New Jersey Follows NYC with idiotic laws. Dog owners beware

[canvasbck]

We don't need more government intervention but you have to look at it this way too that there are a lot of people that drive with dogs in their laps or hanging on them. That makes a road hazard to the rest of us. The last thing I want to worry about is some blue hair having her little labra doddle clawing her already weak shaky arms and hands while she is plowing I-35 so little pookey can get his anal glands expressed.

For the people that drive around with a dog in the back of the truck. The man says I only seen one brought in to the vets office… well yea the rest were road pizza. They usually don’t make it and when they do fall out it makes a heck of a road bump and the people behind him are the ones that have to swerve to avoid the animal and that puts them in danger
So IF not for the safety of the animal maybe for the other people that share the road

Nor do I want to have to worry about the teenager who must answer her latest text because "OMG, bobby dumped Sally", Or the dude craining his neck to see the hot chick walking down the seawall plows into folks waiting at the stop light. But I don't want laws FORCING behaviors.

Sooooooooooo many liberties are lost when we start trying to pass laws just to protect people from their own or other people's stupidity. You do realize that (overall, not just traffic accidents) when people get hurt, 95% of the time it is because they did something themselves to cause the accident. Only about 4% of the time they get hurt from someone else doing something to them. The other 1%...........stuff just happened.

[VMI77]

....but I can only respond to what is written.

Understood. Had to clarify. Comparing someone to Bloomberg... well, those are fighting words!

Yeah, that was probably going too far, and I apologize.

[barstoolguru]

We don't need more government intervention but you have to look at it this way too that there are a lot of people that drive with dogs in their laps or hanging on them. That makes a road hazard to the rest of us. The last thing I want to worry about is some blue hair having her little labra doddle clawing her already weak shaky arms and hands while she is plowing I-35 so little pookey can get his anal glands expressed.

For the people that drive around with a dog in the back of the truck. The man says I only seen one brought in to the vets office… well yea the rest were road pizza. They usually don’t make it and when they do fall out it makes a heck of a road bump and the people behind him are the ones that have to swerve to avoid the animal and that puts them in danger
So IF not for the safety of the animal maybe for the other people that share the road

Nor do I want to have to worry about the teenager who must answer her latest text because "OMG, bobby dumped Sally", Or the dude craining his neck to see the hot chick walking down the seawall plows into folks waiting at the stop light. But I don't want laws FORCING behaviors.

Sooooooooooo many liberties are lost when we start trying to pass laws just to protect people from their own or other people's stupidity. You do realize that (overall, not just traffic accidents) when people get hurt, 95% of the time it is because they did something themselves to cause the accident. Only about 4% of the time they get hurt from someone else doing something to them. The other 1%...........stuff just happened.

It’s a crying shame we need laws to regulate the population but they are needed because as the world gets more complicated it is needed or otherwise we would have a lawless sociality. Before the car was invented we had no need for laws regulating them then the first man was run over and then the laws to protect the citizen from the sloppy driver.

you mention the man rubbernecking a woman; there will never be a law to stop that because you can’t prove it. Texting...if it was never invented we wouldn't need a law to say you can't do it while driving. Common sense says it dangerous but yet 10 of thousands do it every day and cause accident and people get hurt. so yes there needs to be a law against it because people can't be trusted.

Same with dogs in cars... why should they not be strapped down... why? You have to have a seat belt, your kids have to have a child safety seat? But your dog can just run around the vehicle and be an obstruction while you are driving.
Your right it’s only a problem IF YOU get run over. If someone else gets hit because of their dog it’s OK because it’s not you.
REmember driving is a privilege and it’s not your constitutional right

[chasfm11]

This is how we get all of those stupid "no tolerance" laws.

...because were are trying to pass laws to fix "stupid". That is not possible.

[barstoolguru]

Nor do I want to have to worry about the teenager who must answer her latest text because "OMG, bobby dumped Sally",

they are working on it :
http://gma.yahoo.com/massachusetts-teen ... ories.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Massachusetts Teen Aaron Deveau Found Guilty in Landmark Texting While Driving Case

[i8godzilla]

It is about power and control and then a revenue source. Can you imagine campaigning on a platform of refusing to pass any more laws? When people and the press stopped laughing, you would be questioned about your mental capacity. No, it is, "I can make a change!" The only way to really change things in Free Society is take away some freedoms. If we really live in a free county, EVERY LAW PASSED REMOVES SOME FREEDOM. If it is really about safety, then do away with fines and make jail time mandatory. What would happen to your city, county, or the state, if every driver was safe and no one got a ticket for a week? Can you say budget shortfall? A few years ago when I still lived in the DFW metro I remember the mayor to Dallas going on TV and all but crying because the latest traffic warrant round-up did bring in the money the city needed. The city went out on a Friday and arrested as many people they could find with outstanding warrants. Those that could not pay as soon as they got to the jail were required to stay all weekend until they could go in front of a judge/magistrate on Monday. In almost every case the judge sentenced the people to time served. Three days in jail seems fair for failure to make a complete stop, speeding, illegal parking, ect. But oh no, it actually ended up costing the city money in overtime and other expenses and this twit was complaining that it did not yield the city the money they needed. Safety? Give me a break. It is Power, Control, and Revenue.

[WildBill]

It is about power and control and then a revenue source. Can you imagine campaigning on a platform of refusing to pass any more laws? When people and the press stopped laughing, you would be questioned about your mental capacity.

I always thought it would be good if a candidate ran on a platform where he promised to repeal two laws for every new one that was passed.

[chasfm11]

It is about power and control and then a revenue source. Can you imagine campaigning on a platform of refusing to pass any more laws? When people and the press stopped laughing, you would be questioned about your mental capacity.

I always thought it would be good if a candidate ran on a platform where he promised to repeal two laws for every new one that was passed.

How about another suggestion? Congress could pass laws that were effective for only 5 years with a simple majority. To make a law effective for 10 years, 2/3s of both the House and the Senate would be required.

This process would require the everything be renewed and we could force the current members of Congress to stand up and be counted on votes to continue programs rather than simply ignoring them and allowing them to perpetuate. My guess is that the tax code would be down to 5 pages in less than 10 years.

[VMI77]

We don't need more government intervention but you have to look at it this way too that there are a lot of people that drive with dogs in their laps or hanging on them. That makes a road hazard to the rest of us. The last thing I want to worry about is some blue hair having her little labra doddle clawing her already weak shaky arms and hands while she is plowing I-35 so little pookey can get his anal glands expressed.

For the people that drive around with a dog in the back of the truck. The man says I only seen one brought in to the vets office… well yea the rest were road pizza. They usually don’t make it and when they do fall out it makes a heck of a road bump and the people behind him are the ones that have to swerve to avoid the animal and that puts them in danger
So IF not for the safety of the animal maybe for the other people that share the road

Nor do I want to have to worry about the teenager who must answer her latest text because "OMG, bobby dumped Sally", Or the dude craining his neck to see the hot chick walking down the seawall plows into folks waiting at the stop light. But I don't want laws FORCING behaviors.

Sooooooooooo many liberties are lost when we start trying to pass laws just to protect people from their own or other people's stupidity. You do realize that (overall, not just traffic accidents) when people get hurt, 95% of the time it is because they did something themselves to cause the accident. Only about 4% of the time they get hurt from someone else doing something to them. The other 1%...........stuff just happened.

It’s a crying shame we need laws to regulate the population but they are needed because as the world gets more complicated it is needed or otherwise we would have a lawless sociality. Before the car was invented we had no need for laws regulating them then the first man was run over and then the laws to protect the citizen from the sloppy driver.

you mention the man rubbernecking a woman; there will never be a law to stop that because you can’t prove it. Texting...if it was never invented we wouldn't need a law to say you can't do it while driving. Common sense says it dangerous but yet 10 of thousands do it every day and cause accident and people get hurt. so yes there needs to be a law against it because people can't be trusted.

Same with dogs in cars... why should they not be strapped down... why? You have to have a seat belt, your kids have to have a child safety seat? But your dog can just run around the vehicle and be an obstruction while you are driving.
Your right it’s only a problem IF YOU get run over. If someone else gets hit because of their dog it’s OK because it’s not you.
REmember driving is a privilege and it’s not your constitutional right

Wow...there's so much wrong with this attitude I don't know where to start.

In the first place, no, more laws are not what's needed, individual responsibility is what's needed. Laws are more about punishment than prevention. You can't fix stupid with a law. Law's don't reduce complexity, they increase it. Furthermore, your complexity argument is false, pretty much across the board, and especially as it regards motor vehicles. Cars are much easier to operate now than they used to be. They may represent more complicated systems, but that complexity is irrelevant to the average person driving a car.

I also reject this "driving is a privilege" nonsense. If you'd been alive back when the Constitution was being written I suppose you have said "riding a horse is a privilege." That's the Statist baloney pitched in the public schools. I have a right to travel. The notion that my right to travel is limited to the distance I can walk is absurd. I absolutely have the right to drive my own car on my own property; and I submit that I also have a right to drive my own car on "public" roads that I've been FORCED to pay for. Yes, I realize that as a practical matter the Statist claptrap has prevailed but I'm speaking to a matter of principle. If the anti's prevail and succeed in banning guns it won't change the fact that I have a right to own guns and defend myself, though there will be practical consequences for doing so.

Your contention that there needs to be laws against everything because people can't be trusted not only almost leaves me speechless, but is downright scary. Philosophers have written books about this, and I'm not up for writing one myself, so I'll just quote a few of the past greats:

Ralph Waldo Emerson:

Hence, the less government we have, the better,—the fewer laws, and the less confided power. The antidote to this abuse of formal Government, is, the influence of private character, the growth of the Individual; the appearance of the principal to supersede the proxy; the appearance of the wise man, of whom the existing government, is, it must be owned, but a shabby imitation.

Winston Churchill:

If you have 10,000 regulations,you destroy all respect for law.

Martin Luther King:

We can never forget that everything Adolf Hitler did in Germany was “legal” and everything the Hungarian freedom fighters did in Hungary was “illegal.”

William O Douglas:

The Constitution is not neutral. It was designed to take the government off the backs of people.

Thomas Bracket Reed:

One of the greatest delusions in the world is the hope that the evils in this world are to be cured by legislation

Thomas Jefferson:

Rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others. I do not add ‘within the limits of the law’, because law is often but the tyrant’s will, and always so when it violates the rights of the individual.

Thomas Sowell:

When your response to everything that is wrong with the world is to say, ‘there ought to be a law,’ you are saying that you hold freedom very cheap.

Lao Tsu:

The more laws and order are made prominent, the more thieves and robbers there will be.

William F. Buckley:

All that is good is not embodied in the law; and all that is evil is not proscribed by the law. A well-disciplined society needs few laws; but it needs strong mores.

Tacitus:

The more corrupt the state, the more laws

.

But this quote from Cicero is probably the most succient summation:

The more laws, the less justice.

[WildBill]

It is about power and control and then a revenue source. Can you imagine campaigning on a platform of refusing to pass any more laws? When people and the press stopped laughing, you would be questioned about your mental capacity.

I always thought it would be good if a candidate ran on a platform where he promised to repeal two laws for every new one that was passed.

How about another suggestion? Congress could pass laws that were effective for only 5 years with a simple majority. To make a law effective for 10 years, 2/3s of both the House and the Senate would be required.

This process would require the everything be renewed and we could force the current members of Congress to stand up and be counted on votes to continue programs rather than simply ignoring them and allowing them to perpetuate. My guess is that the tax code would be down to 5 pages in less than 10 years.

That's a novel approach.

[Oldgringo]

I'll have to go along with VMI77 on this matter.

Here's to you, uncle V:

[speedsix]

Puma Guy wrote:
I actually understand the emotional aspect of this issue. No one wants to see an animal harmed while riding in a car including myself. <SNIP>I say this because in all those years the number of dogs he treated as result of an injury received while riding in a vehicle was exactly 1. It was a pretty bad car wreck and the dog had a broken leg. Take it for whatever it's worth. <SNIP>

I agree. I have a big SUV and the dogs are free in the back. They enjoy our trips to the vet by pressing their noses to windows. I am responsible for safe, courteous driving. Restraining my dogs to give assurance to other drivers has never crossed my mind.

...think about it...with a dog's sensitivity to smell, they get used to identifying all the normal smells in their environment...a trip across town with their nose out the window must be sensory overload!!! There's KFC...and Whataburger, and Outback Steakhouse...and that Lassie look-alike out walking...

[speedsix]

We don't need more government intervention but you have to look at it this way too that there are a lot of people that drive with dogs in their laps or hanging on them. That makes a road hazard to the rest of us. The last thing I want to worry about is some blue hair having her little labra doddle clawing her already weak shaky arms and hands while she is plowing I-35 so little pookey can get his anal glands expressed.

For the people that drive around with a dog in the back of the truck. The man says I only seen one brought in to the vets office… well yea the rest were road pizza. They usually don’t make it and when they do fall out it makes a heck of a road bump and the people behind him are the ones that have to swerve to avoid the animal and that puts them in danger
So IF not for the safety of the animal maybe for the other people that share the road

...I spent 20 years in a place where if you didn't have a dog in the truck you couldn't vote...and never saw ONE dog stupid enough to jump/fall out and get hurt...I have written wreck reports on PEOPLE falling out of cars...and having wrecks doing everything from their nails to procreation while driving...we HAVE laws in place about driving while distracted...we don't need more...or anything ELSE NJ liberals come up with...shake up Jersey with KA and you still don't have anything that thinks for itself...

[speedsix]

We don't need more government intervention but you have to look at it this way too that there are a lot of people that drive with dogs in their laps or hanging on them. That makes a road hazard to the rest of us. The last thing I want to worry about is some blue hair having her little labra doddle clawing her already weak shaky arms and hands while she is plowing I-35 so little pookey can get his anal glands expressed.

For the people that drive around with a dog in the back of the truck. The man says I only seen one brought in to the vets office… well yea the rest were road pizza. They usually don’t make it and when they do fall out it makes a heck of a road bump and the people behind him are the ones that have to swerve to avoid the animal and that puts them in danger
So IF not for the safety of the animal maybe for the other people that share the road

Nor do I want to have to worry about the teenager who must answer her latest text because "OMG, bobby dumped Sally", Or the dude craining his neck to see the hot chick walking down the seawall plows into folks waiting at the stop light. But I don't want laws FORCING behaviors.

Sooooooooooo many liberties are lost when we start trying to pass laws just to protect people from their own or other people's stupidity. You do realize that (overall, not just traffic accidents) when people get hurt, 95% of the time it is because they did something themselves to cause the accident. Only about 4% of the time they get hurt from someone else doing something to them. The other 1%...........stuff just happened.

It’s a crying shame we need laws to regulate the population but they are needed because as the world gets more complicated it is needed or otherwise we would have a lawless sociality. Before the car was invented we had no need for laws regulating them then the first man was run over and then the laws to protect the citizen from the sloppy driver.

you mention the man rubbernecking a woman; there will never be a law to stop that because you can’t prove it. Texting...if it was never invented we wouldn't need a law to say you can't do it while driving. Common sense says it dangerous but yet 10 of thousands do it every day and cause accident and people get hurt. so yes there needs to be a law against it because people can't be trusted.

Same with dogs in cars... why should they not be strapped down... why? You have to have a seat belt, your kids have to have a child safety seat? But your dog can just run around the vehicle and be an obstruction while you are driving.
Your right it’s only a problem IF YOU get run over. If someone else gets hit because of their dog it’s OK because it’s not you.
REmember driving is a privilege and it’s not your constitutional right

Wow...there's so much wrong with this attitude I don't know where to start.

In the first place, no, more laws are not what's needed, individual responsibility is what's needed. Laws are more about punishment than prevention. You can't fix stupid with a law. Law's don't reduce complexity, they increase it. Furthermore, your complexity argument is false, pretty much across the board, and especially as it regards motor vehicles. Cars are much easier to operate now than they used to be. They may represent more complicated systems, but that complexity is irrelevant to the average person driving a car.

I also reject this "driving is a privilege" nonsense. If you'd been alive back when the Constitution was being written I suppose you have said "riding a horse is a privilege." That's the Statist baloney pitched in the public schools. I have a right to travel. The notion that my right to travel is limited to the distance I can walk is absurd. I absolutely have the right to drive my own car on my own property; and I submit that I also have a right to drive my own car on "public" roads that I've been FORCED to pay for. Yes, I realize that as a practical matter the Statist claptrap has prevailed but I'm speaking to a matter of principle. If the anti's prevail and succeed in banning guns it won't change the fact that I have a right to own guns and defend myself, though there will be practical consequences for doing so.

Your contention that there needs to be laws against everything because people can't be trusted not only almost leaves me speechless, but is downright scary. Philosophers have written books about this, and I'm not up for writing one myself, so I'll just quote a few of the past greats:

Ralph Waldo Emerson:

Hence, the less government we have, the better,—the fewer laws, and the less confided power. The antidote to this abuse of formal Government, is, the influence of private character, the growth of the Individual; the appearance of the principal to supersede the proxy; the appearance of the wise man, of whom the existing government, is, it must be owned, but a shabby imitation.

Winston Churchill:

If you have 10,000 regulations,you destroy all respect for law.

Martin Luther King:

We can never forget that everything Adolf Hitler did in Germany was “legal” and everything the Hungarian freedom fighters did in Hungary was “illegal.”

William O Douglas:

The Constitution is not neutral. It was designed to take the government off the backs of people.

Thomas Bracket Reed:

One of the greatest delusions in the world is the hope that the evils in this world are to be cured by legislation

Thomas Jefferson:

Rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others. I do not add ‘within the limits of the law’, because law is often but the tyrant’s will, and always so when it violates the rights of the individual.

Thomas Sowell:

When your response to everything that is wrong with the world is to say, ‘there ought to be a law,’ you are saying that you hold freedom very cheap.

Lao Tsu:

The more laws and order are made prominent, the more thieves and robbers there will be.

William F. Buckley:

All that is good is not embodied in the law; and all that is evil is not proscribed by the law. A well-disciplined society needs few laws; but it needs strong mores.

Tacitus:

The more corrupt the state, the more laws

.

But this quote from Cicero is probably the most succient summation:

The more laws, the less justice.

...I don't remember a lot from school...but this I do: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laissez-fa ... the_phrase" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; this country became great because gov't for the most part LEFT US ALONE to solve our own problems and create our own wealth...the more they've "helped" us...the worse it's gotten...


...even our Creator shows us that less laws work better...from the original ten, He boiled them down to two, which, if lived from the heart, will satisfy the ten anyways...and was constantly at odds with the "establishment" for the dozens of little laws and regulations which they added that did nothing except "create" power over the masses and burden the people...