LIve Free or Die.

[Bob Riebe]

Interesting opinion.

Afterburner with Bill Whittle: Live Free or Die - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jCBbosq9-RI&feature=email)

[Knock-on]

Do you know what. He was spot on for the first 7:30 minutes. Couldn't disagree with him at all.

Then he went off on the usual right wing crap and 60 seconds later, I couldn't take any more and turned off.

Such a pity some people cannot make a perfectly balanced and reasoned point without trying to slant it to suit their extreme views :(

[Bob Riebe]

Do you know what. He was spot on for the first 7:30 minutes. Couldn't disagree with him at all.

Then he went off on the usual right wing crap and 60 seconds later, I couldn't take any more and turned off.

Such a pity some people cannot make a perfectly balanced and reasoned point without trying to slant it to suit their extreme views :(

To be fair; when I first heard it I agreed with you totally. When I listened again, to the whole thing, what he says is true because in this country, the U.S. of A., the two cannot be separated which is shown with every new law and banning or controlling of item x, y or z.

The seat belt laws are a prime example, especially as in Minn. a seat-belt violation costs as much as being 1-19 miles an hour over the speed limit.

[markabilly]

To be fair; when I first heard it I agreed with you totally. When I listened again, to the whole thing, what he says is true because in this country, the U.S. of A., the two cannot be separated which is shown with every new law and banning or controlling of item x, y or z.

The seat belt laws are a prime example, especially as in Minn. a seat-belt violation costs as much as being 1-19 miles an hour over the speed limit.

I say, speed on bro, and don't use that belt, so when the guverment mandated airbag pops in your face, and knocks your head plum off the body and into the back seat, well, speeed on bro, hell ain't close to half full....and the road to hell is paved with due process.

[Bob Riebe]

I say, speed on bro, and don't use that belt, so when the guverment mandated airbag pops in your face, and knocks your head plum off the body and into the back seat, well, speeed on bro, hell ain't close to half full....and the road to hell is paved with due process.You pay your money and you take your chances.

So far though-- most constabulary, when you are pulled over for speeding, if you are not wearing your seat-belt most often give you only the seat-belt ticket.
I have never gotten both at once.

[Dave B]

It's very strange but I used to think that motorsport fans were actually safer than average drivers: we understand the physics and risks of driving and get all our adrenaline kicks on the track so no need to take it onto the public roads. However I notice that in another thread there's someone who seems proud of routinely driving at 120mph on British motorways (although I suspect that may be insecure posturing), and here someone is happy to admit speeding without a seatbelt.

I've no problem with personal freedom, and if people want to kill themselves on the road that's just Darwinism at its ultimate: weeding out the stupid; but RTAs do have a nasty habit of involving innocent people.

[donKey jote]

I guess there is also a small but very vocal group of bitter, aging, has-been boyracers and grumpy grampas with a chip :p

[Bob Riebe]

I guess there is also a small but very vocal group of bitter, aging, has-been boyracers and grumpy grampas with a chip :p Are you saying you are a part of a large group of aging panti-waists who drop their pants and squat when authorities say crap?

Well, what ever suits your ego.

[donKey jote]

No.
Learn to read. It's never too late.

[Bob Riebe]

No.
Learn to read. It's never too late.

It has seemed to be for you.

[markabilly]

I guess there is also a small but very vocal group of bitter, aging, has-been boyracers and grumpy grampas with a chip :p

I did not know you had a chip.

.

[donKey jote]

Meanwhile, back at the ranch, the Riebe-bot is still trying to pass the Turing test. :dozey:

[donKey jote]

I did not know you had a chip.
no, just bored :p

[markabilly]

It's never too late.

Might be. I told him to wear his seatbelt, but he didn't......and they did a crap job sewing his head back on. But hey, at least they found it.

[markabilly]

no, just bored :p


Quit bending over and you will not be getting bored so often.

[donKey jote]

Maybe he saw you as the authority... careful you don't ever tell him NOT to jump off a cliff !

[markabilly]

If he quits posting....well.......................and ....I guess that means you will now be bending over now more than ever.

Praise be and pass the KY

[donKey jote]

KY = Kentuckian Kool-aid ?

[markabilly]

yep, goes in real slick and smooth

[donKey jote]

as yer missus said to the bishop

[Brown, Jon Brow]

@ Mr Riebe,

When we take a risk we do so because the reward outways this risk.

So my question is, what reward do you get for driving your car without wearing a seatbelt?

(Is it the relief of every journey when you get out of the car and think, 'YES! I MADE IT! I'M ALIVE!')

[Bob Riebe]

@ Mr Riebe,

When we take a risk we do so because the reward outways this risk.

So my question is, what reward do you get for driving your car without wearing a seatbelt?

(Is it the relief of every journey when you get out of the car and think, 'YES! I MADE IT! I'M ALIVE!')We are endowed with life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Being left alone to travel in my car as I wish is covered by that.

[Rollo]

Being left alone to travel in my car as I wish is covered by that.

Not if the law says otherwise:


Whether you like the laws or not, the WRITTEN laws have the backing of the legal system of the land, period.
Laws change, thank God, but until they do, if you disobey them you are a criminal.

[Bob Riebe]

Not if the law says otherwise:
The/a Constitution, whether Federal or State, is not the legal system.

Constitution trumps laws as has been proven in court.

I do not have the money to challenge them so I just ignore them.

Rather be a free criminal than butt-kissing law abider.

[Rollo]

The/a Constitution, whether Federal or State, is not the legal system.
Constitution trumps laws as has been proven in court.

I do not have the money to challenge them so I just ignore them.
Rather be a free criminal than butt-kissing law abider.

Really, it's a pity that you disagree with yourself then:


Whether you like the laws or not, the WRITTEN laws have the backing of the legal system of the land, period.

Laws change, thank God, but until they do, if you disobey them you are a criminal. Do so is up to the individual and if a Christian, whether the one can stand before God and say-- "I did what I believed was proper."
Here is what the book you supposedly are using for you empty rhetoric says about authority.

[b]Romans 13:1-7 states, ----“Everyone must submit himself to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established.--- The authorities that exist have been established by God. Consequently, he who rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves.

Rather be a free criminal than butt-kissing law abider eh? Is that what you believed is proper?

[Brown, Jon Brow]

xaSqVlgKB6s

g-9JR2P4wWI

[Gregor-y]

What about drunk driving? I remember a particularly horrific ad about it when I was working in Ireland. Something with a car rolling through a hedge and flattening a child playing football in his yard.

[Bob Riebe]

Really, it's a pity that you disagree with yourself then:



Rather be a free criminal than butt-kissing law abider eh? Is that what you believed is proper?
It depends on the laws, of course if you think racial segregation is better than ignoring or outright breaking the law-- that is your perogative.

If you think laws are some holy thing to be obeyed at all costs, that is your perogative also.

[Bob Riebe]

Fining someone who is not wearing a seatbelt is enforcing what really should be common sense to any individual driving a motor vehicle. They are there to stop you crushing your rib cage and vital organs on the steering wheel of your car, and also to prevent you from being thrown through the windscreen. A friend of mine and my wife's had an accident in 2009 where she was texting on her phone whilst driving and not wearing her seatbelt. She crossed over the white lines and had a head on crash which resulted in her being ejected out of the car and landing in the road. She had a blanket put over her and was pronounced dead when a passing doctor decided to have another go at reviving her. He saved her life and she now has paralysis down her left side and has brain damage that will never get better. She lost some of her looks which was awful considering she was a budding model and is still only 22 years old. She was incredibily stupid for using her phone whilst driving and even more so for not wearing a seatbelt. What are your opinions of people who drive along talking on their phones? Do you think it takes away ones freedom if they are fined when caught?

I don't even have to think about putting on a seatbelt as its second nature and pure common sense. Being told to wear one is the law and not taking away your rights and freedom. What utter tripe. Belting up also helps save the mental state of paramedics who arrive on the scene and are able to treat people in most cases rather than scooping them off the road. I do get the impression you judge everything in your life on freedom and entitlement and are angry at anything that remotely suggests you don't have a choice in the matter. :dozey:
That is your opinion and God help us if such become the standard in the U.S. and it is already too close.

I was spoit out of a car that went end over end at triple digits. Why I was going that fast is not relevant.
A Sheriff saw the accident and was writing up a fatal accident report when I walked up to his car. To say the least he was stunned.
To put a even bigger burr under your saddle, I recieved no ticket of any sort.

Had I been belted into the car, the roll bar was bent down to eye-level and the seat was broken in two.
Those of you who wish squat when ever big-brother says crap, fine for you, but take your self-righteous ego and eat it, it does not become you.

[Rollo]

I was spoit out of a car that went end over end at triple digits. Why I was going that fast is not relevant.
A Sheriff saw the accident and was writing up a fatal accident report when I walked up to his car. To say the least he was stunned.
To put a even bigger burr under your saddle, I recieved no ticket of any sort.


If you were the driver, then it is only because of the grace of the Sheriff that you even retain your licence. Driving at 100+mph is very good grounds for either reckless or negligent driving; on the face of it, not wearing a seatbelt is the least of the offences here.

It shows flagrant disregard for the standard which you've posted and claim to uphold:

The authorities that exist have been established by God. Consequently, he who rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves.

[Bob Riebe]

If you were the driver, then it is only because of the grace of the Sheriff that you even retain your licence. Driving at 100+mph is very good grounds for either reckless or negligent driving; on the face of it, not wearing a seatbelt is the least of the offences here.

It shows flagrant disregard for the standard which you've posted and claim to uphold:My standards change with the society I am in.
When I am by myself, they serve my purpose, which is never based on any superiority over others, at the same time if people think I will jump through hoops, only if it serves me and mine, and then only till I tire of it.

[chuck34]

Constitution trumps laws as has been proven in court.


It depends on the laws, of course if you think racial segregation is better than ignoring or outright breaking the law-- that is your perogative.

I hate to suck a different argument into this one, but ....

How do you not see the flaw in your own logic? You do realise that racial segregation was perfectly legal at one point in our history, and was even deemed Constitutional, right? Heck outright slavery is enshrined in our Constitution.

[Bob Riebe]

I hate to suck a different argument into this one, but ....

How do you not see the flaw in your own logic? You do realise that racial segregation was perfectly legal at one point in our history, and was even deemed Constitutional, right? Heck outright slavery is enshrined in our Constitution.Flaw?
Slavery is not in the Constitution, it was latter addressed by an Amendment:

Originally, the Framers were very careful about avoiding the words "slave" and "slavery" in the text of the Constitution. Instead, they used phrases like "importation of Persons" at Article 1, Section 9 for the slave trade, "other persons" at Article 1, Section 2, and "person held to service or labor" at Article 4, Section 2 for slaves. Not until the 13th Amendment was slavery mentioned specifically in the Constitution. There the term was used to ensure that there was to be no ambiguity as what exactly the words were eliminating. In the 14th Amendment, the euphemism "other persons" (and the three-fifths value given a slave) was eliminated.

Hmmm, you woulder one be a good law abiding citizen and treat those put upon by racial segregations laws as the underlings they are?


I say to hell with that law, live free or die.

[chuck34]

Flaw?
Slavery is not in the Constitution, it was latter addressed by an Amendment:

Article 1, section 2, "person held to service or labor"

What in the world do you think that means if not slavery? Have you ever read anything about the debates surrounding the drafting of the Constitution? The Three-Fifths Compromise?


Hmmm, you woulder one be a good law abiding citizen and treat those put upon by racial segregations laws as the underlings they are?

I'm not quite sure what you are trying to say there. You are the one that says that the law as written is the only source of rights. I'm meerly pointing out the fact that the law as written for the vast majority of this country's history took the rights of minorities away. I have a [I]HUGE problem with that, as my philosophy says that we are all created equal and that we all have the rights of Life, Liberty, and Property. You have made it perfectly clear that you only respect the law as written. Therefore you are fine with laws permitting slavery, segregation, and probably worse. I really don't believe that you think that way (maybe I'm giving you too much credit), but your logic as presented sure leads down that path.


I say to hell with that law, live free or die.

But you have made it perfectly clear that you believe you have no right to life, unless it's sanctioned by the State. So you will do what they say.

[nigelred5]

The advantages of wearing a seat belt far outweigh the disadvantages in the the majority of cases and this is obvious. People can be badly injured whilst belted into a car but seat belts also prevent minor accidents from turning into major ones most of the time. Its not rocket science. If you think being forced to wear a seat belt in your car by the law is another case of 'Big Brother' taking away your rights, then you are once again giving the impression of paranoia. You seem to stand by the law of your country when it suits, but there also seems to be a chip on your shoulder when it stops you doing things you want to do. Freedom can be interpreted in many ways, but it also should have been explained to some it seems that freedom never means total freedom in any society. Unfortunately we don't have some special power watching over us and protecting us and laws are made to protect people in the absence of common sense.

That is the essence of a VERY large objection to government interference with over regulation. Natural selection took care of those for thousands if not millions of years, but the government always knows better? Rubbish.

[nigelred5]

You pay your money and you take your chances.

So far though-- most constabulary, when you are pulled over for speeding, if you are not wearing your seat-belt most often give you only the seat-belt ticket.
I have never gotten both at once.

Consider yourself lucky then. You ALWAYS get them both here.

[Bob Riebe]

What in the world do you think that means if not slavery? Have you ever read anything about the debates surrounding the drafting of the Constitution? The Three-Fifths Compromise?
Whether you like it or not, slavery is not addressed in the Constitution. Slavers wanted slaves to be full persons by the way.

I'm not quite sure what you are trying to say there. You are the one that says that the law as written is the only source of rights. I'm meerly pointing out the fact that the law as written for the vast majority of this country's history took the rights of minorities away. I have a HUGE problem with that, as my philosophy says that we are all created equal and that we all have the rights of Life, Liberty, and Property. You have made it perfectly clear that you only respect the law as written. Therefore you are fine with laws permitting slavery, segregation, and probably worse. I really don't believe that you think that way (maybe I'm giving you too much credit), but your logic as presented sure leads down that path.

But you have made it perfectly clear that you believe you have no right to life, unless it's sanctioned by the State. So you will do what they say.
You try to lump every legal matter into the same ****, same pile manner.
You are wrong.

Thank God our rights are in the Constitution and are not simple laws. LAWS can be eradicated easily.
Items in the Constitution cannot, i.e. Second Amendment and First Amendment (Although partly because people are too stupid, or ignornat, the First Amendment rights are being taking away and to hell with whether or not it is legal .
The U.S. citizenry acts more and more like sheep being led to slaughter with Obama leading the divide and separate charge.)

We have CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS.
Rights are granted to U.S. citizens in the Constitution, which can ony be amended by the people.
Laws can be written by any dick-head who is a god wannabe. I.e. seat-belt, parking, spitting, racial, divorce etc., etc., etc. laws.

You are trying to lump them together with your God given rights, false standard.

[Bob Riebe]

Passing a law to make you wear a seat belt for your own safety is not taking away your freedom or is it an unreasonable request in modern society..Yes it is in any free society.
In a dictatorship where you do as told it is expected, but has no place at any time in a free society.

[Bob Riebe]

So where the hell do we start drawing the line Bob? Just about everything you disagree with is taking away your freedom it seems. Do we abolish speed limits because we want to drive faster under the notion of our right? What about drinking and driving?
[Before the Feds, stuck their noses where it does not belong-[Oh yes the Fed. speed limit was actually extortion, if a state did not follow the Fed. demand, they lost all Fed. money] some, including Connecticut of all place, had no speed limit. Even at that speed limits were reccomendations, which Constabulary could decided if exceeding was proper or niot.
How does seat-belt use affect other drivers as vehicle speed does?)

Surely we should be free to judge whether or not we are able to drive under the influence of alcohol in a free society?
(Too much alcohol can cause a reaction in the driver, whose vehicle then can affect other drivers on the road.
Amazing how .10 was good enough for so long before the Feds. demanded .08 again with failure to comply, extortion takes place a Fed. money is cut off.)

How about talking on mobile phones whilst driving? Why should a law tell us we can't answer calls whilst driving and take our attention off the road when talking is such a free thing to do? Seriously. (Again lack of attention to driving, caused by a phone call or even dialing, can cause the drivers vehicle to affect other drivers on the road due lack of attention.)

When we start thinking about the guidelines/laws in place concerning such activities it becomes obvious why they are there in the first place from my perspective. Suggesting a few safety laws are the result of a dictatorship is quite frankly laughable and screams paranoid IMO. Its impossible to have a totally free society or the type of society you dream of. A country where people are allowed to do whatever the hell they want is dangerous and certainly not somewhere I'd wish to live or have any place in the western world.

Your analogies are laughable, as wearing a seat-belt or Big-brother telling parents how their children should ride in a car is the U.S. Fed. government, or States putting their noses where the Constitution says it does not belong.
Helmet laws were defeated and so could seat-belt and child seat laws but politicians are more worried about their image than garanteeing their electorate their freedoms.
Do you think the U.S. government owes all those killed by mandatory air-bags financial restitution and should those who forced the law suffer the same penalties as drunk drivers who are involved in a fatal accident?
After all people are dead because of others actions and ignorance.

Airbags associated with increased probability of death in accidents, study finds
June 2, 2005
The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) estimates that airbags installed in automobiles have saved some 10,000 lives as of January 2004. A just-released study by a statistician at the University of Georgia, however, casts doubt on that assertion.
In fact, said UGA statistics professor Mary C. Meyer, a new analysis of existing data indicates that, controlling for other factors, airbags are actually associated with slightly increased probability of death in accidents.

[BDunnell]

I can't see your logic on any of this at all and have no idea why you would want such guidelines outlawed.

You and me neither. The notion that such laws are but a few steps from Auschwitz, which is what some would seem seem to suggest, is absurd in the extreme unless one believes in a literally lawless society.

[airshifter]

Wow. I must admit IMO anyone who dies in a motorcycle crash because they haven't worn a helmet is stupid and deserves little sympathy from any observer. If they were lacking intelligence and common sense with little regard for their own safety in the first place then its up to them. I can't see your logic on any of this at all and have no idea why you would want such guidelines outlawed. Seems ridiculous to me.

But you hit on a key point here. When speaking about bikes, it is their own safety. Use of a helmet protects them, and lack of use may cause them to suffer more serious injury or possible death. I don't have a problem with that as it doesn't affect others.

Cars are another matter. Lack of wearing a seatbelt often means that the initial impact causes greater injury, and the driver then looses control of a heavy vehicle still in motion. This impacts the safety of those around that moving vehicle.

[Rollo]

Your analogies are laughable, as wearing a seat-belt or Big-brother telling parents how their children should ride in a car is the U.S. Fed. government, or States putting their noses where the Constitution says it does not belong.

The United States Constitution doesn't mention anything about road laws. Road laws are the domain of the States.

How is the Constitution relevant at all here? If it's the constitution of the State, then almost certainly they will have the powers to make road laws. They are after all the ones who issue Driver's Licences; the issue of a Licence is a permission that the State confers, not a right.

[chuck34]

Ok I believe this is the last thing I have to say to you on this subject, as you are being willfully ignorant of the subject at hand.


Whether you like it or not, slavery is not addressed in the Constitution. Slavers wanted slaves to be full persons by the way.

The word "slavery" is not in the Constitution, you are right. But what in the heck do you think "person held to service or labor" means? Are you honestly that ignorant of the debates surounding the drafting of the Constituion, the 3/5 Compromise, slavery itself, or just of the English language?

And of course slavers wanted slaves to be counted as full persons. The south, where slaves were mainly held at the time, did not have a very large white population with respect to the Northern (or Eastern in the language of the time) States. Therefore they would lose out on representation unless they could count their slaves. They rightfully saw that if they lost representation that the laws would change in order to outlaw slavery. And Mr. Bob Riebe wouldn't want that, because that would go against the Constitution.


You try to lump every legal matter into the same ****, same pile manner.
You are wrong.

I do not lump every legal matter into the same ****, whatever that means. YOU are the one who has said repeatedly that your rights come from the law, or now it's the Constitution as if there is a difference. I have been consistent in saying that I derive my rights elsewhere, and that laws are corrupt, and sometimes go against my rights, that the US Constitution is the best attempt at protecting my rights that I am aware of, but it is also flawed since it was written by man. YOU sir are the one claiming the Constitution is where you derive your rights from. YOU sir are the one being willfully ignorant of the facts presented before you of the debates on the Constitution, where the Founders drew inspiration, and what they based their philosophy upon. YOU sir are the one lumping every legal matter into one pile, and refusing to see nuance in situations.


Thank God our rights are in the Constitution and are not simple laws. LAWS can be eradicated easily.
Items in the Constitution cannot, i.e. Second Amendment and First Amendment (Although partly because people are too stupid, or ignornat, the First Amendment rights are being taking away and to hell with whether or not it is legal .

The Constitution IS a set of laws. Yes the articles in the Constitution (and Amendments) are harder to change than "simple" laws, but they are still changed. See the 13th eradicating the 3/5 Comprimise contained in Article 1 Section 2. Or the 16th Amendment allowing income tax without apportionment among the States as was stated in Article 1 Sections 2, 8, and 9. Or the 21st Amendment eradicating the 18th. Or heck why not just read Article 5 of the document itself. The Constitiution can be, and has been changed. To ignore that is plain foolishness. And yes common laws have been creeping in upon violating parts of the Constitution.


The U.S. citizenry acts more and more like sheep being led to slaughter with Obama leading the divide and separate charge.)

I'll agree with that, but probably go you a step further saying it didn't start, is not limited to, nor will it end with Obama.


We have CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS.
Rights are granted to U.S. citizens in the Constitution, which can ony be amended by the people.

Show me where in the Constitution citizens are granted rights.

Once again, I'll explain something, perhaps you will think about it this time. The US Constitution and the Bill of Rights are charters of negative liberties upon the federal government. They state what the federal government can not do to you. They protect your rights (or at least attempt to), they do not grant them.


Laws can be written by any dick-head who is a god wannabe. I.e. seat-belt, parking, spitting, racial, divorce etc., etc., etc. laws.

There were, and probably still are, many people in this world that thought the Founders were "dick-head god wannabes". Read up on Patrick Henry, Luther Martin, and John Francis Mercer, or any other anti-federalist a bit.


You are trying to lump them together with your God given rights, false standard.

YOU have repeatedly stated that there are no God given rights. That the only rights we have are granted by law. Is consistent argument that hard for you?

[chuck34]

The United States Constitution doesn't mention anything about road laws. Road laws are the domain of the States.

How is the Constitution relevant at all here? If it's the constitution of the State, then almost certainly they will have the powers to make road laws. They are after all the ones who issue Driver's Licences; the issue of a Licence is a permission that the State confers, not a right.

Well said, but I don't think 'ole Bob has a grasp of Federalism what-so-ever.

[Dave B]

Ever get the feeling that Bob is one of those who would gladly ignore the law until such time as he is victim of a crime, at which time he'd go blubbing to the police about how his rights have been infringed? A hypocrite, in other words. A massive, massive hypocrite.

[Bob Riebe]

Cars are another matter. Lack of wearing a seatbelt often means that the initial impact causes greater injury, and the driver then looses control of a heavy vehicle still in motion. This impacts the safety of those around that moving vehicle.
Nice try but if their is an impact large enough to dislodge the driver of the, vehicle is already out control.
Not even the Fed. safety twits have tried to float that boat that I am aware of.

Think about what you just wrote for a second. If the initial impact is not minor enough to deploy the mandated airbags, it will not cause the driver to loose control, if it deploys the airbag, the airbag will GREATLY impact the driver causing he/she to lose control.
That would be a solid reason to eliminate the airbags if what you said were true.

[Bob Riebe]

Originally Posted by Rollo
The United States Constitution doesn't mention anything about road laws. Road laws are the domain of the States.--- Which makes the Fed.mandated drunken driving, speedlimit standards illegal, or holding back of States moneys who do not meet these standards illegal.
So what is your point?


Well said, but I don't think 'ole Bob has a grasp of Federalism what-so-ever.
You agree with his flawed statement?

State laws must not defy the State's Constitution's, which vary greatly, as the Florida Supreme Court found out, the the U.S. Supreme Court overturned their decision, and the Minn. Governor found out when his new tax was, no matter what cute name he tried to float it with was against Minn. tax laws as defined in the Minn. Constitution.

State's Constitution cannot defy the U.S. Constitution. If when issuing any sort of license , the state defys a citizens Constitutional rights the Fed. governemt will overide that laws and can legally void it.woul
The U.S. constitution grants the Fed. and States government cetain powers which conservative believe are now regularily violated because too many people believe if it gives them a free ride, or an advantage over others, to hell whether or not it is against Constitutional standards, if it is good form that is close enough.

Chuck it is hard to believe any one such as you who believes in "natural rights" dares to say anything about Federalism.

[Bob Riebe]

Ever get the feeling that Bob is one of those who would gladly ignore the law until such time as he is victim of a crime, at which time he'd go blubbing to the police about how his rights have been infringed? A hypocrite, in other words. A massive, massive hypocrite.Prove your statement before it make you look like another troling fool.

[BDunnell]

Prove your statement before it make you look like another troling fool.

I think the burden of proof is on you there. Do let us know whether you call the police should, for instance, your car be stolen.

[chuck34]

Originally Posted by Rollo
The United States Constitution doesn't mention anything about road laws. Road laws are the domain of the States.--- Which makes the Fed.mandated drunken driving, speedlimit standards illegal, or holding back of States moneys who do not meet these standards illegal.
So what is your point?


You agree with his flawed statement?

State laws must not defy the State's Constitution's, which vary greatly, as the Florida Supreme Court found out, the the U.S. Supreme Court overturned their decision, and the Minn. Governor found out when his new tax was, no matter what cute name he tried to float it with was against Minn. tax laws as defined in the Minn. Constitution.

State's Constitution cannot defy the U.S. Constitution. If when issuing any sort of license , the state defys a citizens Constitutional rights the Fed. governemt will overide that laws and can legally void it.woul
The U.S. constitution grants the Fed. and States government cetain powers which conservative believe are now regularily violated because too many people believe if it gives them a free ride, or an advantage over others, to hell whether or not it is against Constitutional standards, if it is good form that is close enough.

Chuck it is hard to believe any one such as you who believes in "natural rights" dares to say anything about Federalism.

Sigh.....


The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

[Bob Riebe]

Sigh.....Your point if you have one?

[Bob Riebe]

I think the burden of proof is on you there. Do let us know whether you call the police should, for instance, your car be stolen.
The burden of proof is on you to prove otherwise.

[Bob Riebe]

I think you guys in the the States should seriously look at how your country is run if multiple outlets are allowed to make laws which are then over ridden by age old statements which sound outdated and unrealistic. That aside it still doesn't explain the asinine logic that not wearing a seat belt is safer than wearing one. Do you seriously believe that Bob or are you just pulling our legs?Did I ever say otherwise, even with my fortune of being alive for not wearing one.

The debate is about being forced to wear one and that only.
If one wants to play the odds, the U.S. was born of one's right to do so.

You are confusing two differnt items.

[chuck34]

Your point if you have one?

I would have thought that the point was self evident. That the States have the right to enact any speed or seatbelt laws they feel the need to. Since road laws are not enumerated powers granted to the Federal Government, they are reserved to the States. Therefore a State law forcing you to wear a seatbelt is in no way un-Constitutional.

And another point you have wrong, is that there are actually NO Federal seatbelt, drunk driving, or speed limit laws. The feds recommend things, tie money to it, and leave it up to the States to decide. Sure it may be extortion, but there is a choice.

[Bob Riebe]

I would have thought that the point was self evident. That the States have the right to enact any speed or seatbelt laws they feel the need to. Since road laws are not enumerated powers granted to the Federal Government, they are reserved to the States. Therefore a State law forcing you to wear a seatbelt is in no way un-Constitutional.

And another point you have wrong, is that there are actually NO Federal seatbelt, drunk driving, or speed limit laws. BZZZZZ---"Speed limits in the United States are set by each state or territory."--- Ditto for drunk driving and seat-belt.-- The feds recommend things, tie money to it, and leave it up to the States to decide. Sure it may be extortion, but there is a choice.

AHHH, grasshopper, so extortion is legal in your world. Very interesting.

States may not remove basic "rights", I mean you say these are NATURAL, as proven by the defeat of helment laws, which were passed for the same reasons as seat-belt laws.

You are trying to have your cake and eat it too, with your sudden cry of States having infinite power to pass laws to protect one from one's self, Constitutional rights be damned.

[chuck34]

BZZZZZ---"Speed limits in the United States are set by each state or territory."--- Ditto for drunk driving and seat-belt.

That is what I said. You do realize the difference between State and Federal Laws don't you? Speed limits, drunk driving, and seat belt laws are all STATE laws. Your original post which I was referencing stated that these laws were Federal law, which they are not.


AHHH, grasshopper, so extortion is legal in your world. Very interesting.

Where did I say it was legal?


States may not remove basic "rights", I mean you say these are NATURAL, as proven by the defeat of helment laws, which were passed for the same reasons as seat-belt laws.

It's part of the "social contract". We all agree to give up minor portions of our basic rights to live in a society. It's only when these minor portions begin to increase is there cause for alarm. Seatbelt laws don't rise beyond minor inconvieniences in my opinion.


You are trying to have your cake and eat it too, with your sudden cry of States having infinite power to pass laws to protect one from one's self, Constitutional rights be damned.

Where did I say anything that could possibly be seen as a "sudden cry of States having infinite power"? The exact oposite is the case. You are claiming the Federal Government, under the Constitution, has jurisdiction over everything. That is simply not the case.

[Bob Riebe]

That is what I said. You do realize the difference between State and Federal Laws don't you? Speed limits, drunk driving, and seat belt laws are all STATE laws. Your original post which I was referencing stated that these laws were Federal law, which they are not.--------------------- They are Federally mandated, for which punishment is doled out if disobyed. A Law-- well possibly not in the strictest legal sense-- though as I said earlier, to the Minn. Supreme court false words do not change a fact, so you may call it what you will, but for all practical purposes- it works as a law.



Where did I say it was legal? ------------ I said in your world and you said:
Sure it may be extortion, but there is a choice.


It's part of the "social contract". We all agree to give up minor portions of our basic rights to live in a society. It's only when these minor portions begin to increase is there cause for alarm. Seatbelt laws don't rise beyond minor inconvieniences in my opinion. -----------------Show me this social contract! Is it the same ones the blacks had with whites in the south?



Where did I say anything that could possibly be seen as a "sudden cry of States having infinite power"? The exact oposite is the case. You are claiming the Federal Government, under the Constitution, has jurisdiction over everything. That is simply not the case. The Constitution is the final document [ignoring judges who ignore it] in whether any law is legal under the U.S. system of laws.
Which is why State's laws that the States Const., under the judges there in power are legal, when challengedl are challenged in the Supreme Court ,(i.e. Florida election challenge) which is SUPPOSED to, as the final determinant if need be, use the Constitution and its Amendments in determining its legality.

[Dave B]

Prove your statement before it make you look like another troling fool.

Why would you ask me to prove a statement which was clearly a personal opinion?

It's stuff like that which confirm my view that you genuinely don't understand the difference between fact and opinion, which would explain many of your posts.

[chuck34]

The Constitution is the final document in whether any law is legal under the U.S. system of laws.
Which is why State's laws that the States Const., under the judges there in power are legal, when challengedl are challenged in the Supreme Court ,(i.e. Florida election challenge) which is SUPPOSED to, as the final determinant if need be, use the Constitution and its Amendments in determining its legality.

This is why I earlier told Rollo you have no concept of Federalism. You clearly demonstrate that here. The US Constitution has [i]enumerated powers which are their sole powers. Anything that is not listed in the US Constitution is a power of the State, or the people. Please read and understand the 10th Amendment. The Supreme Court would do well to read and understand it as well.

Seatbelt laws are not among the enumerated powers granted the Federal Government by the US Constitution, nor are they prohibited by it to the States. Therefore the States may pass such laws as they see fit.

These are not hard concepts to understand.

[Bob Riebe]

This is why I earlier told Rollo you have no concept of Federalism. You clearly demonstrate that here. The US Constitution has enumerated powers which are their sole powers. Anything that is not listed in the US Constitution is a power of the State, or the people. Please read and understand the 10th Amendment. The Supreme Court would do well to read and understand it as well.

Seatbelt laws are not among the enumerated powers granted the Federal Government by the US Constitution, nor are they prohibited by it to the States. Therefore the States may pass such laws as they see fit.

These are not hard concepts to understand.What are you prattling on about?
What the Constitution says, and what is going on, are two different things, which I maybe wrongly assumed you knew do to your backing of Fed. extortion that exists when the Fed. Government threatens to cut off funding if a state does not follow the Fed. mandate.

You are correct about the Tenth Amendment, no one here has said otherwise, so what is your point as you know the Tenth Amendment, as used, destroys the concept of Federalism?

[Bob Riebe]

Why would you ask me to prove a statement which was clearly a personal opinion?

It's stuff like that which confirm my view that you genuinely don't understand the difference between fact and opinion, which would explain many of your posts.What does that opinion have to do with the thread topic, if it is opinion, then the one I gave is just as valid, if this is now a personal opinion page of other posters, based on nothing but bias.

[Dave B]

What does that opinion have to do with the thread topic, if it is opinion, then the one I gave is just as valid, if this is now a personal opinion page of other posters, based on nothing but bias.

If you wish to state opinions you're welcome to, but when you state facts you should be expected to provide your evidence when questioned. Do you honestly not understand the difference? :\

[Bob Riebe]

If you wish to state opinions you're welcome to, but when you state facts you should be expected to provide your evidence when questioned. Do you honestly not understand the difference? :\


Ever get the feeling that Bob is one of those who would gladly ignore the law until such time as he is victim of a crime, at which time he'd go blubbing to the police about how his rights have been infringed? A hypocrite, in other words. A massive, massive hypocrite.---------OK where are your facts that should not make me treat this as a trolls fecal droppings?

[Malbec]

I really see no problems with people not wearing their seatbelts, its Darwinism in action.

[chuck34]

What are you prattling on about?
What the Constitution says, and what is going on, are two different things, which I maybe wrongly assumed you knew do to your backing of Fed. extortion that exists when the Fed. Government threatens to cut off funding if a state does not follow the Fed. mandate.

I never backed any sort of Federal extortion. I said it exists. If I were governor, I'd tell the Feds where to shove it. But I'm not, and there are precious few politicians out there that are brave enough to do so.


You are correct about the Tenth Amendment, no one here has said otherwise, so what is your point as you know the Tenth Amendment, as used, destroys the concept of Federalism?

You have said otherwise. YOU said that seatbelt, speed limit, and helmet laws are un-Constitutional. So I, once again, have to point out to you that since those laws are not enumerated powers of the Federal Government, that they are in the scope of the State governments. THAT is what the 10th Amendment says. THAT is the concept of Federalism. What you seem to be advocating for is a national government, where the powers that be in Washington DC have the ultimate say-so, and can do as they please. That is NOT what I want, that is NOT what the Founders wanted, and that is NOT what Conservatives stand for.

[Bob Riebe]

I never backed any sort of Federal extortion. I said it exists. If I were governor, I'd tell the Feds where to shove it. But I'm not, and there are precious few politicians out there that are brave enough to do so.



You have said otherwise. YOU said that seatbelt, speed limit, and helmet laws are un-Constitutional. So I, once again, have to point out to you that since those laws are not enumerated powers of the Federal Government, that they are in the scope of the State governments. THAT is what the 10th Amendment says. THAT is the concept of Federalism. What you seem to be advocating for is a national government, where the powers that be in Washington DC have the ultimate say-so, and can do as they please. That is NOT what I want, that is NOT what the Founders wanted, and that is NOT what Conservatives stand for.State do not have the right to pass any law that is un-Constitutional by either the States own, or Federal Constitutions. The Fed. one trumping all others.
That is the only place rights come from.
Other wise we would still have segregation.
Speed limits, are guide lines, or were, which gave discretion to law officers to determine if one was exceeding the advised safe speed, endangering others; therefore, at least at one time, one could go to court to challenge it and if the judge agreed with the driver that the driver was not posing a danger, the ticket would be overturned.
I defeated one ticket in that manner.
At the same time, tell me where the 55-- NATIONAL-- speed limit came from?

Seat-belt and helmet laws are laws protecting one from one's self.
Show me where in the Fed. Constitution this is allowed. Where any government can tell citizens what bathromm to use, where to sit in the bus, how to sit in a car, what road gear must be worn.
Show me where in the Constitution this is permitted.

The Federal Constitution has the FINAL say so in all cases, period.

MONEY, is the factor that stops challenges to Constitutional freedoms as no lawyer works for free, plus the abuse that comes from the Tenth Amendment, is partly because Washington, from top to bottom, does not want to give up powers it has, legal or otherwise, and big money, which could attempt a challenge to Tenth Amendment, sees no profit in it and probably a loss of power as they have Wahsington insiders in their back-pockets to a degree.

Our view of rights differ and I doubt we will ever agree.

[Bob Riebe]

I really see no problems with people not wearing their seatbelts, its Darwinism in action.The weak and feeble minded survive, while the strong and independent die.
Fascinationg take on things.

[Rollo]

The weak and feeble minded survive, while the strong and independent die.
Fascinationg take on things.

Indeed.

The wise in heart accept commands, but a chattering fool comes to ruin. - Proverbs 10:8

[airshifter]

Believe me when you see the aftermath of a motorcycle accident and the victim has their head split wide open on the road it affects all people who observe it.

But the same is true with the people in a bad car accident, a stabbing, shooting, or a motorcycle accident when the rider was wearing a helmet. If a rider impacts his head on any object his control of the bike is already gone, and the person being put at risk it only himself and any passengers on the bike.

Driving under the influence affects all people on the roads that you are driving on and can kill them as well.


Don't get me wrong, I've heard the neck vs head argument concerning helmets for years, and I've always worn a helmet when I've ridden. But these days especially riding a motorcycle in regular traffic is already a risk, and if people choose not to wear a helmet then that should be their choice IMO.

[airshifter]

Nice try but if their is an impact large enough to dislodge the driver of the, vehicle is already out control.
Not even the Fed. safety twits have tried to float that boat that I am aware of.

Think about what you just wrote for a second. If the initial impact is not minor enough to deploy the mandated airbags, it will not cause the driver to loose control, if it deploys the airbag, the airbag will GREATLY impact the driver causing he/she to lose control.
That would be a solid reason to eliminate the airbags if what you said were true.


You would be much better off seeking facts on the matter, as a number of studies have shown otherwise, both on vehicles with and without airbags. It was the basis for several states that challenged the motorcycle helment laws, providing evidence that belts had a great effect on others due to the drivers remaining in the seat and much more aware if wearing belts, where as with bikes the helmet didn't provide such ability to remain in control of the vehicle.

Due to the above a person not wearing a seatbelt infringes in the personal safety of others, a right which is not afforded in the Constitution. Then again, you seem to ignore a great number of aspects of the Constitution, so I'm sure that won't bother you at all.

[Bob Riebe]

You would be much better off seeking facts on the matter, as a number of studies have shown otherwise, both on vehicles with and without airbags. It was the basis for several states that challenged the motorcycle helment laws, providing evidence that belts had a great effect on others due to the drivers remaining in the seat and much more aware if wearing belts, where as with bikes the helmet didn't provide such ability to remain in control of the vehicle.

Due to the above a person not wearing a seatbelt infringes in the personal safety of others, a right which is not afforded in the Constitution. Then again, you seem to ignore a great number of aspects of the Constitution, so I'm sure that won't bother you at all.If what you say is true, then this study is reason enough to eliminate air-bags.

Airbags associated with increased probability of death in accidents, study finds
June 2, 2005
The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) estimates that airbags installed in automobiles have saved some 10,000 lives as of January 2004. A just-released study by a statistician at the University of Georgia, however, casts doubt on that assertion.
In fact, said UGA statistics professor Mary C. Meyer, a new analysis of existing data indicates that, controlling for other factors, airbags are actually associated with slightly increased probability of death in accidents.

Do you have a link of name of said study you mentioned?

[donKey jote]

While the value of airbags seems dubious in the new study, the value of seatbelts is not. The analysis found that proper use of a seatbelt reduces the odds of death by 67 percent for any given speed category and airbag availability. Airbags, however, cause no statistical difference in car-crash deaths, except for unseatbelted occupants at low speeds, where the odds of death are estimated to be more than four times higher with an airbag than without.
duh!
Be free and buy yourself a car without an airbag if you wish.
Be stupid and don't wear a seatbelt, except maybe in said car at low speeds. :dozey:


p.s. here's the link Bob posted:
Airbags linked to higher car accident deaths, USA (http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/releases/25466.php)
.... or did he?

[Dave B]

I really see no problems with people not wearing their seatbelts, its Darwinism in action.

As I said earlier, I've no problem in theory with the terminally stupid killing themselves through drink-driving, speeding, and/or failing to use perfectly sensible safety precautions.

However, the aftermath of such incidents has a financial cost as the fire brigade cut your remains out of your car, the police close the road, and the paramedics debate whether to use a shovel or a mop to get you into the ambulance; all this before you consider that RTAs have this annoying habit of involving innocent parties.

[Dave B]

p.s. here's the link Bob posted:
Airbags linked to higher car accident deaths, USA (http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/releases/25466.php)
.... or did he?
That study appears to make a gigantic leap of faith, speculating what might have occured had airbags not been involved in accidents. It fails to conduct a side-by-side comparison, which is the very essence of scientific study.

[Malbec]

As I said earlier, I've no problem in theory with the terminally stupid killing themselves through drink-driving, speeding, and/or failing to use perfectly sensible safety precautions.

However, the aftermath of such incidents has a financial cost as the fire brigade cut your remains out of your car, the police close the road, and the paramedics debate whether to use a shovel or a mop to get you into the ambulance; all this before you consider that RTAs have this annoying habit of involving innocent parties.

Drink driving and speeding are very different from not wearing your seatbelt.

The first two raise the risk of causing an accident and speeding worsens the effect of the accident as well. The same cannot be said for not wearing a seatbelt.

Not wearing a seatbelt causes harm to the person not using it and if they are sitting in the back, the person in front only. The negative impact is therefore much reduced compared to drink driving and speeding, and importantly doesn't really raise the risk for other roadusers who get caught up in an accident with them.

This is not to say I think not wearing seatbelts is acceptable, as I said its Darwinism in action with the stupid taking themselves out of circulation.

[chuck34]

State do not have the right to pass any law that is un-Constitutional by either the States own, or Federal Constitutions. The Fed. one trumping all others.

Clearly, and I have not said otherwise. In order for your argument to hold any water you need to show me where in the US Constitution it says "States shall not pass seatbelt laws".


That is the only place rights come from.

Again, no it is not. The US Constitution is not where rights come from. Read the document.


Other wise we would still have segregation.

Jim Crow laws were were "normal" laws that were, thank God, over-turned by the States themselves. And the "Due Process" clause in the 14th Amendment spoke specifically to the States which is why when those law's Constitutionality was challenged, they were defeated.


Speed limits, are guide lines, or were, which gave discretion to law officers to determine if one was exceeding the advised safe speed, endangering others; therefore, at least at one time, one could go to court to challenge it and if the judge agreed with the driver that the driver was not posing a danger, the ticket would be overturned.
I defeated one ticket in that manner.

Great for you, but States no longer take that view on the subject.


At the same time, tell me where the 55-- NATIONAL-- speed limit came from?

I suppose you are speaking of the law passed by Congress in '74? If so I would say that it is/was illegal, except possibly on interstate highways. And at the time many States, and police forces, took the same view. I would suggest that this is possibly the reason you were able to defeat your ticket. That was a well known way for State and Local governments to circumvent a law they didn't agree with, without going through the time and expense of challenging the Constitutionality of the law.


Seat-belt and helmet laws are laws protecting one from one's self.
Show me where in the Fed. Constitution this is allowed. Where any government can tell citizens what bathromm to use, where to sit in the bus, how to sit in a car, what road gear must be worn.
Show me where in the Constitution this is permitted.

Again you show your lack of understanding of the Constitution. It is not my duty to show you where it is allowed. Quite the opposite in fact. You must show me where those laws are prohibited by it to the States.


The Federal Constitution has the FINAL say so in all cases, period.

No, the US Constitution has final say so in the powers enumerated there-in. If it is outside the scope of the Constitution as written and amended the US Constitution has no say at all.


MONEY, is the factor that stops challenges to Constitutional freedoms as no lawyer works for free, plus the abuse that comes from the Tenth Amendment, is partly because Washington, from top to bottom, does not want to give up powers it has, legal or otherwise, and big money, which could attempt a challenge to Tenth Amendment, sees no profit in it and probably a loss of power as they have Wahsington insiders in their back-pockets to a degree.

Do you really think that the 10th Amendment is abusing you? Do you really want to challenge the 10th Amendment? If that is really what you are saying then you are arguing for a National Government, not a Federal one. There is a huge difference, and knowing your views on many subjects, I do not think a National Government is what you are after.


Our view of rights differ and I doubt we will ever agree.

Actually I think our views are very simmilar. You just need to read up a bit more on what our Founding documents actually say, where they came from, and their scope. There are many great books out there about the Constitution Convention, the ratification debates, letters between the Founders, etc. that would be a good starting point. Go to the source material where ever you can. Histories and biographies written latter are often colored by political perspectives.

[donKey jote]

That study appears to make a gigantic leap of faith, speculating what might have occured had airbags not been involved in accidents. It fails to conduct a side-by-side comparison, which is the very essence of scientific study.
you don't say ! :o :eek: :p

[airshifter]

duh!
Be free and buy yourself a car without an airbag if you wish.
Be stupid and don't wear a seatbelt, except maybe in said car at low speeds. :dozey:


p.s. here's the link Bob posted:
Airbags linked to higher car accident deaths, USA (http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/releases/25466.php)
.... or did he?

It's just no fun debating with someone that posts this kind of stuff. His link backs my statement on seatbelts, and he asks me for a source after attempting to cherry pick the same link to suit a view that opposes what is said.

A classic for sure!

[Bob Riebe]

It's just no fun debating with someone that posts this kind of stuff. His link backs my statement on seatbelts, and he asks me for a source after attempting to cherry pick the same link to suit a view that opposes what is said.

A classic for sure!The link speaks of airbags related to higher death toll, while saying at high speed belts do not contribute to death.
It says squat about seat belts stopping people from losing control in accidents thereby protecting other drivers, etc, etc, etc.
If that is out there paste it, otherwise you are just babbling which has no class at all.

[Rollo]

It says squat about seat belts stopping people from losing control in accidents thereby protecting other drivers, etc, etc, etc.


Protecting other drivers from what? Dangerous and idiotic driving?

This is irrelevant considering you obviously didn't give two hoots about protecting other drivers in the first place by driving at more than 100mph. How about obeying the speed limit in the first place?



I was spoit out of a car that went end over end at triple digits. Why I was going that fast is not relevant.


At this point the whole seat belt pales into insignificance compared to the fact that you were driving negligently. What possible reason can you justify breaking the law wantonly?