Senate targets texting in new 'distracted driving' program [Archive] - Glock Talk

PDA

View Full Version : Senate targets texting in new 'distracted driving' program


snerd
06-14-2012, 22:20
It's coming, I tell ya.
According to the report language, the bill would pull $10 million, or roughly 20 percent, out of a federal program that offers "safety belt performance grants" to states, and use that money to create a new "distracted driver incentive" grant program. The report says the money would be given to states that "enact and enforce laws to prevent distracted driving with a focus on texting bans."

http://thehill.com/blogs/floor-action/senate/187907-senate-targets-texting-in-new-distracted-driving-program

barbedwiresmile
06-15-2012, 04:29
The real problem in America today is texting while driving.

Glock30Eric
06-15-2012, 04:53
The real problem in America today is texting while driving.

The problem is the Americans aren't taking any of responsibilities for himself; texting while driving is one of it.


Outdoor Hub mobile, the outdoor information engine

JBnTX
06-15-2012, 07:47
The real problem in America today is texting while driving.


It's a real problem on America's highways.

There's only 2 solutions to this problem:

1. Drivers must voluntarily become more responsible and pay attention to their driving.

2. Laws must be passed and enforced to "encourage" them to pay attention and drive responsible.

If you know of any other solution, let's hear it?

kirgi08
06-15-2012, 10:57
State issue.'08.

barbedwiresmile
06-15-2012, 10:58
It's a real problem on America's highways.

There's only 2 solutions to this problem:

1. Drivers must voluntarily become more responsible and pay attention to their driving.

2. Laws must be passed and enforced to "encourage" them to pay attention and drive responsible.

If you know of any other solution, let's hear it?

Stop wasting resources trying to modify behavior. Prosecute property crimes with more-than-adequate existing laws. Crash into someone, pay the price. A government that monitors behavior, rather than result, is not something thoughtful people desire.

JBnTX
06-15-2012, 11:04
... A government that monitors behavior, rather than result, is not something thoughtful people desire.


The anarchist is strong in barbedwiresmile. :rofl:

Laws against distracted driving save lives.
Thoughtful people want their lives saved.

They don't care about the punishment of distracted drivers after they've already killed their family members.

They want the distracted driver stopped BEFORE they destroy property and kill people.

That's what thoughtful people desire.

..

kirgi08
06-15-2012, 11:10
Darwin will handle the problem,it's not a fed issue.'08.

Glock30Eric
06-15-2012, 11:13
The anarchist is strong in barbedwiresmile. :rofl:

Laws against distracted driving save lives.
Thoughtful people want their lives saved.

They don't care about the punishment of distracted drivers after they've already killed their family members.

They want the distracted driver stopped BEFORE they destroy property and kill people.

That's what thoughtful people desire.

..

Sometime a law couldn't do anything, for example, everyone is speeding over 55 mph. Therefore, why don't a police department to pull everyone that is driving over 55 mph? If a police department could enforce that law 100% and then it could have the effect on us.

We need to impose a rigor standard test to obtain a driving license, so they could pay respect to have the privilege to drive a car.

IMO, all states shouldn't issue a license to anyone without training of a manual shift lesson, speeding over 100 mph with a crap car (to teach them driving a crap car in high speed isn’t fun), braking course, race a car against a qualifying time in a racing circuit (so they could learn how to corner well with a car), drive high speed and cornering on a wet road, understand how a car functions, understanding how to maintenance a car, and they must always drive on right lane unless they have to pass a car in front of him.

aspartz
06-15-2012, 11:17
Laws against firearms save lives.
Thoughtful people want their lives saved.

..
Fixed it for you.

Freedom seems to be abhorrent to you.

ARS

Goaltender66
06-15-2012, 11:21
The anarchist is strong in barbedwiresmile. :rofl:

Laws against distracted driving save lives.
Thoughtful people want their lives saved.

They don't care about the punishment of distracted drivers after they've already killed their family members.

They want the distracted driver stopped BEFORE they destroy property and kill people.

That's what thoughtful people desire.

..
Gotta take up for BWS here, if only to wonder how a law against distracted driving is effectively enforced prior to the behavior resulting in damage or injury.

UtahIrishman
06-15-2012, 11:24
Texting while driving has all the hallmarks of addiction. The behavior is reinforced in a positive manner for the user the majority of the time. The downside is the negative consequences when things don't go as planned by the user. These are the same addiction challenges that those addicted to alcohol and drugs face.

No easy answers here. Prosecute the same as drunk driving and education to stop the practice. I have a feeling we'll be seeing more texting while driving accidents before people learn.

JBnTX
06-15-2012, 11:45
Fixed it for you.

Freedom seems to be abhorrent to you.

ARS


Doesn't that violate the forums ROS, altering another person's post?

I didn't say or even imply anything about firearms.

This thread has nothing to do with firearms, and for you to imply that I'm anti-gun is just plain wrong and deceitful.

Freedom means far more to me than it does to you.
Freedom comes with sacrifices and responsibilities, of which you probably know nothing about.

Laws are required in a civilized society.
Without laws we're all just a bunch of animals wearing clothes.

In the future speak for yourself, not me.

..

Gundude
06-15-2012, 12:32
Doesn't that violate the forums ROS, altering another person's post?

I didn't say or even imply anything about firearms.

This thread has nothing to do with firearms, and for you to imply that I'm anti-gun is just plain wrong and deceitful.The thread does have something to do with firearms, because the arguments to ban firearms are the same ones you make to ban texting while driving. The more you encourage bans on things you don't like ("for safety's sake"), the more bans will "magically" appear on things you do like ("for safety's sake").

G-19
06-15-2012, 12:49
http://www.edgarsnyder.com/car-accident/cell-phone/statistics.html

Yeah, no reason to ban texting and driving.

G-19
06-15-2012, 12:56
The thread does have something to do with firearms, because the arguments to ban firearms are the same ones you make to ban texting while driving. The more you encourage bans on things you don't like ("for safety's sake"), the more bans will "magically" appear on things you do like ("for safety's sake").

I went and scanned my copy of the Constitution and the the 2nd Amendment covers our guns, but can't find anything that secures the right to text while driving.

JBnTX
06-15-2012, 13:58
http://www.edgarsnyder.com/car-accident/cell-phone/statistics.html

Yeah, no reason to ban texting and driving.


The anarchists (like Gundude) responding to this thread need to check out that link.

...and no firearms were involved in any of those accidents.:rofl:

..

JBnTX
06-15-2012, 14:02
... The more you encourage bans on things you don't like ("for safety's sake"), the more bans will "magically" appear on things you do like ("for safety's sake").

That makes absolutely no sense.

"magically"? Really?

Gundude
06-15-2012, 14:20
I went and scanned my copy of the Constitution and the the 2nd Amendment covers our guns, but can't find anything that secures the right to text while driving.So anything that isn't explicitly mentioned in the Constitution is fair game? Is that how it was designed?

Gundude
06-15-2012, 14:23
That makes absolutely no sense.

"magically"? Really?No, not magically, the quotes were there to give a hint at the sarcasm. It happens as a direct result of people supporting bans on things they don't like or are scared of. When you are one of those people, you're part of the problem.

GAFinch
06-15-2012, 14:49
There's already a ban here in Georgia. Two points:

1. It seems good in theory, but people end up trying to use their phone down in their lap where it's not visible instead of up next to the steering wheel, thus taking people's eyes off the road even more. There's already been a study (http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Society/2010/0928/Bans-on-texting-while-driving-don-t-reduce-crashes-study-says) showing no reduction in accidents or even an increase after these bans.

2. Texting/cell phone use bans ignore women doing makeup in the mirror, people eating, messing with car radios, dealing with unruly babies and kids, messing with GPS systems, etc.

JBnTX
06-15-2012, 14:52
2. Texting/cell phone use bans ignore women doing makeup in the mirror, people eating, messing with car radios, dealing with unruly babies and kids, messing with GPS systems, etc.

The bans are on distracted driving and include all that you mentioned.

aspartz
06-15-2012, 14:58
So anything that isn't explicitly mentioned in the Constitution is fair game? Is that how it was designed?
That is how the authoritarians on both the left and right interpret the Constitution, yet both vilify the other for having that position.

If the government is not given the power to regulate something in the COTUS, such regulation is forbidden.

The COTUS is an exhaustive list of the powers of the Government, if it ain't there, the government can't do it.

The COTUS is a non-exhaustive list of the rights of free people.

ARS

10-32
06-15-2012, 15:04
What's sad is that these "nanny state" laws need to be passed in order for (largely) ADULTS to (hopefully) do the right thing.

Seat belt laws, helmet laws, cell phone/texting/distracted driver laws, leash laws, pick up your dog's poop laws, the list goes on and on.

What the heck happened to our society? Do we all miss being children so badly that we advocate for the government to take the place of our parents? I mean apparently in NYC we have already been told that we cannot have a big boy soda pop and that's okay?

It's a shame. Not even so much that these ridiculous laws are being put into place (though I find that to be an embarrassment), but that we as a society feel we NEED to looked after and supervised in every aspect of our daily lives. What's going to happen when there are no more self-reliant, responsible ADULTS left in this country?

cowboywannabe
06-15-2012, 15:12
driving is a priveledge. dont like the penalty for getting caught texting while driving? then dont text while driving?

at least this law will force inept drivers to look up and scan for cops while they are texting as opposed to condition white behind the wheel.

Ruble Noon
06-15-2012, 17:21
The real problem in America today is texting while driving.

And talking on your phone while driving apparently.

U.S. Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood called on Thursday for a federal law to ban talking on a cell phone or texting while driving any type of vehicle on any road in the country.


http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/04/27/usa-driving-idUSL2E8FQOK820120427

certifiedfunds
06-15-2012, 20:50
It's a real problem on America's highways.

There's only 2 solutions to this problem:

1. Drivers must voluntarily become more responsible and pay attention to their driving.

2. Laws must be passed and enforced to "encourage" them to pay attention and drive responsible.

If you know of any other solution, let's hear it?

Yeah, you're not a Progressive.........:upeyes:

Ban texting, radios, speaking, eating, smoking....oh and reaching for things you dropped. New cars required to have a soundproof plexiglass bubble to insulate the driver from all outside influences.

Posted from my iphone while driving

countrygun
06-15-2012, 21:18
"distracted legislating" is a greater danger.

JBnTX
06-15-2012, 21:18
Yeah, you're not a Progressive.........:upeyes:

Ban texting, radios, speaking, eating, smoking....oh and reaching for things you dropped. New cars required to have a soundproof plexiglass bubble to insulate the driver from all outside influences.

Posted from my iphone while driving

OK, let's just do away with all traffic laws and regulations.

No speed limits, no helmet or seatbelt laws, no insurance requirements,
no DWI laws and text all you want while driving.

Is this want you prefer?

countrygun
06-15-2012, 21:28
That is how the authoritarians on both the left and right interpret the Constitution, yet both vilify the other for having that position.

If the government is not given the power to regulate something in the COTUS, such regulation is forbidden.

The COTUS is an exhaustive list of the powers of the Government, if it ain't there, the government can't do it.

The COTUS is a non-exhaustive list of the rights of free people.

ARS

Not quite correct. In the BOR the Founders were clear, for instance to explicitly prohibit ONLY Congress from action in the First Amendment rights. Other rights in the BOR therefore are protected from any form of Government. This actually affirms the fact that the States, as per example of the 1st ammendment, are capable of things prohibited to the Federal Government. And, bear in mind, the Founders established a FEDERAL Government, not a NATIONAL Government. States are free to have different laws and regulations. Hence, different "blue laws" across the Country concerning alcohol. One should not make the mistake of refering to all levels as "THE government"

TheExplorer
06-15-2012, 21:31
It's a problem that will never go away. I would first make talking and texting a primary offense. But instead of a $25 fine, send people to a mandatory DE class like they do for people who want to lower their points.

JBnTX
06-15-2012, 21:35
It's a problem that will never go away. I would first make talking and texting a primary offense. But instead of a $25 fine, send people to a mandatory DE class like they do for people who want to lower their points.


You must be a progressive who loves big government and hates the constitution?

There should be no laws preventing a person from exercising their God given freedoms on the highway.

:rofl:

TheExplorer
06-15-2012, 21:42
You must be a progressive who loves big government and hates the constitution?

There should be no laws preventing a person from exercising their God given freedoms on the highway.

:rofl:


Ouch.

Education is the only way you can teach people the inherent dangers of talking and texting. Who cares about a $25 fine? We have the laws by me and they are secondary offenses, so the cops can't really do anything.

JBnTX
06-15-2012, 22:10
Ouch.

Education is the only way you can teach people the inherent dangers of talking and texting. Who cares about a $25 fine? We have the laws by me and they are secondary offenses, so the cops can't really do anything.

I'm just trying to be funny by giving you the answers the anarchists give me.

10-32
06-15-2012, 22:19
I'm just trying to be funny by giving you the answers the anarchists give me.

It's not working

JBnTX
06-15-2012, 22:23
It's not working

Tough crowd tonight....:tongueout:

countrygun
06-15-2012, 22:27
So anything that isn't explicitly mentioned in the Constitution is fair game? Is that how it was designed?

The Constitution doesn't mention nuclear weapons or nerve gas but I am pretty sure I don't want the guy down the street being able to pick them up at wal-mart.

I am also fairly sure I would be a lot happier if some steps were taken to keep a texting driver from slamming in to my wife and daughter on their way to the store, than I would be seeing the other driver punished after the fact.

folks, it's a public road not your backyard.

10-32
06-15-2012, 23:01
Tough crowd tonight....:tongueout:

:supergrin:


I'd like to ask a general and open question:

How do we keep ourselves out of the "nanny state" while maintaining good order?

There seems to be an overwhelming lack of personal responsibility in this country, which is leading to these laws being made to enforce what should be common sense behavior.

Where's the happy medium and how do we get there? Is there a bud that can be nipped? Am I grossly oversimplifying?

countrygun
06-15-2012, 23:34
:supergrin:


I'd like to ask a general and open question:

How do we keep ourselves out of the "nanny state" while maintaining good order?

There seems to be an overwhelming lack of personal responsibility in this country, which is leading to these laws being made to enforce what should be common sense behavior.

Where's the happy medium and how do we get there? Is there a bud that can be nipped? Am I grossly oversimplifying?


actually a very good question, unfortunately it leads me to a statement that I am sure will draw fire.


All of the "Personal Freedom" crowd, in this day and age, are dealing with the same shortcomming as the "nanny State" folks. They both have an too much idealism and an over abundance of optimism about human nature.
Nanny State crowd lives with the belief that Government is here to help us and protect us and that those powers would never be abused or that if we give Government the power to watch over us we will still have the power to watch over government. Hasn't happened in the world yet.

The Personel Freedom club is overlooking the very real fact that, while in earlier times it was a great notion, there have been a few generations now that have grown up without a sense of responsibility, The club tends to overlook this little detail since it obviously doesn't apply to them or their friends, but it does apply to a whole big bunch of our society. If the fetters were suddenly removed a huge portion of our society would be out of control.

Perhaps some day we will be able to return to the world of complete responsibility but 'till then complete freedom is best kept in a trust account until the beneficiarys are able to handle it. I don't know when that would be, just that now isn't it.

10-32
06-15-2012, 23:54
actually a very good question, unfortunately it leads me to a statement that I am sure will draw fire.


All of the "Personal Freedom" crowd, in this day and age, are dealing with the same shortcomming as the "nanny State" folks. They both have an too much idealism and an over abundance of optimism about human nature.
Nanny State crowd lives with the belief that Government is here to help us and protect us and that those powers would never be abused or that if we give Government the power to watch over us we will still have the power to watch over government. Hasn't happened in the world yet.

The Personel Freedom club is overlooking the very real fact that, while in earlier times it was a great notion, there have been a few generations now that have grown up without a sense of responsibility, The club tends to overlook this little detail since it obviously doesn't apply to them or their friends, but it does apply to a whole big bunch of our society. If the fetters were suddenly removed a huge portion of our society would be out of control.

Perhaps some day we will be able to return to the world of complete responsibility but 'till then complete freedom is best kept in a trust account until the beneficiarys are able to handle it. I don't know when that would be, just that now isn't it.

Well said. Not terribly encouraging though, is it?

janice6
06-15-2012, 23:54
Soon they will realize that the only reliable way to get rid of "texting" car accidents, is to get rid of cars....

It will dawn on them, just like everything else, that is "common sense and good for the country and the right thing to do".

countrygun
06-16-2012, 00:17
Well said. Not terribly encouraging though, is it?


Well in a way it is much less difficult than the task the Founding Fathers had. We have their blueprint in place, we just have to re-animate the responsibility part. Start with your City Council, yoour County Commisssion, your school board, your children, neighbors, clubs groups and yourself. Become a model of responsibility and bring it back from the ground up.

It is, IMO, impossible to have certain things we want and yet still have all the freedom some want. For instance the issue on the table now. yes they are public roads, but you who want to text didn't build them out of your tax money alone. Driving ion them is a privledge no a right, get over it. The OTHER people who pay for them have a a say in rules that make them feel safe out there ,get over it.

It sounds much like the "Occupiers". They don't want Government telling them what to do, but they want Government to fix their problems by taking money from other people.

Like I said, it starts at the bottom. Call out people everywhere you see them wanting freedom without responsibility, They are robbing YOU of your freedom when they do that.

Remember however "Your right to swing your fist ends where your neighbors nose begins"

10-32
06-16-2012, 00:42
Well in a way it is much less difficult than the task the Founding Fathers had. We have their blueprint in place, we just have to re-animate the responsibility part. Start with your City Council, yoour County Commisssion, your school board, your children, neighbors, clubs groups and yourself. Become a model of responsibility and bring it back from the ground up.

It is, IMO, impossible to have certain things we want and yet still have all the freedom some want. For instance the issue on the table now. yes they are public roads, but you who want to text didn't build them out of your tax money alone. Driving ion them is a privledge no a right, get over it. The OTHER people who pay for them have a a say in rules that make them feel safe out there ,get over it.

It sounds much like the "Occupiers". They don't want Government telling them what to do, but they want Government to fix their problems by taking money from other people.

Like I said, it starts at the bottom. Call out people everywhere you see them wanting freedom without responsibility, They are robbing YOU of your freedom when they do that.

Remember however "Your right to swing your fist ends where your neighbors nose begins"


That's what I find particularly troubling about this issue, the people who want to text and drive (and let's be honest, it's not just simple texting anymore, it's facebooking, posting in forums, and all manner of web browsing) don't just endanger others, they endanger themselves. You'd think some level of self preservation would prevent these people from texting without new laws, but apparently their instant gratification is more important to them than their survival. It doesn't make sense!

I try to live responsibly, conduct myself as a responsible adult, and do what I feel is right regardless of the laws (or more appropriately, lack thereof) because that's something I learned in the military. When MY standard was more stringent than the imposed standard, my life was a piece of cake and I excelled. When I let MY standard slip and I was essentially playing catch-up just to meet the imposed standard, life just plain sucked. But it's not difficult once ya grasp that simple concept. I don't understand why people can't figure this out.

The idea of citizens essentially policing each other is something I'd love to see more of. It's something I saw a lot of in the military but very seldom see now, which is sad. But it's a difficult task, because you never know who's going to respond to your request (to stop endangering themselves) with violence or who knows what else. I agree though, a careful grass roots approach is probably the best option...but it's going to take time

certifiedfunds
06-16-2012, 04:44
OK, let's just do away with all traffic laws and regulations.

No speed limits, no helmet or seatbelt laws, no insurance requirements,
no DWI laws and text all you want while driving.

Is this want you prefer?

Again, was it a traumatic brain injury or did you mom feed you paint chip cookies as a child?

barbedwiresmile
06-16-2012, 05:59
The Personel Freedom club is overlooking the very real fact that, while in earlier times it was a great notion, there have been a few generations now that have grown up without a sense of responsibility...

I actually agree with this to some extent. The problem is in the 'solution'. The only way for one to obtain a "sense of responsibility" is to live with the consequences of their decisions/choices/actions. Government interferes with this and perverts the growth of the human. In it's wake we create irresponsible humans. Government subsidizes irresponsibility and, as a result, we get more of it. The 'solution', in the eyes of the state and it's worshippers, will always be more government: a new law, a supreme court decision, an executive order, etc. When, in fact, we need the opposite if we are to salvage what's left of our society.

Agonizer
06-16-2012, 06:46
There are already laws in probably all states against inattentive driving. Just enforce the existing laws, we don't need more.

Just like gun laws. There are over 20,000 gun laws in this country, yet some people feel we need more.

I see in the OP that it is proposed to give Federal money to enforce existing laws. We don't need more spending of public funds, but that would be one way to solve the problem.


.

countrygun
06-16-2012, 09:28
That's what I find particularly troubling about this issue, the people who want to text and drive (and let's be honest, it's not just simple texting anymore, it's facebooking, posting in forums, and all manner of web browsing) don't just endanger others, they endanger themselves. You'd think some level of self preservation would prevent these people from texting without new laws, but apparently their instant gratification is more important to them than their survival. It doesn't make sense!

I try to live responsibly, conduct myself as a responsible adult, and do what I feel is right regardless of the laws (or more appropriately, lack thereof) because that's something I learned in the military. When MY standard was more stringent than the imposed standard, my life was a piece of cake and I excelled. When I let MY standard slip and I was essentially playing catch-up just to meet the imposed standard, life just plain sucked. But it's not difficult once ya grasp that simple concept. I don't understand why people can't figure this out.

The idea of citizens essentially policing each other is something I'd love to see more of. It's something I saw a lot of in the military but very seldom see now, which is sad. But it's a difficult task, because you never know who's going to respond to your request (to stop endangering themselves) with violence or who knows what else. I agree though, a careful grass roots approach is probably the best option...but it's going to take time


IMO quite correct. I almost think texting while hurling a car down the freeway is a sign of suicidal tendencies, and the personal freedom folks may not like this, but maybe we should approach it from a mental illness standpoint.

I highlighted two sections of your text to remind people that we as a society, on all fronts, have to be careful that we don't grasp at straws in a desire for quick fixes ourselves.

jakebrake
06-16-2012, 09:30
the law will only be enforced if you are texing, driving, and using steroids or other performance ehancing substances.

countrygun
06-16-2012, 09:41
I actually agree with this to some extent. The problem is in the 'solution'. The only way for one to obtain a "sense of responsibility" is to live with the consequences of their decisions/choices/actions. Government interferes with this and perverts the growth of the human. In it's wake we create irresponsible humans. Government subsidizes irresponsibility and, as a result, we get more of it. The 'solution', in the eyes of the state and it's worshippers, will always be more government: a new law, a supreme court decision, an executive order, etc. When, in fact, we need the opposite if we are to salvage what's left of our society.

FWIW I agree with a set of caveats. I fell we need to re-recognize and re enpower the individual States in many matters. This is a point at which I break strongly with some of what I feel to be the shallower thinkers in the personal freedom movement. Many of them say "We want the Federal Government of our backs and it shouldn't have so much power and we need a Federal law that says so"

Do you see the rub?

If it were to happen then the personal freedom club would also have to respect the fact that different States have different laws. what may be legal in one place may not be in another or vice versa. which is the way the Founders intended there is no doubt. Today few people are willing to accept that, they think that their beliefs ought be the "law of the land" and that others should be subject to it, if they can just get a high enough legislative or judical power to agree with them.

We need to return to the days when one tried to influence their local laws first and not over empower the Federal Government by running to it for redress of every grieivance, or correction of all that we think is wrong. Really it's OK if the people of the State next door don't agree with you, that is their business, not yours.

Ruble Noon
06-16-2012, 09:57
FWIW I agree with a set of caveats. I fell we need to re-recognize and re enpower the individual States in many matters. This is a point at which I break strongly with some of what I feel to be the shallower thinkers in the personal freedom movement. Many of them say "We want the Federal Government of our backs and it shouldn't have so much power and we need a Federal law that says so"

Do you see the rub?

If it were to happen then the personal freedom club would also have to respect the fact that different States have different laws. what may be legal in one place may not be in another or vice versa. which is the way the Founders intended there is no doubt. Today few people are willing to accept that, they think that their beliefs ought be the "law of the land" and that others should be subject to it, if they can just get a high enough legislative or judical power to agree with them.

We need to return to the days when one tried to influence their local laws first and not over empower the Federal Government by running to it for redress of every grieivance, or correction of all that we think is wrong. Really it's OK if the people of the State next door don't agree with you, that is their business, not yours.

I wouldn't be calling libertarians "shallow thinkers" if this is your understanding of the libertarian party.

countrygun
06-16-2012, 10:04
I wouldn't be calling libertarians "shallow thinkers" if this is your understanding of the libertarian party.


I didn't even mention the party nor point at anyone just what I belive to be a faulty thought process.

You are a touchy little thing.

certifiedfunds
06-16-2012, 10:39
FWIW I agree with a set of caveats. I fell we need to re-recognize and re enpower the individual States in many matters. This is a point at which I break strongly with some of what I feel to be the shallower thinkers in the personal freedom movement. Many of them say "We want the Federal Government of our backs and it shouldn't have so much power and we need a Federal law that says so"

Do you see the rub?

If it were to happen then the personal freedom club would also have to respect the fact that different States have different laws. what may be legal in one place may not be in another or vice versa. which is the way the Founders intended there is no doubt. Today few people are willing to accept that, they think that their beliefs ought be the "law of the land" and that others should be subject to it, if they can just get a high enough legislative or judical power to agree with them.

We need to return to the days when one tried to influence their local laws first and not over empower the Federal Government by running to it for redress of every grieivance, or correction of all that we think is wrong. Really it's OK if the people of the State next door don't agree with you, that is their business, not yours.

drafting new nanny state laws require only the shallowest of thought