Quote:
Originally Posted by Lou_Dorchen
There is a difference and I didn't say there wasnt. I said if we use the 'public safety' argument to advocate more laws, bans, etc then there can be alot more liberties we enjoy related to our cars that can be taken away using that logic. And you cannot say that will not happen. If I told people 20 years ago the Government would be outlawing certain foods and drinks under the guise of protecting us from ourselves I would have been called a crackpot back then, but I would have proven right.
|
I think this boils down to a difference in opinion on what you have the right to do in public areas where the government has built OUR roads. What foods have been outlawed that weren't proven to be harmful? Are you suggesting that we should not regulate the food industry?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lou_Dorchen
LMAO at you putting in "extremely"! Yeah, the Founders gave us the right to pursue happiness only in things we extremely enjoy. And no, the Founders did not say we should give up our liberties if its balanced with facts.
|
I don't believe the founders statement meant they wanted a lawless society. Is a Stop sign necessary to negotiate traffic? No, people could potentially drive around and not need stop signs. However regulations were established to put up stop signs and fine people for ignoring them. Those regulations were established because it has been proven that stop signs improve safety and save lives.