Posted on 08/12/2009 7:58:17 PM PDT by marktwain
I won't argue with that.
It seems as if everyone going into any kind of governmental service work first has to have a lobotomy.
People have a right to peaceably travel from place to place without being being interfered with by armed government agents.
You really need to file a complaint on that one - way over the line!
People have rights, but not the right to infringe unnecessarily on the rights of others, in this case to also peaceably travel from place to place without undue fear of getting injured or causing injury.
The argument for seat belt rules touches the rights of others three ways. First, a person driving without a seat belt can more easily lose control of the car if they maneuver violently, putting others in danger. Second, in an accident people without seat belts get injured more easily, get thrown from the car into the path of other cars, and therefore can cause harm to another person either by their personal feeling about causing injury to the unbelted passenger, or running over or injuring a passenger thrown from the car.
Third and least persuasive is that either through taxes for people without insurance, or through higher insurance premiums in no-fault states, the increased injuries and costs to people driving without seat belts are passed on to others.
Now, you can disagree with all these, and based on that disagreement argue that the legislature has implemented a bad law. But the arguments are at least reasonable enough to merit discussion and to pass basic constitutional muster.
You do not have an unrestricted right to travel from place to place using the federal highway system built by tax dollars.
Yes, you do. As long as it is done peaceably.
Has nothing to do with seatbelts, booze, firearms, radios, chewing gum or anything else somebody gets all tumescent about banning or requiring.
Without knowing your definition of “peaceably” I can’t really discuss your response.
But at least I can point out that “as long as it is done peaceably” is in fact a restriction, and therefore you are actually agreeing with me that you do not have an “unrestricted right”.
Further, as there are laws on the books that have withstood court challenges that address several of the items you claim it has “nothing to do with”, your statement is provably false in reality, and can at best be your opinion of how things SHOULD be, rather than the reality of how things are.
And if you disagree, you are free I guess to get drunk and drive down the road for a while honking your horn, waving a gun around, playing your radio at the highest volume with your seat belt off.
And when you get out of prison you can report back on how your “unrestricted right” worked. That is presuming you didn’t kill someone in the process — which obviously wouldn’t be “peaceably”.
My definition of a great Sunday drive.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.