Are speed limits an infringement of our rights?

The #1 community for Gun Owners in Indiana

Member Benefits:

  • Fewer Ads!
  • Discuss all aspects of firearm ownership
  • Discuss anti-gun legislation
  • Buy, sell, and trade in the classified section
  • Chat with Local gun shops, ranges, trainers & other businesses
  • Discover free outdoor shooting areas
  • View up to date on firearm-related events
  • Share photos & video with other members
  • ...and so much more!
  • Hkindiana

    Master
    Rating - 100%
    8   0   0
    Sep 19, 2010
    3,175
    149
    Southern Hills
    As the title says, are speed limits an infringement of our rights? Or, are they a necessity to protect the masses from those who think they have a "God given right" to put the pedal to the metal? I'm just curios what others think...
     

    Expat

    Pdub
    Site Supporter
    Rating - 100%
    23   0   0
    Feb 27, 2010
    108,752
    113
    Michiana
    Anything that keeps me from doing whatever I want to do is an infringement. None of the rest of you count. It is all about me.
     

    88GT

    Grandmaster
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Mar 29, 2010
    16,643
    83
    Familyfriendlyville
    If i remember correctly, driving is a "privilege" not a right. So i would say no. (there is no mention of driving in the constitution, lol)


    Oh, hell. There's no mention of a lot of things in the Constitution. How the hell will we ever convince the other side of the meaning of natural rights if we can't figure it out ourselves.

    If driving is a privilege, so is your right to carry.
     

    spec4

    Master
    Rating - 100%
    1   0   0
    Jun 19, 2010
    3,775
    27
    NWI
    Speed limits are generally too low. In my subdivision they are all 20 mph when 30 or 35 would be just fine. The cops like to hang around and pick folks off. Usually I keep to about 25, and get passed often. On the interstate, if you have a decent car and know how to drive, 90 is fine in a lot of open areas. I figure I'm probably as good a driver as the average German, and their interstates (auto bahn) has no limits. I think the bureaucrrats setting limits imagine an 85 year old lady driving a model A.
     

    J10

    Marksman
    Rating - 100%
    2   0   0
    Oct 3, 2010
    178
    16
    Morgan County
    Oh, hell. There's no mention of a lot of things in the Constitution. How the hell will we ever convince the other side of the meaning of natural rights if we can't figure it out ourselves.

    If driving is a privilege, so is your right to carry.

    I think if you twist the constitution (like so many like to do) but in a positive way then the right to keep and bear arms would mean that to bear arms you have the right to carry arms. If you don't have the right to carry arms then it is kinda hard to bear them in defense of yourself, state and country.

    Back on topic of speed limits. No more talk of my opinions of the constitution. :patriot:
     

    88GT

    Grandmaster
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Mar 29, 2010
    16,643
    83
    Familyfriendlyville
    I think if you twist the constitution (like so many like to do) but in a positive way then the right to keep and bear arms would mean that to bear arms you have the right to carry arms. If you don't have the right to carry arms then it is kinda hard to bear them in defense of yourself, state and country.

    Back on topic of speed limits. No more talk of my opinions of the constitution. :patriot:

    My two statements were completely unrelated. The first was in response to the comment that "if it ain't in the Constituion...."

    The second was based on my personal opinion and had two meanings. First, I feel driving is a mode of transportation and we are free to move about this country as we see fit. Restrictions on such movement are no more valid than restrictions on any other freedom we have that government has usurped for revenue generation/control. Second, if the state's power to regulate is a de facto indicator of an action's status as a privilege rather than a right, then carrying your firearm becomes a privilege.

    You can't have it both ways. :dunno: That's just how I see it.
     

    J10

    Marksman
    Rating - 100%
    2   0   0
    Oct 3, 2010
    178
    16
    Morgan County
    First, I feel driving is a mode of transportation and we are free to move about this country as we see fit. Restrictions on such movement are no more valid than restrictions on any other freedom we have that government has usurped for revenue generation/control. Second, if the state's power to regulate is a de facto indicator of an action's status as a privilege rather than a right, then carrying your firearm becomes a privilege.

    You make a good point :yesway:
     

    jbombelli

    ITG Certified
    Rating - 100%
    10   0   0
    May 17, 2008
    13,010
    113
    Brownsburg, IN
    I understand the need to regulate the speed of traffic in order to at least TRY to limit the number of accidents.

    That said, it isn't speed that kills. It's differences in speed. Thus, there should also be a minimum speed requirement of no less than 10 mph below the posted limit, which on the highways should be higher. We should also have a "Drive Right" rule similar to Germany's Autobahn, so that the wankers who insist on doing 10 mph under the limit in the left lane get huge tickets, like they would in Germany.
     

    joslar15

    Master
    Rating - 100%
    11   0   0
    Mar 3, 2009
    1,976
    38
    Bloomington
    Speed limits these days, much like many other pieces of legislation are less about safety and more about control . IIRC, one of the goals of our interstate highway system, designed more than a half a century ag, was to move traffic at speeds in excess of 70mph. Technological advances, such as those in vehicle construction, tires and suspension make today's vehicles much safer than those used in the fifties.
     

    Hiker1911

    Sharpshooter
    Rating - 100%
    1   0   0
    Mar 8, 2009
    649
    18
    South
    Actually, a few years before you were born...

    Those laws were created after speedsters began running into, or scaring the horses/buggies. Speaking of which, I haven't seen a horse & buggy on the road in years! :dunno:
     

    Dragon

    Sharpshooter
    Rating - 100%
    8   0   0
    Apr 11, 2011
    599
    18
    Muncie, IN
    Actually, a few years before you were born...

    Those laws were created after speedsters began running into, or scaring the horses/buggies. Speaking of which, I haven't seen a horse & buggy on the road in years! :dunno:

    In some areas we still get em, but the Amish are few and far between here. Ohio and PA I'm sure see them a lot more.

    Infringement, not at all. Some people I see shouldn't even be allowed to drive but that's just me. Allow said people to drive without a speed limit and more people would die per day than die in a month from accidents.

    The people who drive while texting, reading newspapers, putting on makeup, and things of that nature don't deserve the right. I've been hit by 3 of them, one in a semi doing 75 on I-70 and hit me on an off-ramp and had he not had me to hit he would've gone off of an overpass and landed in the traffic below. Spending that time pondering it in the hospital I'd say my opinion of speed limits are pretty concrete and founded.
     

    Hkindiana

    Master
    Rating - 100%
    8   0   0
    Sep 19, 2010
    3,175
    149
    Southern Hills
    Infringement, not at all. Some people I see shouldn't even be allowed to drive but that's just me. Allow said people to drive without a speed limit and more people would die per day than die in a month from accidents.

    .

    Isn't that the same logic used by others to try and restrict firearms ownership, or to require "permits" for carry?
     

    Dragon

    Sharpshooter
    Rating - 100%
    8   0   0
    Apr 11, 2011
    599
    18
    Muncie, IN
    Isn't that the same logic used by others to try and restrict firearms ownership, or to require "permits" for carry?

    One could argue that, but my side of the argument would be that the restrictions are placed upon those who cannot undertake the responsibility to carry/drive safely. This reasoning is why felons cannot carry or possess right?

    The people who put others lives in danger(infringing upon their rights) are the ones I'm talking about. To say that everyone should be able to drive without speed limit is just ridiculous and if everyone here concedes that it is an infringement upon our rights then so be it, but I still support speed limits.

    Your right of freedom only extends so far as to infringe upon the right of freedom of another person, right?
     
    Top Bottom