Senate panel backs extending seat-belt requirements (more RINOs coming out of the woodwork)

kpcnews.com ^ | 2 15 05 | DEANNA WRENN

[Bella_Bru]

I am cornering the black market on sharp pencils now. Woe to all that try to muscle in on my turf.

[NorCalRepub]

But isn't that taking "rights" to an extreme....if driving is a right, then why can't 12 yr olds drive...don't we have to have some laws that protect us and others in a law abiding society.....seems like we could go to the extreme on either side

[TheBigB]

Just as a point of order, there are things that can be and are regulated with regards to driving. Speeding, u-turns, driving drunk, not signaling, etc. All could of course be classified as outward actvities that could conceivably endanger others on the roads. Different from a more "inside" activity like buckling up. But if one classifies a right as something you can do at any time, in any manner, with no fear of any repercussions; then in that strict sense, it's not quite an absolute right.

That may not be your opinion, of course, I am just playing devil's advocate, as I am wont to do.

[TheBigB]

And no one had better lay a hand on my Jeep. :o)

[sgtbono2002]

Well you better thank your lucky stars because that isnt so with the rest of us.

[Bella_Bru]

Laws regarding speed are there because you going 80 through a school zone could kill someone. Your not wearing a seatbelt only kills you. That's the difference.

[Still Thinking]

The government's proper purpose is to protect you from others infringing on your natural rights, generally those who are inherently more powerful than you in some way, and to protect others from you in the same way. Thus, it is illegal to steal from someone (infringing on their property rights) or to hit him in the face, and I believe some limits on pollution are reasonable and just as well, as people will suffer from it who had no role in deciding to emit it nor who have profited from it.

It's proper that the government raise an armed force to defend the citizens against agression from a foreign government.

Aside from the logical reach someone has already brought up here, that you might injure an innocent bystander if your body is ejected from your vehicle, you pose no hazard to anyone by opting not to wear a seat belt. That issue is what determines if this is an appropriate area for government involvement.

[Texas Federalist]

Speaking of the "nannymobile", my new car has a weight sensor in the passenger seat that, when triggered, incessantly beeps. So basically, I have to seatbelt my groceries in when I put them on the seat. Thanks nanny government!!!

[CORedneck]

What an @$$.....

Being originally from Indiana, Tom Wyss has been behind some pretty stupid legislation. He was one of the key people who defeated speed limit increases for Indiana for many years since 1996 when the fed's let states decide their highway limits.

Also, a couple years ago, there was legislation to further restrict tinted windows on cars and he was one of the sponsors. I contacted him that the Indiana tint law should have an exemption for vehicles not registered in Indiana and his comment was that if I want to drive my vehicle in Indiana, then it will comply with Indiana law or else, I should expect a ticket with a mandatory court appearance. Never mind that the vehicle is legal for Colorado. If I lived in his district, I would be voting for the democRAT just to get rid of him.

I looked at his background is he is a corporate executive. I have a very low opinion of corporate executives.

Wyss said legislators should focus on public safety, not personal rights.

QUOTE OF THE WEEK!

[hosepipe]

[ Mandatory seatbelt laws are wrong because...? ]

because they are an invasion of personal privacy.. and preparation for worship of the socialist god.. Government..

Its a religious thing.. not all are democrats or RINOs who worship at the trough of a socialist SwineGod.. who demands followers to wallow in taxes and grunt like piglettes at the teat of government largess..

[TheBigB]

Just like I said..."outward" activities vs. "innate" activities...I don't disagree with you. But my point was, driving is heavily regulated. And as such, it's hard for me to consider such a thing as a "right". Others can diasgree, of course.

I never drive without wearing my seat belt, but I don't think a law mandating them is necessary.

[NorCalRepub]

I agree with everything you said, I really do, but I'm just of the opinion that in an ordered society, sometimes there are exceptions for the common good.....like underage drinking, littering blah blah blah......who decides these exceptions is something though I would look very carefully at.....

[Texas Federalist]

Can't the state regulate driving privledges such as who gets a license, rules and laws to make driving legal. I'm not for laws taking away my rights but I would think safety is a concern. If gov't can't regulate my freedom, then why don't I have the freedom to litter or such..It wouldn't hurt anyone if I did......I just think the principle of pure freedom like pure communism just can't be the end all of an ordered society.........IMO

I think you are confusing liberty with freedom. The state can resrict liberty when it interferes with the liberty of others. I have the freedom to swing my fists and long as they don't strike another person. The state has the right to regulate your driving to protect the safety of others in the public at large, but does not have the right to impose a seatbelt law that only protects the safety of the actor.

[Texas Federalist]

But if one classifies a right as something you can do at any time, in any manner, with no fear of any repercussions; then in that strict sense, it's not quite an absolute right.

There are no "aboslute" rights, so I think we can assume that we are not talking about something you can do at any time, in any manner, with no fear of any repercussions.

[auboy]

I strongly support freedom. Don't wear a seat belt, if that's what you choose. Be fearless and free.

But, in return:

Don't ask for new research to give you back your life.
Don't ask for help to pay your bills while you can't work.
Don't expect any sympathy.
Lie quietly in the bed you made.

[CORedneck]

I agree.

Privilege means getting special permission and that permission is granted at the whims of those in charge. On [insert activity here] can mean to fly since you are required to "show papers, please" before boarding aircraft. Be able to accept a job offer if Society (read, the gov't) likes you, etc. ad naseum.....

Thanks. That "driving is a privilege" thing is a real sore spot for me. Why not "[Insert activity here] is a privilege" and only to be engaged in if you're on this particular governments good side? Why not sex? Eating, drinking, and breathing? What makes driving so unique?

[Texas Federalist]

I hate to quote "Analyze This" but, "You're good, you!"

I've written about two posts already that you beat me to the punch with almost identical responses.

[Old Mountain man]

Because the person injured would be the person who violated the seat belt law. People are too stupid to decide any and all safety issues!

[Still Thinking]

I'm not saying the right is absolute, nor does it need to be before we can call it a right. I simply maintain that the only restrictions government may place on a right are those necessary to make sure one's exercise of that right doesn't interfere with the rights of others. Read ny post 12.

But if it's actually a privelige (something belonging to the government to be dispensed at their whim), there is no moral impediment to linking it with other behavior, as they have in fact already done. If it's a privelige, what's to stop them from deciding obesity is a public health crisis and denying drivers' licences to anyone with a BMI over 25? If it's a privelige they properly have that authority.

[sully777]

RE: I am for seat belts being used however you shoudl do some research on the car seat companies lobbying these senators.

---

Car seat companies are lobbying to start/stop this law (not sure which one in your point) Let me try to follow this logic:

o Car seats and seatbelts are manufactured by the car seat manufacturers. This is their livelihood.

o Their business profit is based on supplying seats, seatbelts, etc. to auto manufacturers, whether they are used by the occupant of any car or not. Use or non-use, and any local laws are inconsequential to their bottomline.

o Their contracts is with auto manufacturers. Orders are placed based on international demand for car seats, seatbelts, anchors, etc. that will be placed in the automobiles regardless of odd local laws.

o Yet they're still lobbying against/for the law (don't know which one from your point) though there is no incentive to lobby since their bottom line is uneffected by local whims.

o The car seat manufacturer, who has no incentive to care for any outcome, hires a lobbying PR firm. The PR firm instinctively knows lobbying against the law will create bad publicity for car seat manufacturers. Where is the incentive to lobby?

o I your point is that the car seat companies are lobbying the senators for the law, I still fail to see the incentive. I'm thinking the PR firm instinctively knows lobbying for the law is moot since the manufacturer's bottomline is uneffected. Where is the incentive for support except to give an illusion of caring and that the lobbying firm gets easy cash.

---

Overall, I'm do not see the logic of car seat companies lobbying senators, except that the lobbying firms are duping the companies for their own profit.

---

Still. I'm glad you favor seatbelts useage since they save lives and reduce injury.