LIve Free or Die.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rollo

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bob Riebe

Constitution trumps laws as has been proven in court.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bob Riebe

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by chuck34

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bob Riebe

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

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?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bob Riebe

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 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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bob Riebe

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by henners88

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bob Riebe

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by chuck34

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by henners88

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by henners88

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by henners88

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.