• Status: Solved
  • Priority: Medium
  • Security: Public
  • Views: 296
  • Last Modified:

Is it still legal to sell 1.6+ gpf toilets?

http://test.wbdg.org/ccb/REGS/epact.pdf

On page 43 the act states max gallon per flush requirements for all toilets installed after 1994. Points for anyone who actually finds the penalty for non-compliance or whether it's still legal to sell them.

Yes, it's a huge document. I doubt anyone in congress actually read it. :)
0
IH666
Asked:
IH666
  • 22
  • 11
  • 8
  • +3
5 Solutions
 
pyroman1Commented:
While I'm not sure about the answer to your question, yet, here is some humor I found related to it:
http://ths.gardenweb.com/forums/load/repair/msg051721247376.html?23
0
 
pyroman1Commented:
I little more searching and I found it, $2500.  Though that may have changed since 2001.
http://www.mischel.com/diary/2001/2001_08.htm
0
 
soundguymikeCommented:
I belive it is legal to sell the toilets. the law is actually broken when it is installed. The same way it is legal to buy an old crystal chandelier even if it is not wired correctly the seller is selling it under the pretext that it cannont be installed. For example here  is an  ebay link with lots of older toilets.
http://home.search.ebay.com/toilet_Toilets-Toilet-Seats-Bidets_W0QQcatrefZC12QQfsooZ1QQfsopZ1QQsacatZ71284 
0
Receive 1:1 tech help

Solve your biggest tech problems alongside global tech experts with 1:1 help.

 
arthurjbCommented:
You cannot specify them for new construction, since a building inspector should notice them and have you replace them with the 1.6

But so far, there are no "Water Police" inspecting our homes for compilance.

0
 
Jim P.Commented:
Note that they are still sold as new in Canada. So if you are convenient to the border you can get them.  I don't think legally a plumber can install them either though.  But if you are handy you should be able to do it yourself.
0
 
lovewithnofaceCommented:
Of course, I think it may still be illegal to drive in your bedroom slippers in California--though its not illegal to drive barefoot.

I wonder how many places it's still illegal to mow the grass or hang your laundry on Sunday.  And people say we have separation of church and state.

I really hope that you have premium service.  Or really need to sell a toilet.

The big question is, would someone notice?  Building inspectors in California don't have to crawl under houses to check the foundation.  They just walk around it.  As if that works.  If the foundation was so bad that my house was noticeably leaning, I really think that I wouldn't need an inspector for that.
0
 
pyroman1Commented:
Those issues are slightly different in that the toilet issue allegedly conserves water.  Whether that is true is a matter of some debate as some people just flush twice if need be.  These other issues are for no purpose than to make some groups feel good.  In Florida it is illegal to spit on the sidewalk.

You can actually argue that all victimless crimes are stupid, becomes they hurt no one but the "criminal".  I would tend to agree that that is the case.  Countless millions are spent on the "war on drugs", prostitution, and traffic enforcement.  The question then becomes, "Do you support the abolishment of ALL of these victimless crimes"?  When you can't say "yes" then you are just like the others that wanted a law that you can't drive in your bedroom slippers, you just think your law is "right".

Of course, that isn't really what the OP asked, but I thought I would provoke a little thought on the subject matter since lovewithnoface brought it up.

***NOTE*** The use of "you" throughout my post is not meant to be specific to any person, nor to attack any person.  It is simply used so that all who read can ask these questions of themselves.

***ANOTHER NOTE*** When I say traffic enforcement I mean cops stopping people and giving them tickets when they caused no harm to anyone or anyone's property.  IF someone runs a red light AND they cause a crash as a result THEN we have criminal court to charge that person with criminal negligence, if physical harm is caused manslaughter charges can be filed, regardless civil court exists so that the victim can be compensated.

***FINAL NOTE***  For some enlightening reading go here: http://www.mcwilliams.com/books/books/aint/.
0
 
pyroman1Commented:
First sentence, second paragraph should be:

You can actually argue that all victimless crimes are stupid, because they hurt no one but the "criminal".
0
 
arthurjbCommented:
Well, pyroman1, I was right with you until you used a really bad example of what you see as a victimless crime.

Running a redlight is wrong because you are just lucky if you miss hitting someone.  Traffic rules are enforced because you must take care, since you share the road with other people, and if everyone drove poorly, the accident rates would be even worse than it is now.

There may be other victimless crimes, but traffic infractions cause many deaths of people not involved.

For example street racing.  Here in Florida we had 2 girls killed when a street racer lost control and filpped, sliding into their car and killing them.  The girls were on their way to the movies, and had nothing to do with the street racing...

The more I think about it, the more your position makes me angry/sorry for those who share it.  It is the same opinion that is used by the jerks who pass people using the sholder of the road, at dangerously high speeds.  Almost every deadly accident involves a driver who failed to follow the rules of the road...
0
 
pyroman1Commented:
@arthurjb - I, too, once felt the same way.  But then I sat back and really looked at the issue.  A person can trample another person by riding a horse recklessly.  A person can take a bicycle and aim right at you and run you down, in this case you probably won't die but you likely will hurt.  A person can take a chainsaw and hack you to pieces, yet we don't have laws governing how you use these items IF you do no harm.  I don't know who said it first, but here is an analogy "the right to swing your fist ends where my nose begins".  I did state that those who affect others by their reckless behaviour SHOULD be punished.  We just don't need special laws for these situations, the existing ones (i.e. manslaughter, murder, assualt, battery, etc.) do just fine. We certainly don't need to waste taxpayers money enforcing laws in which no victim exists.

I personally am offended by red light runners.  I am not offended by speeding alone.  Speeding in and of itself does NOT cause one to crash.  Speeding simply applifies the affect of otherwise reckless driving if and when it exists.  Running a red light is an open invitation for a crash to occur, but then again I have been forced to run a red light on a few occasions.  I ride a motorcycle, some of the sensors do not pick up my weight.  As a result I have sat through some light cycles a couple of times until I finally had to run the red light.  I could have gotten a ticket because the system is flawed, would that be right?
0
 
pyroman1Commented:
Seems I left out the "m" in amplifies.  Sometimes I wish this site let us edit our posts.
0
 
arthurjbCommented:
We could debate the finer points of what seems logical and what is not concerning traffic laws, but the point is that the laws are necessary to protect the lives of others sharing the road surface.  The traffic infrastructure is a mix of many competing users, the only way to ensure that they do not adversely affect each other is to be sure that each participant follows the rules.

As I said, I agreed with your assertion about victimless crimes, until you chose a very poor example.  I guess it comes from having lost and almost lost several innocent family members to jerk drivers who did not follow the rules.  Almost a year ago, my mother was almost killed by a drinking driver who ran a red light.  He had no license, no insurance and no resources, so besides almost loosing her life, my mother lost thousands of dollars in medical bills and replacement costs.

The right to swing your fist ends if it is a threatening action intended to change my behaviour.  


(I have been right there with you about the light sensor not picking up a motorcycle.  technically its not the weight, but the size/mass of the object, since it is a prox sensor, not a weight sensor...)

I guess it is a matter of how far that you believe that an individual's actions affect the rest of the world.  For example the drug argument is that the end user of illegal drugs holds some responsibility for all the laws broken and deaths that ocurred to get the illegal product to the end user.   The prostitution argument is that the end user is responsible for the crimes and enslavement of the persons who deliver the product.  There is some logic in these arguments.

I have not yet determined the logic regarding the actions of consennting people behind closed doors who are using no illegal products...

To get this back on track, the use of an "Illegal" toilet certainly harms no one, and may not save water since it often takes 2 flushes to do the same job...
0
 
pyroman1Commented:
You have my condolences on your loss.  My words are certainly not meant to hurt only to attempt to make others think long and hard about what they beleive.  I hope your mother is now doing well and that those that caused these problems were thrown in prison.

I'll quickly respond to the drug and prostitution comment.
Drugs -
You said "end user of illegal drugs".  If drugs were legal then the entire arguement ceases to exist.  In fact drug lords would cease to exist as actual pharmaceutical companies would begin offering these products.  Then government regulation can occur.  As an end result no laws are broken and no lives are lost.  Drug lords don't want drugs to be made legal.  Cops and judges don't want drugs to be made legal.  Both groups stand to lose their jobs if this happens.

Prostitution -
"The prostitution argument is that the end user is responsible for the crimes and enslavement of the persons who deliver the product."  We need look no farther than Nevada to see that crime and enslavement do NOT occur.  In certain counties/cities in Nevada, prositution is legal.  In those "places of adult experiences" the risk of STDs is almost, if not completely, non-existent.  The women that work in these establishments are protected from the harm that may come to them if they were to do this in an area in which it is deemed illegal.

Let's not forget about the massive problem with organized crime during prohibition.  We should live in a free society.  We need to trust that our fellow citizens will do the right thing.  We should NOT depend on the government to protect us.  Doing so gives the government the power to control us.  Something our founding fathers never wanted.  Some quotes on Liberty: http://www.quotedb.com/categories/liberty.  I especially like the ones from Samuel Adams, Thomas Jefferson, and Benjamin Franklin.  Here is one I hadn't heard before that I thought rather appropriate:

"The natural liberty of man is to be free from any superior power on Earth, and not to be under the will or legislative authority of man, but only to have the law of nature for his rule." - Samuel Adams
0
 
pyroman1Commented:
I keep rereading this:
"The right to swing your fist ends if it is a threatening action intended to change my behaviour."

I have to say that does bother me a little.  The actions and the words of those that brought about the American revolution were threatening.  They did intend to change the behaviour of others.  The people of that time had become complacent, much as we have today.  I am glad those brave souls not stood up and fought for liberty.  I just wish more people would do the same still.

"If liberty means anything at all, it means the right to tell people what they do not want to hear." - George Orwell

Rights are really simple, cause no harm to another living being or another's property and be free to go about your business.  Do otherwise and face the consequences of your actions.
0
 
pyroman1Commented:
@arthurjb - One other item, does your mother also live in Florida?  The whole no-fault thing was, at least Jeb did something about it, a stupid mistake.  I lost my gall bladder and have a cut from my xiphoid process to just below my navel from the exploratory surgery to remove my gall bladder.  This was because some idiot in a big truck thought he could "impede my right of way", his own words in quotes and the charge on his ticket.  The judge dismissed his charges even though he said in court that, "I guess I impeded his right of way, I take that for granted."  He wasn't drunk, he was just stupid.  He should have had something happen to him for causing me to suffer.  But instead his insurance covered $100,000 and I lost something I can never get back.  I feel the effects when I don't eat on a very regular schedule.  This happened when I was 19 years old.  I have to live the rest of my life differently because of him.

"Liberty means responsibility. That is why most men dread it." - George Bernard Shaw

If special laws for traffic did not exist this man would have, at the least, been charged with aggravated battery.  He would have been personally responsible for his actions, not his insurance company.  I would much rather have had 12 jurors let him off than one stupid judge that couldn't listen and didn't care.
0
 
arthurjbCommented:
>Cops and judges don't want drugs to be made legal.  Both groups stand to lose their jobs if this happens.
As someone who was a member of the legal system for 20 years, I can say that this is totally untrue.  Just as dentists have plenty of patients, even with all the advancements, Judges and cops would still have plenty of work without the drug problem.

To dovetail the discussion into the American Revolution is going way to far, and irrelevant to the argument.

My point was that if you are truly just swinging your fists in a manner that infringes on noone else, then it is not a problem.  But if you are standing on a public street, swinging your fists in a show of force to keep me out of a business, or to take my money, or to force me to walkin the street, are actions that should not be allowed.

>"If liberty means anything at all, it means the right to tell people what they do not want to hear." - George Orwell
BUT is does not mean that people are forced to listen, or that anyone has to supply the means of communication......

Of course I believe that spammers should be subect to major penalties because they are tresspassing into my computer.  The spammer supporters hide behind free speech, yet free speech does not require anyone to listen.  Certainly, they have the right to post anything on their own web pages, since I have the option of visiting the pages or not.  I have no way to avoid the spammers filling up my mail box.

It may not seem related but the difference is minor and maybe unnoticeable to some folks. The person standing on a soap box in a corner of a city park can speak whatever they desire, since passing people can keep on walking, this is like a web page.  A person blocking a sidewalk flailing their arms is like spam, since it is impossible to continue your normal business and ignore them.....
0
 
pyroman1Commented:
You are correct that this has gone way off of the original topic.  I simply wanted to show that comparing driving in bedroom slippers to 1.6+ gpf toilets isn't exactly apples to apples and that many victimless crimes exist.

We will have to agree to disagree on the issue of cops and judges not losing their jobs if drugs are legalized.  In my opinion the DEA, Drug Enforcement Agency, would cease to exist thus a loss of jobs.  So would vice, which largely enforces drug and prostitution laws.  Then less criminals would be prosecuted.  That means less lawyers are needed.  It also means less judges.  Sure we COULD pay them to sit around and do nothing, but I don't think people would stand for that for very long.  The advancements in dentistry really don't compare to the lack of criminals to prosecute.  A better analogy would be, if people had no teeth would they still go to the dentist?  Even still this isn't really a very good analogy, but it uses dentists.  If we leave the poor dentists alone we can use something better.  A person lives alone on his/her own personal island.  Is a jail/judge/cop/president/king needed?  No, the demand does not exist so the position remains empty.

Spam differs in that some people actually pay for the amount of bandwidth they use.  Spam has a direct impact, therefore, on those people's money.  The spam costs them money and is effectively stealing.  Filling up your mailbox with junk mail differs in that is costs you nothing.
0
 
arthurjbCommented:
>If special laws for traffic did not exist this man would have, at the least, been charged with aggravated battery.  He would have been personally responsible for his actions, not his insurance company.  I would much rather have had 12 jurors let him off than one stupid judge that couldn't listen and didn't care.

Yes, I am in Florida, so her loss was not near as much as it would have been in another state with no-fault insurance.

I am sorry for your injuries.  

Florida or not, if this person did cause you harm, you had the right to sue him for your damages.  The problem of course is that lawyers like deep pockets, if they cannot make thousands, they are not interested.  I explained this to someone else when they asked about going after a hacker.  Although anyone can sue for almost anything, the chances of prevailing are actually very low.  The reason we hear about the silly law suits with high damage amounts, is because they don't happen very often (and most are overturned on appeal, which doesn't make news.)

>"Liberty means responsibility. That is why most men dread it." - George Bernard Shaw
Exactly!  The liberty to drive a car on public roads, requires the responsibility to follow the rules.

I don't remember who said it, but "Character is following the rules, even when no one is watching."

Most people who get caught breaking traffic rules assume that no cop is looking...
0
 
pyroman1Commented:
Hmm, I disagree that the responsibility is to follow man-made rules.  Here is why: "It will be found an unjust and unwise jealousy to deprive a man of his natural liberty upon the supposition he may abuse it." - George Washington.
0
 
pyroman1Commented:
@arthurjb -
I found it for you:
"Integrity is doing the right thing, even if nobody is watching."--Jim Stovall (You Don't Have to Be Blind to See)

I found it here, http://www.quotelady.com/subjects/honesty.html.  I found it interesting that right above it was this:
"Integrity has no need of rules."--Albert Camus

Remember, the SS was following the rules when they murdered thousands of Jews.  If character is following the rules, I prefer to have no character and keep my integrity.  Rules != the right thing.
0
 
arthurjbCommented:
Thanks.

We are not talking about laws making you do something that is unethical or "wrong", we are talking about the traffic laws which are designed to keep cars from colliding.  Yes, just like in the motorcycle example that you described, the rules are not always perfect, but that is what judges are for, to decide if a law is being applied incorrectly.  Yes, there are bad cops and bad judges, just like there are bad computer programmers...

The difference between your horrible SS example, is that traffic laws are designed to keep people from being killed.  I cannot think of a single example where a traffic law causes a person to perform an imoral or unethical action.

My "Follow the rules" quote was more related to sports than to military commands.  It is tough for me to watch kids today play a sport like paintball where you are supposed to follow the rules, when many of them don't.  A ref in paintball should only have to tell folks when they have been hit and can't feel it, but many kids think that if the ref doesn't tell them they've been hit, then it doesn't matter...  Character is when you have been hit, and know that noone but you can tell, but you leave the field on your own.   Yes, it may cause you or your team to loose, but winning by cheating is imoral and unethical...

Of course its hard to blame the kids themselves when we see so many examples of people with no Character, no ethics, and no morality, who become rich and famous.....
0
 
lovewithnofaceCommented:
Wow.  I'm clearly never mentioning bedroom slippers again.  I brought it up though because I thought that when building inspectors don't need to go under the house to inspect the foundation, then we might as well through the other laws out the window, because they clearly aren't being followed/don't matter.

The last time my house was inspected the guy who came didn't go inside and didn't have to go under the house.  He came because we'd just gotten the foundation rebolted and were getting new insurance papers signed.  Generally, I'd think that requires a thorough workover.  In fact, the last several times we had a guy come, they just walked around the house.

They not only weren't requires to do more, they weren't supposed to go under the house.  Insurance didn't cover it anymore.

That's why the snide remarks about slippers.  That, and the fact that if people care about conservation, then maybe we should have real laws about it, not just laws regulating people's toilets.  You know laws regulating companies.

Running red lights--real problem.  Doesn't cause an issue most of the time, but when it does, it really does.  Especially since in LA, we add an orange line--a super fast bus, and now everyone who crashes a red seems to crash into the bus.

I'm going to completely ignore the drug issue, because since relatively harmless slippers prompted 15 e-mails, I don't want to know what my saying anything on drugs would do.

A victimless crime is hanging your laundry out to dry on Sunday.  Almost, ALMOST, anything traffic related--not victimless.  Almost anything drug related--not victimless.

I mean, hanging your laundry might really offend some people, but they have to realize that they chose to live in a country with people who have a holy day on another day.  Or not at all.  And they can't impose their own.

And, isn't it just easier to say, "your right to swing your fist stops at my face"

Obviously, not as thorough as it doesn't include other body parts or threatening gestures, but it sounds nice and people get the gist.

Right-o.  Completely don't get how the American Revolution got dragged into this, but whatever, I'm still trying to procrastinate, I'll take what I can get.

The point there is, that "your right to swing your fist stops at my face"

The Revolutionaries felt that way too.  England's right to tax and impose law and continue to be a governing body continued until it hurt the colonies.  Now granted, the colonies were rich, and paying far less in taxes than the English and were far better off than the average English citizen and could afford to pay them more.  Was it the colonies war?  Not really, but they were being afforded all the rights of other English citizens.  Really, what the English government should have done was just stopped fighting with France.  Novel idea, I know, but look, they didn't get them!

Anyway, in this case, it's a matter of perception.  The colonies (ok, a small group of intellectuals from the colonies) felt that England was pushing the fist to far, and that the time had come to part ways, and wrote a really nice letter saying, thanks for everything, but we're getting our own apartment.  England didn't take to well to that and well, so the story goes.

All in all, one of the better wars conducted in history.  Completed changed the ideas of how war should be fought, and it wasn't fought for women or food, so it was slightly elevated above caveman levels.  I mean, they even wore wigs into battle.

Besides, I believe that saying is based quite a bit on this nation and out perceptions of free will.  The same sort of thing didn't quite exist back then.

You didn't have the freedom to do or say what you want as long as it didn't hurt anybody else.  That's mainly what our laws are for, or are supposed to be for.  The governing and protection of the people.  And the courts are there to make sure that the laws, and practices don't overstep the rights laid out for us.

Well, theoretically.  Realistically were all going to hell in a handbasket but lets not think about that.
And by the way, the whole rights thing goes out the window if you have more power than someone.  Granted, in this country there are supposed to be laws and enforcement but it still happens here, and if you're dealing with sovereign nations, ha!
0
 
pyroman1Commented:
@lovewithno face - I was wondering how you felt about what your comment inspired.

Food for thought.  IF a law should exist to protect against what MIGHT happen (e.g. you MIGHT hit another car by running a red light so lets make it illegal even if nothing bad happens, etc.) THEN a law should exist against ALL bad things that MIGHT happen (e.g. we shouldn't own guns because we MIGHT hurt someone, we shouldn't drive at all because we MIGHT get into a crash, we shouldn't eat because we MIGHT get obese and die early).  Yes I do go to the extreme when explaining things.  Why?  Because all infringements on personal liberty begin on the slippery slope of "protecting" someone, be it from themselves or from others.  It may start out as some minor issue that not many people care about, until one day it affects what you hold dear.  When that day comes all those that would have fought for your freedom will have died fighting for everyone's long ago, by themselves.  I have never tried any type of drug (other than medication prescribed to me), I have never used the services of a prostitute, I do not like when people drive recklessly, I will fight for the right for anyone to do anything that does not have a negative impact on the life or liberty of another (e.g. causing physical or financial harm to another, etc.).

What is wrong with making our laws as simple as I mentioned earlier? "Rights are really simple, cause no harm to another living being or another's property and be free to go about your business.  Do otherwise and face the consequences of your actions."  Why do we need laws against what MIGHT happen?

"I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it. "
Thomas Jefferson, to Archibald Stuart, 1791
3rd president of US (1743 - 1826)

Here is a little tidbit directly from the DEA, http://www.dea.gov/demand/speakout/index.html :
Fact 3: Illegal drugs are illegal because they are harmful.

Who is the government to tell me what I can and cannot do to my body?

Now as for the toilet, the second, third, and fourth posts seem to have answered the question.  But is this what IH666 is looking for?  Interesting that not a lot of reponses were given when the issue was toilet related only, lots were when liberties were brought into play.
0
 
pyroman1Commented:
Least I forget the most important MIGHT of all...

We shouldn't own guns because we MIGHT overthrow the government and Jefferson NEVER would have wanted that to happen.
0
 
lovewithnofaceCommented:
< Least I forget the most important MIGHT of all...

We shouldn't own guns because we MIGHT overthrow the government and Jefferson NEVER would have wanted that to happen.>

*snerk*

< @lovewithno face - I was wondering how you felt about what your comment inspired.>

Um, yah, I downloaded my e-mail and went "oh shit"

I couldn't quite believe it, especially when I read what people had written.  I thougtht I was off point--I didn't know how off point it could get.  I guess I really opened a can of worms.

Also, I wondered a bit about the author, because I can at least hit unsubscribe if I don't want to get two new e-mail a minute about how drugs, traffic lights and the revolutionary war all somehow pertain to the legality of 1.6+ gpf toilets.  The author can't.

Um...yah.  I believe I mentioned our laws were for the governing and the protection of the people.  Governing generally meaning order in this case.

I don't think our government can protect us if there are no laws about running red lights, just because someone might get hurt.  Tasking the person who caused the damage afterwards doesn't do any good if there are no laws, no order.

Laws come into effect because there is a need for them (again, were speaking ideally here).

When traffic grows larger and there was no method of order and people start dying, it is up to the government to find a way to maintain order.  Do we give up some freedom?  Yes.  That is the idea of government.  The relinquish of some freedom in exchange for order and protection.  I'd happily give up the freedom to the right of the road (meaning I can go when and how I want), stopping at lights, blinking when changing lanes, if it means that I'm less likely to die a horribly painful and bloody death.

What you have pointed out is the need for balance, and the reason why governments eventually fall.  Governments can't take too much free will away, can't impose laws without reasonable need, and if and when they do, eventually the people rise up.

Unless it's America.  Then they take away your civil liberties and people compare it to credit card companies sending you surveys.
0
 
lovewithnofaceCommented:
< Least I forget the most important MIGHT of all...

We shouldn't own guns because we MIGHT overthrow the government and Jefferson NEVER would have wanted that to happen.>

Sorry, never responded to this.

Screw the gun lobby and the hunting lobby.

You don't need a gun to protect yourself, at least not the kinds we still allow on the streets and overthrowing the government isn't my problem with guns.

My problem is that kids accidently blow their brains out when they come accross a toy that's hidden in the closet and that we don't let felons vote, but we let them have guns.

I don't think Jefferson would have had a problem with taking guns away from murders or rapists.  They had much harsher penalties for those crimes then didn't they?  Course, I don't believe in that, but I don't think they should get their hands on a gun.

Damnit.  These posts are searchable by Google aren't they?
0
 
pyroman1Commented:
"These posts are searchable by Google aren't they?" - lovewithnoface
Yes, but it may take a while for that to happen.

"The relinquish of some freedom in exchange for order and protection.  I'd happily give up the freedom to the right of the road (meaning I can go when and how I want), stopping at lights, blinking when changing lanes, if it means that I'm less likely to die a horribly painful and bloody death." - lovewithnoface
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." - Benjamin Franklin (several variations exist, not sure which is the "official" one or if he just said it several times using slightly different wording.)
::gasp:: Oh, no.  Traffic laws, however noble they may seem, have become nothing but a source of revenue for the government.  If the intent were truly to save lives then the mere presence of cops on the road would be enough to do so.  Instead cops are now hiding in regular cars, trucks, and SUVs trying to catch the unsuspecting.  Just look at the rest of the cars on the road when a cop comes into sight.  Most people, even the slow ones, slow down for fear of a ticket.  People are less likely to run red lights if a cop is clearly visible.  Why then hide themselves if not to make more money?  I was recently assisting in a traffic case in which someone was charged with speeding, 60 in a 45.  Through official traffic engineering reports, satelitte imagery, and the officer's own testimony we proved that the accused was NOT in the 45 MPH zone when targeted (laser was used which actually measures distance, this was provided on the ticket).  Instead the accused was in a 55 MPH zone.  The "hearing officer" took the issue under advisement.  We were certain victory had been achieved and that the court just wanted to save face.  Then around 10 weeks later a notice was received stating the verdict was Guilty and a fine imposed.  No, I don't think I want to give up any liberties to any person, that kind of power causes corruption.  Plus the danger for citizens when these cops are hiding in regular cars.  Talk about making it easier for the criminal to impersonate an officer, now all you need is a blue light, you don't even have to have the same make/model car as cops usually drive much less have it say POLICE or SHERIFF along the side.

"You don't need a gun to protect yourself, at least not the kinds we still allow on the streets and overthrowing the government isn't my problem with guns." - lovewithnoface
The problem is that to protect ourselves from government we need weapons equivalent to that which government has, otherwise we would suffer far greater losses and be less likely to stand up and fight for our rights.  The government currently has control of nuclear weapons, bombs, and fully automatic high power rifles and machine guns.  Even if we took the most powerful, legal, weapons of today and stood up against the government, we would suffer severe losses.  It would be like bringing a knife to a gun fight.  How many people want to join a fight against those odds?
0
 
arthurjbCommented:
>My problem is that kids accidently blow their brains out when they come accross a toy that's hidden in the closet and that we don't let felons vote, but we let them have guns.

Not a good argument, since the protection of kids is just an emotional reaction used in the gun argument.

There are so many other things we can do to protect many, many more children.

Just using your logic, banning swimming pools would save more children than banning guns.

According to the CDC firearm death is ninth on the list of unintentional death, while drowning is 2nd with automobile death being number one  54% of these type deaths were automobile, 13% drowning  by the time you get to firearms its only 1.5%

If you are truly wanting to protect children, start with the items that are really causing the deaths.
0
 
lovewithnofaceCommented:
Ok.  Just because something isn't the number one cause of death doesn't mean it isn't a cause.  And those numbers go down every time laws are made saying that guns have to have safteys and restricting use in different ways.

And, in case you're wondering, I'm for laws that bring down auto deaths.  Restricting auto usage among teens brought down auto deaths by enormous percentages.  CA state law just restricted it more.  Does that make life a pain in the ass?  Yes.  Would I have trusted any of my friends at the age behind the wheel of a 2 ton killing machine?  No way in hell.  And if you wanted responsible teenagers, they were actually some of the most.  When the drinking age was made higher, auto deaths went down.  When freeway speed limits went down, so did auto deaths.

And as much as I whined about those laws, and like going just a little faster on the freeway, I like it when auto death statistics for my age group go down in leaps and bounds.

<"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." - Benjamin Franklin>

Oh give me a break.  That applies to the government keeping a record of all phone records ever, that quite frankly I don't believe buys any safety.  That doesn't apply to having traffic lights, and laws that saw you can't go when they're going, and laws that saw you have to signal when you change lanes so that other people know what the fuck you're doing and don't run you over.

I was by the way saying that in response to whatever idiot said this:

<IF a law should exist to protect against what MIGHT happen (e.g. you MIGHT hit another car by running a red light so lets make it illegal even if nothing bad happens, etc.) THEN a law should exist against ALL bad things that MIGHT happen>

Stop taking things to one extreme or another.  Giving up the right to drive 90 miles an hour, isn't an essential liberty.  Nor is giving up the right to drive without stopping until I want.  And, I'll sure as hell give them up, because if everyone did that, you'd get two cars, on a collision course going 90 miles an hour.  Do cops sit around corners and in driveways and ticket?  Sure they do, most cities are broke.  But you know what else, there aren't enough cops and enough cars to have one visible on almost every street so that people slow down, go the speed limit, and use their blinkers because they see a car.

The whole point is that people are afraid of getting in crashes, or a getting a ticket, and so they for the most part obey.  When you never know if there's a cop car around, because there could always be one hiding, more people obey.  I do.  I don't do dangerous or really illegal things.  I'll push the speed limit a little, tiny things, but not something that would make a cop car come out of hiding.  And I'd probably push more, certainly in the cases where I felt it was safe if I wasn't afraid of getting a ticket.

Is this system perfect?  No of course not.  There are dozens of problems with it.  But, now imagine no system.  There are no lights, no traffic rules, nothing.  I'll leave you the streets, though why I don't know, the government paid for those too.  So you have streets, and cars and that's it.  No blinkers, no stopsigns, no traffic cops, nothing.  And then tell me which is better.

And by the way--it's really really really not an essential freedom.  You don't have to buy a car.  In fact, you can go live in those little town that still pretend its the 1800s, so you can even turn back the Industrial Revolution if you want.

And yes, generally governments do make laws against treason and revolution.

If this stuff bothers you so much, instead of shooting your mouth off, why don't you do something.

Of course, shooting your mouth of, can be doing something but only if you focus on real issues.

Whether or not the existence of traffic lights and traffic laws has cost too much of our freedom, not a big issue.

But, laws requiring lifeguards to be on duty, trained lifegurads, new auto regulations might get firearm death higher on the list and cause a real stir.  Also, try adding those numbers to non-accidental firearm deaths.

I'm not against the existance of guns, I just think they should be handled differently.

And, if you want to talk about civil liberties, than you might want to not talk about it in terms of overthrowing the government (because it's really not a winning arguement), and you might want to talk about something slightly important.

Especially considering how many important issues need taking up, talking about gun control in terms of overthrowing the government just gets you put on a list somewhere and gets people to ignore the real issues.  Which is stupid.  And which is why I sometimes end up voting for people who's ideas I agree with less, and why they often win, even if their constituants agree with the other person more.  It doesn't help to have a congressperson alienating everyone to a set of ideas you agree with because of how they approach them, or because of the other things they say.  If they lose more votes than they win, than their vote not only doesn't matter, but their seat hurts their party, and the ideas they're pushing.
0
 
pyroman1Commented:
"And those numbers go down every time laws are made saying that guns have to have safteys and restricting use in different ways."
Of course they did.  If you don't have something you obviously can't use it.  Of course education works much better and retains our liberties.  I knew there was a gun in my house growing up.  I knew where it was.  I could easily reach it.  I didn't because I was taught how to use a gun and about gun safety, not because of some stupid law created because the government wants to protect us from ourselves.

"When freeway speed limits went down, so did auto deaths."
Not in Montana which recently moved from no speed limits in rural freeways to having a speed limit.
PROOF: http://www.hwysafety.com/hwy_montana_2001.htm

"Oh give me a break.  That applies to the government keeping a record of all phone records ever..."
The telephone was invented in 1876, I really don't think Franklin was talking about the telephone as he was long since dead.  I think he was talking about exactly what he said, don't give up any of your liberties in the name of "security".

"The whole point is that people are afraid of getting in crashes, or a getting a ticket, and so they for the most part obey."
This one really perplexes me.  On the one hand you say people are afraid of getting into crashes so they do the right thing, on the other you say you don't trust people to do the right thing so cops should give tickets WHEN NOTHING BAD HAPPENS.  I think the problem is no one is listening to the fact that I have repeatedly said VICTIMLESS crime.  When your actions DO have an affect on others you should be punished.

"And I'd probably push more, certainly in the cases where I felt it was safe if I wasn't afraid of getting a ticket."
Exactly my point.  The 90 year-old driver that has the reaction time of a snail is supposed to drive the same speed as a 25 year-old with nerves of steel?  Speed limits are SUPPOSED to be established by the 85th percentile rule.  Instead they are determined by bureacrats that want to make more money for their city.  Safety is not a concern.

"But, now imagine no system.  There are no lights, no traffic rules, nothing."
Now who is taking it to the extreme?  I said tickets shouldn't be given to people when no harm has been done.  When did this become every man for himself?  The lights and rules are great to establish who is at fault WHEN something bad happens.  We don't need to punish people for breaking a rule when nothing bad happens as a result.

"I'll leave you the streets, though why I don't know, the government paid for those too."
Don't know where you live, but I pay taxes.  I bought the road along with everyone else, not the government.

"And by the way--it's really really really not an essential freedom."
The right to travel by the current days standards is considered by many to be an essential freedom.  Is it spelled out? No.  Were the founding fathers psychic? No.  They could not have imagined the methods of transportation we would have today.

"And yes, generally governments do make laws against treason and revolution."
Precisely why all of the founding fathers feared, to some degree, losing the war.  They would be tried for treason.  The technical term is sedition.

"If this stuff bothers you so much, instead of shooting your mouth off, why don't you do something."
It all starts with making people think.  Just like Thomas Paine did.

"And, if you want to talk about civil liberties, than you might want to not talk about it in terms of overthrowing the government (because it's really not a winning arguement)..."
Yeah, the loyalists said the same thing.

"And which is why I sometimes end up voting for people who's ideas I agree with less, and why they often win, even if their constituants agree with the other person more."
Good.  I think the only way we will ever get this country back on track IS to have it get worse.  Then people will finally get fed up with the way things are handled and stop being so complacent.  I'm right with you on voting for the worst candidate, provided we get to keep our guns.

Making people think often cause rage because people like being ignorant as to the facts.  Even arthurjb agrees that emotional arguements are no way to win anyone over to your cause.  History should be learned from lest we are doomed to repeat it.  And statistical data is much more reliable than a feel good law based on emotion.

Are the situations the founding fathers encountered exactly the same as we are today?  Not really, unless you consider the income tax isssue which is exactly related to taxation.  Did you know this?
The U.S. income tax was first imposed during the Civil War, but was not used from after the Civil War until the 16th Amendment was ratified in 1913 giving Congress the right to tax income. - source Wikipedia.org (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Income_tax#Income_tax_in_the_United_States)
0
 
pyroman1Commented:
Oh, and as for the American Revolution.  The History Channel is airing a miniseries about it, its toward the end now, but still well worth watching.  It's called "The Revolution".
0
 
IH666Author Commented:
The responses so far (those pertaining to 1.6 gpf toilets) suggest that selling is still legal, while installation is not. This, however, is contradicted by the article posted in the 2nd reply:

"To make matters worse, the City of Austin came into Habitat one day and threatened to fine them or shut them down if they continued to sell the old models.  Excuse the pun, but what kind of crap is that?"

So it's not very clear and would suggest that sale of such models is also illegal.

My interest in this is simply whether I'm allowed to sell them through my website.
0
 
lovewithnofaceCommented:
First, sorry about the slippers and getting everyone all riled up.  Really didn't intend it.

Um, yah, you should.  You don't know if you're selling them to someone in canada or germany right?  Maybe they address they give is in texas, but they plan to drive it to mexico....(maybe...)

but, i would talk with a lawyer.  just to be uber uber safe.  a nice one.  that maybe someone else pays for?

because while technically it looks like you should be able to, you need to be careful
0
 
IH666Author Commented:
I know I'll have to talk to a lawyer before doing anything, just wanted to see if I could find some answers online.
0
 
pyroman1Commented:
@IH666 - First, IANAL.  Second, it's still legal to use them for commericial use, so put a disclaimer saying "For Commerical Use Only" and you should be covered.
0
 
arthurjbCommented:
At the very least, a disclaimer saying "Usage and installation may not be permitted in some areas."  would be a good idea.
0
 
lovewithnofaceCommented:
yeah. telling people that they have to refer to their local legislature is a great idea.  after all you're not expected to know what the laws are for every country, state etc...
0
 
pyroman1Commented:
@lovewithnoface - That last sentence could start another discussion, but this time I'll hold my tongue...
0
 
lovewithnofaceCommented:
< @lovewithnoface - That last sentence could start another discussion, but this time I'll hold my tongue...>

you better.  I'm still of the opinion that it's not my bedroom slippers that caused this spammage but someone else's need to incite anarchy (the average citizen needs the kind of weapons that the government has so that we can revolt, indeed (yah, i feel way better with citizen storing nukes and m-16s in their pockets))

the only problem is, the liklihood of the danish police knocking on your frontdoor is minimal.  the liklihood of the local police doing so is much higher, even though you *should* be able to sell them locally, and you're not even doing that.  you're selling worldwide (even if no one on the other side of the world has bitten), and the law is specifically a usage law and so you can sell whatever you want.  the big problem here, is that selling something is sometimes illegal if you're selling it with intent.  if you're selling with the intent to sell to americans who (you can't assume that they aren't going to install it) are going to use them, you might be able to be charged with something.  that's where you want a lawyer, because if they could charge you with something, and you aren't doing much business outside the us, you might have a problem.  but, again, this is all purely hypothetical

and, pyroman1, try very very hard to hold your tongue.  bite it.  sit on it!  whatever you have to!  because a good rabble rouser knows when to shut up (so does a good politican)  I'm testing your skills here....
0
 
pyroman1Commented:
@lovewithnoface - Gotta admit, that's just asking for a reply.  I'll start with the beginning...

"And people say we have separation of church and state." - lovewithnoface
This was the sentence after mentioning stupid laws that are in existence today.  My interpretation of this was the fact that these "crimes" have no victims and are "feel good" laws.  By your post I was under the impression that you opposed "feel good" laws.  Subsequently I learned that you only oppose "feel good" laws that you are against for whatever reason, not all "feel good" laws.  

Now back a little farther:
"All in all, one of the better wars conducted in history.  Completed changed the ideas of how war should be fought, and it wasn't fought for women or food, so it was slightly elevated above caveman levels.  I mean, they even wore wigs into battle." - lovewithnoface
I really hope you watched "The Revolution" on the History Channel last night.  British soldiers raped, pillaged, and murdered in the towns they captured.  The prison ships in use were a cesspool for disease without adequate food, water, even air.  Houses were taken over to quarter British soldiers.  See why we now have the Third Amendment?

Funny how when I did some more searching on the toilet issue I found more Libertarians posts on other forums.  Try it: http://www.google.com/search?num=100&hl=en&lr=lang_en&newwindow=1&q=gpf+fine+sell+toilet .  The fifth one down takes you to this post: http://www.curevents.com/vb/showpost.php?p=99062&postcount=5 .  But hey, I guess that's why we have some of these moronic laws in the first place.  Someone thinks they are great.

And since you wanted to push the envelope:
"after all you're not expected to know what the laws are for every country, state etc..."
Of course you are "ignorance of the law is no excuse".  Virginia and DC are the ONLY two places in the US that you can NOT have a radar detector.  If you travel through these locations unaware of this, it doesn't matter.  You will still be assessed a fine and probably have your property confiscated.  But hey, at least that makes somebody feel good.
0
 
lovewithnofaceCommented:
IH666, i'm sorry about this, don't worry, this WILL be the end of it.

pyroman, sarcasm.  sarcasm.  please, again, note, sarcasm.  I have my own issues with the history channel.  Do you think I didn't know just how horrible soldiers behaved?  Do you think I don't know what war in general means?  Was part of what I said serious?  Yes.  From many different aspects, it was one of the better and more interesting wars in history, and theoretically, people were fighting for freedom and ideas.  Again, I'm trying to avoid debate here, and avoid spamming everyone.  Hopefully most people have unsubscribed.

@ IH666
@pyroman1
Of course ignorance of the law is no excuse.  My brother gets in trouble with this all the time.  "But you didn't tell me I couldn't do that"  well, my mom probably thought she'd never need to explicitly say so, but again not the point.  My point was, that internet businesses are far different than local ones, and while they responsibility to obey the law, it is to some degree lessened/different because the toilet laws in tokoyo might just be different than the ones in texas, and its not the responsibility of the business owner to find out where the toilet is going and look up the laws there and tell the person that it's illegal to run that toilet there.  For all the business owner knows, the person is doing a bizarre art installation, which is again, probably why the law was written the way it was.  If for example America manufactures 90% of the worlds 1.6+ gpf toilet supply, congress isn't going to stop them from being made or exported or sold, they're just going to keep Americans from using them.  We're capitalists after all.  The one problem may be if the internet business does no business with people who could legally buy and install 1.6 + gpt toilets.  I don't really see it, and I don't see it being prosecuted, but that's where I'd call in the lawyers and protect myself as thoroughly as possible.

@pyroman1
If you really really really want to debate, then I think we should stop spamming these nice people.  Plus it's getting to be sorta annoying that you take one sentence I say (often clearly sarcastic or in jest) and go completely off on that ignoring all I said that limits or defines that statement.  I'm serious.  It's time to put our time, brains and energy into something more important: oversized toilets :)
0
 
Jim P.Commented:
No objections.
0
 
lovewithnofaceCommented:
I personally thought that my comment 16980987 was a better answer for IH666, even if it didn't spark anarchy through bedroom slippers as my first comment did.

Also, I noticed that answers 16980467 (pyroman1), 16980477 (arthurjb), and 16980503 (lovewithnoface) were not on the list of approved answers and I thought that one should be.  They are all about disclaimers and warnings though they cover different ground and I think that at least one should be approved.  Each of them contained language that the author could have used directly on his site and they were all good answers and I'd like to see at least pyronman1's approved and one about checking local law approved.

Also, while very funny, I'm not quite sure I understand why pyronman1 16842844 should be accepted.  His second comment 16842866 also a humor link, at least provided some information about what's being done with toilets.

I'd like to make it clear that I do not have any objections to the original points recommendations being awarded, but that these are additional recommendations, some of which may be suitable as substitions if they are better comments than those listed in Venabili's recommendation.
0
 
pyroman1Commented:
Funny how my joke was accepted but not my legitimate answer.  Oh well, now I know to be funny more often.

@lovewithnoface - How do you get the numbers for the answers?  That is quite convenient when providing feedback, even though I have never personally seen the feedback used.
0
 
lovewithnofaceCommented:
the numbers can be gotten from the source code

um, yah, not in this case apparantly, though I would have really liked to see one of those ones about putting a disclaimer up used.  most of this discussion was wildly off, and well, we did kinda get back on track and I think that that was good

And, I would like to say that my suggestions have been used before.  i will not tell you my success rate however.
0
 
pyroman1Commented:
Thanks for the heads up.
0

Featured Post

Receive 1:1 tech help

Solve your biggest tech problems alongside global tech experts with 1:1 help.

  • 22
  • 11
  • 8
  • +3
Tackle projects and never again get stuck behind a technical roadblock.
Join Now