To those who say the government shouldnt

[Kentactic]

I will remain unbias for now.

To those who say the government has no place telling us we have to wear a seatbelt when we drive as one example. How do you feel about there being no law requiring a parent to buckle up an infant or child? Or how about no law against drinking and driving?

[gapatriot]

Well lets be honest, how many of us rode around as kids with no seat belt? Baby seats frankly i dont see a need for a law requiring it, if the parents dont want to put it in a seat and buckle it in, I just see that as one less kid in state custody because the unfit parents got in a wreck and killed the child. Harsh yes but the government isnt everyone keeper and we dont need to live in a nanny state. People should be punished for bad decisions thats alot of the problem with this country now is that its always someone elses fault. Drunk driving is a totally different arguement all together.

[NOLA556]

it's a tricky issue for sure. the only reason I could think of to justify laws for buckling up a child and/or drunk driving is that both of those actions put other people at risk, not just you. a child is not capable of making his/her own decisions, and a drunk driver is endangering everyone else on the road. it's not really fair to compare that to the seatbelt law because the only person at risk is yourself.

so basically all I'm saying is that there's a difference between laws to protect you from your own negligence, and laws to protect other people from your negligence.

idunno... tricky issue.

[Kentactic]

it's a tricky issue for sure. the only reason I could think of to justify laws for buckling up a child and/or drunk driving is that both of those actions put other people at risk, not just you. a child is not capable of making his/her own decisions, and a drunk driver is endangering everyone else on the road. it's not really fair to compare that to the seatbelt law because the only person at risk is yourself.

so basically all I'm saying is that there's a difference between laws to protect you from your own negligence, and laws to protect other people from your negligence.

idunno... tricky issue.

Yeah my goal was to introduce laws that keep other people safe from a persons poor judgment. However i think you not wearing a seatbelt may put me at some risk if you smack a K rail on the freeway and bash your head and then are directed back into traffic (the purpose of a k rail) unconcious. Not saying you or me specifically of course.

But long story short we can all agree SOME Authority needs to be in place to tell people they cant do stuff that puts others in danger. Correct?

[Kentactic]

Well lets be honest, how many of us rode around as kids with no seat belt? Baby seats frankly i dont see a need for a law requiring it, if the parents dont want to put it in a seat and buckle it in, I just see that as one less kid in state custody because the unfit parents got in a wreck and killed the child. Harsh yes but the government isnt everyone keeper and we dont need to live in a nanny state. People should be punished for bad decisions thats alot of the problem with this country now is that its always someone elses fault. Drunk driving is a totally different arguement all together.

Tough stand there Gap. Im not sure where i stand on it. On one hand if your that dumb maybe natural selection should take place. We cant bubble wrap the world, shit happens. On the other hand that kid might have been me that was lobbed into 5 lanes of traffic on the freeway through the windsheild of the mini van.

In a way i think if one is ok with a parent choosing wether or not to buckle its kid up then that person must also be pro abortion. Knowingly risking a childs life more then necasary is essentially deciding that that kids life isnt very important. Your right down abortion alley in some ways.

[Outonowhere]

The feds have no right or need to delve into any issue such as that described.  The State has some grounds to be able to pass laws but only if approved by the people.  City can be a little more free on the laws that they make again as long as the people support them.

What is wrong is when you have a non-representing representative who creates and votes for laws restricting right of people nation and even state wide without the peoples approval.  If a city makes an ordinance it is exponentially easier for the people to either get it changed, repealed or simply move out of that city.  Not as much the state and not near at all with the Fed.

Here is a question for you.  Why is it a law to have insurance if you drive?  What if you don't care about the car itself and have enough money to handle any medical that would arise?  Why is that even though it is a law to have insurance, that you can still get insurance yourself against people who are uninsured? 

It is not about having NO gov but limited gov, restricted to the point where the people, once again, have the power. 


And let's not even bring up the hundreds of thousands of stupid laws that are still on the books but not really enforced. lol

I hear the argument all the time, "well your not wearing a seat belt could cause you to hit me".  If you are that worried about it, then dont drive. 
-OR-
Let's go to the other extreme.  I feel that if you are not trained and licensed through the state to even own a firearm you are a danger to society because you could at the very least have a negligent discharge and kill someone.

Freedom does not guarantee success in life but sure as hell gives you a chance unlike nanny state laws.

[NOLA556]

honestly kenny, there's a laundry-list of issues that are proverbial "slippery slopes". most people agree that something needs to be done, but the thought of giving government that authority is worrisome because it sets a precedent and opens up the door for other overreaching government action.

i guess it goes back to the old quote "those who sacrifice freedom for security"... how closely does your mindset follow that line of thinking? sure, there's plenty good reason to invite the .gov into our lives to protect us from the millions of different "dangers" and risks that we face every day, but it comes at a price.

there's no "wrong" opinion here, it's just a matter of how much freedom you're willing to sacrifice for some kind of sense of "security".

[Kentactic]

The feds have no right or need to delve into any issue such as that described.  The State has some grounds to be able to pass laws but only if approved by the people.  City can be a little more free on the laws that they make again as long as the people support them.

What is wrong is when you have a non-representing representative who creates and votes for laws restricting right of people nation and even state wide without the peoples approval.  If a city makes an ordinance it is exponentially easier for the people to either get it changed, repealed or simply move out of that city.  Not as much the state and not near at all with the Fed.

Here is a question for you.  Why is it a law to have insurance if you drive?  What if you don't care about the car itself and have enough money to handle any medical that would arise?  Why is that even though it is a law to have insurance, that you can still get insurance yourself against people who are uninsured? 

It is not about having NO gov but limited gov, restricted to the point where the people, once again, have the power. 


And let's not even bring up the hundreds of thousands of stupid laws that are still on the books but not really enforced. lol

I hear the argument all the time, "well your not wearing a seat belt could cause you to hit me".  If you are that worried about it, then dont drive. 
-OR-
Let's go to the other extreme.  I feel that if you are not trained and licensed through the state to even own a firearm you are a danger to society because you could at the very least have a negligent discharge and kill someone.

Freedom does not guarantee success in life but sure as hell gives you a chance unlike nanny state laws.

Some good points here.

Let me play devils advocate to get the juices flowing. On the insurance if there was no law to have it, then everyone could possibly only have insurance for their own vehicle and never cover the cars they may hit. What that means is you no longer are paying a rate on your driving record but partially so on everyone elses record. Theres no law for them to be covered if they hit you so now the insurance company must assess the risk of them hitting you and your insurance company paying to fix your car.

The gun vs seatbelt example isnt a fair comparison. A driver not wearing his seatbelt would be better compared to a guy not following any gun safety rules. I think we can both agree hes more likely to accidently hurt some one.

A better example of the two would be an unlicensed driver and a gun onwer without state lisencing to own a gun. Neither of which really show any gauge of ability of driver or shooter.

[JohnyMac]

It all revolves around money.

1) It costs money to pay medical expenses and,
2) It costs money to pay off victims family.

It all has to do with money...As most things do. 

[Outonowhere]

Some good points here.

Let me play devils advocate to get the juices flowing. On the insurance if there was no law to have it, then everyone could possibly only have insurance for their own vehicle and never cover the cars they may hit. What that means is you no longer are paying a rate on your driving record but partially so on everyone elses record. Theres no law for them to be covered if they hit you so now the insurance company must assess the risk of them hitting you and your insurance company paying to fix your car.

This is possible, but why would they change it based on that?  If you want to be insured against uninsured persons, you pay the company.  If you don't, you get the shaft.  And with the "free market system" insurance companies would have to offer better deals on coverage to be competitive and stay in business.  Unless of course we are talking about chinese style gov owned companies.

The gun vs seatbelt example isnt a fair comparison.

Why not?  Both are pieces of equipment that could be dangerous, in the eyes of other, to other people.

A driver not wearing his seatbelt would be better compared to a guy not following any gun safety rules. I think we can both agree hes more likely to accidently hurt some one.

As I stated above, to logical people it is a leap.  But to someone making the argument (No offense GAP) that me not wearing my seat belt could cost you your life amounts to the same as a neighbor saying you owning a gun puts their life in danger from a ND.

A better example of the two would be an unlicensed driver and a gun onwer without state lisencing to own a gun. Neither of which really show any gauge of ability of driver or shooter.

So by this theory anyone who owns a firearm, operates a motor vehicle of any size, or let's say even operates any piece of equipment or owns anything potentially hazardous to someone else should be regulated, licensed and trained by the state.  And while the constitution says nothing specifically about cars (Gee, wonder why?) it specifically speaks to firearms.  And last I checked it speaks not to the ability of an individual as a requirement to own a firearm.

I personally believe that had the FF's known that travel within our own country or even states would have been this much of an issue they would have done something about it.  I am not advocating anything illegal by any means, but really how often do you hear about a normal citizen who is an unlicensed driver killing a bunch of people or causing a ton of damage.  On the contrary, unlicensed drivers are typically more careful BECAUSE they know they are breaking the law and trying NOT to bring that kind of attention to themselves.

Too many laws make more criminals than acts that harm people or their property.

[Outonowhere]

It all revolves around money.

1) It costs money to pay medical expenses and,
2) It costs money to pay off victims family.

It all has to do with money...As most things do. 

ABSO-FREAKIN-LUTELY!

State wants money... People want to drive...
State requires a license to people to drive... People must pay money for the license
State requires education for the license...  People must pay for the education...
State requires that your vehicle be registered in multiple ways... Registering costs people money...
State requires a new license every so often... People must pay for a "new" license...
State puts restrictions on MANY actions by drivers (some legit some maybe not)... People are required to pay for infractions
State needs people to enforce restrictions on drivers... People have to pay more for the state to hire the enforcers


I could go on but I think you get the point

[tominphx]

Some states have no seatbelt laws, or the seatbelt laws can not really be enforced. For example, in AZ you can not be pulled over for not wearing your seatbelt, they can only ticket you for it if they pulled you over for something else first.

We also have no law requiring helmet use on motorcycles at all here.

I still wear my seatbelt religiously, and insist on passengers doing the same.

Also, my car will beep if someone is in a seat and not buckled up if I am going over 15 MPH. Look at that, a free market response, without government intervention.

And no, I don't think any level of government has any business telling you to wear a seatbelt, regardless of age. Not that you need a "good" reason, but there are valid reasons to not wear a seatbelt while driving, not the least of which is to not put your seatbelt on right when you get in your car, and removing it about 1-2 minutes out from your destination, because those are the most likely times you will be assaulted in your vehicle, and seatbelts obviously interfere with a pistol draw. Of course you should practice removing your seatbelt and drawing your gun anyway, but that half second difference may be THE difference.

[Grudgie]

To the original post, this is my view. These are the times that you really have to put your money where your mouth is concerning the saying that 'freedom isn't free'. It isn't just a fancy saying. Some babies would die due to there being no law agianst it, and that is the price of freedom. It isn't pretty.

[Reaver]

Well lets be honest, how many of us rode around as kids with no seat belt? Baby seats frankly i dont see a need for a law requiring it, if the parents dont want to put it in a seat and buckle it in, I just see that as one less kid in state custody because the unfit parents got in a wreck and killed the child. Harsh yes but the government isnt everyone keeper and we dont need to live in a nanny state. People should be punished for bad decisions thats alot of the problem with this country now is that its always someone elses fault. Drunk driving is a totally different arguement all together.

* BING!

I concur.

[Outonowhere]

To the original post, this is my view. These are the times that you really have to put your money where your mouth is concerning the saying that 'freedom isn't free'. It isn't just a fancy saying. Some babies would die due to there being no law agianst it, and that is the price of freedom. It isn't pretty.

Well said!


+Karma! [URL=http://www.smileyvault.co

[Kentactic]

Good stuff guys glad to see the responses.