You have the facts to backup that claim? I am very doubtful that MOST accidents are caused by cell phone use - whether talking, texting, or whatever.03Lightningrocks wrote:Negligence behind the wheel laws do nothing about the FACT that most accidents are caused by ignorant, inconsiderate fools, texting or talking on cell phones while driving. I suppose we should get rid of drinking while driving laws too. Maybe speed limit rules are completely wrong. We should be allowed to drive as fast as we want, as long as we are not being reckless.
Driving is not a right! It is a privilege. It should be regulated by the state to insure we have safe highways.
Search found 2 matches
Return to “The "Utah Problem" is back in uglier clothing”
- Mon Oct 10, 2011 6:13 pm
- Forum: General Texas CHL Discussion
- Topic: The "Utah Problem" is back in uglier clothing
- Replies: 96
- Views: 13479
Re: The "Utah Problem" is back in uglier clothing
- Mon Oct 10, 2011 5:25 pm
- Forum: General Texas CHL Discussion
- Topic: The "Utah Problem" is back in uglier clothing
- Replies: 96
- Views: 13479
Re: The "Utah Problem" is back in uglier clothing
sjfcontrol wrote:I presume you're being facetious about Perry being in the pocket of cell phone companies. The bottom line is that it shouldn't be necessary to make every possible activity that is dumb or dangerous, illegal. We already have laws regarding negligence behind the wheel. Those laws should be sufficient.03Lightningrocks wrote:I did not realize Perry was in the pocket of cell phone companies. Knowing his stance on that just cost him my vote. Texting while driving is about the most ignorant thing a person can do.srothstein wrote:Ameer,
What do you call them when they support some bills such as the CHL law to begin with. They may not be pro-gun, but they are certainly not anti-gun either.
That puts them right where the vast majority of the public is, somewhere in the middle. But with legislators, there are always other factors to consider also. Some may be very pro-gun but have to vote against a bill for some other reason. For example, Perry vetoed a gun bill I really wanted to see passed this last session (pertained to retired officers). I cannot call him anti-gin for this. He explicitly stated the veto was because of an unrelated amendment that would have changed traffic laws (banned texting while driving). I am certain that his long term stance is close to mine on guns, but politics raised its ugly head.
By understanding some of the other factors involved, we (gun rights activists) can maintain a cordial working relationship with the legislators. That make us much more likely to get more of what we wanted passed than if we antagonize them over some votes. Long term, this is the only way to get to where we (well, I) want to be - a repeal of chapter 46 totally.