a business) is not analogous to speeding in your car on your own property.
Jack Daniels is made in a Dry county. You cannot buy or sell it there. But you can still drink it there, as long as you bought it elsewhere. Also, JD ships their alcohol out of Moore County usually by truck specifically TO sell it elsewhere. So it's obviously not impossible for a county that otherwise outlaws something, to allow some leeway here.
Of course it's not impossible. You can write a law to do practically anything. But you don't have to. Wyoming is perfectly within its rights to say, "No, we're not going to make an exception for Coloradans; we don't want that stuff in our state, period". Moore County would be in its rights to do the same; it has simply chosen not to (for obvious economic reasons). Like I said earlier, these jurisdictions are not obliged to be dictated to by the legislatures of different jurisdictions. And I find it very strange that you, such an arch-localist, seem to think that they should.
I live in Amorytown, and here we outlaw bibles (you know, because I'm a bitter anti-theist agnostic who hates religion)
The People of Amorytown agree, and the vote to ban bibles was unanimous.
However, the people of Davidtown are all Christians.
And the people of Jacobtown are also Christians.
Amorytown sits between Davidtown and Jacobtown, and national highway 55 travels through all three, interconnecting them (you know, for trade, commerce, and travel).
I believe it's wrong of me, and/or the Amorytown police, to arrest a Jacobtownian who happened to be driving through Amorytown on his way to Davidtown using Highway 55, with a bible in their car. Because it violates the very principle I hold of "they get to decide how they want to live, and we get to decide how we want to live". They are not We.
Because I'm a MINARCHIST - I don't believe the government of Amorytown is right to criminalize a resident of Jacobtown, who just happens to be passing through.
THAT is too much power. THAT is the kind of power which has Amorytownians conquering Jacobtown, and imposing on it's people Amorytown law.
It's the oposite of what I believe in.
The speed limit tells all traffic, no matter where they are from, how fast to drive.
Amorytown's ban on bibles does NOT tell all people, no matter where they are from, what to believe.
There are certainly things prohibited to the people of Panama, which get transported daily through the Canal.
JD transports their alcohol, usually by truck, out of Moore County.
Moore county residents, while prohibited from buying or selling alcohol In Moore County, are
still allowed to drink, they just have to travel outside the county to buy or sell.
Now who's talking about what is rather than what should be?
I'm pointing out, that even IN reality, people are capable of making these sensible compromises.
So why is the <driving through Amorytown with a bible in your car is okay> compromise, somehow ridiculous?
That being said.
I'll ask you a question.
Do you think its RIGHT for Amorytown to arrest and lock up a resident of Jacobtown who was passing through, just because they had a bible in their car?
If you think that's right, or even okay, then we aren't going to agree here anyways - and this is a waste of both our time.
While there are some items with exceptions, there are plenty that cannot be unrestricted.
(2) Class 1 explosives are prohibited;
(5) Class 2, division 2.3 poisonous gas is prohibited;
(9) Class 4, division 4.2 spontaneously combustible materials are prohibited;
(10) Class 4, division 4.3 dangerous-when-wet materials are prohibited;
(11) Class 5, division 5.1 oxidizers are prohibited;
(12) Class 5, division 5.2 organic peroxides are prohibited;
(14) Class 6, division 6.2 infectious substances are prohibited;
etc.
By your reasoning, Maryland would have no authority to prevent someone from out of state from driving any of these through their tunnels. This would be putting everyone else who uses those tunnels in danger.
You either missed a lot of my post, skimmed it, purposefully ignored it, or you just can't read.
I covered this.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Thanks to Xenphire @ Inkfox for the amazing new sig
“Thus strangely are our souls constructed, and by slight ligaments
are we bound to prosperity and ruin.”
― Mary Shelley, Frankenstein
Well, the reason why I wrote what I wrote is to show you that you have to get your principles enshrined in the law.
If you don't what happens?
Someone else with an agenda, say for example the conservative Christian right, will just get their principles enshrined into law.
We live in a nation where Civic participation is a duty of it's citizens. That duty just happens to be abrograted by most in favor of discussing Miley's Cyrus's latest lip tattoo. But being this island of your own personal belief thinking that things just ought to be that way means your rights are just going to come under attack.
If your principle is the freedom of choice and self determination, then that too can be enshrined in the law.
What if Radios were deemed illegal in Oregon, but legal in Cali and Wash. Do I throw my radio away, or destroy it, just so I can drive through Oregon?
That's absurd, and any law that would actually force me to do such a thing I find absurd.
I disagree that it's absurd. If anything about the situation is absurd, it's simply the notion of banning radios. There is nothing absurd per se about having to comply with the laws of the land through which you travel. You're just making it sound silly by hypothesizing a silly law. But while banning radios is silly, that's not relevant to the question of jurisdiction.
Look at all these issues of jurisdiction and travel rights. It's like Constitutional Law all over again.
Blatch is the IP lawyer around here, so I'll welcome his criticisms on my understanding of doctrine.
The following overarching principles apply.
1) States are free to pass whatever laws they want regarding the persons within their own land. (the basis of jurisdiction is territoriality)
2) Yes the state can make you throw out the radio as you pass through the borders of their state.
HOWEVER,
states are bound by the Constitution. State law cannot contravene the rights guaranteed by the Constitution of the United States.
I see at least two issues here:
1) The Supreme Court has held that the right to interstate travel(but not international!) is a fundamental right. Burdening a fundamental right means the law will be INVALID UNLESS the government can show the law was narrowly tailored to serve a compelling government interest. (strict scrutiny standard) Does the radio burden the fundamental right interstate travel? dunno...
2) States may not pass laws which discriminate against out of state citizens with respect to commercial activities or the enjoyment of civil liberties. Privileges and Immunities Clause of Article IV of the Constitution.
quoting justice O'Connor in relevant part:
Article IV's Privileges and Immunities Clause has enjoyed a long association with the rights to travel and migrate interstate. The Clause derives from Art. IV of the Articles of Confederation. The latter expressly recognized a right of "free ingress and regress to and from any other State," in addition to guaranteeing "the free inhabitants of each of these states . . . [the] privileges and immunities of free citizens in the several States." While the Framers of our Constitution omitted the reference to "free ingress and regress," they retained the general guaranty of "privileges and immunities." Charles Pinckney, who drafted the current version of Art. IV, told the Convention that this Article was "formed exactly upon the principles of the 4th article of the present Confederation." Commentators, therefore, have assumed that the Framers omitted the express guaranty merely because it was redundant, not because they wished to excise the right from the Constitution. Early opinions by the Justices of this Court also traced a right to travel or migrate interstate to Art. IV's Privileges and Immunities Clause....Similarly, in Paul v. Virginia, the Court found that one of the "undoubt[ed]" effects of the Clause was to give "the citizens of each State . . . the right of free ingress into other States, and egress from them...."
Does the radio issue violate the privileges and Immunities clause of Article IV? Once again, not sure. But its possible to make a case out of it.
I live in Amorytown, and here we outlaw bibles (you know, because I'm a bitter anti-theist agnostic who hates religion)
The People of Amorytown agree, and the vote to ban bibles was unanimous.
However, the people of Davidtown are all Christians.
And the people of Jacobtown are also Christians.
Amorytown sits between Davidtown and Jacobtown, and national highway 55 travels through all three, interconnecting them (you know, for trade, commerce, and travel).
I believe it's wrong of me, and/or the Amorytown police, to arrest a Jacobtownian who happened to be driving through Amorytown on his way to Davidtown using Highway 55, with a bible in their car. Because it violates the very principle I hold of "they get to decide how they want to live, and we get to decide how we want to live". They are not We.
Because I'm a MINARCHIST - I don't believe the government of Amorytown is right to criminalize a resident of Jacobtown, who just happens to be passing through.
THAT is too much power. THAT is the kind of power which has Amorytownians conquering Jacobtown, and imposing on it's people Amorytown law.
It's the oposite of what I believe in.
The speed limit tells all traffic, no matter where they are from, how fast to drive.
Amorytown's ban on bibles does NOT tell all people, no matter where they are from, what to believe.
Another legal question!
This is how it would work. The law would be challenged and held invalid under the first amendment Free Exercise Clause.
Free exercise because it prevents Christians from practicing in your own.
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..."
It doesn't matter what this small cities pass, they are bound by the US constitution. Right or wrong, or oughts don't even play into it.
edit
Oh forgot to say, the 1st amendment is incorporated as applicable to states via the due process clause of the 14th amendment.
You either missed a lot of my post, skimmed it, purposefully ignored it, or you just can't read.
I covered this.
I don't really think you did. I'm not trying to make a weed analogy. I'm trying to discuss your underlying principle, and how it applies to other items you might want to transport on public roads.
And NO. This has NOTHING to do with speed limits. You do not possess the street, you do possess your comic books.
But your comic books are on the street you do not possess. I could make exactly the same argument against the comic-book transporter that you're making against the speeder. And you possess your speeding car. I could make exactly the same argument in favor of the speeder that you're making in favor of the comic-book transporter. It's just an incredibly ad hoc argument. And it's not even an accurate argument, since speeding is an offense whether you're on a public road, off-road, or even on a road you personally own. (If you run a racetrack, there's a bunch of special licensing.)
Speeding is an offense off-road? Really? Unless there is a posted speed limit, I don't see how you can support this.
I'm sure you'll find a "BLM land management park use something something..." to back this up with, but really?
Also, on private land?
Wrong. Running a race track (a business) is not analogous to speeding in your car on your own property.
Jack Daniels is made in a Dry county. You cannot buy or sell it there. But you can still drink it there, as long as you bought it elsewhere. Also, JD ships their alcohol out of Moore County usually by truck specifically TO sell it elsewhere. So it's obviously not impossible for a county that otherwise outlaws something, to allow some leeway here.
Of course it's not impossible. You can write a law to do practically anything. But you don't have to. Wyoming is perfectly within its rights to say, "No, we're not going to make an exception for Coloradans; we don't want that stuff in our state, period". Moore County would be in its rights to do the same; it has simply chosen not to (for obvious economic reasons). Like I said earlier, these jurisdictions are not obliged to be dictated to by the legislatures of different jurisdictions. And I find it very strange that you, such an arch-localist, seem to think that they should.
I live in Amorytown, and here we outlaw bibles (you know, because I'm a bitter anti-theist agnostic who hates religion)
The People of Amorytown agree, and the vote to ban bibles was unanimous.
However, the people of Davidtown are all Christians.
And the people of Jacobtown are also Christians.
Amorytown sits between Davidtown and Jacobtown, and national highway 55 travels through all three, interconnecting them (you know, for trade, commerce, and travel).
I believe it's wrong of me, and/or the Amorytown police, to arrest a Jacobtownian who happened to be driving through Amorytown on his way to Davidtown using Highway 55, with a bible in their car. Because it violates the very principle I hold of "they get to decide how they want to live, and we get to decide how we want to live". They are not We.
Because I'm a MINARCHIST - I don't believe the government of Amorytown is right to criminalize a resident of Jacobtown, who just happens to be passing through.
THAT is too much power. THAT is the kind of power which has Amorytownians conquering Jacobtown, and imposing on it's people Amorytown law.
It's the oposite of what I believe in.
The speed limit tells all traffic, no matter where they are from, how fast to drive.
Amorytown's ban on bibles does NOT tell all people, no matter where they are from, what to believe.
There are certainly things prohibited to the people of Panama, which get transported daily through the Canal.
JD transports their alcohol, usually by truck, out of Moore County.
Moore county residents, while prohibited from buying or selling alcohol In Moore County, are
still allowed to drink, they just have to travel outside the county to buy or sell.
Now who's talking about what is rather than what should be?
I'm pointing out, that even IN reality, people are capable of making these sensible compromises.
So why is the <driving through Amorytown with a bible in your car is okay> compromise, somehow ridiculous?
That being said.
I'll ask you a question.
Do you think its RIGHT for Amorytown to arrest and lock up a resident of Jacobtown who was passing through, just because they had a bible in their car?
If you think that's right, or even okay, then we aren't going to agree here anyways - and this is a waste of both our time.
I have a question for you. Say in Bobistan, transporting explosives is illegal. However, in the nearby countries of Sylvinia and the United Western Provinces, transporting the is legal. Should you be able to transport explosives through Bobistan just because you are trying to get from Sylvinia to the United Western Provinces?
I have a question for you. Say in Bobistan, transporting explosives is illegal. However, in the nearby countries of Sylvinia and the United Western Provinces, transporting the is legal. Should you be able to transport explosives through Bobistan just because you are trying to get from Sylvinia to the United Western Provinces?
I covered this in my reply about the CBBT to Tiax.
For pete's sake. I'm just going to start quoting myself because people can't read what I write.
You're talking about neighboring nation-states, I said...
Furthermore - as I said earlier - I didn't want to get into nation-state border issues if I can help it.
I'd like to focus on interstate commerce, which is really where these controls come into play on a domestic level.
We're all part of the USA. each state, and each county, UNITED.
It's not like a Mexican is driving something from Mexico to Canada (which actually happens)
We're talking about US citizen using a public road to drive from one part of the USA to another part of the USA without having to dispose or destroy his otherwise legal property, just to avoid becoming a TEMPORARY criminal.
And whether or not they should be able to pass through a place with some "dangerous" stuff, I said...
I never once said anything about there being no guidelines to HOW you transport it.
maybe they need to keep their weed locked in a lock-box in the trunk, kinda like I need to do with my GUN depending on where I'm driving.
I do NOT however, need to destroy or dispose of my gun.
Tell me, what safe transportation measurements do you think a person should take to safely transport their half-gram of weed through a clean county on a publicly owned road?
I swear, you guys are like gun grabbers.
Amory: "We should have the same weapons as the military"
Gun grabbers: "So you're saying we should all have nukes!?!"
Amory: *Facepalm*
You're trying to bait me to shake my PRINCIPLES based on the "danger" of the ITEM being transported, and not based on the LAW as applied to other travelers passing through an interconnected, interstate system.
It doesn't matter what the item is. Weed, bibles, bleach, propane, dynamite, or nukes.
Should Amorytown USA be able to arrest or imprison Tommy from Jacobtown USA passing through Amorytown using highway 55 to get to Davidtown for the mere possession of his seven-headed nuclear snake monster that breathes black plague?
No, I do not believe they should be able to.
1. I didn't say they couldn't have safety guidelines.
Some places I drive, I can have my gun in my dash-holster, loaded and ready to go. Some places I drive, I have to have it locked in a lock-box in the trunk or out of reach, and it must be unloaded.
But, say I'm driving through Chicago last year, where handguns are prohibited?
I should be able to drive through Chicago, with my gun, without being arrested or imprisoned. Maybe I have to take it apart and place it in a lock-box.
But "Oh, you're an Oregonian, lock that thing up in the trunk, and move on. Don't let me catch you playing with it in Chicago!" =/= "You're under arrest for possession..."
2. If they are passing through with their seven-headed nuclear snake monster that breathes black plague - and they crash and the snake gets out - take your case to court, where you should get restitution for damages, just like everyone else who has ever been a victim of industrial disasters, explosions, train derailments of hazardous chemicals, water contamination from nearby power plants, building fires, drunk drivers, improper discharges of personal firearms, etc...
Also, if the fault of the crash was Tommy's, you got negligent homicide, manslaughter, etc...
Let's say I'm moving from Jacobtown to Davidtown, To change residence.
Amorytown doesn't allow guns, or bibles. I own guns and bibles.
I should be able to drive my U-Haul through Amorytown, loaded with all my possessions, my microwave, my chairs, my cleaning supplies, my dresser and my clothes, and yes my guns and my bibles, without fear of being arrested and imprisoned.
If I stop and shoot someone, or hold a bible study in Amorytown, that's a different story.
The problem is you bring up generalities of "people should be able to transport anything anywhere as long as it is legal somewhere" and then jump to incredibly mundane examples like comic books, chairs and a gram of weed.... Then you cry foul when someone brings up hazardous materials by saying "well some people can transport those things"...
Yes, the federal government or large corporations that are highly regulated are able to transport things that the average person cannot... You know... since they are regulated and people/governments would trust that they are following good procedures while transporting those items.
So to clear things up... you recognize that States/Counties do have and should have the power to limit what/how things are transported through their borders? Honestly I am not sure from the way you are reacting to other people's posts.
You are correct that regulation on transporting weed "should" be pretty minimal since weed itself is not all that harmful, however that does not mean every single state will see it that way. Would you also cry foul if a state decided that the only way to transport weed through their borders was via armored car? To me that is their decision. If you dont like it you dont have to enter their borders.
So do you agree or not that the mere possession isn't enough?
You're saying it's okay for the government, or large corporations to do it, because they are heavily regulated. So obviously it's not the mere possession that's the problem, it's the safety measures correct? If you're safe enough, and have the proper storage and transportation device, carry on? Meeting the necessary minimum safety standards proportional to the "danger" of the thing you're transporting, carry on?
The government transports some of the most dangerous chemicals and explosives known to man all over the place. They can do it usually because a) they are the government and "above the law" and b) they have all the proper safe transport systems to do so.
The thing is, we're talking about a principle - and then people are lumping a gram of weed in with a barrel of toxic waste. Trying to thwart the principle.
That is a matter of scale and NOT a matter of principle.
Of course weed and toxic waste are different. But the mere possession shouldn't be enough. Because we are an interstate, interconnected, friendly, familiar, neighborly, united group of people and we shouldn't unnecessarily grief the ***** out of each other.
Weed, ok, locked in the trunk.
Gun, ok, locked in a lock-box the trunk with the ammo separate.
Toxic waste, ok, locked in a sealed double-wall drum, strapped down and secured with cross members, driving 10mph under the speed limit.
Bombs, ok, guarded and locked in a secure access truck, trailer, or railcar with escort guide vehicles in front and back, amber alert lamps flashing.
That kind of thing.
If you fail to meet the safety standards for what you're transporting, the violation is FOR NOT MEETING THE SAFETY STANDARDS.
It isn't for mere possession.
This is the same bull***** I put up with in the 2nd Amendment threads.
I say the people should be as equally armed as the government. Some bonehead comes in usually with the classic "so you're saying everyone should have nukes? harharhar1"
No.
But then, no one person in the government "has nukes" either.
When the kings wanted to attack an individual, he'd send a couple soldiers. So the individual should be as armed as the kings soldiers.
The king didn't attack the individual with a Trebuchet (well, unless he's a whackjob).
Now, the king might attack a town with a Trebuchet, so the town should probably have a trebuchet.
The king might attack a province with onagers, trebuchets, and a battalion of soldiers. So the province should have onagers, a trebuchet, and a healthy militia.
The principle is that the people should be as armed as the government.
The REST of the nonsense, is a MATTER OF SCALE.
The principle is that people shouldn't be arrested or imprisoned, while traveling through a county/town/state, for the mere possession of something otherwise legal to that person. To force them to dispose or destroy or leave behind such otherwise legal possessions I believe is unnecessary, and an overreach of the LOCAL power over people who aren't locals.
All the rest of the nonsense is a MATTER OF SCALE.
The result of NOT believing this way, is you end up with what we have.
Massive, powerful, nation-states, governments, and state bureaucracies, with an insane amount of incarceration, enormous prison industries, and the people can be pretty much arrested and imprisoned for just about anything, anywhere, and have to try and learn 10,000 different laws and regulation from one state to another, from one city to another...and on and on and on.
I find it senseless, and unjust.
Here's an analogy that may help illuminate the principle being discussed:
Marijauna is legal in both Washington and California. I want to transport my seeds from SFO to SEA by driving up I-5 through Oregon. The people of Oregon have decided that they don't want anyone to possess marijauna seeds within state borders. Possessions can be lost through an accident or carelessness and therefore the citizens of Oregon may have access to them. They are so afraid of these marijauna seeds getting lost and then creating wild marijauna plants that children discover and become drug addicts as a result; that they ban the seeds from their land. If they wanted it otherwise, they would write their laws differently. I remember being a teenager and learning that the possession of cigarettes by minors was a-ok, but the sale of these products to minors was illegal. Seemed weird to be smoking in front of a cop when you're 15, but that's how the law was.
Analogy 2:
I live in a wacky house where people have to pass through my bedroom to get to the bathroom with the shower. I am really afraid of guns and am so worried about one accidentally going off and killing me, that I prohibit them from being in my room, no matter how safely they are transported. Do I have this right? I pay rent, it is my room, I think that I do, even if it is misguided.
Restrictions on transportation of hazardous material are not merely a matter of safety precautions. Many areas ban transporting hazmats through residential zones, tunnels, bridges, etc. regardless of how you transport them. It doesn't matter what sort of container you have it locked in. This is a good thing. It allows jurisdictions to maintain the safety of their citizens. Asking them to assume the risk of an accident that would likely be fatal with the promise that they could sue for compensation is absurd.
Let's say I am for legalization of pot.
Let's say that the principle I stand on for my position is this: "We should be able to smoke pot, it's my body and I can do with it what I want".
If THAT is my principle, then saying "but not heroine, it's too harmful" violates the principle I used to defend pot. because the principle I used is about personal freedoms, not the danger of the thing.
However, if my principle was: "Pot is no safer, and no more dangerous than alcohol. Therefore, we should legalize it"
Then I say "but not heroine, it's too dangerous". I didn't violate the principle because the principle I used is one of danger, and not of freedom.
The principle I'm using is one of freedom. Not of danger.
So bringing up more and more and more dangerous materials, is not doing what you hope it would do to my principle.
Take guns for instance.
I believe we established certain rights, one of which is the right to keep and bear arms. I believe that the purpose of that right, was to ensure that the people were on equal footing with the soldiers we might need to stand up against. How exactly do we remain free if all we get is a musket, and they get an M-4, select-fire carbine?
If my principle was "We should be able to hunt, and go target shooting, so we should be able to have guns for that"
Then the argument that no one needs an assault rifle, or a M-249 SAW, or an A12, to hunt and target shoot, isn't invalid.
Maybe you're allowed a bolt action, and a pump-action, and that's it. Since those things are more than adequate for hunting and target shooting, the principle is met.
But if the principle is to stand up to the government - and the soldiers get photon laser blasters. I better be able to get a photon laser blaster.
Then, we go back to what I said before about a matter of scale.
No single soldier has a nuke. Not even the President himself can launch a nuke alone.
A tank is generally a squad operated vehicle.
The individual soldier isn't going to oppress an individual citizen with a Apache firing sidewinders.
You can see in my post earlier, how I view the people-government arms race.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Thanks to Xenphire @ Inkfox for the amazing new sig
“Thus strangely are our souls constructed, and by slight ligaments
are we bound to prosperity and ruin.”
― Mary Shelley, Frankenstein
Restrictions on transportation of hazardous material are not merely a matter of safety precautions. Many areas ban transporting hazmats through residential zones, tunnels, bridges, etc. regardless of how you transport them. It doesn't matter what sort of container you have it locked in. This is a good thing. It allows jurisdictions to maintain the safety of their citizens. Asking them to assume the risk of an accident that would likely be fatal with the promise that they could sue for compensation is absurd.
Isn't that pretty much what we do though, for like, hundreds of thousands of things?
Honestly, a plane could crash anywhere along it's flight, spiraling into a jet fueled fireball of horror, kill dozens of people, and destroy homes on the ground.
Yet we assume this risk, with the promise that we can sue for compensation.
Every house next to a busy street could have a car lose control and plow through it's living room. Possibly killing people, but at least causing severe structural damages.
Everyone who lives next door to a gun owner who doesn't use proper safety cleaning his gun, shooting through the walls and killing his neighbors.
We do it, every minute of every day, for countless things, it's not absurd.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Thanks to Xenphire @ Inkfox for the amazing new sig
“Thus strangely are our souls constructed, and by slight ligaments
are we bound to prosperity and ruin.”
― Mary Shelley, Frankenstein
Driving hazmats through residential neighborhoods or tunnels is needlessly dangerous, and the local population decided the benefits outweigh the risks. We don't simply allow people to put us in any amount of danger they want just because we can sue them once we're dead. To go back to the speed limit question, why don't we just let people drive down my street at whatever speed they want, and sue them if they run over a child?
There are certainly things prohibited to the people of Panama, which get transported daily through the Canal.
JD transports their alcohol, usually by truck, out of Moore County.
Moore county residents, while prohibited from buying or selling alcohol In Moore County, are
still allowed to drink, they just have to travel outside the county to buy or sell.
P.S.
The CBBT is not a "free" public road. It is a privately owned TOLL bride-tunnel. Some of the tolls collected go to paying the interest on the privately owned bonds which funded the project. The investors then, kinda have a little more control over who gets to use it.
If it's funded in part by public dollars, YES, I would disagree in principle.
If I'm trying to get something from Cape St. Claire to Stevensville...
Thanks to Xenphire @ Inkfox for the amazing new sig
“Thus strangely are our souls constructed, and by slight ligaments
are we bound to prosperity and ruin.”
― Mary Shelley, Frankenstein
I'm still unclear on your stance on out-of-state hazmats in tunnels.
They weren't seizing the ship because it was transporting something THROUGH Panama that was illegal IN PANAMA.
They were seizing it because:
"International sanctions today disallow for any weapons to be shipped to North Korea."
Now, in principle, I'm not sure how I feel about the international community controlling what things can be shipped to North Korea.
Should I ship my small pox infested blankets to North Korea or not?
Furthermore - as I said earlier - I didn't want to get into nation-state border issues if I can help it.
I'd like to focus on interstate commerce, which is really where these controls come into play on a domestic level.
We're all part of the USA. each state, and each county, UNITED.
It's not like a Mexican is driving something from Mexico to Canada (which actually happens)
We're talking about US citizen using a public road to drive from one part of the USA to another part of the USA without having to dispose or destroy his otherwise legal property, just to avoid becoming a TEMPORARY criminal.
Jesus, with your guys' attitude, it's no wonder we have the highest incarceration rates.
Again, as a disclaimer, I am talking about what SHOULD BE, and not what IS.
Thanks to Xenphire @ Inkfox for the amazing new sig
“Thus strangely are our souls constructed, and by slight ligaments
are we bound to prosperity and ruin.”
― Mary Shelley, Frankenstein
It's not exactly the same situation.
Thanks to Xenphire @ Inkfox for the amazing new sig
“Thus strangely are our souls constructed, and by slight ligaments
are we bound to prosperity and ruin.”
― Mary Shelley, Frankenstein
http://www.dsd.state.md.us/comar/getfile.aspx?file=11.07.01.04.htm
If Maryland doesn't want to expose its tunnels to the dangers posed by transporting certain hazmats through them, shouldn't they have that power?
Of course it's not impossible. You can write a law to do practically anything. But you don't have to. Wyoming is perfectly within its rights to say, "No, we're not going to make an exception for Coloradans; we don't want that stuff in our state, period". Moore County would be in its rights to do the same; it has simply chosen not to (for obvious economic reasons). Like I said earlier, these jurisdictions are not obliged to be dictated to by the legislatures of different jurisdictions. And I find it very strange that you, such an arch-localist, seem to think that they should.
Now who's talking about what is rather than what should be?
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
As far as the rest of your point - did you see all the "exceptions" to those rules?
Pretty much every part of those restrictions can be unrestricted if you meet certain guidelines.
I never once said anything about there being no guidelines to HOW you transport it.
maybe they need to keep their weed locked in a lock-box in the trunk, kinda like I need to do with my GUN depending on where I'm driving.
I do NOT however, need to destroy or dispose of my gun.
Tell me, what safe transportation measurements do you think a person should take to safely transport their half-gram of weed through a clean county on a publicly owned road?
Finally, in principle, yes I disagree with the idea. I'm for following necessary safety guidelines, but carry on through the tunnel.
In reality, they are given three other routes to take with their prohibited materials.
In reality, there are restrictions they can't avoid.
In reality, you probably can't drive with your weed through the clean county.
Thanks to Xenphire @ Inkfox for the amazing new sig
“Thus strangely are our souls constructed, and by slight ligaments
are we bound to prosperity and ruin.”
― Mary Shelley, Frankenstein
(2) Class 1 explosives are prohibited;
(5) Class 2, division 2.3 poisonous gas is prohibited;
(9) Class 4, division 4.2 spontaneously combustible materials are prohibited;
(10) Class 4, division 4.3 dangerous-when-wet materials are prohibited;
(11) Class 5, division 5.1 oxidizers are prohibited;
(12) Class 5, division 5.2 organic peroxides are prohibited;
(14) Class 6, division 6.2 infectious substances are prohibited;
etc.
By your reasoning, Maryland would have no authority to prevent someone from out of state from driving any of these through their tunnels. This would be putting everyone else who uses those tunnels in danger.
Speeding is an offense off-road? Really? Unless there is a posted speed limit, I don't see how you can support this.
I'm sure you'll find a "BLM land management park use something something..." to back this up with, but really?
Also, on private land?
Wrong.
Running a race track (a business) is not analogous to speeding in your car on your own property.
I live in Amorytown, and here we outlaw bibles (you know, because I'm a bitter anti-theist agnostic who hates religion)
The People of Amorytown agree, and the vote to ban bibles was unanimous.
However, the people of Davidtown are all Christians.
And the people of Jacobtown are also Christians.
Amorytown sits between Davidtown and Jacobtown, and national highway 55 travels through all three, interconnecting them (you know, for trade, commerce, and travel).
I believe it's wrong of me, and/or the Amorytown police, to arrest a Jacobtownian who happened to be driving through Amorytown on his way to Davidtown using Highway 55, with a bible in their car. Because it violates the very principle I hold of "they get to decide how they want to live, and we get to decide how we want to live". They are not We.
Because I'm a MINARCHIST - I don't believe the government of Amorytown is right to criminalize a resident of Jacobtown, who just happens to be passing through.
THAT is too much power. THAT is the kind of power which has Amorytownians conquering Jacobtown, and imposing on it's people Amorytown law.
It's the oposite of what I believe in.
The speed limit tells all traffic, no matter where they are from, how fast to drive.
Amorytown's ban on bibles does NOT tell all people, no matter where they are from, what to believe.
I'm pointing out, that even IN reality, people are capable of making these sensible compromises.
So why is the <driving through Amorytown with a bible in your car is okay> compromise, somehow ridiculous?
That being said.
I'll ask you a question.
Do you think its RIGHT for Amorytown to arrest and lock up a resident of Jacobtown who was passing through, just because they had a bible in their car?
If you think that's right, or even okay, then we aren't going to agree here anyways - and this is a waste of both our time.
Warning for stonewalling
Thanks to Xenphire @ Inkfox for the amazing new sig
“Thus strangely are our souls constructed, and by slight ligaments
are we bound to prosperity and ruin.”
― Mary Shelley, Frankenstein
You either missed a lot of my post, skimmed it, purposefully ignored it, or you just can't read.
I covered this.
Thanks to Xenphire @ Inkfox for the amazing new sig
“Thus strangely are our souls constructed, and by slight ligaments
are we bound to prosperity and ruin.”
― Mary Shelley, Frankenstein
If you don't what happens?
Someone else with an agenda, say for example the conservative Christian right, will just get their principles enshrined into law.
We live in a nation where Civic participation is a duty of it's citizens. That duty just happens to be abrograted by most in favor of discussing Miley's Cyrus's latest lip tattoo. But being this island of your own personal belief thinking that things just ought to be that way means your rights are just going to come under attack.
If your principle is the freedom of choice and self determination, then that too can be enshrined in the law.
Look at all these issues of jurisdiction and travel rights. It's like Constitutional Law all over again.
Blatch is the IP lawyer around here, so I'll welcome his criticisms on my understanding of doctrine.
The following overarching principles apply.
1) States are free to pass whatever laws they want regarding the persons within their own land. (the basis of jurisdiction is territoriality)
2) Yes the state can make you throw out the radio as you pass through the borders of their state.
HOWEVER,
states are bound by the Constitution. State law cannot contravene the rights guaranteed by the Constitution of the United States.
I see at least two issues here:
1) The Supreme Court has held that the right to interstate travel(but not international!) is a fundamental right. Burdening a fundamental right means the law will be INVALID UNLESS the government can show the law was narrowly tailored to serve a compelling government interest. (strict scrutiny standard) Does the radio burden the fundamental right interstate travel? dunno...
2) States may not pass laws which discriminate against out of state citizens with respect to commercial activities or the enjoyment of civil liberties. Privileges and Immunities Clause of Article IV of the Constitution.
quoting justice O'Connor in relevant part:
Article IV's Privileges and Immunities Clause has enjoyed a long association with the rights to travel and migrate interstate. The Clause derives from Art. IV of the Articles of Confederation. The latter expressly recognized a right of "free ingress and regress to and from any other State," in addition to guaranteeing "the free inhabitants of each of these states . . . [the] privileges and immunities of free citizens in the several States." While the Framers of our Constitution omitted the reference to "free ingress and regress," they retained the general guaranty of "privileges and immunities." Charles Pinckney, who drafted the current version of Art. IV, told the Convention that this Article was "formed exactly upon the principles of the 4th article of the present Confederation." Commentators, therefore, have assumed that the Framers omitted the express guaranty merely because it was redundant, not because they wished to excise the right from the Constitution. Early opinions by the Justices of this Court also traced a right to travel or migrate interstate to Art. IV's Privileges and Immunities Clause....Similarly, in Paul v. Virginia, the Court found that one of the "undoubt[ed]" effects of the Clause was to give "the citizens of each State . . . the right of free ingress into other States, and egress from them...."
Does the radio issue violate the privileges and Immunities clause of Article IV? Once again, not sure. But its possible to make a case out of it.
Another legal question!
This is how it would work. The law would be challenged and held invalid under the first amendment Free Exercise Clause.
Free exercise because it prevents Christians from practicing in your own.
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..."
It doesn't matter what this small cities pass, they are bound by the US constitution. Right or wrong, or oughts don't even play into it.
edit
Oh forgot to say, the 1st amendment is incorporated as applicable to states via the due process clause of the 14th amendment.
I don't really think you did. I'm not trying to make a weed analogy. I'm trying to discuss your underlying principle, and how it applies to other items you might want to transport on public roads.
I have a question for you. Say in Bobistan, transporting explosives is illegal. However, in the nearby countries of Sylvinia and the United Western Provinces, transporting the is legal. Should you be able to transport explosives through Bobistan just because you are trying to get from Sylvinia to the United Western Provinces?
Storm Crow is strictly worse than Seacoast Drake.
I covered this in my reply about the CBBT to Tiax.
For pete's sake. I'm just going to start quoting myself because people can't read what I write.
You're talking about neighboring nation-states, I said...
And whether or not they should be able to pass through a place with some "dangerous" stuff, I said...
I swear, you guys are like gun grabbers.
Amory: "We should have the same weapons as the military"
Gun grabbers: "So you're saying we should all have nukes!?!"
Amory: *Facepalm*
You're trying to bait me to shake my PRINCIPLES based on the "danger" of the ITEM being transported, and not based on the LAW as applied to other travelers passing through an interconnected, interstate system.
It doesn't matter what the item is. Weed, bibles, bleach, propane, dynamite, or nukes.
Should Amorytown USA be able to arrest or imprison Tommy from Jacobtown USA passing through Amorytown using highway 55 to get to Davidtown for the mere possession of his seven-headed nuclear snake monster that breathes black plague?
No, I do not believe they should be able to.
1. I didn't say they couldn't have safety guidelines.
Some places I drive, I can have my gun in my dash-holster, loaded and ready to go. Some places I drive, I have to have it locked in a lock-box in the trunk or out of reach, and it must be unloaded.
But, say I'm driving through Chicago last year, where handguns are prohibited?
I should be able to drive through Chicago, with my gun, without being arrested or imprisoned. Maybe I have to take it apart and place it in a lock-box.
But "Oh, you're an Oregonian, lock that thing up in the trunk, and move on. Don't let me catch you playing with it in Chicago!" =/= "You're under arrest for possession..."
2. If they are passing through with their seven-headed nuclear snake monster that breathes black plague - and they crash and the snake gets out - take your case to court, where you should get restitution for damages, just like everyone else who has ever been a victim of industrial disasters, explosions, train derailments of hazardous chemicals, water contamination from nearby power plants, building fires, drunk drivers, improper discharges of personal firearms, etc...
Also, if the fault of the crash was Tommy's, you got negligent homicide, manslaughter, etc...
Let's say I'm moving from Jacobtown to Davidtown, To change residence.
Amorytown doesn't allow guns, or bibles. I own guns and bibles.
I should be able to drive my U-Haul through Amorytown, loaded with all my possessions, my microwave, my chairs, my cleaning supplies, my dresser and my clothes, and yes my guns and my bibles, without fear of being arrested and imprisoned.
If I stop and shoot someone, or hold a bible study in Amorytown, that's a different story.
Thanks to Xenphire @ Inkfox for the amazing new sig
“Thus strangely are our souls constructed, and by slight ligaments
are we bound to prosperity and ruin.”
― Mary Shelley, Frankenstein
The problem is you bring up generalities of "people should be able to transport anything anywhere as long as it is legal somewhere" and then jump to incredibly mundane examples like comic books, chairs and a gram of weed.... Then you cry foul when someone brings up hazardous materials by saying "well some people can transport those things"...
Yes, the federal government or large corporations that are highly regulated are able to transport things that the average person cannot... You know... since they are regulated and people/governments would trust that they are following good procedures while transporting those items.
So to clear things up... you recognize that States/Counties do have and should have the power to limit what/how things are transported through their borders? Honestly I am not sure from the way you are reacting to other people's posts.
You are correct that regulation on transporting weed "should" be pretty minimal since weed itself is not all that harmful, however that does not mean every single state will see it that way. Would you also cry foul if a state decided that the only way to transport weed through their borders was via armored car? To me that is their decision. If you dont like it you dont have to enter their borders.
You're saying it's okay for the government, or large corporations to do it, because they are heavily regulated. So obviously it's not the mere possession that's the problem, it's the safety measures correct? If you're safe enough, and have the proper storage and transportation device, carry on? Meeting the necessary minimum safety standards proportional to the "danger" of the thing you're transporting, carry on?
The government transports some of the most dangerous chemicals and explosives known to man all over the place. They can do it usually because a) they are the government and "above the law" and b) they have all the proper safe transport systems to do so.
The thing is, we're talking about a principle - and then people are lumping a gram of weed in with a barrel of toxic waste. Trying to thwart the principle.
That is a matter of scale and NOT a matter of principle.
Of course weed and toxic waste are different. But the mere possession shouldn't be enough. Because we are an interstate, interconnected, friendly, familiar, neighborly, united group of people and we shouldn't unnecessarily grief the ***** out of each other.
Weed, ok, locked in the trunk.
Gun, ok, locked in a lock-box the trunk with the ammo separate.
Toxic waste, ok, locked in a sealed double-wall drum, strapped down and secured with cross members, driving 10mph under the speed limit.
Bombs, ok, guarded and locked in a secure access truck, trailer, or railcar with escort guide vehicles in front and back, amber alert lamps flashing.
That kind of thing.
If you fail to meet the safety standards for what you're transporting, the violation is FOR NOT MEETING THE SAFETY STANDARDS.
It isn't for mere possession.
This is the same bull***** I put up with in the 2nd Amendment threads.
I say the people should be as equally armed as the government. Some bonehead comes in usually with the classic "so you're saying everyone should have nukes? harharhar1"
No.
But then, no one person in the government "has nukes" either.
When the kings wanted to attack an individual, he'd send a couple soldiers. So the individual should be as armed as the kings soldiers.
The king didn't attack the individual with a Trebuchet (well, unless he's a whackjob).
Now, the king might attack a town with a Trebuchet, so the town should probably have a trebuchet.
The king might attack a province with onagers, trebuchets, and a battalion of soldiers. So the province should have onagers, a trebuchet, and a healthy militia.
The principle is that the people should be as armed as the government.
The REST of the nonsense, is a MATTER OF SCALE.
The principle is that people shouldn't be arrested or imprisoned, while traveling through a county/town/state, for the mere possession of something otherwise legal to that person. To force them to dispose or destroy or leave behind such otherwise legal possessions I believe is unnecessary, and an overreach of the LOCAL power over people who aren't locals.
All the rest of the nonsense is a MATTER OF SCALE.
The result of NOT believing this way, is you end up with what we have.
Massive, powerful, nation-states, governments, and state bureaucracies, with an insane amount of incarceration, enormous prison industries, and the people can be pretty much arrested and imprisoned for just about anything, anywhere, and have to try and learn 10,000 different laws and regulation from one state to another, from one city to another...and on and on and on.
I find it senseless, and unjust.
Thanks to Xenphire @ Inkfox for the amazing new sig
“Thus strangely are our souls constructed, and by slight ligaments
are we bound to prosperity and ruin.”
― Mary Shelley, Frankenstein
Marijauna is legal in both Washington and California. I want to transport my seeds from SFO to SEA by driving up I-5 through Oregon. The people of Oregon have decided that they don't want anyone to possess marijauna seeds within state borders. Possessions can be lost through an accident or carelessness and therefore the citizens of Oregon may have access to them. They are so afraid of these marijauna seeds getting lost and then creating wild marijauna plants that children discover and become drug addicts as a result; that they ban the seeds from their land. If they wanted it otherwise, they would write their laws differently. I remember being a teenager and learning that the possession of cigarettes by minors was a-ok, but the sale of these products to minors was illegal. Seemed weird to be smoking in front of a cop when you're 15, but that's how the law was.
Analogy 2:
I live in a wacky house where people have to pass through my bedroom to get to the bathroom with the shower. I am really afraid of guns and am so worried about one accidentally going off and killing me, that I prohibit them from being in my room, no matter how safely they are transported. Do I have this right? I pay rent, it is my room, I think that I do, even if it is misguided.
Let's say I am for legalization of pot.
Let's say that the principle I stand on for my position is this: "We should be able to smoke pot, it's my body and I can do with it what I want".
If THAT is my principle, then saying "but not heroine, it's too harmful" violates the principle I used to defend pot. because the principle I used is about personal freedoms, not the danger of the thing.
However, if my principle was: "Pot is no safer, and no more dangerous than alcohol. Therefore, we should legalize it"
Then I say "but not heroine, it's too dangerous". I didn't violate the principle because the principle I used is one of danger, and not of freedom.
The principle I'm using is one of freedom. Not of danger.
So bringing up more and more and more dangerous materials, is not doing what you hope it would do to my principle.
Take guns for instance.
I believe we established certain rights, one of which is the right to keep and bear arms. I believe that the purpose of that right, was to ensure that the people were on equal footing with the soldiers we might need to stand up against. How exactly do we remain free if all we get is a musket, and they get an M-4, select-fire carbine?
If my principle was "We should be able to hunt, and go target shooting, so we should be able to have guns for that"
Then the argument that no one needs an assault rifle, or a M-249 SAW, or an A12, to hunt and target shoot, isn't invalid.
Maybe you're allowed a bolt action, and a pump-action, and that's it. Since those things are more than adequate for hunting and target shooting, the principle is met.
But if the principle is to stand up to the government - and the soldiers get photon laser blasters. I better be able to get a photon laser blaster.
Then, we go back to what I said before about a matter of scale.
No single soldier has a nuke. Not even the President himself can launch a nuke alone.
A tank is generally a squad operated vehicle.
The individual soldier isn't going to oppress an individual citizen with a Apache firing sidewinders.
You can see in my post earlier, how I view the people-government arms race.
Thanks to Xenphire @ Inkfox for the amazing new sig
“Thus strangely are our souls constructed, and by slight ligaments
are we bound to prosperity and ruin.”
― Mary Shelley, Frankenstein
Isn't that pretty much what we do though, for like, hundreds of thousands of things?
Honestly, a plane could crash anywhere along it's flight, spiraling into a jet fueled fireball of horror, kill dozens of people, and destroy homes on the ground.
Yet we assume this risk, with the promise that we can sue for compensation.
Every house next to a busy street could have a car lose control and plow through it's living room. Possibly killing people, but at least causing severe structural damages.
Everyone who lives next door to a gun owner who doesn't use proper safety cleaning his gun, shooting through the walls and killing his neighbors.
We do it, every minute of every day, for countless things, it's not absurd.
Thanks to Xenphire @ Inkfox for the amazing new sig
“Thus strangely are our souls constructed, and by slight ligaments
are we bound to prosperity and ruin.”
― Mary Shelley, Frankenstein