!!! Socal Random Emissions Check Points

[projectRDM]

Originally Posted by DoriKnights

-R240NA- with all do respect.. no use trying to prove your point.. you honeslty would have to live in california to understand the stress level we go through...the Law is not always right dude... if so then ALL states should have the same Laws!

I realized that a long time ago. Arguing with someone who has absolutely no clue about anything other than what he thinks is right is pointless. But I also don't like to see people get the wrong idea based solely on one person's assumptions that are completely biased and unfounded.

"I don't like a law, so it must be wrong and anyone who obeys it is an idiot" is a poor defense, no matter who it is. I'd expect more out of someone paying for a premium membership, but sadly I expect too much it seems.

[TheSquidd]

Originally Posted by R240NA

"I don't like a law, so it must be wrong and anyone who obeys it is an idiot" is a poor defense, no matter who it is. I'd expect more out of someone paying for a premium membership, but sadly I expect too much it seems.

I don't know how many times I can say this.... but...

HYPOCRITE

Hello?

My "view"

"I don't like a law, so it must be wrong and anyone who obeys it is an idiot"

Your "view"

"I agree with the law, so anyone who disobeys it must be an idiot."

In reality, I RESPECT those that obey the laws they believe in, I said that in my first huge post. This is the point I've been trying to make this whole time, you're a giant hypocrite. I have no problem with the people that obey the laws, good for them.

Yeah, my car is illegal as all hell. Let's call it... non violent protest. ^_^
Because MORALLY I don't believe it is wrong. Murder, that's MORALLY wrong to me. That's right, I have MY OWN BELIEFS and MORALES. Amazing huh, how I think for myself! Aren't I all grown up. Don't need some people in congress always telling me what my morales and beliefs should be.

I look forward to more of this.

[projectRDM]

Originally Posted by TheSquidd

I don't know how many times I can say this.... but...

HYPOCRITE

Hello?

My "view"

"I don't like a law, so it must be wrong and anyone who obeys it is an idiot"

Your "view"

"I agree with the law, so anyone who disobeys it must be an idiot."

In reality, I RESPECT those that obey the laws they believe in, I said that in my first huge post. This is the point I've been trying to make this whole time, you're a giant hypocrite. I have no problem with the people that obey the laws, good for them.

Yeah, my car is illegal as all hell. Let's call it... non violent protest. ^_^
Because MORALLY I don't believe it is wrong. Murder, that's MORALLY wrong to me. That's right, I have MY OWN BELIEFS and MORALES. Amazing huh, how I think for myself! Aren't I all grown up. Don't need some people in congress always telling me what my morales and beliefs should be.

I look forward to more of this.

I'm enjoying it just as much as you are, trust me. It's been a while since I've had a good ol' debate like the ones from FA, before the site went to shit.

I don't bag anyone for disagreeing with the law, they have that right. If the law is good for the commonwealth then yes I do find fault in someone not agreeing with it, but again they made that choice based on their opinions. But my opinion is based on the law, while yours is based on what you think the law should be. That's the difference. Until the law is rewritten, your opinion can't be justified by just saying "I don't like it". If that's the way the system worked, people would be changing laws daily just because they didn't agree with them, and not because they actually saw an error or mistake or an injustice, or saw that it even though it was good for the majority the minority deserved a break.

[TheSquidd]

Originally Posted by R240NA

I'm enjoying it just as much as you are, trust me. It's been a while since I've had a good ol' debate like the ones from FA, before the site went to shit.

I don't bag anyone for disagreeing with the law, they have that right. If the law is good for the commonwealth then yes I do find fault in someone not agreeing with it, but again they made that choice based on their opinions. But my opinion is based on the law, while yours is based on what you think the law should be. That's the difference. Until the law is rewritten, your opinion can't be justified by just saying "I don't like it". If that's the way the system worked, people would be changing laws daily just because they didn't agree with them, and not because they actually saw an error or mistake or an injustice, or saw that it even though it was good for the majority the minority deserved a break.

Like I said it's a losing fight, but one I will fight. ^_^

[steve shadows]

Originally Posted by R240NA

I don't bag anyone for disagreeing with the law, they have that right. If the law is good for the commonwealth then yes I do find fault in someone not agreeing with it, but again they made that choice based on their opinions. But my opinion is based on the law, while yours is based on what you think the law should be. That's the difference. Until the law is rewritten, your opinion can't be justified by just saying "I don't like it". If that's the way the system worked, people would be changing laws daily just because they didn't agree with them, and not because they actually saw an error or mistake or an injustice, or saw that it even though it was good for the majority the minority deserved a break.

If the law is used as a tool simply to suppress a single demographic which then becomes an unspoken socio-psychological vendetta of sorts for local municipalities and CHP in this case to take advantage of "to make a statement" as I have heard or "make an example" as an officer once put it to me the it is ethically outside the typical reasoning for common law. It has now become a way to regulate thought or free will. It's extremely hard to fight a law like this when bureaucrats in CA sign new legislation every day that does absolutely nothing to help the environmental crisis and then put even more restrictions of persons ability invest their money in certain modifications. My point is how does a law (in common law terms) support a betterment of society if A. the law does not make any change that protects society from negative externalities B. does not effect the air quality or protect citizens from themselves or others. If these cars pass the sniffer test what is the point of the law?

I agree with the fact that you should know that you are breaking the law and not BS yourself about it, and then of course not bitch when it comes down on your ass. By all means.

It's just unfortunate that in CA we have millions upon millions of undocumented workers with expired registrations, often carrying loads of cocaine and heroine in their wheel wells and polluting as much as 3 240sx, running on 3 cylinders with no CAT's dragging mowing equipment to pool cleaning gear and these are rarely the targets of crack downs in the smog net operations by the DMV and CHP. Its selective enforcement of a non-selective law which in theory does not embody the spirit of a common law and instead should be re-written by the policy makers to refine the aim of the laws purpose.

It’s a way to make money.

My question to you sir, is do you break smog laws? Maybe not state, but do you drive a vehicle to and from the track or anywhere on a public road ever that is not 100% legal? I'm sure in violation of some federal EPA regulation somewhere in some book...If so why are you throwing stones in a glass house?

btw, the total inability to enforce a law because the majortiy of the population begins to ignore the law creates a culture of in-feasible enforcement which as we have seen at least in our state can lead to such grassroots movements to make a final shove off balance of local and state laws regarding personal choice as with the majiuana movement and now the resulting mass level of legality of the drug by simply getting a doctors note and card.

we can get more in socio-political theory on a microcosmic level if you want. At the end of the day the law is right in a fight againt the individual in such a trivial matter, which is why you all need to start writing your congressmen and getting involved with SEMA and CARB if you want to keep your shit in CA.

There's a whole thread on smog legal sr's on this board too.

[TheSquidd]

Originally Posted by steve shadows

You win.

Oh and he lives in GA, I'm pretty sure he could drive to the track with a pot of burning oil in his passenger seat and get away with it.

[projectRDM]

Originally Posted by TheSquidd

You win.

Oh and he lives in GA, I'm pretty sure he could drive to the track with a pot of burning oil in his passenger seat and get away with it.

But I might burn myself, so that's a bad idea.

[projectRDM]

Originally Posted by steve shadows

If the law is used as a tool simply to suppress a single demographic which then becomes an unspoken socio-psychological vendetta of sorts for local municipalities and CHP in this case to take advantage of "to make a statement" as I have heard or "make an example" as an officer once put it to me the it is ethically outside the typical reasoning for common law. It has now become a way to regulate thought or free will. It's extremely hard to fight a law like this when bureaucrats in CA sign new legislation every day that does absolutely nothing to help the environmental crisis and then put even more restrictions of persons ability invest their money in certain modifications. My point is how does a law (in common law terms) support a betterment of society if A. the law does not make any change that protects society from negative externalities B. does not effect the air quality or protect citizens from themselves or others. If these cars pass the sniffer test what is the point of the law?

I agree with the fact that you should know that you are breaking the law and not BS yourself about it, and then of course not bitch when it comes down on your ass. By all means.

It's just unfortunate that in CA we have millions upon millions of undocumented workers with expired registrations, often carrying loads of cocaine and heroine in their wheel wells and polluting as much as 3 240sx, running on 3 cylinders with no CAT's dragging mowing equipment to pool cleaning gear and these are rarely the targets of crack downs in the smog net operations by the DMV and CHP. Its selective enforcement of a non-selective law which in theory does not embody the spirit of a common law and instead should be re-written by the policy makers to refine the aim of the laws purpose.

It’s a way to make money.

My question to you sir, is do you break smog laws? Maybe not state, but do you drive a vehicle to and from the track or anywhere on a public road ever that is not 100% legal? I'm sure in violation of some federal EPA regulation somewhere in some book...If so why are you throwing stones in a glass house?

btw, the total inability to enforce a law because the majortiy of the population begins to ignore the law creates a culture of in-feasible enforcement which as we have seen at least in our state can lead to such grassroots movements to make a final shove off balance of local and state laws regarding personal choice as with the majiuana movement and now the resulting mass level of legality of the drug by simply getting a doctors note and card.

we can get more in socio-political theory on a microcosmic level if you want. At the end of the day the law is right in a fight againt the individual in such a trivial matter, which is why you all need to start writing your congressmen and getting involved with SEMA and CARB if you want to keep your shit in CA.

There's a whole thread on smog legal sr's on this board too.

Very well spoken. This is probably the best debate I've seen on this site and proves that not only are there educated and well versed members on this board, but that they're willing to speak up as well.

Without getting in too much since I'm limited right now on time, my car passes the required smog requirements and does so daily, on track or off. I wouldn't be so dedicated to my point if I too was an offender. That really would be hypocritical.