raider179 was right...

[Sixpence]

Originally posted by lazs2

You on the other hand... are telling an American that he is not allowed to talk about his founders beliefs or their interpretation of the laws of the land...

It's funny you mention that, cause I believe that way back then people were not allowed to walk around naked. They probably got 30 lashes for such a violation of the law.

Did they think that such a law set a precedent that would lead to government control? Of course not, that's why they didn't make "you can do whatever you want, whenever you you want" one of your basic rights

Again, not one of my reasons for the seat belt law has anything to with the safety of the person who buckles up, but you think those reasons are not legit. Who are you? God? If we in our town feel that it is a good law, it should be so, our founding fathers gave us that right at the local level and wanted it that way.

We had a situation in a town where they made a local man clean up his yard. He had junk cars, sinks, bath tubs, all kind of junk all over his property. And they have a law preventing that. Now one of the reasons I would think is that it brings the value of homes around him down. Can they prove this, and does it bring the value down that much as to pay the price for freedom of choice? Well, if they think in that town it is a price they are not willing to pay, that's their business.

And let's face, I don't think there is one person here who would appreciate someone moving in next door and creating an eye sore. I guess some of you hillbillies don't mind living like that, and you don't have to have such a law in your town.

Precedent? One state having a seat belt forces another to have one? Not at all, that's silly. Some states have helmet laws, others don't. No one is holding a gun to your head(although some in this thread want to)

Now the feds blackmailing states is another story, of course that isn't right, you are trying to take away decisions at the local level. I would be upset if they told us we couldn't have a seat belt law. But that is a different discussion.


I know that patriotism makes you sick.

When we are told how to govern our town or state, I get all Patriotic, it was born here.

[beet1e]

Originally posted by lazs2
and beet... I do wear seatbelts most of the time.   I just don't want it to be a law that I do.  Helmets... I probly would rarely if ever wear one.

You keep arguing that it is a good idea to wear em... no one is desputing that.   I believe that they save lives and injuries.  

The point is... Is it the governments business to save my life or prevent me from being injured even if I know the risks and decide to take my chances?  

We have established that suposssedly we saved a bazillion dollars with the new laws... That is your whole point for the passing and justification for them tho right?  

Lazs,

the way I feel about it is this: Only a small minority of folks are getting bent out of shape over the "outrage" of government deciding for them whether they should wear a seatbelt. Let's say that minority is about 10% at one end of the scale.

At the other end of the scale are people like me, who would wear a belt whether there was a law or not. The proportion of people wearing belts before they became law was about 10%.

That leaves 80% of folks in the middle, folks who have no axe to grind either way. These are the folks who didn't wear a belt before it became law and who perhaps think that an accident happens to someone else but never to them, or who never wore a belt because they simply couldn't be arsed. These are the ones the law will benefit most.

Car makers tried to make it easy - more cars offering the inertia reel belts c1980. But still the take up rate was only 10%. So the law got passed, and immediately the take up rate went to 90%. With any law, there will always be diehard defiance.

And... 2000 lives are being saved each year. It's not the financial savings that concern me as much as the cost to society in terms of orphaned children or grieving widows - the sheer waste of life. And of course, the extra strain that was being put on our beleaguered hospital system, the life assurance payouts, the loss of income tax revenues etc.

And I don't care how much some of you beat up on Nash - I still think he's right in what he's said in this thread. This whole "I/Me/My rights/citizen/country/freedom/bill of rights/declaration of independence/no-nanny-here" rhetoric is just complete bollocks. Get over yourselves, guys. We're talking about a freaking seatbelt law, not a 6pm curfew or another Prohibition. And (except NH) you've had that law for a long time - and it's not going to go away, so get used to it.

[Jackal1]

Originally posted by beet1e
We're talking about a freaking seatbelt law,

............And once again.....No, that is not the point of discussion here. Seatbelt law is only a very small point of the discussion used for example, but you allready know that.

Another thing that might need to be pointed out.

WE are here---->*<-----
YOU are here-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------->

[beet1e]

Who is "we"? Are you more than one person, or just suffering a bout of schizophrenia? Read my post again - I was replying to Lazs for the most part. You think you're Lazs? Guess schizophrenia is right then.

[Jackal1]

Originally posted by beet1e
Who is "we"? Are you more than one person, or just suffering a bout of schizophrenia? Read my post again - I was replying to Lazs for the most part. You think you're Lazs? Guess schizophrenia is right then.

  "WE" as in U.S. citizens. Ya know the ones here discussing the subject at hand and the ones the constitution pertains to.  The  subject being freedom, freedom of choice and constitutional rights.
  You remember the U.S. It`s the big place across the pond that gets under your skin so much.
  "YOU" as in being the one who cannot relate or subject doesn`t pertain to. Simple enough, huh ?
 As far as me replying.....I guess you will just have to deal with it.................. or stop reading.

[Holden McGroin]

"simole" and "bubject"...

"Apparently "we" have the right to spell however we wanna.  

esp "Aluminum" and "Labor"

[Jackal1]

Originally posted by Holden McGroin


"Apparently "we" have the right to spell however we wanna.  

 

  Yes we do, especialy when typing and eating gumbo at the same time.

[beet1e]

Originally posted by Jackal1
"WE" as in U.S. citizens. Ya know the ones here discussing the subject at hand and the ones the constitution pertains to.  

It's not that clear cut, given that I'm in agreement with sixpence and nash. And... before you try to pretend otherwise, the seatbelt issue has been the main thrust of this thread. There are more than 155 occurrences of the word "seatbelt" in this thread.

[Jackal1]

Originally posted by beet1e
It's not that clear cut, given that I'm in agreement with sixpence and nash.  

That`s your problem.

And... before you try to pretend otherwise, the seatbelt issue has been the main thrust of this thread. There are more than 155 occurrences of the word "seatbelt" in this thread.

LMAO....more than 155 you say?
Strange you haven`t got a grasp on the subject matter yet, but can count words.

[Holden McGroin]

I thought that freedom was the subject (sorry, bubject) of this thread.  

If you go back and look at my posts, I am sure that freedom was used many more times than that other word.  Freedom.  Freedom and the erosion of personal freedom that laws passed without regard to the erosion of freedom was the thrust of my argument.






freedom.

[Jackal1]

Originally posted by Holden McGroin
thethrust of my argument.

[/COLOR]

That`s thethrust of the bubject all right.

[Holden McGroin]

I edited while you were correcting....  not fast enough.



freedom freedom...

[beet1e]

Originally posted by Jackal1
LMAO....more than 155 you say?
Strange you haven`t got a grasp on the subject matter yet, but can count words.

Erm... the content of the thread IS the subject matter.

200 occurrences of "freedom"
212 occurrences of "seatbelt"

And no, *I* didn't count them.

Do try not to change the bubject!

[Holden McGroin]

Did you count my last 2 posts? 8 occurances of freedom right there.  I used personally used freedom many more times than that other word.  I still say the subject is about freedom.

Let's see.  200 + 8 uses of the word freedom oops... 9 and then 4 more uses of freedom... oops... 5 so now it's 213 to 212 that freedom was used over seatbelt... 215 to 213.

So by word count, the subject must be freedom. 216 to 214.

[Jackal1]

Originally posted by beet1e
Erm... the content of the thread IS the subject matter.

  Yes and we freely discussed freedom, freedom of choice and constitutional rights.
  That`s the subject...freedom. Freedom of choice and freedom in general.


The count goes up.


  Being a loyal subject must be really boring, but at least you have the freedom to come here and get into a discussion about freedom, freedom of choice and constitutional rights, even if you don`t understand it.


Six feet high and rising, if I may change the bubject.