It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by muse7
Driving is not a right. It's a privilege in most states and that's why you are required to get a license to drive a vehicle on public roads. By granting you the license the state expects you to follow all of the traffic laws in place, and that means wearing your seatbelt, and obeying the speed limit, etc.
Originally posted by nixie_nox
reply to post by kennylee
I should of been more clear that the state determines seatbelt and helmet laws.
That they will not allow any of our fellow Michiganders to labeled a criminal fit for punishment for choosing not to wear a seat belt.
i would guess you eliminated, skimmed or simply refused to accept the implication of the very last sentence which reads ...can NOT punish without a license ... did you get that ??
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
Originally posted by WhiteHat
No, the wearing of a seat belt should not be mandatory. Only for kids.
Its a personal safety measure, not a driving requirement, and I should have the right to make my own choices. Me not wearing a seat belt doesn't put anybody at risk, so it shouldn't be anybody's business. I pay taxes, medical insurance, car insurance, so the roads, the damage, the treatment, it's all covered; nobody have to pay nothing for me. So what is the problem here? Thank you for informing me, but that's all anyone should have the right to do about my own safety.
Just like smoking is life threatening, but I have the right to do it if I choose too. Or drinking alcohol, or swimming in the open sea. And many other things that I have the right to do them as an adult. Since when the government should protect me from myself? I make stupid choices, that's my problem. They don't own me and my life. I do.
The point of this thread is not safety, but freedom of choice. Some people never had it, so it's kind of hard to grasp the concept.
"People willing to trade their freedom for temporary security deserve neither and will lose both." Is there any point in these words, at all?
Originally posted by scoobdude
Another thread where people start arguing with opinions instead of facts.
fact 1) Traveling is a RIGHT
fact 2) In several states the "motor vehicle laws" only apply to COMMERCIAL VEHICLES
fact 3) in states such as texas you DO NOT need a license, registration, insurance or inspection (with a COO)
fact 4) air bags save lives, but they also kill, same applies to seat belts
fact 5) the more decisions the government makes for you the less power/control you have over your own life
Now that being said, i encouraqge each and every one of you to a) have insurance OR proof of financial responsibility, b) make your decision on if you want to deal with the hassle of not having a license (which turns a right into a privilege) and c) to wear your seat belt as the odds are in their favor.
I hope my point is clear...I have the right to live as well as end my life (suicide is illegal too in several states..just FYI). I think having car manufacturers make cars safer is a good idea, but there is no cookie cutter design to save everyone in every situation. Should we mandate all cars be bulletproof in case terrorists attack? Oh but then we would be fighting for more oil and still would not open up any new refinaries.
Originally posted by frazzle
" (3) That an acceptance of a license, in whatever form, will not require the licensee to respect or to comply with any provisions of the statute or with any regulations prescribed by the state . . . that are repugnant to the Constitution of the United States." W. W. CARGILL CO. V. MINNESOTA, 180 U. S. 452 (1901)
Travel Information - Resource Page
Originally posted by frazzle
reply to post by pendracon
Apparently you managed to click the link for the rest of the information. Good for you.
"A license in WHATEVER FORM" ... Now "whatever form" must a license be in to fit your terms?
Originally posted by Zaanny
If I CHOOSE to not wear a seat belt while I am driving alone in my car
I CHOOSE to go through the windshield that I PAYED for.
I CHOOSE to land on the road that I PAYED for.
I CHOOSE to go to the hospital and use the insurance I PAYED for.
So leave me alone and let me live with my choices.
Originally posted by DarthMuerte
The libtards will be here soon to crucify you for your beliefs, but I am behind you 100%! What gives the federal government the right to dictate to us like that? FEAR! and APATHY! Two great enemies of liberty.
Originally posted by RealSpoke
I used to think this way when I was about 15 and going through my anarcho-hate the world phase.
But this doesn't have anything to do with the constitution. The Constitution doesn't protect you from all tyrannical laws. You don't have to drive a car, you can always ride a bike or walk.edit on 2-8-2012 by RealSpoke because: (no reason given)