Seat Belt, cell phone laws !!!

[HICKMAN]

from the thread graves, it arises!

I guess I double **** them off... riding with no helmet and open-carrying

 

[turnandshoot4]

I absolutely don't understand the no helmet/must wear seatbelt laws. Open carry on a bike will be great! Come on finances!

 

[Windwalker]

Just some of the laws that the Federal Government forces the States to pass by threatening to withhold Federal Road Repair money if the States don't pass this legislation. Seems like Federal blackmail to me.

 

[Jay]

When they start acting in away that endangers me on the road pull them over for reckless driving.

...by that time, you, or others might already have become a victim.

...as has already been posted...... if you're doing something that affects ONLY YOU, then have at it. HOWEVER, when you or anyone else assumes the potential to adversely affect me, mine or others, then you become a threat.....

Wanna ride along in an ambulance and dig bodies out of a vehicle where the driver was texting, or talking ? I can set it up for you.

 

[Timjoebillybob]

...as has already been posted...... if you're doing something that affects ONLY YOU, then have at it. HOWEVER, when you or anyone else assumes the potential to adversely affect me, mine or others, then you become a threat.....

Wanna ride along in an ambulance and dig bodies out of a vehicle where the driver was texting, or talking ? I can set it up for you.

That sounds very similar to what a lot of anti-gun people say. Oh my god he has a gun he COULD shoot someone. Does myself having a gun adversely effect you in any material way? Not in my opinion. Does it have the potential to adversely effect you, yours, or others? I'm going to have to say yes. Am I going to go out and rob, rape and murder? No. Should I be locked up because I have the potential to do so? Again no.

 

[Jay]

That sounds very similar to what a lot of anti-gun people say. Oh my god he has a gun he COULD shoot someone. Does myself having a gun adversely effect you in any material way? Not in my opinion. Does it have the potential to adversely effect you, yours, or others? I'm going to have to say yes. Am I going to go out and rob, rape and murder? No. Should I be locked up because I have the potential to do so? Again no.

Foolish response.

Stick to the point. IF you field strip your handgun while driving, then you DO pose a threat to anyone else on the road. I've probably been dealing with and legally carrying firearms longer than you've been breathing. Anything make your opinion more valid than mine?..... other than being off-topic?

 

[clt46910]

That sounds very similar to what a lot of anti-gun people say. Oh my god he has a gun he COULD shoot someone. Does myself having a gun adversely effect you in any material way? Not in my opinion. Does it have the potential to adversely effect you, yours, or others? I'm going to have to say yes. Am I going to go out and rob, rape and murder? No. Should I be locked up because I have the potential to do so? Again no.

Having a gun is akin to having a cell phone. Using it while driving makes the difference.

 

[Archbishop]

After reading the last couple of posts I'm not sure I know what the point was or is. What does field stripping your weapon have to do with anything in this thread?
I thought the thread was debating seat belt laws and eventually into cell phone bans while driving. Somewhere along the way that "morphed" into the debate about the differences between two ideas as one being a victim less crime while the other potentially involves others. I was made the point of saying that just because some people may drive recklessly while on the phone, doesn't mean everyone does.
Of course there are laws made because allowing people to do XYZ could endanger others. Driving over the speed limit, unsafe lane changes etc. But an extreme would be how about making it illegal for women to wear provocative clothing while in public as I find this distracting and she would be making an unsafe driving condition for me. This is of course absurd and I believe all of us could agree on this.
So the real answer is somewhere in the middle between laws that most of agree we should have to keep the public safe and a made up law like I just mentioned is the point where people say, "I'm ok with these laws, but I'm not willing to give up this freedom so my neighbor feels secure. (Can I get an amen from the 2nd Admendment crowd?!) I believe that was part of the point that Timjoebillybob was trying to make. (If not I apologize for putting words in your mouth.) And is is certainly the point that I'm making. You and I might have to disagree on where that middle is.
I personally believe that you can't pass enough laws to bring about commonsense, but by trying you restrict the freedoms of those that already have common sense.

 

[jennybird]

Archbishop, would you mind keeping your responses shorter? I'm trying to read this while driving to lunch, so you can understand how easy it is to lose my place. Frustrating as hell when that happens!

Oh great! Some a-hole just cut me off... I'm going to have to go wave my gun at him now to teach him a lesson... right after I touch up my mascara.

Don't worry though... I'm wearing my seatbelt.

After reading the last couple of posts I'm not sure I know what the point was or is. What does field stripping your weapon have to do with anything in this thread?
I thought the thread was debating seat belt laws and eventually into cell phone bans while driving. Somewhere along the way that "morphed" into the debate about the differences between two ideas as one being a victim less crime while the other potentially involves others. I was made the point of saying that just because some people may drive recklessly while on the phone, doesn't mean everyone does.
Of course there are laws made because allowing people to do XYZ could endanger others. Driving over the speed limit, unsafe lane changes etc. But an extreme would be how about making it illegal for women to wear provocative clothing while in public as I find this distracting and she would be making an unsafe driving condition for me. This is of course absurd and I believe all of us could agree on this.
So the real answer is somewhere in the middle between laws that most of agree we should have to keep the public safe and a made up law like I just mentioned is the point where people say, "I'm ok with these laws, but I'm not willing to give up this freedom so my neighbor feels secure. (Can I get an amen from the 2nd Admendment crowd?!) I believe that was part of the point that Timjoebillybob was trying to make. (If not I apologize for putting words in your mouth.) And is is certainly the point that I'm making. You and I might have to disagree on where that middle is.
I personally believe that you can't pass enough laws to bring about commonsense, but by trying you restrict the freedoms of those that already have common sense.

 

[Archbishop]

You just made me laugh out loud..

 

[INRanger]

Why just this morning I was driving down the highway with no seat belt on smoking a cigarette while texting my brother about how I was simultaneously Shooting my handgun at street signs and my wife had the nerve to call me irresponsible!

 

[jennybird]

Well, she's right! You should have had your seat belt on!!!

Why just this morning I was driving down the highway with no seat belt on smoking a cigarette while texting my brother about how I was simultaneously Shooting my handgun at street signs and my wife had the nerve to call me irresponsible!

 

[INRanger]

LOL. I like you jennybird.

 

[Timjoebillybob]

Foolish response.

Stick to the point. IF you field strip your handgun while driving, then you DO pose a threat to anyone else on the road. I've probably been dealing with and legally carrying firearms longer than you've been breathing. Anything make your opinion more valid than mine?..... other than being off-topic?

Why would field striping my handgun, be a threat to others? I could do it one handed with practice. Same as smoking a cigarette or talking on a phone
And how does you being 20ish years older than me make your opinion more valid than mine? Other than being off-topic?

I believe that was part of the point that Timjoebillybob was trying to make. (If not I apologize for putting words in your mouth.)

You pretty much hit it on the head.

 

[jennybird]

Yeah yeah yeah. You just wanna be my friend so you can borrow money!

 

[Jay]

Why would field striping my handgun, be a threat to others?

READ.....

while driving

And who introduced the firearms into a thread about seatbelts ?

 

[INRanger]

Yeah yeah yeah. You just wanna be my friend so you can borrow money!

Maybe...

 

[kludge]

Why not have them without a seatbelt on and possibly never be able to sue?

If we pass a law that says seatbelt wearing is optional, but that by choosing not to wear a belt you implicitly waive your right (and that of your next of kin) to sue for medical bills or any other civil suit, then I say you have the freedom to choose your method of death, dismemberment, or crippling.

Otherwise, put on your #$%^#% seatbelt.

 

[96harley]

The only thing I like about the seat belt law is that it gives me an excuse to cut someone slack if they have a ticket coming for a violation that goes deeper into someone's pocket than a $25.00 seat belt ticket.

Cells phones are dangerous to use while driving. I have dialed mine while driving and found myself in some pretty compromising situations. Such as right on someone's bumper and nearly in their trunk before looking up at the road again.

Don't we have enough laws; briefs,volumes, libraries, and more? Everytime a law is passed you lose a liberty.
If we could have just kept the original 10 we'd have been far better off.

 

[Timjoebillybob]

READ.....

And who introduced the firearms into a thread about seatbelts ?

Actually I compared your reasoning to a anti-gunners reasoning. It should be outlawed because there is a possibility of me being hurt.