Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I have never told you to not drive without wearing a seat belt have I? I personally don't care if you use one or not, I also don't care if you get a ticket for it or not. I have zero sympathy for you when you do get a ticket, but no where did I say you should wear one.
You are supporting a mandate that I wear a seat belt. How is that not trying to force me to wear one??
If you REALLY didn't care you'd vote that its not the governments place.
You are supporting a mandate that I wear a seat belt. How is that not trying to force me to wear one??
If you REALLY didn't care you'd vote that its not the governments place.
Having a law doesn't force you to wear a seat belt, you has said many times before that you don't wear a seat belt therefore the law clearly isn't forcing you to wear one, you just get a ticket when you get caught not wearing one. I have already proven that seat belts increase safety and having a seat belt law increases use of the seat belt, so that reason alone justifies having the law.
Having a law doesn't force you to wear a seat belt, you has said many times before that you don't wear a seat belt therefore the law clearly isn't forcing you to wear one, you just get a ticket when you get caught not wearing one. I have already proven that seat belts increase safety and having a seat belt law increases use of the seat belt, so that reason alone justifies having the law.
That's where your reasoning is flawed. Just because YOU think it should be mandated that everybody wear a seat belt does not justify a government mandate. There's also a huge fallacy where you ASSUME we create all laws to increase safety.
If we really wanted to increase safety we would ban alcohol, cigarettes, and motorcycles too. That's the EXACT same reasoning your using with the seat belt law.
What justifies the law is the people, and the people are overwhelmingly changing their opinions and saying that they don't want the police pulling people over for not wearing a seat belt.
That's where your reasoning is flawed. Just because YOU think it should be mandated that everybody wear a seat belt does not justify a government mandate. There's also a huge fallacy where you ASSUME we create all laws to increase safety.
If we really wanted to increase safety we would ban alcohol, cigarettes, and motorcycles too. That's the EXACT same reasoning your using with the seat belt law.
What justifies the law is the people, and the people are overwhelmingly changing their opinions and saying that they don't want the police pulling people over for not wearing a seat belt.
Do you know the difference between banning something and creating a law on something for safety reasons? Also I have already provided you with the information that shows an increase in seat belt use with seat belt laws and how seat belts increase safety. I am sorry you don't agree with facts, but your opinions don't trump facts.
In this country there are laws against being drunk and drinking alcohol in public, there are laws that prevent underage drinking, there are laws that prevent underage smoking, there are laws that prevent smoking within a distance to doorways and indoor smoking, there are laws that require motorcycle drivers to wear helmets, there are laws that prevent underage people from operating a car or motorcycle. So if you want to compare the seat belt law to anything compare it to other laws, not bans because no one but you is comparing apples and oranges.
That's where your reasoning is flawed. Just because YOU think it should be mandated that everybody wear a seat belt does not justify a government mandate. There's also a huge fallacy where you ASSUME we create all laws to increase safety.
If we really wanted to increase safety we would ban alcohol, cigarettes, and motorcycles too. That's the EXACT same reasoning your using with the seat belt law.
What justifies the law is the people, and the people are overwhelmingly changing their opinions and saying that they don't want the police pulling people over for not wearing a seat belt.
Well take cigarrettes for instance. Cigarrettes are heavily taxed under the guise that they increase health care costs. Well, not wearing seat belts results in more serious injuries in a car accident and therefore increase health care costs. Why not just consider traffic fines as just another form of a "sin" tax.
Actually the Right to Bear Arms is in our Constitution, there is nothing in our Constitution that says you have the Right to Drive without restrictions or the Right to Drive in general.
I believe in freedoms and individual responsibilities, I also think it is an individual's responsibility to wear a seat belt when in a car, I also think that individual should then take responsibility when they get a ticket for ignoring a driving law such as speeding, running red lights, and not wearing a seat belt.
I do however think that it should be up to each state (which it is) to decide if it should be a primary or secondary offense (secondary means a cop can't just pull you over for not wearing your seat belt) and how much the ticket is.
Also it is a proven fact that seat belts increase safety, it is also proven that seat belt laws increase seat belt use, both of those things go hand and hand making people much safer when they are on the roads. You can still make the individual choice to not wear a seat belt because you are assuming the risks that come with not wearing a seat belt, such risks as tickets and potential major injury or death.
I agree that seat belts increase safety. Even if there were no laws mandating it, I would always wear mine. But I don't think there should be a law mandating adults wear seat belts. I would support a law mandating that children wear their seat belts. The difference being that adults don't need government to protect them from their own stupidity, but government should protect children from their own ignorance and the stupidity of adults.
Let's move on to the part of your post with which I have a problem.
Your sentence above that I highlighted in red, points to the problem.
The Constitution is NOT a list of the rights we have. Far too many people seem to be under the impression that we only have the rights that are enumerated specifically in that document. Nothing could be further from the truth. The Constitution creates, and at the same time LIMITS, the power given to the government under which we have all agreed to live. The founders, particularly Alexander Hamilton, worried that any list of rights might give some reason to argue that we, the people, had given up any not included on the list. To protect against such a thing, they wrote the ninth & tenth amendments; 9) The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people. 10) 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
Well take cigarrettes for instance. Cigarrettes are heavily taxed under the guise that they increase health care costs. Well, not wearing seat belts results in more serious injuries in a car accident and therefore increase health care costs. Why not just consider traffic fines as just another form of a "sin" tax.
The issue with that is that stops can lead to other offenses arising due to the seat belt. If the seat belt law was a tax (which I think you are suggesting) then it should be a secondary offense. Not a primary offense. Not wearing a seat belt does not cause you to have an accident.
I agree that seat belts increase safety. Even if there were no laws mandating it, I would always wear mine. But I don't think there should be a law mandating adults wear seat belts. I would support a law mandating that children wear their seat belts. The difference being that adults don't need government to protect them from their own stupidity, but government should protect children from their own ignorance and the stupidity of adults.
Let's move on to the part of your post with which I have a problem.
Your sentence above that I highlighted in red, points to the problem.
The Constitution is NOT a list of the rights we have. Far too many people seem to be under the impression that we only have the rights that are enumerated specifically in that document. Nothing could be further from the truth. The Constitution creates, and at the same time LIMITS, the power given to the government under which we have all agreed to live. The founders, particularly Alexander Hamilton, worried that any list of rights might give some reason to argue that we, the people, had given up any not included on the list. To protect against such a thing, they wrote the ninth & tenth amendments; 9) The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people. 10) 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
Which is why seat belt laws are decided by the states which the states decide if it is a primary or secondary offense. It also doesn't prevent someone from traveling freely around the country.
Ah yes, 18 people have now voted, clearly a drastic change from the almost 300 people who voted in the last one you created.
So are you saying there should be no laws because any law could be considered an infringement on your freedom and clearly you think you have the Right to Drive so what's the point in arguing with that crazy notion. Maybe we should add Right to Drive as our new amendment which will make all driving laws unconstitutional because they would clearly infringe on your right to drive, just like the don't to bear arms.
The only laws necessary are those which protect people from the actions of other people. Motor vehicle laws, traffic signals and speed limits are there to regulate the way we drive and interact with each other. Driving at 110 mph on a city road is dangerous not just to the driver of that vehicle, but also to other vehicles and pedestrians. Note that there are no laws restricting the speed at which you can drive on your own private property.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
