TINT- Should we get rid of the Window Tint Law?

Created by Sunshade on Aug 22, 2008

199 votes

Click on an option to vote

YES

NO

First Prev
of 6
Next Last
DUMB LAWS

United States

#1 Aug 22, 2008
JUST ANOTHER ONE OF THOSE STUPID LAWS THESE POLITICIANS PASS!

“Escaped to The North”

Level 2

Since: Feb 08

Location hidden

#2 Aug 22, 2008
I think the window tint should be restricted. Think about it, what if an officer pulls over a car for a routine traffic stop and as he approaches the vehicle, cannot see inside. The next thing you know, the officer catches two to the chest from a gun that he could not see. It's a safety issue, really.

I understand some people have medical conditions and that's a perfectly acceptable reason to have darker tint. Otherwise, no. Keep it regulated.

“Escaped to The North”

Level 2

Since: Feb 08

Location hidden

#4 Aug 22, 2008
Spartan the IDIOT wrote:
Spartan you area an idiot and a coward! If your scared to walk up to a car with tinted windows then go get yourself a job at Burger King flipping burgers! We get rid of one coward at the P.D.(Austin) and we get another one to replace him! There are plenty of us here at the P.D. not scared to do our jobs and we don't need a coward like you in our dept.
No one said anything about being scared. I simply pointed out the reason for the law being in place and a scenario that could and would most likely take place if said law was rescinded.
Sam

United States

#5 Aug 23, 2008
-Spartan- wrote:
I think the window tint should be restricted. Think about it, what if an officer pulls over a car for a routine traffic stop and as he approaches the vehicle, cannot see inside. The next thing you know, the officer catches two to the chest from a gun that he could not see. It's a safety issue, really.
I understand some people have medical conditions and that's a perfectly acceptable reason to have darker tint. Otherwise, no. Keep it regulated.
Of course, the police would be even safer if we just banned guns.

They would be safer still if we banned cars. It's much harder for a pedestrian or a bicyclist to hide a deadly weapon than it is for someone in a car to do so.

Just in case, though, why not ban purses and backpacks and pockets?

I suppose someone could hide a weapon in his waistband, so it would probably be best to ban all clothes.

Are clothes really any more necessary than tinted windows? Clothing gives us a little privacy (like tinted windows do), but if it might save the life of just one cop, surely we would all be willing to walk around naked.

In Louisiana, especially, clothes are just decorative for most of the year. We would probably all be healthier if we didn't wear them. If you don't have anything criminal to conceal, then why would you want to wear clothes in August?

If we decided we couldn't do without cars, why not just say this?: When the police stop a car, all the people in that stopped car have to get out and lie face down on the ground. Then, the policeman can get out of his own car and safely approach those people with his own gun drawn.

Why stop at cars, though? Aren't policeman in even greater danger when they walk up to a house? Someone could be hiding in there with a gun! Why not ban curtains? That way, the police will be able to peer in the windows before they knock on/down the door.

The ban on heavily-tinted windows overwhelmingly affects people who would never shoot a policeman. It's a ridiculous law.

“Escaped to The North”

Level 2

Since: Feb 08

Location hidden

#6 Aug 23, 2008
Sam wrote:
<quoted text>
Of course, the police would be even safer if we just banned guns.
They would be safer still if we banned cars. It's much harder for a pedestrian or a bicyclist to hide a deadly weapon than it is for someone in a car to do so.
Just in case, though, why not ban purses and backpacks and pockets?
I suppose someone could hide a weapon in his waistband, so it would probably be best to ban all clothes.
Are clothes really any more necessary than tinted windows? Clothing gives us a little privacy (like tinted windows do), but if it might save the life of just one cop, surely we would all be willing to walk around naked.
In Louisiana, especially, clothes are just decorative for most of the year. We would probably all be healthier if we didn't wear them. If you don't have anything criminal to conceal, then why would you want to wear clothes in August?
If we decided we couldn't do without cars, why not just say this?: When the police stop a car, all the people in that stopped car have to get out and lie face down on the ground. Then, the policeman can get out of his own car and safely approach those people with his own gun drawn.
Why stop at cars, though? Aren't policeman in even greater danger when they walk up to a house? Someone could be hiding in there with a gun! Why not ban curtains? That way, the police will be able to peer in the windows before they knock on/down the door.
The ban on heavily-tinted windows overwhelmingly affects people who would never shoot a policeman. It's a ridiculous law.
I read.
I laughed.
It's not even worth refuting.
Sam

United States

#7 Aug 23, 2008
-Spartan- wrote:
<quoted text>
I read.
I laughed.
It's not even worth refuting.
That's the defense that is usually made against satire.

I really would be interested, though, to hear why you think the tint ban is so much more necessary than those other equally ridiculous bans.

The only difference is that the people in the state legislature are mostly from social groups that don't care to have tinted windows. It's easy to ban something when you don't want it and it's presented to you as something that only young hoodlums (probably black or Mexican ones, at that) would want.

“Escaped to The North”

Level 2

Since: Feb 08

Location hidden

#8 Aug 23, 2008
What other bans do you find ridiculous? I'll need something to compare and contrast, please.
Tint

Atlanta, GA

#9 Aug 23, 2008
What you got to hid if you want them tinted that dark. The sun can be kept out without it being that dark. So it makes a person wonder what you really got going on in there that you don't want anyone to see??
If we are going to clean this town up, then do it right :-)
Sam

United States

#10 Aug 23, 2008
-Spartan- wrote:
What other bans do you find ridiculous? I'll need something to compare and contrast, please.
I mean the other bans that I suggested. Bans on purses, clothes, curtains, etc.

How many times has some crazy person pulled a gun from a bag and shot up a crowd? It would have been much harder to get away with it if we hadn't allowed him to carry a bag. Alternatively, we could have required him and everyone else to only carry see-thru bags.

I know that we have less of an expectation of privacy in our cars than we do in our homes, but is that really justified? More policeman have been shot from house windows than have been shot from car windows. If the justification for the tint restriction is that it MIGHT save the life of a few policemen, then wouldn't that same justification be even more valid for restrictions on curtains?

Those bans seem ridiculous because almost everybody uses those things.

We think, "Well, OF COURSE, we're going to hide our nude bodies under clothes. OF COURSE we're going to conceal what goes on in our homes with curtains. OF COURSE we're not going to carry our private items around in transparent purses for the whole public to see."

Tinted windows had the misfortune of catching on fairly recently and mostly among younger people. They are presented as (at best) a fad and (at worst) a cop-blind. Really, though, they're no less frivolous than those other items.
Sam

United States

#11 Aug 23, 2008
Tint wrote:
What you got to hid if you want them tinted that dark. The sun can be kept out without it being that dark. So it makes a person wonder what you really got going on in there that you don't want anyone to see??
If we are going to clean this town up, then do it right :-)
What someone has to hide in HIS OR HER OWN CAR is his or her business. Maybe I just don't like weirdos staring at me when I'm driving. Maybe I feel safer if people don't know that I'm driving alone. Maybe I think my car looks prettier with tinted windows.

“Escaped to The North”

Level 2

Since: Feb 08

Location hidden

#12 Aug 23, 2008
Sam, those other things you tried to name as "bans" were just things that you came up with out of satire. Thus they have no legitimate place in this discussion.

Windows tinted past regulation are indeed a safety hazard. What if a child is tied up in the back seat of a vehicle, but no one can see them because of the tint? What if someone has passed out or had a seizure in their car in a parking lot and no one can see them? Help would never come because no one would realize it was needed.

What if someone is driving and drinking alcohol in the vehicle and passes four police cars before running over someone and killing them. Had it been possible to see this person committing this act, they could have bee apprehended beforehand.

If you want tint, fine. Just keep it within regulation. There's no ban on tint. Just a restriction on visibility percentage.
Lucky Lady

Mount Pleasant, TX

#13 Aug 23, 2008
Sam wrote:
<quoted text>
What someone has to hide in HIS OR HER OWN CAR is his or her business. Maybe I just don't like weirdos staring at me when I'm driving. Maybe I feel safer if people don't know that I'm driving alone. Maybe I think my car looks prettier with tinted windows.
Sam, how old are you?
Sam

United States

#14 Aug 23, 2008
-Spartan- wrote:
Sam, those other things you tried to name as "bans" were just things that you came up with out of satire. Thus they have no legitimate place in this discussion.
Windows tinted past regulation are indeed a safety hazard. What if a child is tied up in the back seat of a vehicle, but no one can see them because of the tint? What if someone has passed out or had a seizure in their car in a parking lot and no one can see them? Help would never come because no one would realize it was needed.
What if someone is driving and drinking alcohol in the vehicle and passes four police cars before running over someone and killing them. Had it been possible to see this person committing this act, they could have bee apprehended beforehand.
If you want tint, fine. Just keep it within regulation. There's no ban on tint. Just a restriction on visibility percentage.
Satire is a part of legitimate discussion. It's all about critizing something by showing how ridiculous it is. It's goal is social change or, at least, clearer thought. I don't think you get the distinction between "satire" and mere "comedy."

I truly believe that, except for contemporary prejudices, those bans I suggested are just as reasonable as the ban on darkly tinted car windows (i.e., not reasonable since they punish everyone because someone MIGHT use the restricted item to conceal a crime).

All of the scenarios you described (except for the drunk driving one) could happen just as tragically due to curtains.

Think of all the horrible crimes and all the preventable tragedies that are happening right now behind closed curtains.

I understand how the tint restriction works. I just think it's an unnecessary intrusion by the state into people's private lives.
Sam

United States

#15 Aug 23, 2008
Lucky Lady wrote:
<quoted text>
Sam, how old are you?
Why do you want to know?

“Escaped to The North”

Level 2

Since: Feb 08

Location hidden

#16 Aug 23, 2008
Sam wrote:
<quoted text>
Satire is a part of legitimate discussion. It's all about critizing something by showing how ridiculous it is. It's goal is social change or, at least, clearer thought. I don't think you get the distinction between "satire" and mere "comedy."
I truly believe that, except for contemporary prejudices, those bans I suggested are just as reasonable as the ban on darkly tinted car windows (i.e., not reasonable since they punish everyone because someone MIGHT use the restricted item to conceal a crime).
All of the scenarios you described (except for the drunk driving one) could happen just as tragically due to curtains.
Think of all the horrible crimes and all the preventable tragedies that are happening right now behind closed curtains.
I understand how the tint restriction works. I just think it's an unnecessary intrusion by the state into people's private lives.
People in their homes have the right to privacy. If they want to walk around naked in the privacy of their own home, then that's fine. However, in your vehicle, your right to privacy has a reasonable limit. And that limit is put in place for your safety and the safety of others.

The rest of those so called bans you named are ridiculous and far from reasonable. Banning clothes? Curtains? Wallets and purses? That's ridiculous. Ludicrous even.

You understand WHY the restriction is in place. That's all that needs to be said. You don't have to like the restriction, you simply have to adhere to it.

And with that, I'm done with this discussion.
Lucky Lady

Mount Pleasant, TX

#17 Aug 23, 2008
Sam wrote:
<quoted text>
Why do you want to know?
You must be a teenager. I can't believe an adult would actually be having this conversation. Scratch that. I'm 40's and I've actually had this conversation twice before. With my teenagers. I mean, ya have to have it taken off, to get an inspection sticker and then pay to have it put back on. Is it worth it? I promise not to peek at cha at traffic lights. LOL
Tinted

AOL

#18 Aug 23, 2008
-Spartan- wrote:
Sam, those other things you tried to name as "bans" were just things that you came up with out of satire. Thus they have no legitimate place in this discussion.
Windows tinted past regulation are indeed a safety hazard. What if a child is tied up in the back seat of a vehicle, but no one can see them because of the tint? What if someone has passed out or had a seizure in their car in a parking lot and no one can see them? Help would never come because no one would realize it was needed.
What if someone is driving and drinking alcohol in the vehicle and passes four police cars before running over someone and killing them. Had it been possible to see this person committing this act, they could have bee apprehended beforehand.
If you want tint, fine. Just keep it within regulation. There's no ban on tint. Just a restriction on visibility percentage.
You can't live your life by "what if" Just because someone has windows that are too dark according to state regulations doesn't at all mean they are trying to hide something, packing a 357 Smith & Wesson, drinking, etc.. I am a single woman who travels alot, I choose to have the darker windows for this reason. I understand your point about a officer walking up to a vehicle and someone pulling a gun on that officer and the officer not seeing that. However, I have been stopped and ticketed twice for my windows and both times the officer stood at the door of the patrol car and made me step out of my vehicle. Futhermore, if it is expected that citizens should follow the regulations then so should the police departments. Have a nice day!!
Sam

United States

#19 Aug 23, 2008
-Spartan- wrote:
<quoted text>
People in their homes have the right to privacy. If they want to walk around naked in the privacy of their own home, then that's fine. However, in your vehicle, your right to privacy has a reasonable limit. And that limit is put in place for your safety and the safety of others.
The rest of those so called bans you named are ridiculous and far from reasonable. Banning clothes? Curtains? Wallets and purses? That's ridiculous. Ludicrous even.
You understand WHY the restriction is in place. That's all that needs to be said. You don't have to like the restriction, you simply have to adhere to it.
And with that, I'm done with this discussion.
You're done with the discussion because you don't know how to address it. You disappoint me. I've always admired your posts in the past.

I don't know why you mentioned walking around naked in one's home. I never talked about the right to be naked anywhere. I think you got confused.

There is a greater legal right to privacy in the home than in a car, but one still has a significant right to privacy in one's car. However, this goes beyond the right to privacy. It involves an even more fundamental right to use one's property in the way that one wants to use it.

Generally, we allow people to do that unless they are doing it in a way that is LIKELY to infringe on someone else's rights. The tint restriction, in contrast, is applied to everyone because in a tiny, tiny minority of cases someone will use the darker tinting to assist them in infringing on someone else's rights.

My point is that the arguments you make for reducing the right to privacy in one's car and banning the darker tinting can just as validly be made in many other circumstances.

The bans I mentioned seemed ludicrous to you because they would violate your social prejudices.

Satire works by making people think about WHY something seems wrong or ludicrous. Is your initial opinion based on sound reason or simply on contemporary prejudices about "the way things are supposed to be"?

The starter of this thread wanted a discussion on whether the tint restrictions should be lifted. Therefore, there is more that "needs to be said."

If you don't want to participate, that's fine, but don't tell me what "needs to be said".

I understand WHY lots of bad laws were enacted. That doesn't mean there shouldn't be public criticism of those laws.
Sam

United States

#20 Aug 23, 2008
Lucky Lady wrote:
<quoted text>
You must be a teenager. I can't believe an adult would actually be having this conversation. Scratch that. I'm 40's and I've actually had this conversation twice before. With my teenagers. I mean, ya have to have it taken off, to get an inspection sticker and then pay to have it put back on. Is it worth it? I promise not to peek at cha at traffic lights. LOL
I'm an adult.

Why would you have to have it taken off to get an inspection sticker if the tint restriction was repealed? That's what we're addressing here, you know.

I don't have tinted windows and I've never wanted them.

I just don't like it when the state interferes in people's lives unnecessarily.

You illustrate the problem with Winnfield.

Most people here can't have a discussion of anything without personalizing it. They think, "Well, if he doesn't think this should be illegal, then he must want to do it."
Herd Mentality

United States

#21 Aug 23, 2008
thanks for the posts Sam.

it is unfortunate that most people in today's society are like Lemmings and subscribe to herd mentality.

Spartan is apparently not intelligent enough to realize that he has lost this debate.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker
First Prev
of 6
Next Last

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Winnfield Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Recipes and Coupons (Jul '13) 1 hr Sara 34
CCA - DOC here for a personnal shakedown 2 hr Max 26
Hank Williams, Jr. (Oct '11) 5 hr Roland Myer 16
Dodson basketball in playoffs 8 hr pantherfan 2
Sheriff's race next year, who will you vote for? (Jul '14) 21 hr JJCrippenIII 62
??WHAT??A NEW word game FOUR WORDS (Oct '11) 21 hr Hatti_Hollerand 1,185
Add a word drop a word (Feb '10) 23 hr Non _cents 1,768
Winnfield Dating
Find my Match
More from around the web

Winnfield People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

Personal Finance

Mortgages [ See current mortgage rates ]

NFL Latest News

Updated 12:56 pm PST

Bleacher Report12:56PM
Curtis Lofton Trade Rumors: Latest News and Speculation on Saints LB
NFL 1:39 PM
Saints release running back Pierre Thomas
Bleacher Report 1:57 PM
Report: Saints to Release RB Pierre Thomas
ESPN 3:46 PM
Source: Saints plan to release RB Thomas
Yahoo! Sports 4:15 PM
Saints to cut RB Thomas after 8 seasons