gcg

I agree. Reading the links posted in the first reply, it seems that the considerations are all about preventing auxilary lights from being shined in the eyes of an oncoming driver. It's hard to argue with this. It doesn't seem out of control or communistic, as described earlier. It seems more like a common sense safety precaution, probably brought about by people with off road lights acting irresponsibily and using them on the street.

F5driver

CA was the land of Regan - what happened? Now what we have is a state that is so far to the left that law-a-biding citizens cannot even own a fine rifle like a AR-15. What happened to basic American freedom? I grew up in SOCAL but I'll be dammed if I ever return given the current political situation in the golden state. CA, the land where only the bad guys can own guns.

RiggerMike

Edit Edit Edit

jsherman

it is fine and dandy to not blame the leo - he is doing his job.

but this is a silly ******* law. if the lights are on, then hell yeah, pull them over and ticket the **** out of them. the liberal state of california is the problem. this law is just one example of the politicians enacting legislature because they can - because the millions of liberals that live in california.

MJK from Tool: (read his lyrics and pray for "arizona bay")
http://www.seeklyrics.com/lyrics/Tool/Aenima.html

RiggerMike

Edit Edit Edit

Phishjeep

Well, then make it illegal to have them on. You can accomplish the same thing without making people use covers.

The law is the same in Virginia. I just sent back my pillar lights because I don't like the look of covers.

gcg

Conservatives crack me up! Yes, all of you law and order types - string 'em up, smoke 'em out, bring it on, wanted dead or alive! Oh, gosh, you are so tough on crime.

And then one simple little law that you don't like - remember, law and order types , it's the law - and you are off whining, whining, whining. Oh, it's the liberals fault. It's California's fault, it's the commies' fault. It's anybody's fault but my own. I've got a news flash for you. It's your fault. You disobeyed the law. The law is the law, remember. That law is probably there because you were flashing your off road lights at someone you thought was a liberal.

It is just one small law that has some common sense behind it. If you guys weren't out there shining your offroad lights in someone's face because they pissed you off, the law probably would never have come about. Act irresponsibly and you may not like the way the rest of society reacts. If you want a polite society, then act politely to others (it doesn't come about by tucking a gun into every waist band, as someone suggested - that's the most senseless argument I've ever heard).

Of course, whenever any argument comes up, the conservatives take the opportunity to start whining in chorus: I can't carry my gun (what does this possibly have to do with covering off road lights). If only I could carry my gun it would be OK. I wanna carry my gun. If I don't carry my gun then only the bad guys will be able to carry their guns. But on the other hand, as stated above, we have lots of road rage, sometimes involving weapons, so let me have more weapons on the road and that will solve everything. The conservative arguments are all so confusing.

Conservatives, why not adopt some reasonable principles and then just stick to them. You are all over the map and your arguments don't hold water.

And yes, I am a liberal.

RiggerMike

Edit Edit Edit

gcg

The "your" in my post was general and was not meant to refer to you personally. It takes more than one guy and one incident for a law to become necessary.

And, again, I did not mean you personally.


Yes it would. It should be a goal for all of us. Things would work a lot smoother for all of us.


I understand your point but think it is absolutely the wrong solution. Creating a society where everyone carries a gun to try and scare others into politeness is just a huge step back in time, and it doesn't work. In my opinion, all that will happen is that even more people will be killed. People will still disagree and many of the arguments will be settled by gunfire. Someone will lose. To me a better approach is to work for the day when no one feels the need to carry a gun for protection. That would be true progress. Advocating for more guns is advocating for a return to the days of the cowboy. I'd rather move forward, not backward. Just my opinion.

If more weapons made people more polite, improved their behavior and made us all safer, as the gun crowd often advocates, shouldn't we be issuing guns to all airline passengers to make the flights safer? And shouldn't we be encouraging all nations to have nuclear weapons, the more the better. Wouldn't that make the entire world more polite and ensure all of our safety, according to the argument?


If you're interested in the erosion of personal liberties, look no farther than the warrantless wire taps, reading of personal emails, sweeping folks off the street and holding them without charges or access to a lawyer, extraordinary rendition, etc. These, to me, are much more serious.

I'd like to know why the gun advocates feel their personal liberties have been eroded. You can have your guns today pretty much without restriction. On the other hand, to drive a car you have to be schooled, tested , licensed and policed. Why? Because irresponsible driving is (rightfully) viewed as a potential danger to society. However, with a gun, which is probably more dangerous, the advocates argue strenously that they don't want to be registered, don't want to be tested, don't want to be licensed, don't want any kind of control or oversight at all. To my knowledge, you can do pretty much anything you want with a very dangerous weapon. So where is the big erosion. Isn't it more paranoia?


Yes. And our goal should be to work to get rid of them so that no one has to carry one. Let me ask you a question. If there were no bad guys with guns, would you give up all of yours (assuming you have them)? Or is it more that you just want them for some other reason and the bad guy is just a convenient argument. My numbers may be a little wrong, but the last time I checked, an individual with a gun in the house is 10 times more likely to kill a loved one than an intruder.

You're certainly correct there. For example (just one, I have a million of them), the conservatives always talk about a "culture of life" and then support the death penalty and an illegal war responsible for 600,000 innocent Iraqi deaths and 3600 American deaths. I have a "culture of life" but I consistently disagree with war and the death penalty because I live by the principle, not by the sound bite. I simply don't understand. As I heard someone say, it appears that for conservatives, life begins at conception and ends at birth.


I agree with your statement regarding politeness and respect. If I offended you personally, then I apologize for that. There is very little politeness left these days. Just read the posts that preceeded mine. A man gets a ticket for breaking the law and one of the first replies trashes the entire state and pretty much everyone in it.

I might also respectfully suggest that your experience in the jail system may have given you a somewhat negative view of society that might not reflect the general experience. I'm nearly 60 years old and have never once run into a situation where I needed or wanted a gun. I have never run into a gang member or a criminal that threatened me. I'm not saying that I couldn't, just that in a life that sometimes seems way too long, I haven't yet. So do I want to live my life, every day, being afraid and having to "pack heat" (as one guy put it)? I don't think so. I'm a lot more at risk of dying from a car accident or any one of a thousand other things.

Respectfully,

Flame away.

RiggerMike

Edit Edit Edit