How seat belts made a mockery of the Constitution

page: 4
19
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join

posted on Aug, 3 2012 @ 01:09 PM
link   
reply to post by ronnieray123
 


I tried to make this point here back in 2007, and got many of the same answers.

Are seat belt laws apart of the NWO plot for world domination?

This law and mandatory car insurance purchases have gone a long way to strip us of our liberties.




posted on Aug, 3 2012 @ 01:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by LDragonFire
reply to post by ronnieray123
 


I tried to make this point here back in 2007, and got many of the same answers.

Are seat belt laws apart of the NWO plot for world domination?

This law and mandatory car insurance purchases have gone a long way to strip us of our liberties.


Car insurance laws should be that you insure Yourself, your passengers and your car only. The blame game has to stop. No insurance? Not taking self responsibility? Tough!



posted on Aug, 3 2012 @ 01:56 PM
link   
reply to post by muse7
 


It should be up to the parent to teach the child the importance of wearing a seat belt not the government. Our seat belt laws are just an excuse to either pull you over and get involved in your business or as is the case in my town, set up seat belt checkpoints and hand out a ticket. Either way its just one more way for the government to control what you do.



posted on Aug, 3 2012 @ 02:36 PM
link   
reply to post by Northwdsnh
 


Sorry, explosive devices are not legal, M-80's, firecrakers,... But anything else is. Some rich guy down the road puts on a display every 4th that rivals Macy's. (well, maybe not that great, but pretty awesome). R+R Fireworks is in the next town over, that's where I buy mine evry year.(expensive though, especially airiel type....



posted on Aug, 3 2012 @ 03:29 PM
link   
reply to post by nixie_nox
 

I already explained that you have a right to travel, you have a right to own a car, but how you operate on a road is what is legislated.
these two things are not the same.
and the operation of the transportation of the day is my unregulated right.

should i choose to utilize that transportation to engage in commercial activities while upon the roadways is subject to regulation. however, it is the only one.

if you are not conducting business on the roadway, this "regulation" does not apply to you unless you voluntarily agree to it, plain and simple.


Everyone has a right to travel uninhibited.
exactly, so why are you implying that my right to travel utilizing the method of the day is or should be limited ??


that no one's right to travel can inhibit someone else's right to travel.
no one on this thread said any such thing, including the OP.

what IFs are for ppl who choose to engage in fantasy.
i prefer the reality of dealing with being duped by the State/Fed government policy of extortion, fraudulent contracting, thievery, perpetual unlawful acts and the correction of them.

wrong again, i operated such equipment long before i was "old enough" to garner a license.
try growing up around farmland ... many kids operate BIG machinery long before they drive under fraudulent contracting with the State.

nope, i respect my ability and the lives of others, hence, i don't drink and drive = -0- DWI, DUI or any such infraction. i know plenty who have as they've had me drive for them.

who said driving = the right to put other ppls lives or property at risk?
are you for real ??
ppl, property, cars, planes, trains, bicycles ... you name it ... start each day with all the same risk as they carried the day before, this, over time, has never changed.

it was a horrible accident, IF you choose to see it that way.
imho, the MT driver had no business being behind the wheel, period.
(it's been awhile but if memory serves, he ran a stop sign and broad-sided her)

however, no law or application of punishment will change that simple fact or will it return my cousin to life.

they each accepted the risk of getting behind the wheel.
each of those decisions came with consequence, however, neither should be deprived of their right to travel.

do you know how many truck drivers falsify those "records" ??
i do and it's quite a few.
while he did remove her right to life --> why then is his punishment anything less ??

no, the seatbelt killed her ... she likely would have survived the impact without the seatbelt engaged.
(so says the drs who treated her)
you can perceive it any way you desire, but this is the truth of the matter.

again, it wasn't a semi-truck, it was a mac (there is a difference)
had she not been using the equipment, she likely would have survived


you are mistaken as i've been there and done that.
try preaching to someone who hasn't.
(besides, i like to see an insurance company prove that I removed them, especially on a used car)

no, it's just that some of us have been doing this much longer than you.
some of us believe in liberty.
some of us believe in unalienable rights as guaranteed by our Constitution.
and some of us, like you, have yet to understand any of it.

ok ...

Lets talk about rights.

I was sitting still when I was rearended by a car going over 50pmh, it was a straight hit since the driver never saw me since he was texting.
so, which of these rights is a problem ??
you driving or the offending driver driving ??

careless driving is a punishable offense, yet ppl do it all the time.
accidents via neglectful driver actions happen frequently, no law prevents it.

look, you accept the risk of bodily injury as soon as you enter the car.
this is an absolute. no one is forcing you to drive or ride in one.

the consequences of said action (driving) are not disputable as they often occur.
i am sorry to hear about your situation and i do hope you're on the road to recovery.

however, as i've certainly experienced more than my fair share of similar incidents, it is a risk we accept when we decide to operate an automobile. there is no law that can or is intended to mitigate that risk.

your displaced anger is seriously mis-directed.
it is not his "right" that upsets you, but his disregard for you while exercising his right.
and for that, we already have a system of punishment



posted on Aug, 3 2012 @ 03:31 PM
link   
reply to post by ronnieray123
 


You should be allowed to choose wether or not you wear a seatbelt. There's been many cases where wearing seatbelts killed people, cut them in half, strangled them or caused people to burn to death because they couldn't get lose from their vehicle before it caught fire. Something designed to save lives can also cause people to lose them. If you've ever been caught in a seatbelt that got so tight you couldn't get free or barely breathe, you know what i am talking about.



posted on Aug, 3 2012 @ 03:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by lonewolf19792000
reply to post by ronnieray123
 


You should be allowed to choose wether or not you wear a seatbelt. There's been many cases where wearing seatbelts killed people, cut them in half, strangled them or caused people to burn to death because they couldn't get lose from their vehicle before it caught fire. Something designed to save lives can also cause people to lose them. If you've ever been caught in a seatbelt that got so tight you couldn't get free or barely breathe, you know what i am talking about.


Yes but those are few and far between, more lives are saved by wearing a seatbelt. I would be curious to know what the death/crash rates are versus states that do enforce seatbelt laws. You know those crash dummy ads are pretty effective to see what happens to a body in a crash. Maybe we should outlaw cars, they kill and maim lots of people.



posted on Aug, 3 2012 @ 03:49 PM
link   
reply to post by OhZone
 


It's called no fault insurance and MN has this. It sucks. You can be sitting at a stop sign and get rear ended and the other guy's insurance doesn't pay. Yours does. It's screwed up but it does lower claims and their amounts which I believe is the reason for it.
edit on 3-8-2012 by Gridrebel because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 3 2012 @ 03:53 PM
link   
reply to post by ronnieray123
 

Do you really believe the government cares if someone dies in a car crash?

Given the fact that I don't personally recall ever seeing a single seat belt on a SCHOOL BUS (you know, those big tubes that travel down roads, often filled with children?), I really kind of have to say no...

And I've got to admit, I'm more than a little amazed that this doesn't seem to have been mentioned anywhere in the thread. How on earth can we have all sorts of crazy seat belt requirements unless we're dealing with the transport of large volumes of children?



What kind of sense does THAT make?

edit on 8/3/2012 by Praetorius because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 3 2012 @ 04:12 PM
link   
I ma vehemently against seat belt law. To me it is a slippery slope leading to home "Safety" inspections
where the inspectors check the shower stall for "compliant" non-slip surfaces and the knife drawer
for child protective devices and the like...

That being said, I have heard one very cogent argument for requiring seatbelts in passenger vehicles.
It went like this...

"...yea, but what about the guy IN THE BACKSEAT.....what in you're in a head-on?.....The guy in the
backseat then becomes a projectile killing the people in the front seat."

That's a pretty good argument for requiring seat belts for passengers in the back seat. And of course
the laws requiring the belting of children makes sense (to protect the innocent from the stupid).

BUT....and this is a big but.... in fact it is a HUGE BUT....

Receiving a ticket for not wearing a seatbelt from an officer riding a motorcycle....in a state where
helmets are not required for motorcycles is insane....and it happens everyday



posted on Aug, 3 2012 @ 04:33 PM
link   
reply to post by rival
 

That's a pretty good argument for requiring seat belts for passengers in the back seat. And of course
the laws requiring the belting of children makes sense (to protect the innocent from the stupid).

BUT....and this is a big but.... in fact it is a HUGE BUT....

Receiving a ticket for not wearing a seatbelt from an officer riding a motorcycle....in a state where
helmets are not required for motorcycles is insane....and it happens everyday

Agreed. Especially when there's a good chance he also passed a bus full of un-belted children on his way to pulling you over.

I guess consistency and common sense might just be overrated, who knows?



posted on Aug, 3 2012 @ 04:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by Gridrebel

Originally posted by lonewolf19792000
reply to post by ronnieray123
 


You should be allowed to choose wether or not you wear a seatbelt. There's been many cases where wearing seatbelts killed people, cut them in half, strangled them or caused people to burn to death because they couldn't get lose from their vehicle before it caught fire. Something designed to save lives can also cause people to lose them. If you've ever been caught in a seatbelt that got so tight you couldn't get free or barely breathe, you know what i am talking about.


Yes but those are few and far between, more lives are saved by wearing a seatbelt. I would be curious to know what the death/crash rates are versus states that do enforce seatbelt laws. You know those crash dummy ads are pretty effective to see what happens to a body in a crash. Maybe we should outlaw cars, they kill and maim lots of people.


I wouldn't be opposed to going back to riding horses for transportation.



posted on Aug, 3 2012 @ 04:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by DarthMuerte
What gives the federal government the right to dictate to us like that?


In this case, Article I, Section 8, Clause 7 of the United States Constitution, also known as the "Postal clause". It's that which gives the government the power to maintain the US highway and interstate systems (though the commerce clause also has a lot to do with the latter), along with all the regulatory weight that comes with it. It's what your "road taxes" go towards (and why the "postal service" effectively funds itself) -- despite Warr-bama wanting you to believe it was really to help you build your business (*ahem*).

Don't want to wear a seat-belt, or buy car insurance (a much different issue than Obamacare's "requirement clause"), have to carry a license (while driving), or register your vehicle? The answer is simple: don't use the government's roads! You have a right to "travel", but using government resources to do so is a privilege... and like all government "privileges", conditions are imposed, and agreed to, upon its acceptance.



posted on Aug, 3 2012 @ 04:56 PM
link   
reply to post by pendracon
 

In this case, Article I, Section 8, Clause 7 of the United States Constitution, also known as the "Postal clause". It's that which gives the government the power to maintain the US highway and interstate systems (though the commerce clause also has a lot to do with the latter), along with all the regulatory weight that comes with it.

*frown*

Here's the clause in its entirety:

The Congress shall have Power To...establish Post Offices and Post Roads


Did SCOTUS *really* read that much power over the highway system into those six words? Wow.

And I can't say I see what on earth the interstate commerce clause has to do with this matter in any way, especially when given a fair review of the historical understanding and scope of it up until fairly recently when congress finally got SCOTUS to go crazy and write them a blank legislative check...



posted on Aug, 3 2012 @ 05:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by Praetorius
Did SCOTUS *really* read that much power over the highway system into those six words? Wow.


It depends on which case, but ultimately, it seems so.

Here's a bit of trivia, not conclusively supportive, but illustrative... to what does highway/interstate distance signs measure? A: The named town's main branch of the post office. Sounds postal claus-ey to me.



posted on Aug, 3 2012 @ 06:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by pendracon

Originally posted by Praetorius
Did SCOTUS *really* read that much power over the highway system into those six words? Wow.


It depends on which case, but ultimately, it seems so.

Here's a bit of trivia, not conclusively supportive, but illustrative... to what does highway/interstate distance signs measure? A: The named town's main branch of the post office. Sounds postal claus-ey to me.
well, considering the topic of this thread (which is not the mails), i would guess you eliminated, skimmed or simply refused to accept the implication of the very last sentence which reads ...

from your link
but it cannot punish a person for operating a mail truck over its highways without procuring a driver's license from state authorities. 1330
can NOT punish without a license ... did you get that ??



posted on Aug, 3 2012 @ 06:21 PM
link   
I remember what the Op stated and grew up the same way. I believe more so, that insurance lobbyist promoted this agenda for them to save money than any politicians actual concern for human life. Mandatory motorcycle helmet laws are repealed, so should seat belts.I do not always wear my belt, but make sure my child does.



posted on Aug, 3 2012 @ 07:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by pendracon
Don't want to wear a seat-belt, or buy car insurance (a much different issue than Obamacare's "requirement clause"), have to carry a license (while driving), or register your vehicle? The answer is simple: don't use the government's roads! You have a right to "travel", but using government resources to do so is a privilege... and like all government "privileges", conditions are imposed, and agreed to, upon its acceptance.


Yada yada yada. And the gov got that money from the people. The roads belong to the people, not the government, period. That being said, let me repeat myself. We are obliged to follow seat belt & other statues simply because we volunteered to do so by obtaining a driver's license & registering the vehicle. We have traded in our natural right to travel for the state-granted privileged to drive.



posted on Aug, 3 2012 @ 08:25 PM
link   
I think one of the biggest reasons this became a law is due to the fact that you can literally kill yourself or put yourself in a state where you can't do anything.

Now, I'm not saying the legislators care about your health and well being because they don't. What I am saying is that you are not just affecting your income using the roads, but other people's incomes are put at risk as well. We all agree we need money to survive, right? Or, in the least, we need money to survive in metropolitan areas. Well the problem is that you can affect someone's income very greatly and not be held accountable to your negligence if you died; which we can also agree has a higher probability of happening without a belt restricting your movement? So the problem is this, because you are able to use roads for purposes other than making money, it would put those who are using the roads to make money in a very vulnerable position; a position where they are at the mercy of the negligence of other drivers. If a driver is negligent enough to kill themselves or disable themselves where they can not be held liable for their actions, who gets stuck with the bill? You do. Who can't work? You can't. What did you do wrong? Nothing, other than being at the wrong place at the wrong time.

So, seatbelts are created to save lives, but the underlying result of their existence is that you will be held financially liable for your negligence on the road to compensate an individual who was not at fault. Do we agree?

See, this is where the problems begin, we all don't use transportation to make money. In fact, I would say a majority of us use it for the convenience. So now you have two kinds of drivers on the street, necessity drivers, those who drive out of necessity to make $$$ like delivery men, postal workers, etc. and you've got convenience drivers, those who drive because the convenience of motor travel outweighs the sacrifices necessary to perform an alternative(public transport, or going to a store that's walking distance for your materials etc) now, can we agree that necessity drivers were more abundant than convenience drivers back in the day? And can we also agree then, that the more time that passed, the more convenience drivers began to rival necessity drivers, and eventually out number necessity drivers?

Awesome. So having understood all that we can form our conclusion on why seat belt laws exist, and the answer is pretty simple...because operating a motor vehicle is not a convenience, but instead a means of producing income, but because we treat vehicles as a convenience there are rules to play by which are mostly a product of financial security. Due to the way the system functions, the more time that passes, the more legislation will exist for the operation of vehicles in the future until an equilibrium is found, and the process repeats itself over and over again...



posted on Aug, 3 2012 @ 09:27 PM
link   
I'm with you. I can see merit in the law in my state that penalizes people who drive and talk on their phones or texting because they can actually do harm to other people.

Driving or riding without a seatbelt is not gonna hurt anyone but me so I find that to be overreaching. Next they will force people to dress warm on cold days.

In new york you already get ticketed for jaywalking, smoking outside, and honking your horn in some spots, and soon I won't be able to go to McDonalds and super size my soft drink (not that I would)





top topics
 
19
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join