For those who chose to go when most wouldn’t. For those who knew it could cost them everything. For those who believed America to be the shining city on the hill, the last, best hope of Mankind. For those for whom duty, honor and country meant more than life itself. For those who gave the last, full measure of devotion and those who gave all their tomorrows that we might have today, for them we pray this day, gracious and merciful Father. Give them the peace that passeth all understanding, and may there always be Americans like them. –Mike McDaniel, Stately McDaniel Manor

Richard Ryan had 500 feet of det cord to “get rid of.” Sounds like a good problem to have.

I’m sure some of our more Libertarian-minded friends will have something to say about the “Click-it or Ticket” campaign.

Dimitrios Karras, the CEO of Ares Armor, wrote a letter for this Memorial Day, addressing the sacrifices made in the past, and the recent actions of our government. It’s a remembrance, yes, but it’s a call to action. “What hubris is it on our part to thank a veteran for their service while we sit by and watch the very thing that they fought for be trampled and trivialized?” Read the whole letter here.

RF gave this a full post a few days back, but in case you missed it, Ryan took out an iMac with a Lahti 20mm anti-tank rifle. This is the first time I’d heard someone mention the ammo cost. $40-60/round is no joke.

.

RELATED ARTICLESMORE FROM AUTHOR

55 COMMENTS

  3. Ammo for the 20 is down a bit. 10-15 bucks a pop for live ammo.
    Reloading is of course, cheaper.

  4. The det-cord video was awesome! I’m surprised it was such a plug for the click it or ticket campaign. As someone who had investigated a lot of crashes, I can definitely say that wearing a seatbelt reduces the severity and frequency of injury.

    Thanks for the mention of the Ares Armor letter. I’m still on their list, so I guess the BATFE knows about me.

    • As someone who had investigated a lot of crashes, I can definitely say that wearing a seatbelt reduces the severity and frequency of injury.

      I can agree with this. However, I and my children don’t need a nanny (us gov). What business is it of the government if I am wearing a seatbelt or not?? It affects no one but me. In fact, here in Oklahoma, we have signs everywhere posting “click it or ticket – its our law.” That’s BS. It’s not my law. I never had a say in it. The entire purpose of the click it or ticket BS is money. They even have signs posted on the road (toll roads no doubt – have to soak up every dollar possible) stating “seat belt enforcement unit ahead.” Lets call it what it is… it’s about money people. They pull you over for any infraction and see you don’t have a seat-belt on… cha-ching. Lets bill them some more. Right? Exactly.

      It is my business if I want to wear a seat belt or not. Likewise it is my business if I want to teach my children to wear their seat belt or not. Same as it is my business if I want to teach my kid to stay out of the chemical storage cabinet, or run while carrying scissors, or gun safety. Idiotic nanny laws such as these merit no respect. And nanny, statist, low information people eat it up. “Kids… put on your seat belt… it’s the law.” Ridiculous nonsense.

      • So, assuming that, as you say, it’s all about money, you’d rather whine and complain about something that’s not liable to change anytime soon, instead of simply buckling your seatbelt and denying them the opportunity to fine you?

        You may be right about it being beyond the government’s sphere of influence, but for crying out loud! It’s not like they’re demanding you sell your firstborn into slavery! They’re simply asking you to do something that most people would agree is a good idea in the first place.

        • The more people that are completely apathetic regarding minor Constitutional infringements, the more infringements government will try and cram down our throats.

          Our current crop of politicians is getting REALLY good at incremental tyranny.

      • One argument that was often made back when the seat belt laws were being considered is that EMT and related costs were to be, in theory, lowered if the frequency and severity of injury was lowered.

        Emergency response in general – police, fire, EMT – comes out of a tax base. By lowering the impact of collisions, one lowers the burden on that tax base.

        I have never heard if that hypothesis was ‘born out’ in fact after those laws were passed, however. My guess is that it is hard to measure because other things changed at the same time.

        But, bottom line, it is fair to say that a bad collision with you and / or others hurt in your car DOES impact others, not just yourself.

        For our part, we’ve never told our children to buckle up “because it’s the law.” We just tell them to do it, made it a habit, and they do it. Like Accur81, seeing the result of collisions first hand changed my mind, and I started wearing seatbelts long before the laws were passed.

        All that said…I do not particularly agree with the seatbelt laws in particular and nanny laws in general.

        • “Emergency response in general – police, fire, EMT – comes out of a tax base. By lowering the impact of collisions, one lowers the burden on that tax base.”

          So in essence, a government intrusion is justified on the basis of the fact that taxpayers pay the cost when you don’t comply.

          I imagine you can see the danger to that doctrine. Once government takes over paying for our healthcare (it already paid over half of all healthcare costs before Obamacare) I can picture this rationale being pulled out for every single interference over your decisions on what to eat, drink or smoke.

        • I’m not saying I AGREE with the argument…just saying that was one that was made.

          The point was made above that “it impacts no one but me,” and that bit about tax base was a counterpoint to that.

          I balk at the idea that people (even many so-called conservatives and libertarians) believe in the “right” to be rescued anyway.

          I fall into Heinlein’s “Rational Anarchy” school….each man is ultimately responsible for himself and his decisions no matter what the laws say; this responsibility even includes the choice of whether to obey the laws or not.

      • So just what do you do when there’s a good, generally-accepted practice that the Feds take over and try to enforce universally?

        Wearing seat belts is just one example. I’m among those that thought it was a good idea before it was law, because I didn’t want to get a steering wheel chest implant while my face was being made into hamburger by the windshield during a head-on with a drunk going the wrong way.

      • Oklahoma used to be a secondary offense state. The police could not pull someone over for not wearing a seatbelt, but they could add it onto another stoppable offense (here’s your speeding ticket, and here’s your seatbelt ticket).

        in the late 90s, Oklahoma moved the seatbelt offense to primary status. Drivers could now be stopped for nothing more than not wearing the seatbelt. The fine stayed the same ($20 max), and no points are accrued, so it functions as little more than a tax on stupidity.

        The real insight into the purpose and problems of the law comes from the statements made by the various poo-bahs around the state when the primary law passed:

        1) The state of Oklahoma will continue to get highway funding from the federal government because of this passage. (so, tenth amendment bribery, the feds cannot create or enforce seatbelt laws, but they can financially encourage states to do so on their behalf)

        2) The legislation specifically exempts trucks, and many of the legislators drive trucks (rural state and whatnot) so they figured they would be exempt. In reality, “trucks” are large commercial vehicles, the lawmakers drive “pickups” and those are not exempt. One lawmaker even expressed regret over voting for the move, because he did not realize it would be enforced upon him. (so, ignore ‘equal protection under the law’…right?)

        3) The Oklahoma City Police (along with other PDs around the state) stated that this shift would help them get more drugs off the streets. (so, when fourth amendment probable cause doesn’t allow a traffic stop that can be escalated, we’ll stop for an unrelated charge and escalate off that)

        I refuse to comply with a law that serves no purpose other than to protect me from my own stupidity, and that is passed by people who believe they are not subject to it, that is the product of government bribery, and that is designed to be misused.

        If maintaining personal liberty in the face of hypocrisy and overreach costs me $20 every now and then, it’s money well spent, IMHO. As it is, in the twenty years I’ve regularly not worn my belt, and the fifteen years it’s been a primary offense, I’ve paid exactly $20 for the privilege of exercising my right to be stupid.

        • You’re an idiot if the primary reason you don’t do something that can proveably improve your safety in the event of an accident is “because they say I have to.” Most people would do it anyway, because it’s the intelligent thing to do, even as they rail against having a law that makes it a rule.

          If you choose not to wear one, law be damned, then that’s your choice, even if I do think it’s not real bright. But if the reason for that choice is because of the law, in spite of your own better judgment (i.e. “I know it’s a good idea, but I’m not gonna do it because they say I have to”), then that’s just cutting off your nose to spite your face and outright stupid, and I sorta hope it bites you someday.

        • @matt in FL

          I acknowledged in the opening that the fine amounts to nothing more than a tax on being stupid, and I closed by saying that I’m exercising my right to be stupid. Your ad hominem attacks add little to the discussion.

          I live by the belief that every decision I make, every choice I’m given the opportunity to express leads me to exactly wherever I am. Call it karma, call it free will, call it kismet, at the end of the day, I, and I alone, am responsible for my actions, and for the results of my actions.

          If my actions include me not wearing a seatbelt, and the results of my actions include me dying, then I’ve no one to blame but myself for making a stupid decision. However, since I’ll be dead, i might not get that opportunity.

          That being said, I should not be coerced by government into making a less stupid decision. Belted drivers die, cars are deadly, will we support curtailing of unnecessary road trips in order to lesson deaths once all drivers are belted? How far does the reach of government to prevent people from doing something go? I hear the RKBA crowd talk about freedom and they get rightly heated over the idea that exercising that right should be limited because of someone else’s stupidity, or because someone else feels their rights are infringed by the RKBA.

          Freedom necessarily includes the right to be wrong. So long as my wrong does not infringe upon the rights of others, others have no business telling me what to do. I have no children, I am insured well beyond my debts. If my decision to not wear a seatbelt when driving on the highway results in my death, not one person’s rights are infringed upon. Are the impacted? Possibly. Will they mourn my stupid, needless death? Maybe. Are their rights diminished in any way? Absolutely not.

          You know….I don’t hold any ill will towards those who buckle up, I have to question why some of them hold some ill will against me. Nothing I’m (not) doing will ever impact them in the least. I’m not going to lose control of my car in some fashion that a belt would allow me to retain it while a lack of a belt prevents that retention. Yet, despite the fact that I pose no threat to them, they still want to chastise me for not making a decision they would make.

          When I’m racing, I wear the gear. When I’m commuting across town, I don’t. In 22 years and over a half million non-commerical miles, I’ve been in lots of accidents both on and off the track. Never once has my lack of belt contributed to an accident on the street, never once has a wearing of belt prevented an accident on the track. I’ve never suffered any injury, regardless of belt usage.

          If i had been driving then, I would have refused to buckle up before it became a secondary offense. I was refusing to buckle up before it became a primary offense. I continue to refuse to buckle up. I feel I have the right to potentially endanger my life in any manner I choose, and WHY isn’t much of anyone’s concern. All I ask is for the rest of society to tend to their own rights and stay out of mine. As huge fans of the 2A, I would expect that would be a regular part of this audience’s life.

      • Most of what you say is true, but almost nobody who chooses not to wear a seat belt can avoid potential affects on others.

        I was visiting my cousin this weekend, and he was telling me about a local Jeep club that had a guy die on the trail in front of his son. They were doing a hill climb, the Jeep’s front end lifted up, and it rolled backwards down the hill. The father was thrown from his seat, and was crushed by the Jeep’s rollbar. His son, who was buckled in, probably watched the whole thing from the passenger seat.

        I’m sure he and many others thought it was no big deal in the moment, but wearing a seatbelt always is a big deal.

        • When I’m at the track, I wear my harness. I also wear my fire resistant suit, helmet, gloves, and the rest of the safety gear in my roll caged car. When I’m commuting, I don’t bother. The fine for not bothering isn’t enough to encourage me to bother, and the enforcement is even less so.

          The risk of rolling over in a trail jeep (or in my race car) is a hell of a lot greater than on my morning commute.

          People live thru not being belted. People die despite being belted. Accident factors are too great and too varied to easily distilled into a belts=good/no belts=bad metric.

          no belts led to lap belts
          lap belts led to three point belts
          people still die wearing three point belts, why aren’t we making 5 and 6 point harnesses mandatory?

          people still get whiplash, which is just a milder version of what killed Dale Earnhardt, why aren’t HANS devices mandatory?

          people still get head injuries from airbags, windows, and other hard parts of the car, why aren’t helmets mandatory?

          cars still catch fire, why aren’t firesuits mandatory?

          we, as a society, have decided that we’ll put up with the bother of three point belts, but that’s all we’ll put up with. In my view and my experience, three point belts are not much more useful no belt at all in the real world. Passive restraints and car construction has done more to save lives than depending on the occupant to half ass strap in has.

  5. G-d Bless America. We are the last best hope for individual freedom for all. When the definition of a free people are those that can KABA without government permission, Then most of the six billion people surviving on this planet, including millions of people here in the USA, are nothing but peasants, peons, serfs, subjects and virtual slaves.

    But as more people here in this country continue to cut the chains of tyranny and get back more of our individual freedoms; there is still hope.

    As for this Richard Ryan making that “dumb ass” sound with his voice as he makes fun of those of us that believe tyranny by government comes in many forms, like seat belt laws. Why doesn’t he ask what our founding fathers would say to a statist government worshiping lackey like Richard;

    “If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude better than the animating contest of freedom, go home from us in peace. We ask not your counsels or arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May your chains set lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen.”
    ― Samuel Adams

    • I’m ok with click it or ticket for minors, whether driving themselves or as passengers. Driving is very dangerous and you should wear your seat belt. Leaving kids unbelted amounts to neglect, in my book, neglect which is easily overcome with miniscule effort on your part.

      Now, as for the parents or other adults, well, it’s their decision whether to buckle themselves up. They shouldn’t be fined for refusing to do so. It’s stupid not to buckle up, but lots of things are stupid. It isn’t the government’s job to save you from your stupid self. You’re an adult making an informed decision about your own health. Do what you want.

        • Where do you draw the line then? Should it be legal for a parent to feed their child dog food? Or no food, but let them forage for themselves in dumpsters? What about allowing children to go without any school attendance whatsoever? What about allowing parents to refuse medical treatment for seriously injured children? May a parent look the other way in indifference or even consent when an adult engages a child in a sexual relationship? Hmmm?

          All of these are horrifically bad actions which minors, in the puniness of their unripened judgment, have no capacity to protect themselves from. Judge a society by how it treats its weakest members. Your “Lord of the Flies” freedom forum would allow adults to inflict children permanently with the misery of their abysmal life stunting, or life ending, decisions. That’s worlds away from allowing adults to do what they want to themselves only. I’m willing to grant parents very wide latitude over how to raise their children. You won’t hear soft drink size chiding out of me. You won’t read ridicule of excess T.V. watching, either. Well, you will, but you won’t hear me call for legislation or regulation of any of it.

          No one’s talking about legislating innumerable arbitrary aspects of life, except YOU, for straw man purposes. I’m talking about extremely basic, bedrock levels of human decency. On these very basic issues of health and safety, I recognize that a line must be drawn and I do so. Your wild eyed libertarianism blinds you from that reality. Granted, there is abundant room for nanny state invasiveness, which must itself be guarded against. Nevertheless, the lines must still be drawn. You just refuse, for the unseemly sake of rhetorical moral masturbation, to do so. Grow up, sir.

      • Yeah J-H, good points, but then I think about these nanny staters outlawing access to guns for kids under eighteen, or outlawing kids from working on their family farms or businesses.

        I grew up in a rural area; at twelve driving a tractor and having a .22lr in my closet I could take out at any time without permission from my parents. This experience was a key factor in my very good work ethic and having a feeling of self-empowerment.

        People could argue that my parents were endangering me and they have a right to dictate my parents behavior as to how they can raise their children.

        So where is the cut off as to when society can interfere in ones parenting method because society believes you doing it “wrong” or endangering them?

        Mean while; I agree that there is also times when the abuse of parents are so great that we do need to intervene.

        Tough questions. hard answers.

        • Wise observations, Thomas. I definitely do not have all of the answers. For myself and my family, I’ll set the standards at one point, and I may be 100% prudent in that decision, but I cannot in good conscience impose those same standards on others as a matter of routine. I’ll make exceptions for extremes, as I’ve mentioned, but so will everyone else. The Devil is in the details of what constitutes an extreme scenario.

          From my standpoint, the default is a maximum of individual freedom for everyone. I just have to bite my lip and hold my tongue if there’s something someone’s doing which I don’t believe in, but which doesn’t rise to the level of extreme exception. There’s also the Pandora’s Box risk of every discomfort being defined as an exception, which governments are eager to do. You’re right, tough decisions and many temptations to meddle, indeed.

  6. I saw a shipmate die a few feet from me after North Korean shore batteries opened up on our ship, when we got too close to shore.
    I always think of him on this day.
    Why I survived, and he paid the ultimate price, I’ll never know. He was too young to die.
    May god be with him in heaven.

    • Perhaps you were meant to be here to post and tell us about him to keep his memory alive.

      Thanks for posting that.

  7. Sorry you feel that way ThomasR. I’m certain if you talked to Richard you would not feel that way.

    “Anonymity means you can say what you want without fear of retribution” -Me 2014

  9. Pheonixnfa, if you are an adult over 18 and living on your own_, does your father or mother have the right to tell you how you should live? Like here in NM to force them to wear a helmet while riding a motorcycle.No? If they put a gun to their legally adult son or daughter to force them to obey them the parents would be arrested for assault.

    What happens if the parents are politicians and make a law that forces their adult offspring to wear a helmet enforced at the point of a gun; are they still control freak dictators committing a violent assault on their child?

    If not, why jot.

    • Just like it works in New Hampshire with car insurance, a person should be able to ignore these laws as long as they put up enough money as bond to avoid any costs to society in the event that they have a disabling injury due to unsafe conduct. That’s a different Libertarian way of approaching this and my preferred way. Why should the rest of us have to pay for someone else’s stupidity?

  10. As a correlary; if any desired action forced by a parent on their adult offspring because the parents thinks it’s “good for them” is tyranny and a violation of their offsprings right of choice.

    Then politicians in government forcing thier ideas of what is “good for us” ( Obama Care anyone) is also tyranny and a violation of our free choice.

  11. I’m going to be crucified here, but whatever. Driving is not a right. It’s a privilege.

    Keeping arms is a right. Traveling is a right. The ability to go where you please, provided you are not trespassing or breaking things is a right.

    But operating a motor vehicle is not a right. Operating a motor vehicle on public roads is especially not a right. If you want that privilege, play by the exceptionally simple rules. Wear your damn seatbelt. All evidence shows it will lessen your chance of dying or being seriously hurt. When you die or are seriously hurt, that is not your business. It becomes the public’s business. It becomes the business of courts, police officers, firefighters, EMTs, emergency room staffers, and everything in between.

    And to the guy who said it was his right to not teach his children to wear a seatbelt- you’re an awful person who should not have children. Not teaching them to be safe in a car is akin to teaching them it’s ok to be unsafe with a firearm. No. It’s not your right to raise morons who will be the public’s problem.

    It’s not hard to wear a seatbelt. The fine doesn’t exist to make the government oodles of cash. It exists to save the government money that would go to paying a road crew to hose your flattened corpse off the interstate.

    • All of the talk on seat belt use focuses on dying, but there is another dimension that has direct impact on other (innocent) drivers on the road.

      A seatbelt allows you to remain in control of your vehicle in more trying circumstances than being knocked around inside.

      There are a lot of drivers (and pilots) that wear seat belts where the belt is less about protection in all-out crash than it is about maintaining control of the vehicle.

  12. Dude. I don’t think any of us are saying we wouldn’t wear our seatbelt, or especially neglect to teach our kids to wear their seatbelt, just that we shouldn’t be forced to do so by an outside force. That’s what being an individual is all about. I know what’s best for me, and I know well enough to take good advice, but I definitely bristle at anyone telling me “you’ll do this or else!” For example, I don’t know how many products I own that are not legal for sale in California, or Massachusetts, Maryland, etc, etc. None of them have ever harmed anyone.

    • From Anonymous:

      “It is my business if I want to wear a seat belt or not. Likewise it is my business if I want to teach my children to wear their seat belt or not. Same as it is my business if I want to teach my kid to stay out of the chemical storage cabinet, or run while carrying scissors, or gun safety. Idiotic nanny laws such as these merit no respect. And nanny, statist, low information people eat it up. “Kids… put on your seat belt… it’s the law.” Ridiculous nonsense.”

      No. Having a child is not “private business.” If you do something that endangers the child, outside forces absolutely have the right to seize your child and jail you. That isn’t being a nanny state. It’s proper governance. If you think people are smart enough to do these things on their own, try talking to a social worker.

  13. OK Kevin, let’s try that template for other things, shall we?

    Keeping arms is a right. Traveling is a right. The ability to say what you please, provided you are not trying to stampede or defraud people is a right.

    But saying things on the internet is not a right. Operating a computer on the public world wide web is especially not a right. If you want that privilege, play by the exceptionally simple rules. Don’t say unapproved things. All evidence shows it will lessen your chance of seriously hurting someone’s feelings.

    Courts have held that a right restricted to a single approved avenue of exercise is not a right at all. Ergo ALL speech is protected, whether it is done via spoken word, hand written pamphlet, printed page, or electrons on the web.

    If freedom of movement is actually a right, then all modes of transportation that an individual can muster the capital to take advantage of should be protected.

    It is nonsense on stilts to say that one is free to move about the country as they like, so long as they walk everywhere, just like it is nonsense on stilts to say that people are free to keep and bear arms, so long as they are of the flint lock and muzzle loading variety.

    If you have a right to defend yourself, you have a right to purchase the best tools to do that job, the right to practice with them to maintain proficiency, the right to keep them with you as any other possession, and the right to carry them on your person such that you have them when you need them.

    The right is gutted and rendered moot if you can keep arms, but only old and obsolete kinds, or you can keep modern guns but never train with them, or keep and train with them but never carry them.

    Saying that you have a right to move about the nation but driving is a privilege, is like saying that you have the right to defend your life, but defending your life with a firearm is a privilege.

    • You’re comparing apples to oranges, mister.

      “But saying things on the internet is not a right.”

      1st Amendment protects your right to free speech from government infringement. That doesn’t stop me from banning you for your comments on my website. Additionally, if you start shouting mean things to senators in a public building, they are well within their rights to remove you from the building. If you stand in the middle of the road with a sign protesting road laws, the police are within their rights to move you for being a nuisance and for obstructing traffic. The 1st Amendment does not protect every type of speech ever in every context.

      “Operating a computer on the public world wide web is especially not a right.” It ain’t. You have to pay for access.

      “If you want that privilege, play by the exceptionally simple rules” That is how it works, actually. Do things like, not commit crimes on the internet, lest ye get banned. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chris_Lamprecht

      “Courts have held that a right restricted to a single approved avenue of exercise is not a right at all. Ergo ALL speech is protected, whether it is done via spoken word, hand written pamphlet, printed page, or electrons on the web.”

      Show me the case law proving that.

      Wanna play jurisprudence? Courts have also held that driving a car is NOT a right… http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-9th-circuit/1054787.html

      http://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/home

      “If freedom of movement is actually a right, then all modes of transportation that an individual can muster the capital to take advantage of should be protected.”

      Patently not true and not rooted in any legal precent.

      “It is nonsense on stilts to say that one is free to move about the country as they like, so long as they walk everywhere, just like it is nonsense on stilts to say that people are free to keep and bear arms, so long as they are of the flint lock and muzzle loading variety.”

      You are trying to compare apples to oranges again. Guns and cars are not the same. That, and nobody said they had to walk everywhere. One can be banned from driving and still ride in cars, take cabs, take busses, take planes, cross state lines, leave the country, ride a bicycle, and travel by literally every other method not involving a motorized vehicle.

      It is infringing your right to keep and bear arms by saying what kinds of arms you may own. Your right to drive a car on public property is not a protected right. Nothing in any sort of case law suggests that.

      Pray tell, what are your thoughts on habitual drunks having driver’s licenses? What about people who habitually drive at excessive speeds in crowded areas? People who have committed several vehicular homicides? People who are old and senile? People with narcolepsy who fall asleep at the wheel frequently?

      Also, do you have a right to fly a plane without training? Do you have a right to drive a car without drivers education? Do you have a right to pilot a boat without knowing how? All forms of transportation have regulations. Hell, when horses were the primary form of transportation, they had rules on acceptable speeds in public areas. Gen. Grant even got a speeding ticket once…

      Also, having a gun and carrying a gun has a significantly lower chance of causing massive damage to the general public. I can’t imagine a negligent discharge causing as much damage or incurring as big of a cost to the public as a negligent driver. A negligent or incompetent gun owner can hurt a couple people at most. A bad driver can hurt dozens, cause millions of dollars in damage, and disrupt thousands of commuters. I’d say the government, with the general interest of protecting the public, has reason to regulate driving on public land.

      Now- the government can’t say what you do on your own land, provided it isn’t hurting people or endangering other people. If you drive without a seatbelt at excessive speeds while drunk and on a suspended license on your own private track, go for it! Let nobody stop you.

      Try that s*** on the public highway, and see how far “it’s my right” takes you.

      TL;DR- rights are not unrestricted, and driving isn’t even a right in the first place, really.

      • I wasn’t sure I was going to agree with you until the end. I think what you were trying to say is that there is a difference between liberty and anarchy and that some people miss the distinction. There really ought not be any law against driving stupidly, drunkenly, at high speeds, without a license in an unsafe vehicle while not wearing a seat belt; so long as it’s on your private property and risking only you and your property.

        Others rights end where ours begin. When you join with the general public on a roadway certain rules have to apply or else the result is not only anarchy and carnage (which could be acceptable under certain circumstances), but infringement of others rights (which isn’t acceptable). We enter into various ‘social contracts’ all the time. We agree to wait our turn in a line because it’s better for everyone, including us, that we do so.

        The ‘rules of the road’ are a form of social contract. Neither of us is well served or even free if we are locked front bumper to front bumper while we each attempt to drive forward in opposite directions in the same lane. We agree to drive on the right and to obey a whole host of other rules because it’s in our own best interest to do so and for others to do so. We also do it because the ability to exercise our right to travel would be severely curtailed if the majority of us didn’t follow these rules a majority of the time.

        The seat belt law is over reaching, at least as applied to adults, but that doesn’t mean that the other rules of the road don’t apply or aren’t valid, necessary or desirable, because they are.

  14. Well said CoolHand.

    It just goes to show how well people have been indoctrinated to believe that all the licensing, regulation and certification; (basically asking permission of the state;) is some how more than just a way to control us all.

    Along with the right of travel on the public roads we paid for with our taxes; I think many gun owners that attack carrying a gun without a license frightens them because it is doing something without permission from the state.

    • “It just goes to show how well people have been indoctrinated to believe that all the licensing, regulation and certification; (basically asking permission of the state;) is some how more than just a way to control us all.”

      Yes. I want to be sure people are reasonably qualified to drive before they get in a 2000 pound machine and travel at 60+MPH in a public place near me.

      “Along with the right of travel on the public roads we paid for with our taxes;”

      Literally nothing short of a house arrest will stop you from doing thing. But the government can decide HOW you travel on that road. You might not be able to drive on it yourself, but you can take a cab, a bus, or ride with a friend. Oh, and your car has to be road safe.

      “Along with the right of travel on the public roads we paid for with our taxes; I think many gun owners that attack carrying a gun without a license frightens them because it is doing something without permission from the state.”

      These two clauses have literally nothing to do with each other.

      I am about as pro 2nd Amendment as they come. I fully support civilian ownership of machine guns, the civilian ownership of explosives, the civilian ownership of switchblades, and the civilian ownership of malicious computer viruses.

      But the government dictating the use of those items is not infringement. I can have as many guns as I want. I’m not allowed to shoot people for no reason. I am not allowed to randomly discharge my firearms in public spaces. I am not allowed to fire randomly into the air.

      None of those prohibitions and limitations infringes on your rights. Likewise, being able to have a car but requiring the car to be safe and requiring the operator and all passengers to have seatbelts is not a violation of your rights.

      Also, from DC v. Heller,

      “(2) Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those “in common use at the time” finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons. Pp. 54–56.”

      • Well Kevin; There are two different points being made,

        One is governments role in making laws against one persons actions causing harm to another innocent person. These are the laws that have been on the books for thousands of years; like man slaughter, assault, robbery, murder and rape. Or in the modern version of operating that vehicle causing harm to another person; as in vehicular man slaughter or murder using a car as a weapon.

        I don’t think we are in disagreement that these laws are a good thing; nor laws that mandate that all cars have seat belts, crash tested, etc. Nor are programs like we have in school for Drivers Ed.

        But where we diverge is when government mandates and requires that we get government permission to practice our right of free travel, as well as our right to KABA.
        They are both rights, and to require prior approval for practicing these or any other rights makes them a privilege and makes us serfs bowing to our master the government.

        But what about that person that skipped Drivers Ed class and could care less about the rules of the road and is driving dangerously and maybe even injuring and killing others? You mean the person we all deal with every time we get on the road?

        That is what those laws that have been around for thousands of years are for, and what the cops and hi-way patrol are for; to catch the bad guys; AFTER they have committed a crime.

        In the end Kevin A; any requirement that we get permission and approval to practice a right does not stop the careless, thoughtless, or violent people from hurting other people. It only gives power to control the law abiding by government and encourage the growth of tyranny that in time becomes the greatest danger to a free people; not whether some teenager got his or her “license” before they get behind the wheel of a car.

        • As an Addendum Kevin A, the bizarre idea that the USSC has the final say as to whether a law is constitutional is obviously against the original idea of what the constitution was based upon.

          The whole idea of the constitution was to have a balance of powers between the different branches of government. Now, the USSC and nine fallible human beings have essentially dictatorial powers in deciding what is “constitutional”. It is obvious that a number of their decisions, like approving Obama Care as a “tax”, is one example of many that they are violating the constitution.

  15. It might be a less severe form of the institutionalization that prisoners get when they are incarcerated. They get so used to getting permission for everything they do; they feel insecure and frightened once they are out of prison because they don’ have someone giving them permission to use the bathroom.

    Think about, now a days . how much of daily life can we do that dozen,t ne d some type of permission from the state.?

  16. Question- do y’all think laws requiring pistols to be drop safe infringes on the 2nd Amendment?

    What about laws requiring firearms to be safe for normal use (i.e. Not likely to explode) before being sold on the commercial market?

    I don’t know about you, but I like knowing that the nanny state is protecting me from losing a hand when I try a new firearm.

    • The fundamental flaw in that thinking is that the nanny state is not protecting you from anything.

      If anyone is protecting you, it’s the manufacturers.

      They respond to market forces. Those market forces can come from government regulation (which tends to harm the market) or a free market.

      If a manufacturer were to sell guns that exploded when you shot them, do you think people would continue to buy them? If they price was right, they might, but that is a free choice. That’s the cost of freedom…personal responsibility.

      The other big problem is believing that those “protections” are 100% effective in every case. Do you think drop safeties NEVER fail? Do you go around dropping loaded guns to prove it?

      No, I’m guessing you practice safe firearm handling despite the presence of those safeties.

      So, ultimately, it’s not the nannyist protections that are keeping you safe when you handle a firearm…it is your own safe handling habits.

      • Yeah JR; and then we take it to the next step of the government tyranny of mandating a “safe product” by outlawing any gun that doesn’t have biometric safeties, like New Jersey did by passing their biometric gun requirement.

        It always sounds like a good idea to have government requirements to make us all “safe” , until the reality happens and we end up with a police state, indefinite detention without access to counsel, being strip searched at the airport and the NSA recording all of our calls.

  17. He states that 60% out here in Tennesee were not buckled up when they died in a car crash. Well out here in Tennessee 86% are OFWA and so I say we should embrace Bloomberg’s soda ban… scratch that the government should get involved and FINE you if you get caught eating fast food or a soda and have a fat ratio of over 10%. Seriously it would do wayyyyy more for the people.

    The argument that 60% died in car crashes weren’t wearing seatbelts is a moot one and your not winning me over there either. Sounds like a gun control argument and using BS statistics. When I was younger and doing 190MPH on my bike without a helmet had I ever crashed they would have lumped me in the “lives could have been saved by wearing a helmet” statistic. I am telling you right now had I crashed back in my stupid days at 190 MPH on a bike your road kill regardless.

    And finally “I am sure talking to Richard R will change your mind”….. why because he has some sad personal story involving cars? Isn’t that once again the same tactic anti-gunners use? I have a sad personal story of where something bad happened to ME and so I want to force everyone to believe what I believe.

  18. Sure lots of hate being spewed about seat belts on a post about memorial day.

    • It’s OK. The Digest just sorta goes where it goes (and not all the items were Memorial Day related). I’m very regularly surprised by which items catch the most attention, because it’s only the one(s) I expect about a quarter of the time.

  20. I’ve noticed on many TV shows/movies, that the actors don’t wear seat belts. Some of this is probably because the car is not moving, the scenery is moving past them.
    I first noticed this years ago while watching “The Apprentice”. The participants would drive around town with no seats belts.
    To me, this conveys a bad image, like in the old days, when your favorite actor would puff up a whole pack of “cancer sticks” in one scene.
    I’ve also noticed that most folks who drive old classic cars do not have seat belts installed. Of course they were not required at the time of manufacture. I asked a guy one time why he didn’t have seat belts installed in his older vehicle. He said the law doesn’t require that he do so. I said to him, “Does the law also say that in a crash, your head won’t smash through the windshield?”
    It’s your choice “Click it or loose it”

  22. “Click it or Ticket” is the poster child for the Nanny State. Our local sheriff (who never misses a photo op despite being disfigured by some sort of skin disease) was flapping his gums on TV before the Memorial Day weekend, blathering on about “it’s the law, it’s the common sense right thing to do, etc. And his boys were going to be out in force writing tickets. Really? That’s the best use of a tax payer paid for law enforcement resource? Writing seat belt law violation tickets? The local criminals have to be chuckling to themselves. I feel so much more safe in my home at night than I did before because the deputies whose salary I pay and the sheriff I voted for are out looking for the bad guys doing bad things. Remember this at election time folks. If your sheriff thinks writing seat belt tickets is fighting crime, maybe it’s time for a new sheriff in town!

Comments are closed.