LIve Free or Die.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by henners88

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bob Riebe

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.

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bob Riebe

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bob Riebe

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bob Riebe

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bob Riebe

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bob Riebe

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bob Riebe

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bob Riebe

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?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rollo

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.

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by airshifter

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.

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?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by chuck34

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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.

---

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bob Riebe

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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?


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.....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tenth Amendment

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.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by chuck34

Sigh.....

---

Your point if you have one?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BDunnell

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by henners88

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bob Riebe

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by chuck34

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bob Riebe

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bob Riebe

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

---

Where did I say it was legal?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bob Riebe

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bob Riebe

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by chuck34

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bob Riebe

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bob Riebe

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.

---

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by chuck34

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?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dave B

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bob Riebe

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? :\

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dave B

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? :\

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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.

---

---------OK where are your facts that should not make me treat this as a trolls fecal droppings?

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bob Riebe

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bob Riebe

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by chuck34

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Malbec

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bob Riebe

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by henners88

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bob Riebe

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by airshifter

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?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bob's Study

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
.... or did he?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Malbec

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by donKey jote

p.s. here's the link Bob posted:
Airbags linked to higher car accident deaths, USA
.... 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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dave B

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bob Riebe

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".

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bob Riebe

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bob Riebe

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bob Riebe

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bob Riebe

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bob Riebe

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bob Riebe

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bob Riebe

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bob Riebe

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dave B

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by donKey jote

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
.... 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!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by airshifter

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bob Riebe

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?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bob Riebe

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?