Our Rights?

bumblebee said:

First...better check your history...license and registrations, along with driver licenses came along years after the automobile was in use. It started as a way to prove ownership of vehicles. People didn't need a license to travel on Public roads on their horses and we have the constitutional right to move about. Driving is not some tremendous priviledge bestowed upon us by a munificent government. The People gave the authority to regulate motor vehicles to the state, and can take it back.

On the helmet issue, if you think it is a good law to mandate helmets for all riders, then don't ever get on your motorcycle without full body armor and leathers, else you will be a hypocrite.

Seatbelts and helmets are apples and oranges...Seatbelts are used to keep you from being injured while bouncing around inside a vehicle or from being ejected from the vehicle in the event of a crash. Air bags are now mandated in all new cars...do you want an airbag on your sportbike? Let's see how many lives are saved with the airbags on the Gold Wings and maybe we should push for them on all bikes.

Considering 75 % of all injuries sustained in a motorcycle crash are from the stomach and below, perhaps a push should be made to require body armor.

There are few motorcycle fatalities/injuries, percentage wise, where a helmet would have made a difference, but body armor would have prevented injuries. How many people do you know that have gotten road rash?..................... only on their head?

your logic is flawed and is more of the BS from the people who want a "Nanny State" where the Government has to tell you what socks to put on in the morning, and people no longer have to be responsible for their own actions.

You wear your helmet and your gear because they can save your life in the event of a crash. If you don't, you suffer. It is a personal choice, and the person making the choice must be accountable for their own actions...not beat over the head with some government stick.

Show me where I'm wrong...

Click to expand...

Any law can be changed, that is how our country works. As for checking history, I made no mention of historical use of licensing. I am talking about today's use of licensing and it differs greatly from what use to be and most likely what it will become. The government does not say anywhere in the constitution we have a right or freedom to use vehicles (or horses if you want to go there) on public lands and can revoke use of these items or entire use of the lands if it is beneficial to society. Hell, in a recent supreme court ruling, they clarified that it is legal to take your land and give it to another private entity if it is beneficial to the community. Think about it like this, did the government take away people's privilege to drink alcohol for the benefit of society and then decide that it wasn't such a good idea? The system is too fluid to compare what use to be and what is.

Honestly, that is what makes this country the greatest country in the world is that we don't have the same opinions on how much government we should have in our lives and that it is a fluid system to allow for change to suit the present needs of society. Sometimes we need laws to protect the morons without common sense because we aren't unemotional beings that can honestly say the dip**** that didn't wear so and so gear deserved to die because it's natural selection, but wish to protect our family that don't make the best choices for themselves.

It's not natural selection, here's why. By comitting homicide, you are infringing on the rights of another person (their right to life). Therefore, committing a crime.

Click to expand...

Actually it is natural selection, as someone else said survival of the fittest. If you live in a ghetto with gangs, the gang that adapts best to the environment and transmit it's message on to future generations multiplying their numbers and eliminating the enemies will takeover the enviroment unless a bigger stronger opponent like say the cops don't eliminate them. Natural selection is not about whats right or moral, it makes no mention of laws in society, it is just plain out survival of the best, strongest, fittest, most heavily armed and trained in this case.

VolEngineer said:

You got to ask one question as well:

What is the first thing most people blame when something is wrong or something bad happens? Most of the safety laws are to not only protect your interest, but the governments as well.

Click to expand...

protect the insurance industry's profits... that's the bottom line.
it's all about the $$

remember when the speed limit dropped to 55? it was to conserve on fuel, not to save lives (55 save lives slogan). then the insurance industry in it's fight to save the public conducted a study that 55 does save lives by using their own studies. when speed was increased to 70, more fatalities occurred.
but they forgot to include that more people now drive and more cars are on the road. states wanted to increase the speed to 75 but the insurance industry has control over the senators. bills were past to prohibit government highway funds to states that increased their speed limit, or did not adopt mandatory seatbelts. lobbyist has since changed those bills.

hey, am i showing my age yet? i want nixon to be prez again. he knows how to get things done.

when laws or bills are pushed through congress, it's not about the safety of the public, it's about money. only few laws are passed that protect the public and those are brought on by media hypes. would a senator that doesn't approve the amber bill get re-elected?

-a|ex

i'm glad to be a U.S. citizen. but i'm even more gratefull that i'm not an american indian.