[priv8ter]

So, recently in Washington, a law was passed which made not wearing a seat belt a primary offence. Before, you could be given a ticket for not wearing a seat belt if you were pulled over for something else. Making it a primary offence made it legal for the police to pull you over for not wearing your seatbelt.

Since November, when the 'Click-it or Ticket' campaign began, 22,611 people have been ticketed, at $86 a piece. This has made the state almost 2 million dollars. But, figure in the ad campaign and the extra OT for the cops, well, the state has made less than a million. So, it's not very effective as a revenue raising venture.

So, a group of concerned citizens, headed by an ex-state trooper, have filed a state initiative to get this intrusive law removed.

Sigh.

I know it's not gun related, but it does show how we can fight back somewhat against Government Gone Wild.

More info can be found here:

www.clickitstick.com

[EJ]

Weall too often forget that infringement of rights is a disease hat spreads with any contact or perversion of life--

[Blackhawk]

Weall too often forget that infringement of rights is a disease hat spreads with any contact or perversion of life--So are you saying that while exercising the privilege of driving you have the right to not wear a seatbelt?

If so, do you also have the right to not have operable brakes, brakelights, etc.?

How about bald tires? Do you have the right to drive around on tires with no tread?

Just askin'.... :)

[EJ]

While exercising the privilege of driving I feel I have a right not to wear a seatbelt--

Moreover I feel I have an even greater right not to be accosted for that percieved infraction alone--

The risk is to me-- not to other drivers--
and we allow Bikers to ride sans-helmets-- so the social obligation to keep idiots like me safe has little to stand on--
;)

[AZTOY]

I took out the seat belts in my truck to fit 2 12 inch subwoofers behide the seat:neener::evil:

[Blackhawk]

The risk is to me-- not to other drivers--
and we allow Bikers to ride sans-helmets-- so the social obligation to keep idiots like me safe has little to stand on--If that was really true, it would be fine with me.

However, because of all the other "social obligation" laws like taxpayer supported emergency rooms, social security and WC benefits to the permanently impaired, and the exorbitant pain & suffering awards from lawsuits, YOUR physical risk is MY financial risk.

I wouldn't mind at all if my tax and insurance premium money didn't have to pay for the additional costs of your incrased risks. Maybe we'd agree on a law that says "Don't use seat belts at your own risk" or something that lets you take ALL the risk....

I really don't mind my tax money doing its part if you do yours, know-whut-I-mean...?

[Standing Wolf]

I've been wearing seat belts in cars since 1957, when my father traded in his 1952 Chevrolet on a new one with seat belt holes in the floor, and installed his own.

As far as I'm concerned, people have an inherent right not to wear seat belts and motorcyclists have an identical right not to wear helmets—and I, in turn, have an identical right not to pick up the tab for their medical expenses.

[CZ-75]

I wear seatbelts religiously and possibly even owe my bacon to one, as it was possible I might have been thrown from my truck.

I support, grudgingly (violates the MYOB principle), a law mandating their use (unless you waive the right to medical treatment or are self-insured or some such to negate the effects of your actions on my pocketbook), particularly by minors. Consequently, I believe that helmet laws should be mandatory if we wish to impose seatbelt laws.

I do not support the idea that this is a primary offense. It really sounds like an excuse to go fishing by the cops.

[Azrael256]

Personally, I think you're a little crazy if you don't wear one, but then I think you're a little crazy to buy a glock. In both cases, I fully support your right to to make up your own mind and do what suits you. If you choose not to use a seatbelt, or if you choose to act irresponsibly with your glock, I refuse to pay for any costs that may result. This is my stance as a Libertarian. You don't mess with my life, and I don't mess with yours. Everybody stays pretty happy like that.

[hammer4nc]

YOUR physical risk is MY financial risk

This is the same argument used to justify smoking-related regulations, and helmet laws, among others. I think its been shown that in the case of smoking, early death due to tobacco use, actually SAVES money, whether we're talking about the overall burden on public healthcare funds, or private insurance funds. I suspect, but can not prove right now, that the same is true for seatbelt use/helmet laws.

The guy who ends up on life support for 20 years, at public expense, because he wasn't using his seatbelt or helmet, is more than offset by the cases of premature death, due to accidents. All these folks will not tax the system with age-related diseases, medicines, nursing homes etc., that the clean/safe living crowd can expect to require in their later years.

I don't question the anecdotal example, but I don't believe it plays out statistically...and we're talking about statistics here, are we not?

Seems like these issues stem more from the desire to contol behavior, and raise revenue.

[JohnBT]

Like the man said, driving on a public road is not a right. Their game, their rules. Too bad.

On a more personal note, I've seen way too many people at work over the past 30 years who have sustained serious brain injuries. Way too many. Anybody who doesn't wear a seatbelt is stupid or suicidal or both.

John

[Ian]

Blackhawk: In answer to your questions: Yes on all counts.

All those actions would be pretty stupid (especially driving without brakes) but hey, it's your life. The solution to being forced to pay for others' healthcare is to return to a wholly private healthcare industry.

[NewShooter78]

I think that almost everyone can agree that wearing a seatbelt in a car or a helment while on a motorcycle is the safest thing to do. But it shouldn't be mandated by law. And I don't know many states where you can drive without insurance, so that's already covered. But I don't think that an opperator of a vehicle should be mandated by law to wear a saftey devise. Furthermore, I really think its a waste of manpower to make such laws primary offenses that allows for you to be pulled over.

I can see it being a law that as a driver you should be obligated to make sure that all minors are safely secured in a seatbelt while in a car, but other than that, let adults make their own desicions on the matter. If they end up dying, then that's natures way of culling the heard.

Insurance companies already provide extra savings if you have certain saftey features in your car, that aren't standard features (or until they do become standard features). They should do so with seat belts. Keep it a private thing.

And if the states were worried about your saftey on the road then they should not have raised the speed limit on the highways. Imagine the trauma from a wreck at 70 mph. I doubt that even a seatbelt would be of much help then, and even if it kept you from being killed outright, it would definetly cause some injury to your chest/neck/shoulder. The whole argument is academic. People say that airbags save lives, but there are documented cases where they have killed people...the same goes for seatbelts. I have seen a seatbelt cause the only injury in a car accident (which was a sever cut in a man's face where it actually tore the skin apart).

[Blackhawk]

I don't question the anecdotal example, but I don't believe it plays out statistically...and we're talking about statistics here, are we not? No. We're talking about rights.

[Blackhawk]

All those actions would be pretty stupid (especially driving without brakes) but hey, it's your life. If you don't have brakes or servicable tires, it may well be MY life. It's bad enough wondering if the driver closing fast on my six is paying attention to the fact that all the brake lights ahead are telling him to commence stopping actions without having to worry about whether or not he CAN stop.

[Kaylee]

However, because of all the other "social obligation" laws like taxpayer supported emergency rooms, social security and WC benefits to the permanently impaired, and the exorbitant pain & suffering awards from lawsuits, YOUR physical risk is MY financial risk.

Oh for God's sake.

Once you attatch a financial number to right (in this case, the right to be left alone unless you're actively posing a risk to OTHERS), that right is GONE.

The "social obligation" argument can, has been, and will be trotted out for every "icky" behavior from eating at McDonalds to owning an "assault weapon."

I mean no offense to you personally Blackhawk, but that argument itself is morally bankrupt and not worth countering on technical grounds. IE.. "well, if you wear a belt you're more likely to be injured instead of killed, and so the social obligation expenses are higher not lower.."

It doesn't matter if it's a net gain or a net loss to the state.
Again.. IT DOESN'T MATTER

Rather, the argument itself is a sham that presumes to legislate other people's behavior because "it might cost others too much."
I say that's horsepucky. Down that road is having to justify my right to own a .45 because some kid I don't know might get in a gangland fight and end up in the hospital.

Sorry to get heated, but I find the very argument itself morally repugnant.

The answer isn't to ban something -- ANYTHING -- because of the risks to the the "social obligation" -- the answer is to not pay for other people's health care for their own stupid decisions at the point of a gun. Don't wear the right gear and end up leaving half your epidermis on Route 95? Expect to pay a monster hospital bill ON YOUR OWN. It's called self responsibility.

okay. rant done. Have a nice day. :)


-K

[Ed Brunner]

I have been in two auto accidents where I would have been very dead or very seriously injured had I been belted in.

Still, I almost always wear seat belts and I always wear a helmet when on a motorcycle.

I also pay for insurance to cover my medical expenses.

I do not favor seat belts on motorcycles. They are like winshield wipers on a billy goat's posterior. Normally I would have said XXX, but I am happily conforming to Oleg's policy:D

[Blackhawk]

Kaylee,

You boiled over before you read the next word. I said:"social obligation" laws Those are the blissninny laws that say "no matter what you do or how irresponsible you are, it's not your fault and the taxpayers will pay to make it all better and soothe your owie."

I am in NO way endorsing them -- I'm simply acknowledging their existance, and saying that they cost a bunch of taxpayer money by underwriting the consequences of irresponsible behavior.

Your apology is accepted. :D

And regarding: the answer is to not pay for other people's health care for their own stupid decisions at the point of a gun. Don't wear the right gear and end up leaving half your epidermis on Route 95? Expect to pay a monster hospital bill ON YOUR OWN. It's called self responsibility. Isn't that just what I said here in the same post you quoted from? I wouldn't mind at all if my tax and insurance premium money didn't have to pay for the additional costs of your incrased risks. Maybe we'd agree on a law that says "Don't use seat belts at your own risk" or something that lets you take ALL the risk....

I really don't mind my tax money doing its part if you do yours, know-whut-I-mean...?Doesn't matter if it's not exactly the same by your reading, I agree with the way you put it. :D

[Mike Irwin]

I have absolutely no problems with people NOT wearing seat belts or wearing motorcycle helmets...

AS LONG AS...

they sign agreements stating that they are absolutely and completely responsible for their own injuries in an accident, and if injured critically, will be responsible for the entire bill no matter what, and agree that if their insurance runs out they will NOT be elegible for funds from Medicare or Medicaid or any other governmental agency.

In other words, your own stupidity costs only you and your family, NOT the rest of us tax payers.

If you're injured because you were too bull headed to wear your seatbelt, and you don't have insurance to cover your injuries caused by your own stupidity, you'd be wheeled out to the curb.

I'm alive because of seat belts. No two ways around it, and no way I would go without buckling up.

[EJ]

Yup-- Please protect me--
Belt me in and take away my gun before I hurt myself--
The Government knows what's best for me--

And YES it is the same thing--
It's about freedom to make your own choices--

And NO-- It doesn't impact on everyone else--
No more than Smoking -- Drinking -- Having a car with over 100 Hp -- a car without emission controls -- being over weight --ETC ETC--

It's called freedom and you can't have one without the other--
Seatbelt checks turn into firearms checks-- Believe it--


And just to pre-empt the major argument--
That's why we have Passive restraints--(IE Air Bags)
And -- The driver seldom needs a seatbelt-- That's from personal experience of 15 years handling traffic accidents and fatalities-- BEFORE air bags--
It's the poor sot in the passenger seat that gets it--
And children-- I'm all for children restraints-- (Pun intended)

Ok-- Now let's make sure we don't have excess expense for you guys--

We need
Diet Police
Cigarette Police
Exercise Police
Horserpower Police
"reasonable" behavior Police
Save me from myself Police
Sex Police--(AIDs ya'know)
ETC ETC
and of course-- increase the ATF's authority to protect you from yourselves

Maybe thought police too

THINK about what you're proposing here--

This isn't just about what people SHOULD do--
This is about the government making decisions FOR YOU in your best interests--

[Kaylee]

Your apology is accepted.


Ooops. :o

My apology is offered. Sorry about that...
I promise I'll read ya more carefully next time.

-K

[Joe Gunns]

When I started driving, I started wearing seatbelts. Figured if they were good enough for race car driver, they were OK for me. It was a second nature reflex without any conscious thought.

Since the WA State seat belt law I have found myself NOT wearing the belt! What an irrational fool. When I realize it's not on, I cuss myself for an idiot and buckle it up. There is that rebellious little-kid part of me that doesn't want to wear it now that seat belt use is not my own rational choice, arrived at upon due consideration of positive and negative results, a free choice that allows me to feel intellectually superior to fools who choose not to wear a belt, but is rather the directive of Mommy State.

Blackhawk - to even raise the financial arguement shows you to be a closet pawn of the Illuminati. :D

Regards,
Joe

[anchored]

Anyone dumb enough not to wear his seatbelt in a flimsy metal box moving at more than a mile a minute, on a really narrow strip of concrete with a hundred unknown people doing the same thing, shouldn't have the privilege of driving in the first place!

[Blackhawk]

Joe Gunns said:Blackhawk - to even raise the financial arguement shows you to be a closet pawn of the Illuminati. :p

Just who are the "Illuminati," Joe...?

Since you capitalized the word, you're saying they're "any of various groups claiming special religious enlightenment." If you'd left it uncapitalized, you'd be saying they're "persons who are or who claim to be unusually enlightened."

So which is it Joe, and who are they? :p

[CZ-75]

I think I'm going EJ's way on the issue.

Guns are responsible for billions of dollars worth of emergency treatment per year, or so it has been said, some of which govt. (taxpayers) must pick up for indigent victims.

You can own a gun as long as you have triggerlocks and proof of financial responsibility. The more you own, the more financial assets you must have. :D

[Blackhawk]

Sorry, CZ-75. That's an obvious infringement of the 2A. :barf:

[CZ-75]

And the difference here is...?

Seatbelt laws sound like an obvious infringement on the 4th amendment. :barf:

[QKRTHNU]

Since we're already required by law to have insurance I think the seatbelt law is unnecessary.

Let the insurance companies decide if they want to put a clause in the policy that says whether or not you'll be covered if no wearing a safety restraint.

[Blackhawk]

Let the insurance companies decide if they want to put a clause in the policy that says whether or not you'll be covered if no wearing a safety restraint. That might be where things go because most insurance policies already put the burden on you to mitigate your damages. For example, if you're insured against water damage to your house but you strip the roof to replace it and it rains, you won't be covered.

However, the blissninny "social obligation" laws put the financial burden on taxpayers if you don't have insurance and are injured, and they apply no matter how you become injured.

[Blackhawk]

And the difference here is...?

Seatbelt laws sound like an obvious infringement on the 4th amendment. The difference is that driving is not a right -- it's a regulated privilege.

In fact, in some venues, if you're a front seat passenger above a certain age, you're subject to being ticketed if you don't wear a seat belt.

The 4A doesn't have anything to do with seatbelts because of a few considerations:

1. Compliance can be determined visually from a distance because the degree of tint is restricted by other laws. Therefore the "search" is not unreasonable.

2. A vehicle itself is not a person or house, and even though it may contain "effects" subject to the 4A, adjudicated "reasonable" laws require certain parts of the interior to be visible from the outside while the vehicle is being operated.

3. The state has an adjudicated right to ascertain at any time that a vehicle is being operated in compliance with the laws pertaining to operation of a vehicle on public roadways.

A citizen is free to ignore all of the obligations of exercising the privilege or driving by simply forsaking driving.

[Mike Irwin]

A request for those of you who don't wear your seat belts...

Will you put me in your will as recipient of your guns?

Thank you...

[CZ-75]

But who determines what is a privilege and what is a right? The 9th and 10th give discresion on this to the states and people.

Factually, I agree with that it is a privilege and that automobiles are legally excluded from 4th amendment protections.

Fundamentally, I do not.

Why not allow police to look in the windows of your house to determine if the contents are in violation of some law?

Why not issue permits to walk down the sidewalk? Is there a difference in restricting fundamental mobility?

I think the mistake you are making with your arguments is that you are letting someone else define the premises for which you argue. In this case, you accept the government position. It is possible to construct a valid argument from a false premise.

I know that there is legal precedent for everything that you mentioned. Does that mean it is right?

Would you accept that a SCOTUS ruling that the 2nd meant a collective right to bear arms? I wouldn't.

Think about some of the flawed rulings of SCOTUS from the past, like the Dred Scott ruling. Or did you want to argue that the 13th amendment obviated that decision?

[Blackhawk]

I think the mistake you are making with your arguments is that you are letting someone else define the premises for which you argue. In this case, you accept the government position. It is possible to construct a valid argument from a false premise. Actually, you can't construct a valid argument from a false premise.

There are arguments from hypothetical premises, and there are arguments from established facts. If you want to argue hypotheticals, you'll get tangled up in endless bickering because hypotheticals can never be the premises for sound argument.

The 2A is unarguably a right by the power of the Constitution which expressly states it and its internal declaration that it is the Supreme Law of the nation. If you accept the Constitution, you have to accept the 2A as a right.

Likewise with the laws concerning motor vehicles by application of the very 10th Amendment you cite. By the power of the Constitution, the laws the people and their states have passed concerning cars have been established.

SCOTUS decisions do not trump the Constitution. The Supremes can say it says this or that, but their decisions don't change what it actually says. As in Dred-Scott, another SCOTUS can come along and say "we (meaning the SCOTUS) were wrong in that decision." Every decision the SCOTUS makes is considered anew in light of the Constitution, and it is the only court that is not bound by stare decisis, even its own decisions.

You and I can make up rules for a perfect world and argue from them, but that's a waste of time. :D

[Intune]

If the purpose behind mandatory seatbelt laws is to save lives I propose that all vehicle occupants MUST wear helmets. I am forced to wear one here in TN because it is "safer." However, no one has ever been able to argue the fact that many more CAR drivers die of head injuries than bike riders and thus many more lives would be saved if ya'll had to strap on a Bell when you climbed in your cages. Sound fun? BTW, I do wear mine, just don't like being told that I HAVE to. Some people are in their "comfort zone" when being told where to go and what to do. I'm not.

[EJ]

The argument that infringments such as seat belts are appropriate and firearms are not are the arguments of closet liberal that love and want to keep their guns but really want a socialist state where everyone is everyones watcher and is responsible for "the greater good"--


Since we are moving towards a socialist state with this thinking--
let's make sure we don't have excess expense for you guys--

We need

First and foremost -- Seatbelt police--then

Diet Police
Cigarette Police
Exercise Police
Horserpower Police
"reasonable" behavior Police
Save me from myself Police
Sex Police--(AIDs ya'know)
ETC ETC
and of course-- increase the ATF's authority to protect you from yourselves

[Blackhawk]

When "Federal Aid to Education" was first being floated in the '50s, a bunch of teachers were adamantly against it on the "camel's nose under the tent" theory that it would end up with the feds screwing up public education. They were right.

Just like accepting favors from the Mafia, accepting "federal" taxpayer money for anything ends up with erosion of rights. States do it, cities do it, and companies do it. Disgusting, ain't it?

Meanwhile, wear your seatbelt.... :(

[CZ-75]

Actually, you can't construct a valid argument from a false premise.

I beg to differ. You can use sound reasoning (draw a correct inference) to construct a valid (logically structured) argument from a false premise. Your conclusion will be false, though.

I concur with what you said about hypotheticals.

As to the 10th RE: restrictions on mobility, I don't quite remember the people getting much of a say, but I guess that is why we have representatives, such as they are. this isn't the only legislative hijacking we deal with, by far. Still, I'll concede that this is legal, if not right.

I'm not quite as willing to concede the restrictions placed on motor vehicles are anything more than semantics.

What about RVs and Trailer homes? Vehicle or domicile?

What about police making spot checks on homes to look in windows for illegal materials and activities?

3. The state has an adjudicated right to ascertain at any time that a vehicle is being operated in compliance with the laws pertaining to operation of a vehicle on public roadways.

I'm not sure I buy into that point fully. It sounds like as much a pretext for harassment and restriction of freedom of movement as anything. I think that "driving while black" is sufficient example of what I mean.

[Blackhawk]

I beg to differ. You can use sound reasoning (draw a correct inference) to construct a valid (logically structured) argument from a false premise. Your conclusion will be false, though. :D

But then there are those of us who define a valid argument as one which draws a true conclusion.... :rolleyes: What about RVs and Trailer homes? Vehicle or domicile? RV on the road? Vehicle subject to the vision thing. Appropriately parked? Domicile. Trailer being towed? Subject to the trailer laws. Appropriately parked? Domicile.What about police making spot checks on homes to look in windows for illegal materials and activities? 4A applies. No warrant? No peeking beyond what a normal passerby would see walking by. Keep your inside lights darker than the outside light or keep your shades drawn. :DI'm not sure I buy into that point fully. Adjudicated simply means that somebody's challenged the law in court, and it was found Constitutional or otherwise valid.

And like you said, "the people" act through their chosen representatives or governments. We ain't a democracy, you know! :D

[CZ-75]

But then there are those of us who define a valid argument as one which draws a true conclusion....

There are plenty of valid, yet false arguments.

Think of those scientists who opposed building the A-bomb because it might have damaged the atmosphere. Valid to consider whether or not we'd turn it into plasma. Testing proved otherwise. :D

I guess we'll just differ on semantics.

[Blackhawk]

You're mixing up arguments with hypotheses.

[EJ]

The other problem with seat belt laws--

SCHOOL BUSES--

Supposedly "our most precious cargo" but in the VAST majority of jurisdiction not even installed for optional use--:rolleyes:

I still only object to the seatbelt law as an intrusion on my personal freedoms--
But it is not enforced or even written reasonably--

[CZ-75]

Clearly you can build a valid argument from true premises, and arrive at a true conclusion. You can also build a valid argument from false premises, and arrive at a false conclusion.

The tricky part is that you can start with false premises, proceed via valid inference, and reach a true conclusion. For example:

* Premise: All fish live in the ocean
* Premise: Sea otters are fish
* Conclusion: Therefore sea otters live in the ocean

There's one thing you can't do, though: start from true premises, proceed via valid deductive inference, and reach a false conclusion.

We can summarize these results as a "truth table" for implication. The symbol "=>" denotes implication; "A" is the premise, "B" the conclusion. "T" and "F" represent true and false respectively.

Truth Table for Implication

Premise Conclusion Inference
A B A => B
false false true
false true true
true false false
true true true

* If the premises are false and the inference valid, the conclusion can be true or false. (Lines 1 and 2.)
* If the premises are true and the conclusion false, the inference must be invalid. (Line 3.)
* If the premises are true and the inference valid, the conclusion must be true. (Line 4.)

So the fact that an argument is valid doesn't necessarily mean that its conclusion holds -- it may have started from false premises.

If an argument is valid, and in addition it started from true premises, then it is called a sound argument. A sound argument must arrive at a true conclusion.


from infidels.org

[Monkeyleg]

Mike Irwin: "they sign agreements stating that they are absolutely and completely responsible for their own injuries in an accident, and if injured critically, will be responsible for the entire bill no matter what, and agree that if their insurance runs out they will NOT be elegible for funds from Medicare or Medicaid or any other governmental agency."

You've disappointed me.

Will you sign such a release when you use reloads? After all, the gun manufacturers' instruction manuals usually include a caution against their use.

In other posts, you've made reference to being overweight. Will you sign such an agreement every time you eat?

You've also commented about your favorite alcoholic beverages, consumption of which has all sorts of health risks. Written agreement before popping the cork?

Please know I'm not trying to attack you personally; you're one of the people I respect highly on THR. That's why your post blind-sided me.

[priv8ter]

Wow. When I first posted this, I probably should have added that I always wear my seat belt. Not because the government tells me too, but because I really want to see more of my wife and daughter. And I always make sure my wife has her seat belt on before I drive away.

That is the only reason I should need for wearing it.

The fact is this initiative would still require you to wear a seat belt...police just couldn't pull you over for NOT wearing it. And, all children under 16 years old would be required to be seat belted in.

Despite the 22,000+ tickets issued under the new law, there have been an estimated 40,000 people pulled who were wearing seat belts, but it didn't look like they were.

[Monkeyleg]

Priv8tor, things have changed, at least here in Wisconsin.

Many decades ago, seat belts were for race car drivers.

Then manufacturers--especially those who produced sports cars and wanted to garner the wannebe race drivers--offered seat belts as an option. That was fine.

Then some Living Kennedy decided to mandate that car manufacturers have seat belts as standard equipment.

Decades passed, Mary Jo drowned, and the issue was silent.

Then some liberal with an agenda (what does Ted Nugent say about such folks?) decided to tie federal highway funds to seat belt laws. Use 'em, or lose your own tax dollars.

For awhile, the LEO community said they wouldn't stop a driver solely because he wasn't buckled up.

Then the Floating Kennedy's decided to ratchet things up a notch by witholding your own tax dollars from you unless the local PD stopped and fined you for not buckling up.

Pardon me, but I don't recall having agreed to taking my tax dollars and have them used as extortion against me. I'll buckle up when I feel like it. But I sure never agreed to pay, with my federal tax dollars, the local PD to pull me over and tax me once again.

Different issue, same incrementalism.

[EJ]

Absolutely Monkeyleg


We all do a lot of things that aren't "GOOD" for us--

We eat unhealthy food
We eat too much
We drink alcohol
We don't exercise enough
We smoke
We handle gunpower and primers-- and lead bullets
We have firearms in our homes

But we live in America--
And it's supposed to be free--

It's our right to do things that we want -- even if it's not the best for "Society at large" and even if The Dems don't like it--

Again I am amazed at the tone of this thread on an otherwise freedom loving site?????????
:banghead:

[EJ]

We even drive trucks and SUVs--
We know that isn't good for society at large--

Let's pass laws against that too====:rolleyes:

[anchored]

Just to help the thread drift along, here's one of my bookmarks:
The Logical Fallacies Index (http://www.datanation.com/fallacies/index.htm)

Would you require your child to wear a seatbelt?

[Mike Irwin]

You know, it's funny, Monkey.

The people who are most likely to flout safety measures such as seat belts and helmets are statistically those who are most likely to have either inadequate or no insurance to cover them in case of a catastrophic accident fueled by their own stupidity.

It's even funnier that many people who scream the loudest about individual choice and freedom are apparently those who are willing to throw that straight out the window and jump onto the back of society at large if their own stupidity renders them unable to care for themselves.

I never knew that taking responsibility for one's own actions was the same as abrogating responsibility and letting society at large clean up the mess...

I have absolutely no expectation of ever doing that. I carry insurance far in excess of what most people carry, and if I'm ever injured to the point where I'm unable to care for myself or my insurance doesn't do it, that's what the final insurance policy is for, the one written in carbon steel by Smith & Wesson.

[pax]

Anchored:

A child is not an adult.

Nor is it true that the state stands in the same relation to an adult citizen, as a parent stands to his child.

But a lot of people seem to think that is the case, and that is why we have a proliferation of nosy laws and a dearth of common sense.

pax

Mind your own business and you won't be minding mine. -- Hank Williams

[Monkeyleg]

Mike:

"The people who are most likely to flout safety measures such as seat belts and helmets are statistically those who are most likely to have either inadequate or no insurance to cover them in case of a catastrophic accident fueled by their own stupidity."

Show me the statistics and then we can discuss them.

I, too, carry a ton of insurance. $300,000 liability limits plus a $1,000,000 umbrella policy. I pay more for health insurance because I'm a smoker. And I've been declined health coverage because I ride a motorcycle, so I've had to resort to companies with higher premiums.

More than 75% of the miles I log on my cycle are with the helmet on. But it's really frustrating to roll into Carson City, NV when it's over 100 degrees, get stuck in traffic and have my brain boiling under that helmet. In fact, it can make me physically sick. But it's for my own good. :rolleyes:

In the case of motorcycles, what's particularly problematic are states that have "no-fault" insurance. More than three-quarters of motorcycle accidents are the fault of automobile drivers who aren't paying attention. No-fault insurance puts the financial burden on the injured motorcyclist for the actions of the stupid driver. Who ever said life is fair?

[standingbear]

the only time i put on my seatbelt is when i see a cop.i enjoy my disgusting fat filled foods and everything else thats not good for me.i dont use trigger locks and if someone breaks in here,i dont dial 911.

[EJ]

Good Man Standingbear :D

The rest of us freedom fighters are with you!!!

[Zander]

YOUR physical risk is MY financial risk. -- Interesting supposition...but I'd like to see your proof.

I expect it will be as convincing as the contention that smokers are a net drain on our tax dollars. ;)

[Blackhawk]

I expect it will be as convincing as the contention that smokers are a net drain on our tax dollars. Actually, smokers are a net benefit to our tax coffers. They pay many extra taxes during their productive years compared to non-smokers, and they're comparably productive.

The tax benefits come in after smokers leave the workforce. They don't suck up decade after decade of "geezer care" dollars as they tend to die early and relatively quickly once their health begins to fail.

You'll have to do your own research for proof of:YOUR physical risk is MY financial risk. --

You can start by going to a rehab center and talking to the director. Find out the life expectancy and earning potential of the paraplegics there. Then find out who pays the treatment bills and life care costs. Hint: It ain't them!

Smoking is slow suicide that's relatively cheap for society. Just like a business, a society has to have its entitlement obligations (expenses) offset by taxes (income). The Social Security system is a case in point. Upon inception, the retirement age was set at 65, but most workers died around age 62. Good plan, because the average person would never collect. Several things have screwed up that plan: SS benefits to the injured, survivors, and longer life expectancies due to other advances.

[EJ]

Again I am amazed at the tone of this thread--
We are supposed to be SUPPORTERS of freedom--

We can't let the liberal concepts of (We know what's best for you) destroy any more of our rights--
Believe me--
No one ouside the conservative arena believes we need firearms--
They are targeted and ANY loss of our reasonable freedom is a step towards loss of our gun RIGHTS--

We live in a free country--

Regardless of social implication -- Government cost -- etc

We have a right to do what we want as long as it doesn't interefere with the freedom of others--

That includes--

Own firearms
Eat what we want--
Exercise or not--
Drink alcohol--
Smoke--
Wear seat belts--
ETC ETC--

Guys -- we need to be vigilant and protective of ALL intrusions into the free (PURSUIT OF HAPINES) issue we see--

That includes smoking // wearing Seat belts // eating fatty foods
//exercising or not // drinking //

If not we will lose ALL OF THEM--

Maybe we will be safer--
Maybe our taxes will go down because of lower social costs :rolleyes:
I sure hope you don't believe that one-- But at the same time that is the only excuse you have to intrude onour rights--
Some of you should be politicians---:D