Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
The use of seatbelts and helments should be something the insurance companies police, not the government.
Does that mean State Farm will arm their agents with ticket books and patrol our roadways? "Get a ticket, pay a fare increase"
It means if you get in an accident and the police report shows you were not wearing a seatbelt, the insurance company does not pay your medical bills.
And yes, if you get a speeding ticket, your rates go up.
Since children should not be forced to suffer the consequences of their parents' stupidity, I do not object to seat belt and safety seat laws for children.
yawn
Rational? Not one bit.
The right wants to require IDs to vote, the left cries foul and that it infringes on a constitutional right.
The left wants to require a license to own a gun, the right cries foul and that it infringes on a constitutional right.
Tell you what, how about the left wing and the right wing stand in a small room together screaming at each other, and let the adults who are not partisan hacks run the country.
Since children should not be forced to suffer the consequences of their parents' stupidity, I do not object to seat belt and safety seat laws for children.
That's a good point. While I will fight vociferously against any law that attempts to criminalize consensual behavior between adults, it's another matter with kids. While I believe the parents should be free to raise their children as they see fit, I would agree it is reasonable to require children to wear a seat belt when travelling on public roads, if we're going to have public roads.
I agree that you should be permitted to ride without a helmet, so long as you pay for additional insurance to cover the cost of your medical care if you are seriously injured. Why should everyone else have to pick up the cost of your bad judgement?
I am already required to carry insurance.
Tell me, should the Government inventory what food you have in your house and what you eat on a daily basis because it knows what is good for you?
Do you want the Government to come and weigh you every month and if you, according to them, weigh too much or too little, punish you for it?
When does my right to live my life as I want become your business?
Good questions.
I agree with you about the helmet and seat belt laws. I find seat belts a PITA and would prefer not to bother. If that's irresponsible, it should be my right to be irresponsible, since it affects only me. I can't buy the argument that it makes others pay for my injuries since I don't know a convincing argument that that's true.
I don't think the gummint has a role telling people what foods to not eat, though I definitely think it has a role telling the purveyors of those foods what they can sell as a matter of public health, i.e. the ingredients therein. On the same basis, tobacco should be illegal and cannabis should not.
I have no doubt about seat belts and airbags saving lives.
However, requiring everyone to have insurance for having a gun is simply absurd.
i was hit head on by a drunk driver. I wasn't wearing a seat belt and was thrown through the windshield. It was a good thing, because had i been wearing a seatbelt I would have had a steering column through my chest instead of it just going through the seat. i'll never wear a seatbelt.
I have no doubt about seat belts and airbags saving lives.
However, requiring everyone to have insurance for having a gun is simply absurd.
i was hit head on by a drunk driver. I wasn't wearing a seat belt and was thrown through the windshield. It was a good thing, because had i been wearing a seatbelt I would have had a steering column through my chest instead of it just going through the seat. i'll never wear a seatbelt.
One word...POWERFUL!!Both seat belts and air bags as well as helments required for motorcycle riders and passengers were decried as big government interference.
Does anyone doubt they save lifes and the cost for medical care?
Did anyone claim these examples were a panacea for all fatal vehicle accidents?
Do all state governments require a driver's license? Do all states require the owner of a vehicle carry insurance on each vehicle owned?
So, what's the big deal for each state to choose whether a person who wishes to own, possess, or have in their custody and control a firearm be licensed and insured?
The USSC has ruled that the Second Amendment has limits, correct?
Gun owners will still retain the freedom to move to a state which decides not to regulate gun owners, correct?
Discuss rationally; remember there are new and IMO appropraite rules for posting on the Politics Forum.
The right wants to require IDs to vote, the left cries foul and that it infringes on a constitutional right.
Apples and Aardvarks. How many people were killed by a vote last year?
The left wants to require a license to own a gun, the right cries foul and that it infringes on a constitutional right.
Tell you what, how about the left wing and the right wing stand in a small room together screaming at each other, and let the adults who are not partisan hacks run the country.
That's not rational either. The far right and moderates are already doing so. The far left (likely) wants guns.
Both seat belts and air bags as well as helments required for motorcycle riders and passengers were decried as big government interference.
Does anyone doubt they save lifes
Not your business what another does with his life, as long as he's not hurting anyone else, it's none of your damn business.
Apparently it is the business of our representatives since they voted on and passed such laws.
and the cost for medical care?
Only in a system where central planners force charity from citizens.
You're opposed to taxes (which pay for public hospitals) which have always existed. You choose to use a loaded term - "Central Planners (CP)" - for emotional effect. Those CP are our representatives elected by the people to make laws and to aproppriate tax revenue in a manner they feel proper.
No, just more government meddling.
Again, a loaded term and one which suggests you oppose the Constitution of the U.S.
Nope. Only if you want to drive on PUBLIC roads.
Corrrect. And you won't need a license or insurance if said vehicle(s) never leaves your property; and if you never drive a vehicle on a public road
Nope. Only if you want to drive on PUBLIC roads.
By your own reasoning, the federal government should have NO involvement when an individual purchases a firearm,
[I'm okay with that]
but states are free to require a license to [own, possess, have in one's custody and control] for a CCW permit
[controlled for carry only in the COUNTY which provides a CCW, for carry on PUBLIC property.
Since states do not require a license or insurance to buy a vehicle, all state background checks and other regulations around the purchase of a firearm would stop. [in CA proof of insurance or a bond is required to register a vehicle]
The state would only get involved if an individual wants to use that firearm on PUBLIC property (a CCW), just like a car (a driver's license). [Cars are licensed, the state knows who owns every vehicle registered within the state. Are you suggesting all guns be licensed?]
Works for me.
In public places, yes. You want to ban firearms in court houses, that's fine.
Gun owners will still retain the freedom to move to a state which decides not to regulate gun owners, correct?
Correct.
Discuss rationally; remember there are new and IMO appropraite rules for posting on the Politics Forum.
By your rationally presented arguments, you've just kicked the feds out of gun control and ensured anyone can buy a firearm without state [did you mean federal not state?] involvement unless the state wants to license for public carry.
It's really not that simple. Do you really believe the gun lobby wouldn't mount a full on attack against any elected official who voted for or even spoke about background checks licensing of indiviual and insurance requirments?
So...thanks for your support!
The right wants to require IDs to vote, the left cries foul and that it infringes on a constitutional right.
Apples and Aardvarks. How many people were killed by a vote last year?
The left wants to require a license to own a gun, the right cries foul and that it infringes on a constitutional right.
Tell you what, how about the left wing and the right wing stand in a small room together screaming at each other, and let the adults who are not partisan hacks run the country.
That's not rational either. The far right and moderates are already doing so. The far left (likely) wants guns.
How many people were killed by a vote? I don't know, what's the Iraq war total up to now?
My point was, it's hypocritical to decry requiring a piece of paper to express one constitutional right, but not another. What people choose to so with that right isn't the issue. Either we have the right, or we don't and it's just a privilege. What you're suggesting is to turn gun ownership from a right to privilege.
Both seat belts and air bags as well as helments required for motorcycle riders and passengers were decried as big government interference.
Does anyone doubt they save lifes and the cost for medical care?
Did anyone claim these examples were a panacea for all fatal vehicle accidents?
Do all state governments require a driver's license? Do all states require the owner of a vehicle carry insurance on each vehicle owned?
So, what's the big deal for each state to choose whether a person who wishes to own, possess, or have in their custody and control a firearm be licensed and insured?
The USSC has ruled that the Second Amendment has limits, correct?
Gun owners will still retain the freedom to move to a state which decides not to regulate gun owners, correct?
Discuss rationally; remember there are new and IMO appropraite rules for posting on the Politics Forum.
The right wants to require IDs to vote, the left cries foul and that it infringes on a constitutional right.
The left wants to require a license to own a gun, the right cries foul and that it infringes on a constitutional right.
Tell you what, how about the left wing and the right wing stand in a small room together screaming at each other, and let the adults who are not partisan hacks run the country.
The right to bear arms is a constitutional right. There is no such right to vote. Look it up.
Both seat belts and air bags as well as helments required for motorcycle riders and passengers were decried as big government interference.
Does anyone doubt they save lifes and the cost for medical care?
Did anyone claim these examples were a panacea for all fatal vehicle accidents?
Do all state governments require a driver's license? Do all states require the owner of a vehicle carry insurance on each vehicle owned?
So, what's the big deal for each state to choose whether a person who wishes to own, possess, or have in their custody and control a firearm be licensed and insured?
The USSC has ruled that the Second Amendment has limits, correct?
Gun owners will still retain the freedom to move to a state which decides not to regulate gun owners, correct?
Discuss rationally; remember there are new and IMO appropraite rules for posting on the Politics Forum.
Remember when we were told how seat belt infractions were going to be secondary offenses, and that they would only ticket you when you were being pulled over for a more significant offense? I do. Guess what... Now you get pulled over for not wearing your seat belt as the sole offense. Do you honestly believe that people with the slightest bit of common sense are going to believe gun grabbers are going to be content with merely eliminating scary looking AR-15's??? You must be smoking CRACK if you do.
The right wants to require IDs to vote, the left cries foul and that it infringes on a constitutional right.
The left wants to require a license to own a gun, the right cries foul and that it infringes on a constitutional right.
Tell you what, how about the left wing and the right wing stand in a small room together screaming at each other, and let the adults who are not partisan hacks run the country.
The right to bear arms is a constitutional right. There is no such right to vote. Look it up.
BWA-HA-HA!
26th amendment. Look it up.
That's not rational either. The far right and moderates are already doing so. The far left (likely) wants guns.
How many people were killed by a vote? I don't know, what's the Iraq war total up to now?
My point was, it's hypocritical to decry requiring a piece of paper to express one constitutional right, but not another. What people choose to so with that right isn't the issue. Either we have the right, or we don't and it's just a privilege. What you're suggesting is to turn gun ownership from a right to privilege.
I suppose that's a valid argument. Gun ownership is all about personal responsibility, sadly and with tragic consequences not everyone who owns, possesses, etc a gun is responsible. If we license all gun owners, we can suspend or revoke the license of those who misuse their right - something the NRA is advocating we do to some who have never been violent but are mentally ill.
I have no doubt about seat belts and airbags saving lives.
However, requiring everyone to have insurance for having a gun is simply absurd.
i was hit head on by a drunk driver. I wasn't wearing a seat belt and was thrown through the windshield. It was a good thing, because had i been wearing a seatbelt I would have had a steering column through my chest instead of it just going through the seat. i'll never wear a seatbelt.
That's kind of my point -- these things can work either way. It can save your life or cost it, so the wearing of the belt is not a black-and-white argument. Yet at the same time there's no possibility that cigarettes could "either" give you cancer or improve your health, yet they're still sold with a warning label while we get ticketed for not wearing a SB.
That's an unjust discrepancy.
How many people were killed by a vote? I don't know, what's the Iraq war total up to now?
My point was, it's hypocritical to decry requiring a piece of paper to express one constitutional right, but not another. What people choose to so with that right isn't the issue. Either we have the right, or we don't and it's just a privilege. What you're suggesting is to turn gun ownership from a right to privilege.
I suppose that's a valid argument. Gun ownership is all about personal responsibility, sadly and with tragic consequences not everyone who owns, possesses, etc a gun is responsible. If we license all gun owners, we can suspend or revoke the license of those who misuse their right - something the NRA is advocating we do to some who have never been violent but are mentally ill.
Not the right approach. At Sandy Hook and Columbine the assailants didn't own any of the guns that were used. We need to hold the people that gave them the guns, or left them out in the open, personally responsible. Robyn Anderson, the person who bought the guns the columbine shooters used, wasn't charged with a single thing.
