Temporary Ban on Immigration.....

[Bruce1]

I fail to understand the eruption of rhetoric condemning the idea of temporarily calling a halt to Islamic immigration until we have reviewed our policies and procedures to insure the safety our people.

As a manufacturing executive there were many times when I shut down a machine or process because of safety concerns. We then reviewed all related technology, procedures, etc. before restarting to insure safety. It seems to me that the concept is the same with this immigration issue.

I believe that, setting aside politics, this is not an unreasonable plan.

Comments?

 

[terminalg92]

I fail to understand the eruption of rhetoric condemning the idea of temporarily calling a halt to Islamic immigration until we have reviewed our policies and procedures to insure the safety our people.

As a manufacturing executive there were many times when I shut down a machine or process because of safety concerns. We then reviewed all related technology, procedures, etc. before restarting to insure safety. It seems to me that the concept is the same with this immigration issue.

I believe that, setting aside politics, this is not an unreasonable plan.

Comments?

I think there are few common criticisms: (a) How is "Islamic immigration" ascertained? Does that mean just asking the prospective immigrant if he or she is Muslim? Presumably if it was a terrorist in that situation they'd just answer 'no'. Or is the suggestion to halt immigration from certain countries that are predominately Muslim, and if so, which countries, and if so, are these countries where immigration has led to terrorism on our soil? Because: (b) haven't the attacks over the last several years been by American citizens? e.g. I believe San Bernandino guy was born in Chicago and Orlando shooter in New York. If I'm not mistaken most of the 9/11 bombers were on tourist visas from Saudi Arabia. (c) establishing policy based solely on someone's religious affiliation is taboo and largely considered "un-American" given America's freedom of religion foundation as well as its deep immigration roots as a country.

 

[New Pal Boiler]

I fail to understand the eruption of rhetoric condemning the idea of temporarily calling a halt to Islamic immigration until we have reviewed our policies and procedures to insure the safety our people.

As a manufacturing executive there were many times when I shut down a machine or process because of safety concerns. We then reviewed all related technology, procedures, etc. before restarting to insure safety. It seems to me that the concept is the same with this immigration issue.

I believe that, setting aside politics, this is not an unreasonable plan.

Comments?

Bruce- you are quite obviously an intolerant, Xenophobic, homophobic, sexist, right wing, radical, Republican, Christian conservative extremist and you have no business being on this board, with your common sense, practical ideas.

You probably hate puppies, babies, and rainbows too.

 

[patj11288]

I fail to understand the eruption of rhetoric condemning the idea of temporarily calling a halt to Islamic immigration until we have reviewed our policies and procedures to insure the safety our people.

As a manufacturing executive there were many times when I shut down a machine or process because of safety concerns. We then reviewed all related technology, procedures, etc. before restarting to insure safety. It seems to me that the concept is the same with this immigration issue.

I believe that, setting aside politics, this is not an unreasonable plan.

Comments?

Its simple. I do not think people of certain religions, ethnicities, etc. should be denied entry to this country on the sole basis of that characteristic. It is immoral and in my opinion wrong. It is especially immoral and wrong in light of the current global refugee crisis. Most of these attacks are domestic. They are people who were born in the United States, are United States citizens, and are afforded all of the same constitutional rights as anyone else. Closing the borders to immigrating "Muslims" would have had 0 impact on preventing these attacks. Rational gun legislation, however... Now we might be onto something.

 

[gr8indoorsman]

I fail to understand the eruption of rhetoric condemning the idea of temporarily calling a halt to Islamic immigration until we have reviewed our policies and procedures to insure the safety our people.

As a manufacturing executive there were many times when I shut down a machine or process because of safety concerns. We then reviewed all related technology, procedures, etc. before restarting to insure safety. It seems to me that the concept is the same with this immigration issue.

I believe that, setting aside politics, this is not an unreasonable plan.

Comments?

So, this would be OK, but don't you dare mess with the Second Amendment? "The Constitution is sacred" applies to the Second Amendment but not to the First? "Slippery slope" arguments apply to Second Amendment but not the First? It's OK to take away rights as long as they're not YOUR rights? Is that how this works? Benjamin Franklin's "one who would sacrifice freedom to obtain a little added security deserves neither freedom nor security" only applies to the Second Amendment but not the First?

Do conservatives even recognize this hypocrisy?

That's all before I even get into the feasibility of it, let alone the Constitutional legality of it. How would you do this? Executive Order by Obama? Aren't those also inherently evil? Or would that be OK under The Donald because Trump?

 

[New Pal Boiler]

So, this would be OK, but don't you dare mess with the Second Amendment? "The Constitution is sacred" applies to the Second Amendment but not to the First? "Slippery slope" arguments apply to Second Amendment but not the First? It's OK to take away rights as long as they're not YOUR rights? Is that how this works? Benjamin Franklin's "one who would sacrifice freedom to obtain a little added security deserves neither freedom nor security" only applies to the Second Amendment but not the First?

Do conservatives even recognize this hypocrisy?

That's all before I even get into the feasibility of it, let alone the Constitutional legality of it. How would you do this? Executive Order by Obama? Aren't those also inherently evil? Or would that be OK under The Donald because Trump?

Then why are we importing people who by and large do not believe in freedom?

 

[patj11288]

So, this would be OK, but don't you dare mess with the Second Amendment? "The Constitution is sacred" applies to the Second Amendment but not to the First? "Slippery slope" arguments apply to Second Amendment but not the First? It's OK to take away rights as long as they're not YOUR rights? Is that how this works? Benjamin Franklin's "one who would sacrifice freedom to obtain a little added security deserves neither freedom nor security" only applies to the Second Amendment but not the First?

Do conservatives even recognize this hypocrisy?

That's all before I even get into the feasibility of it, let alone the Constitutional legality of it. How would you do this? Executive Order by Obama? Aren't those also inherently evil? Or would that be OK under The Donald because Trump?

I liken the policy advocated by the OP to: "There is a lot of crime perpetrated by African Americans and Hispanics on urban mass-transit systems. Maybe we should temporarily call a halt to African Americans and Hispanics being allowed to use subways and buses until we have sufficiently reviewed this issue." Obviously not one-in-the-same, but equally wrong from a moral perspective IMO.

 

[patj11288]

Then why are we importing people who by and large do not believe in freedom?

That is the same ignorant nativist bullshit the Know Nothing Party spewed about German and Irish Catholic immigrants in the mid nineteenth century. I am glad to see we still have not progressed beyond that load of crap.

 

[gr8indoorsman]

Then why are we importing people who by and large do not believe in freedom?

This is in no way a response to what I posted...

 

[New Pal Boiler]

That is the same ignorant nativist bullshit the Know Nothing Party spewed about German and Irish Catholic immigrants in the mid nineteenth century. I am glad to see we still have not progressed beyond that load of crap.

You have already proven in another thread that reading comprehension isn't your thing, so I'm not going to waste time with you.

 

[patj11288]

You have already proven in another thread that reading comprehension isn't your thing, so I'm not going to waste time with you.

Yea. That completely irrelevant fifteen word response you provided to gr8indoorsman was a real doozy. Its really difficult for someone of my limited intellect to grasp something so thought provoking.

 

[New Pal Boiler]

This is in no way a response to what I posted...

Sure it is. If we're so concerned about freedom, why bring folks in who don't value it?

 

[patj11288]

Sure it is. If we're so concerned about freedom, why bring folks in who don't value it?

So your point is that all Muslim immigrants do not value freedom? As someone with multiple Muslim immigrant friends who are now engineers, doctors, professors, lawyers, etc. I would have to disagree with that completely asenine assertion.

 

[gr8indoorsman]

Sure it is. If we're so concerned about freedom, why bring folks in who don't value it?

You didn't understand a single word I posted, did you? Oh wait no I see, this is one of those "All Muslims hate Freedom" things isn't it?

I really need to stop responding to people who use the word "import" as it pertains to immigration. The common thread being that they're all apparently idiots.

See? I can stereotype too.

 

[Bruce1]

Ok, there are some excellent comments here. I certainly agree that if we permanently stopped Muslim immigrants from any country it would be wrong. I said temporarily. In the past we have taken steps to tighten airport security selectively until we know we are in control.

 

[gr8indoorsman]

I said temporarily.

So, this would be OK, but don't you dare temporarily mess with the Second Amendment? "The Constitution is sacred" applies to the Second Amendment but not to the First? "Slippery slope" arguments apply to Second Amendment but not temporarily the First? It's OK to temporarily take awayrights as long as they're not YOUR rights? Is that how this works? Benjamin Franklin's "one who would (temporarily) sacrifice freedom to (temporarily) obtain a little added security deserves neither freedom nor security" only applies to the Second Amendment but not the First?

Do conservatives even recognize this hypocrisy?

That's all before I even get into the feasibility of it, let alone the Constitutional legality of it. How would you do this? Temporary Executive Order by Obama? Aren't those also inherently evil? Or would that be OK under The Donald because Trump?

Never mind the fact that the shooter in Orlando wasn't an immigrant.

 

[Bruce1]

So, this would be OK, but don't you dare mess with the Second Amendment? "The Constitution is sacred" applies to the Second Amendment but not to the First? "Slippery slope" arguments apply to Second Amendment but not the First? It's OK to take away rights as long as they're not YOUR rights? Is that how this works? Benjamin Franklin's "one who would sacrifice freedom to obtain a little added security deserves neither freedom nor security" only applies to the Second Amendment but not the First?

Do conservatives even recognize this hypocrisy?

That's all before I even get into the feasibility of it, let alone the Constitutional legality of it. How would you do this? Executive Order by Obama? Aren't those also inherently evil? Or would that be OK under The Donald because Trump?

GR, this post was not about gun control. I would be glad to discuss gun control if you want to start a post about it.
As far as the legality of a temporary ban I have read that the Pres has the authority.

 

[Bruce1]

I think there are few common criticisms: (a) How is "Islamic immigration" ascertained? Does that mean just asking the prospective immigrant if he or she is Muslim? Presumably if it was a terrorist in that situation they'd just answer 'no'. Or is the suggestion to halt immigration from certain countries that are predominately Muslim, and if so, which countries, and if so, are these countries where immigration has led to terrorism on our soil? Because: (b) haven't the attacks over the last several years been by American citizens? e.g. I believe San Bernandino guy was born in Chicago and Orlando shooter in New York. If I'm not mistaken most of the 9/11 bombers were on tourist visas from Saudi Arabia. (c) establishing policy based solely on someone's religious affiliation is taboo and largely considered "un-American" given America's freedom of religion foundation as well as its deep immigration roots as a country.

Temporary.

 

[patj11288]

Ok, there are some excellent comments here. I certainly agree that if we permanently stopped Muslim immigrants from any country it would be wrong. I said temporarily. In the past we have taken steps to tighten airport security selectively until we know we are in control.

If tightening security is warranted, which I wouldn't advocate beyond what it already is without some actual raw data backing it up, it can be done without completely shutting the doors. I get your analogy but immigration policy is not analogous to fixing a dangerous machine. It can take years for someone to legally establish permanent residency in this country and, to be honest, I am not convinced there is a real statistically significant problem as it currebtly pertains to immigrants. To me this is a case of peoples irrational fear of the big bad unknown.

 

[gr8indoorsman]

GR, this post was not about gun control. I would be glad to discuss gun control if you want to start a post about it.
As far as the legality of a temporary ban I have read that the Pres has the authority.

I know what your post was about. I want you to address the hypocrisy of your proposal, and I want you to address the rationale behind it and why it would be Constitutional and morally acceptable.

 

[New Pal Boiler]

You didn't understand a single word I posted, did you? Oh wait no I see, this is one of those "All Muslims hate Freedom" things isn't it?

I really need to stop responding to people who use the word "import" as it pertains to immigration. The common thread being that they're all apparently idiots.

See? I can stereotype too.

I read it. The second amendment crap Wasn't relevant so I didn't respond to it.

How many thousands of sharia law supporters do you want to let into this country every year?

 

[patj11288]

I read it. The second amendment crap Wasn't relevant so I didn't respond to it.

How many thousands of sharia law supporters do you want to let into this country every year?

Have you ever met a Muslim and/or someone from the Middle East/been anywhere in the Middle East?

 

[gr8indoorsman]

I read it. The second amendment crap Wasn't relevant so I didn't respond to it.

How many thousands of sharia law supporters do you want to let into this country every year?

More likely you can't respond to it without recognizing your own hypocrisy. It actually challenges your ideology in a way you don't want to accept, so you just dismiss it rather than respond to it.

 

[BoilerBiker]

Temporary.

days, weeks, months, years, decades, ...?

 

[New Pal Boiler]

More likely you can't respond to it without recognizing your own hypocrisy. It actually challenges your ideology in a way you don't want to accept, so you just dismiss it rather than respond to it.

Says the guy who can't answer my question.

And what am I hypocritical about?

 

[qazplm]

Temporary.

so how long do we "temporarily" crap on the Constitution and logic?

How would a temporary ban have stopped Orlando? Or San Bernadino? Or OKC? (ooops sorry, doesn't count).

What if it's a white Muslim from France? What if it's a Muslim from a non-Muslim nation like the mayor of London?

Here's a simple question...how many mass murders were there just in this calendar year and how many of them were perpetrated by Muslims?

 

[gr8indoorsman]

How many thousands of sharia law supporters do you want to let into this country every year?

I'll answer your question: zero. I would prefer zero Sharia supporters in this country. I also prefer zero racists in this country, and I also prefer zero homophobes in this country. But guess what? We get lots of them and we already have lots of them. That doesn't mean we all have become racists and we've all become homophobes and it doesn't mean that we've passed laws that allow racism and homophobia. Thus, we could "import" (your incorrect word) one MILLION supporters of Sharia law into this country, and they would make up, work with me here, 0.3% of the population. Thus, Sharia would not become the law of this land.

I know, I know. Slippery slope.

Now, answer my questions.

 

[Bruce1]

I know what your post was about. I want you to address the hypocrisy of your proposal, and I want you to address the rationale behind it and why it would be Constitutional and morally acceptable.

There is no hypocrisy in my proposal as I am not talking about gun control in this post. I don't know why you can't seperate them. I will be glad to discuss gun control and you may be surprised that I am for additional controls.

I don't believed it would be unconstitutional as immigrants are not US citizens. My rational is that there is a very large number of Muslims in the Middle East and Southeast Asia who hate the US and everything we stand for...there are millions. The experience in Europe is a red flag that we should not ignore. In the recent past our immigration officials have said that they are not equipped to thoroughly vet these people. Also, it may be that the most serious issue is with student visas and work visas. I put these in the same category as people wanting to immigrate here. I am not against immigration at all, period. However, first and foremost I am for the safety of our people....of all religions.

 

[New Pal Boiler]

so how long do we "temporarily" crap on the Constitution and logic?

How would a temporary ban have stopped Orlando? Or San Bernadino? Or OKC? (ooops sorry, doesn't count).

What if it's a white Muslim from France? What if it's a Muslim from a non-Muslim nation like the mayor of London?

Here's a simple question...how many mass murders were there just in this calendar year and how many of them were perpetrated by Muslims?

So we aren't a sovereign nation with the ability to decide who comes into our country?

 

[gr8indoorsman]

There is no hypocrisy in my proposal as I am not talking about gun control in this post. I don't know why you can't seperate them. I will be glad to discuss gun control and you may be surprised that I am for additional controls.

I don't believed it would be unconstitutional as immigrants are not US citizens. My rational is that there is a very large number of Muslims in the Middle East and Southeast Asia who hate the US and everything we stand for...there are millions. The experience in Europe is a red flag that we should not ignore. In the recent past our immigration officials have said that they are not equipped to thoroughly vet these people. Also, it may be that the most serious issue is with student visas and work visas. I put these in the same category as people wanting to immigrate here. I am not against immigration at all, period. However, first and foremost I am for the safety of our people....of all religions.

I am aware of what it's about, but you miss the point of my rhetorical questions. That is, you want to suspend a fundamental right of human beings in this country for a little security on one hand, but most conservatives do not want the 2A changed or challenged one iota because Freedom. I'm glad that you're in favor of more gun control.

Germane to your post and your point, the only rights denied to non-citizens expressly in the Constitution are the right to vote and the right to run for elected office. Obviously, our laws likely make it impossible for them to purchase a firearm in this country as well, but they are otherwise entitled to freedom of expression and free practice of religion. So, no, the temporary ban on one specific religious group would absolutely, positively fly in the face of the First Amendment.

That's outside the fact that many would find it morally appalling, let alone probably unenforceable as there does not exist a blood test, DNA test, or other objective measure by which to determine someone's religion. The only American Egyptian I've met is a Christian, so would he be allowed entry because he says he's Christian? He looks like an Arab and is from a predominantly Muslim country!

 

[gr8indoorsman]

So we aren't a sovereign nation with the ability to decide who comes into our country?

Absolutely we are, and we should. But there's a distinct difference between that and a blanket ban of a specific religious group because of the actions of an extreme minority.

 

[patj11288]

I am aware of what it's about, but you miss the point of my rhetorical questions. That is, you want to suspend a fundamental right of human beings in this country for a little security on one hand, but most conservatives do not want the 2A changed or challenged one iota because Freedom. I'm glad that you're in favor of more gun control.

Germane to your post and your point, the only rights denied to non-citizens expressly in the Constitution are the right to vote and the right to run for elected office. Obviously, our laws likely make it impossible for them to purchase a firearm in this country as well, but they are otherwise entitled to freedom of expression and free practice of religion. So, no, the temporary ban on one specific religious group would absolutely, positively fly in the face of the First Amendment.

That's outside the fact that many would find it morally appalling, let alone probably unenforceable as there does not exist a blood test, DNA test, or other objective measure by which to determine someone's religion. The only American Egyptian I've met is a Christian, so would he be allowed entry because he says he's Christian? He looks like an Arab and is from a predominantly Muslim country!

Although I completely agree with you in spirit I'm not sure your constitutional position is on point. If, theoretically, a Muslim immigration ban were passed and subsequently challenged in the courts the First Amendment would have nothing to do with the Court's analysis. Moreover, it's not so clear cut IMO that such a policy would be unconstitutional. Historically the SCOTUS has deferred to the political branches on the issue of congressional regulation of immigration. Of course SCOTUS can always find a way to shoot something like that down, and possibly would, but I think it is far from a guarantee. I'd have to actually look through applicable precedent to reach a more sound conclusion, but I don't think it is that clear cut.

 

[New Pal Boiler]

Absolutely we are, and we should. But there's a distinct difference between that and a blanket ban of a specific religious group because of the actions of an extreme minority.

Yes- and I am not in favor of that. I am in favor of restricting, but not completely eliminating, immigration from countries that tend to produce terrorists and sharia law supporters. And conversely, increasing immigration from countries that don't. Recalibration of our our immigration policy, if you will.

 

[New Pal Boiler]

So, this would be OK, but don't you dare temporarily mess with the Second Amendment? "The Constitution is sacred" applies to the Second Amendment but not to the First? "Slippery slope" arguments apply to Second Amendment but not temporarily the First? It's OK to temporarily take awayrights as long as they're not YOUR rights? Is that how this works? Benjamin Franklin's "one who would (temporarily) sacrifice freedom to (temporarily) obtain a little added security deserves neither freedom nor security" only applies to the Second Amendment but not the First?

Do conservatives even recognize this hypocrisy?

That's all before I even get into the feasibility of it, let alone the Constitutional legality of it. How would you do this? Temporary Executive Order by Obama? Aren't those also inherently evil? Or would that be OK under The Donald because Trump?

Never mind the fact that the shooter in Orlando wasn't an immigrant.

Just curious: What constitutional "rights" do would-be immigrants have?

If it's part of a comprehensive Anti-Terrorism Bill with some common sense immigration reform, I would be in favor of a 60-90 day waiting period for AR-15s, with any red flags adjudicated by a bipartisan congressional committee. Anyone who really needs a rifle like that for the right reasons would be willing to wait for it.

 

[prophit44]

[QUOTE="New Pal Boiler, post: 1036044, member:
"Anyone who really needs a rifle like that for the right reasons would be willing to wait for it.[/QUOTE]
While I can't say that I agree with some of the positions you have shared on this board, you do seem present yourself as a rational thinker. I would appreciate you sharing a rational description of why and for what purpose someone in the US would "really need" a weapon like that. It's seems to me that the usual response to anyone asking any such questions on specific guns are: "the absolute primacy of the 2nd amendment" and the inflammatory presumption that if "Obama" succeed in getting any one type of gun restricted he will somehow take them all.

Beyond those straw man positions, I'm truly interested in the "right reasons" for needing a semi-auto weapon designed for combat.

Admittedly, I live in the Northeast US on just under an acre suburban lot. A place where a handgun in trained hands seems perfectly fitting for any needed home defense.

 

[boiler_89_]

So, this would be OK, but don't you dare mess with the Second Amendment? "The Constitution is sacred" applies to the Second Amendment but not to the First? "Slippery slope" arguments apply to Second Amendment but not the First? It's OK to take away rights as long as they're not YOUR rights? Is that how this works? Benjamin Franklin's "one who would sacrifice freedom to obtain a little added security deserves neither freedom nor security" only applies to the Second Amendment but not the First?

Do conservatives even recognize this hypocrisy?

That's all before I even get into the feasibility of it, let alone the Constitutional legality of it. How would you do this? Executive Order by Obama? Aren't those also inherently evil? Or would that be OK under The Donald because Trump?

Who is protected under the US Constitution?

 

[New Pal Boiler]

[/QUOTE]While I can't say that I agree with some of the positions you have shared on this board, you do seem present yourself as a rational thinker. I would appreciate you sharing a rational description of why and for what purpose someone in the US would "really need" a weapon like that. It's seems to me that the usual response to anyone asking any such questions on specific guns are: "the absolute primacy of the 2nd amendment" and the inflammatory presumption that if "Obama" succeed in getting any one type of gun restricted he will somehow take them all.

Beyond those straw man positions, I'm truly interested in the "right reasons" for needing a semi-auto weapon designed for combat.

Admittedly, I live in the Northeast US on just under an acre suburban lot. A place where a handgun in trained hands seems perfectly fitting for any needed home defense.[/QUOTE]
I certainly don't need one, but here are some scenarios:

A catastrophic attack resulting in a breakdown of the civil society, failure of power grid, financial systems, etc

You live in a violent neighborhood

You own livestock and need to protect them from predators

They are much more accurate than handguns.

I'm not a good shot, so if a band of thugs knocks down my door, I need to squeeze off as many shots as possible, sort of like my co-Rec days.

The last thing we need is Obama's band of partisan idiots in the JD deciding unilaterally who can buy guns and who can't.

 

[TopSecretBoiler]

So, this would be OK, but don't you dare temporarily mess with the Second Amendment? "The Constitution is sacred" applies to the Second Amendment but not to the First? "Slippery slope" arguments apply to Second Amendment but not temporarily the First? It's OK to temporarily take awayrights as long as they're not YOUR rights? Is that how this works? Benjamin Franklin's "one who would (temporarily) sacrifice freedom to (temporarily) obtain a little added security deserves neither freedom nor security" only applies to the Second Amendment but not the First?

Do conservatives even recognize this hypocrisy?

That's all before I even get into the feasibility of it, let alone the Constitutional legality of it. How would you do this? Temporary Executive Order by Obama? Aren't those also inherently evil? Or would that be OK under The Donald because Trump?

Never mind the fact that the shooter in Orlando wasn't an immigrant.

dat strawman.
shit is weak.
There is no 1st amendment violation here. No precedent for that. In fact, there is precedent FOR it. So find a real argument. Your little rant has no legal ground.

 

[Bruce1]

Absolutely we are, and we should. But there's a distinct difference between that and a blanket ban of a specific religious group because of the actions of an extreme minority.

Blanket ban? Wow! Quite a leap!

 

[Bruce1]

While I can't say that I agree with some of the positions you have shared on this board, you do seem present yourself as a rational thinker. I would appreciate you sharing a rational description of why and for what purpose someone in the US would "really need" a weapon like that. It's seems to me that the usual response to anyone asking any such questions on specific guns are: "the absolute primacy of the 2nd amendment" and the inflammatory presumption that if "Obama" succeed in getting any one type of gun restricted he will somehow take them all.

Beyond those straw man positions, I'm truly interested in the "right reasons" for needing a semi-auto weapon designed for combat.

Admittedly, I live in the Northeast US on just under an acre suburban lot. A place where a handgun in trained hands seems perfectly fitting for any needed home defense.[/QUOTE]
I certainly don't need one, but here are some scenarios:

A catastrophic attack resulting in a breakdown of the civil society, failure of power grid, financial systems, etc

You live in a violent neighborhood

You own livestock and need to protect them from predators

They are much more accurate than handguns.

I'm not a good shot, so if a band of thugs knocks down my door, I need to squeeze off as many shots as possible, sort of like my co-Rec days.

The last thing we need is Obama's band of partisan idiots in the JD deciding unilaterally who can buy guns and who can't.[/QUOTE]

Based on your logic here no auto company should be allowed to build and sell a car to the public that goes over the speed limit. Ever hear about freedom?