What If Trump Is Not Elected?

Generally - One's rights end where the other person's nose begins - common sense.

Glad of it Tiny - too many injuries and fatalities from falling bullets on holidays.

Take a trip to your local Trauma Center new Years Eve - particularly in inner city area - It is a war zone out there.

It is entertaining when they try though.

Originally Posted by LexusLover

is this the Iowa LibDem primary car????

Still there are seatbelt laws. Originally Posted by Tiny

They are for a reason.

Within the past few days or so a driver (and his dog) were ejected from his jeep on the causeway over to Galveston Island from a high impact collision and apparently landed in the water below the bridge. The dog survived and he didn't. Not confirmed, but I suspect he wasn't wearing his seatbelt. Dog's are required to be "belted into" a vehicle as far as I know.

BTW: Customarily there are exemptions from the seat belt laws that have to do with physical/medical conditions. There are "exemptions' to the 2nd amendment ... and firing off rounds into the air in some designated areas of the country is one of them .... just like carrying a firearm in certain circumstances is as well .... and they have been "tested" (or contested if you please) in court.

Would it "impress" your date to see you get hauled off to jail?

is this the Iowa LibDem primary car???? Originally Posted by oeb11

It's the Bitten Limo.

They are for a reason.

Within the past few days or so a driver (and his dog) were ejected from his jeep on the causeway over to Galveston Island from a high impact collision and apparently landed in the water below the bridge. The dog survived and he didn't. Not confirmed, but I suspect he wasn't wearing his seatbelt. Dog's are required to be "belted into" a vehicle as far as I know.

BTW: Customarily there are exemptions from the seat belt laws that have to do with physical/medical conditions. There are "exemptions' to the 2nd amendment ... and firing off rounds into the air in some designated areas of the country is one of them .... just like carrying a firearm in certain circumstances is as well .... and they have been "tested" (or contested if you please) in court. Originally Posted by LexusLover

Interesting, thanks for that. If you're so inclined, any thoughts you'd have about post #81 and Hedonist's reply in post #84 above would be informative.

Would it "impress" your date to see you get hauled off to jail? Originally Posted by LexusLover

You know my type: https://www.eccie.net/showpost.php?p...7&postcount=54

She was ghetto. She probably would have been impressed.

Generally - One's rights end where the other person's nose begins - common sense.

Glad of it Tiny - too many injuries and fatalities from falling bullets on holidays.

Take a trip to your local Trauma Center new Years Eve - particularly in inner city area - It is a war zone out there. Originally Posted by oeb11

Actually OEB, as I understand it, if you shoot a gun straight up in the air it probably won't injure anyone on the way down. On the other hand if you shoot it off at an angle so that it goes up and comes down in a big arc it may kill or injure someone on the way back down. Useful to know, in case you ever decide to attend a wedding celebration in parts of the Middle East and Pakistan.

Thank U Tiny for the satire - - of course - when the bullet comes straight down - it cannot kill or injure anyone Else.

darwinian natural selection - good for the species.

Exactly. You could argue that the taxpayer often has to foot the bill for the medical expenses but it's a weaker argument than the one you could make for requiring people to wear masks. Still there are seatbelt laws.

Maybe this is a better analogy for masks. On New Years Eve I would have loved to spray about 20 rounds from my 56 SKS straight up in the air to impress my date, but didn't do it out of respect for other people's lives, and because it's against the law. You could probably come up with some 2nd amendment argument that my rights were being violated if I had actually done it and gotten arrested, but that would go against common sense. It's like the old saying that crying out fire in a crowded theater isn't protected by freedom of speech. Originally Posted by Tiny

But it always or should always come back to "is my action, or in this case, "in-action", not wearing a seat belt, likely to, could conceivably, hurt someone else and of course the answer with the seat belt is no. My failure to wear one can't possible protect another person. I think the insurance argument goes out the window because you can't be driving a car without medical insurance precisely to cover the person you hurt. So if everybody must pay and not wearing a seat belt can't increase the number of injuries, it can't effect rates.



Of course it is reasonable to assume that you can not control where a bullet will fall back to earth and could injure someone, therefore a law against such action is "legally" justified



I know it sounds like I'm arguing against you but I think we both feel the same way about this seat belt issue but the better argument still can be had discussing the curtailing of rights during COVID and "Constitutionally" how far they can go. How the same hell could me and the family going to our second home even in another state and remaining inside, conceivably hurt another person? How could my buying paint while I'm in the Home Depot buying hand sanitizer, be restricted. That's the kind of illogical thinking that drives me crazy.

Exactly. You could argue that the taxpayer often has to foot the bill for the medical expenses but it's a weaker argument than the one you could make for requiring people to wear masks. Still there are seatbelt laws.

Maybe this is a better analogy for masks. On New Years Eve I would have loved to spray about 20 rounds from my 56 SKS straight up in the air to impress my date, but didn't do it out of respect for other people's lives, and because it's against the law. You could probably come up with some 2nd amendment argument that my rights were being violated if I had actually done it and gotten arrested, but that would go against common sense. It's like the old saying that crying out fire in a crowded theater isn't protected by freedom of speech. Originally Posted by Tiny

Except that the debate, to some degree, still exists as to the effectiveness of masks. I think it's more "what can it hurt", it can't, at this point. For the government to mandate that I must wear a mask in order not to injure another person, there should be universal scientific evidence for the idea. Maybe it exist. Don't know, but if it doesn't, could be successfully argued in court theoretically.

HF and Tiny - i have seen bullets fired into the air hit innocents.


Seatbelts - Primarily for self protection - I have seen individuals in a car wreck ejected and hit and injure other innocent parties, including a baby ejected who injured an innocent party. don't ask further.

rare- i agree.

while it smacks of the nanny state - I do wear my seatbelt - far better and safer in event of an accident.

my choice.

One thing - benefit - less injuries and less severe injuries admitted to the local trauma center - and less drain on the local tax base supporting the hospital and trauma center.

Trump Junior is. He's also an excellent bean counter. Trump Junior is.

1 million + tickets for the 1st rally? Originally Posted by LexusLover

You do realize the venue holds less than 20,000 people right?

... On New Years Eve I would have loved to spray about 20 rounds from my 56 SKS straight up in the air to impress my date, but didn't do it out of respect for other people's lives, and because it's against the law. You could probably come up with some 2nd amendment argument that my rights were being violated if I had actually done it and gotten arrested, but that would go against common sense... Originally Posted by Tiny

Reckless endangerment, as you are expected to understand the basics of how gravity works. What goes up, must come down. Plus, State law has limits on proximity to civilization. A-n-d if that's what you feel the need to do to impress a date - that's a whole other rack of problem.

i do think tiny was postinig "satire" - and I have been reasonably accused of being too serious to see "Satire'.

Does this mean, if it's not prevented by a State's constitution, that a state's elected leaders could prohibit freedom of speech, the press, assembly, or religion? If a state did that, what basis would federal courts have for overruling it? Originally Posted by Tiny

Surely you know the answer to that.

Article VI, Paragraph 2 of the U.S. Constitution is commonly referred to as the Supremacy Clause. It establishes that the

federal

constitution, and

federal law

generally, take precedence over

state laws

, and even

state

constitutions.

The Constitution/ Federal law supersedes any state law. We found that out when Arizona tried to write it's own immigration law.


What is interesting though and telling about how all this can work sometimes, is the fact that states have written their own drug laws while the federal government keeps telling us they could over rule them "if they wanted". Kinda throws the whole Federal law supersedes state law up for grabs. Originally Posted by HedonistForever

They are for a reason.

Within the past few days or so a driver (and his dog) were ejected from his jeep on the causeway over to Galveston Island from a high impact collision and apparently landed in the water below the bridge. The dog survived and he didn't. Not confirmed, but I suspect he wasn't wearing his seatbelt. Dog's are required to be "belted into" a vehicle as far as I know.

BTW: Customarily there are exemptions from the seat belt laws that have to do with physical/medical conditions. There are "exemptions' to the 2nd amendment ... and firing off rounds into the air in some designated areas of the country is one of them .... just like carrying a firearm in certain circumstances is as well .... and they have been "tested" (or contested if you please) in court.

Would it "impress" your date to see you get hauled off to jail? Originally Posted by LexusLover

Interesting, thanks for that. If you're so inclined, any thoughts you'd have about post #81 and Hedonist's reply in post #84 above would be informative.



You know my type: https://www.eccie.net/showpost.php?p...7&postcount=54

She was ghetto. She probably would have been impressed. Originally Posted by Tiny

#1: If one looks at State Constitutions (particularly in the Southern (as per Confideracy days*) states) there are provisions consistent with the initial Bill of Rights which are enforceable so long as the enforcement doesn't fall below "Federal standards" for protections AND PLUS the 14th Amendment applies the Federal Standards to the States ... as a MINIMUM ... meaning states can assert higher thresholds of freedom ... as opposed to more restrictive standards.

[*The "bill of rights" in State constitutions was a push back against Reconstruction Days when state's rights advocates pushed provisions in their State Constitutions to protect them from carpet baggers dictating things for them to do. That's why so many state positions are elected .... judges for instance ... in the Constitutions and enabling legislation. Retains those positions in voters.)

#2: The SCOTUS has historically left many matters for state control and kept the Feds out of the State's business. FYI: Some of the standards with respect to LE being discussed today may fall into that category once they are crafted, published, and adopted by the Feds.....who can tie it to funding grants as a requirement, but may not be able to require them otherwise.

The "Supremacy Clause" has historically been applied to matters that are considered within the Federal jurisdiction, which admittedly has broadened over the years, but has limitations historically with the SCOTUS telling Congress "hands off"!

Example: When the firearm registration and background checks were imposed on Sheriff's and their departments .... and the Sheriff's pushed back .... so they weren't REQUIRED to do them, since Congress had no authority to do so. Sheriff's in Texas (and other states where elected) answer to the voters and not Congress .... they may do so as an accommodation, but that is distinctly different than a Congressional mandate.

Another example is the Federal mandate with respect to health insurance. Congress can't. So Congress imposed a "tax" if you don't, which was cheaper than paying premiums after ObaminableCare drove the premiums through the roof!

If you noticed Trump deferred to the State's (Governors) with respect to a lot of the Covid19 "requirements" as opposed to ordering the Governors to do shit. All Trump said is if they don't do this he would do that....that's not ordering them to do shit.

As for seat belts .... my observation is that unless the officer just wants a reason to do a traffic stop the "seat belt" law is rarely enforced as a moving traffic matter ... an inquiry is made after a collision and reported on the collision report for stats and an officer might add the offense to a citation to "pour it on," but ..... it's not enforced that much by itself.

Glad of it Tiny - too many injuries and fatalities from falling bullets on holidays. Originally Posted by oeb11

Outside this country I've been in places where you can hear the lead hitting the ground and water. Do some math on "launch" to "landing" as far as the potential impact.

The impact made by a bullet is influenced by the bullet diameter and weight, as well as its speed. Understanding the relationship among these variables allows the shooter to choose the proper combination of firearm and ammunition best suited for a specific purpose.

https://sciencing.com/calculate-bull...t-6951380.html

And in what direction to shoot! Everything that goes up comes down in some form or another.

One will have to determine the speed of the bullet when it arrives back to "Earth"! The weight and size should be the same as when it left the muzzle, unless it strikes an object on the way back down ... which could also modify the speed and angle ... along with the shape and weight. But theoretically assume it fell "cleanly" as the worst case scenario.